Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11. Let me REPEAT that again.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.
---------------------------------
Sir: Try to relax...it is just a political discussion.
Artificial boundarys drawn up after WWI that made one part of a Demented Culture be named Syria and another part named Iraq and another Yemen etc. etc...has nothing do with the Psychopathology of Islam....which we came to dread after the vicious and devastating attack on New York.
Maybe we made some mistakes in learning to fight a new kind of war...a war against a Stateless enemy. Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made some mistakes learning to fight a guerrilla war in Vietnam.
In any event, my point was that the Liberal Media attacked the Bushes viciously when they DIDN'T take out Saddam, and then attacked them just as viciously when they DID. Do you want address that head on? Or bob and weave some more?
There is no liberal media. We have a corporate media who asked ZERO questions in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
AGAIN...Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.
What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News
going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."
