The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld “rush to war” was never about getting Osama Bin Laden

[surada]

Of course, as he was a threat to them, when that strategy was written. Who can blame them? They were tired of reacting to attacks from the death cult.

Moron, Iraq never attacked Israel.

 

[Concerned American]

Damn, you're really ignorant.

Look in the mirror.

 

[jwoodie]

Glad this two-year-old OP of mine has re-ignited some interest.

Subsequent events seem to have "changed everything" about your original thread:

The “War Against Terror” will never end so long as adventurist and unsustainable U.S. military interventions and occupations continue abroad.

One person's "terror" is another person's fight for freedom. I prefer to determine that distinction at home (US) and let others determine it for themselves. How long should/can we intervene in Ukraine (and Israel)?

As for "energy independence," I was asking the question in the present tense, not some pie-in-the-sky future. Currently, we have given other countries the power to economically blackmail us. Is this your idea of energy independence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Moron, Iraq never attacked Israel.

I never said or implied that they did.

For a smart guy, you seem to take leave of your senses and composure, when the topic of Islam arises.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is long-ignored evidence that the Taliban was willing to give up Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, both before and after 9/11, but that the U.S. refused — because our leaders were arrogant and wanted war.

These two articles from 2001 and 2004 should — like the lack of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq — make people question our real aim in overthrowing the Taliban.

(Elsewhere I have emphasized our own culpability in arming the Mujaheddin jihadis and working with Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden in the first place.)

What do YOU think our real aim was in sending our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It - CounterPunch.org

Turning the Lefts hero over was nonnegotiable.
No big deal to me.

Kind of like the situation in Gaza. Surrender or die.

 

[the other mike]

Turning the Lefts hero over was nonnegotiable.
No big deal to me.

Kind of like the situation in Gaza. Surrender or die.

Actually you need to ask Hillary Clinton John Brennan and Joe Biden about what really happened to Osama bin Laden and Seal team 6.

 

[Muhammed]

There is long-ignored evidence that the Taliban was willing to give up Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, both before and after 9/11, but that the U.S. refused — because our leaders were arrogant and wanted war.

These two articles from 2001 and 2004 should — like the lack of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq — make people question our real aim in overthrowing the Taliban.

(Elsewhere I have emphasized our own culpability in arming the Mujaheddin jihadis and working with Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden in the first place.)

What do YOU think our real aim was in sending our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It - CounterPunch.org

That's complete bullshit from notorious fake news sources. The US was not preventing anyone from turning in or killing bin Laden. In fact there was a multi-million dollar reward on his head.

Furthermore, there were WMD found in Iraq, including Sarin, Tabun and Ricin. Not only that, AQ also controlled territory in northern Iraq, established a Salafist caliphate there and had a chemical weapons facility in Sargat.

Bush 43 went to war in Afghanistan and escalated the war in Iraq to kill AQ forces and take down the Hussein regime once and for all. Plain and simple.

 

[the other mike]

That's complete bullshit from notorious fake news sources. The US was not preventing anyone from turning in or killing bin Laden. In fact there was a multi-million dollar reward on his head.

Furthermore, there were WMD found in Iraq, including Sarin, Tabun and Ricin. Not only that, AQ also controlled territory in northern Iraq, established a Salafist caliphate there and had a chemical weapons facility in Sargat.

Bush 43 went to war in Afghanistan and escalated the war in Iraq to kill AQ forces and take down the Hussein regime once and for all. Plain and simple.

Bullshit.

 

[Michael1985]

There is long-ignored evidence that the Taliban was willing to give up Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, both before and after 9/11, but that the U.S. refused — because our leaders were arrogant and wanted war.

These two articles from 2001 and 2004 should — like the lack of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq — make people question our real aim in overthrowing the Taliban.

(Elsewhere I have emphasized our own culpability in arming the Mujaheddin jihadis and working with Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden in the first place.)

What do YOU think our real aim was in sending our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It - CounterPunch.org

I would have given the GWB administration full credit for getting bin Laden if they had done it while he was prez, but then he let Cheney and Rumsfeld talk him into going into Iraq before finishing the job, a country that had absolutely no role in 9/11 whatsoever.

 

[surada]

That's complete bullshit from notorious fake news sources. The US was not preventing anyone from turning in or killing bin Laden. In fact there was a multi-million dollar reward on his head.

Furthermore, there were WMD found in Iraq, including Sarin, Tabun and Ricin. Not only that, AQ also controlled territory in northern Iraq, established a Salafist caliphate there and had a chemical weapons facility in Sargat.

Bush 43 went to war in Afghanistan and escalated the war in Iraq to kill AQ forces and take down the Hussein regime once and for all. Plain and simple.

Afghanistan was for ENRON.

Iraq was for Israel. See Clean Break Strategy.