Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
I've seen various polls claiming that at different times between 45-65% of the American public believes Iraq was tied to 9/11, which just isn't true.
Members of the Bush administration seem to rarely miss an opportunity to mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. While some pooh-pooh the idea I believe there's been a deliberate attempt by this administration to connect Iraq to 9/11 in public opinion if not in reality in order to generate support for its policies.
f not why has such a large part of the population at times believed a connection that just doesn't exist?
Well, burdell, this appeared in my mailbox this morning from C&L. An interesting, or would we say stunning report that appeared on Friday (the day before a major US holiday).
U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq that ousting Saddam Hussein would create a “significant risk” of sectarian strife, encourage al-Qaida attacks and open the way for Iranian interference.
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday released declassified prewar intelligence reports and summaries of others that cautioned that establishing democracy in Iraq would be “long, difficult and probably turbulent” and said that while most Iraqis would welcome elections, the country’s ethnic and religious leaders would be unwilling to share power.
Nevertheless, President Bush, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top aides decided not to deploy the major occupation that force military planners had recommended, planned to reduce U.S. troops rapidly after the invasion and believed that ousting Saddam would ignite a democratic revolution across the Middle East.
Excerpted from this McClatchy report:
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 05/25/2007 | Intelligence agencies warned Bush about challenges of Iraq invasion (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17281224.htm - broken link)
I've seen various polls claiming that at different times between 45-65% of the American public believes Iraq was tied to 9/11, which just isn't true.
Members of the Bush administration seem to rarely miss an opportunity to mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. While some pooh-pooh the idea I believe there's been a deliberate attempt by this administration to connect Iraq to 9/11 in public opinion if not in reality in order to generate support for its policies.
f not why has such a large part of the population at times believed a connection that just doesn't exist?
You liberals are always looking for a conspiracy theory. You crack me up. People just can't be wrong or make a mistake...it always has to be a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is an over-rated and over-used word. Read the article I posted; and then let me know if you think it was a mistake or a deliberate strategy to invade Iraq on the pretense of 9-11!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpoint
You liberals are always looking for a conspiracy theory. You crack me up. People just can't be wrong or make a mistake...it always has to be a conspiracy.
You wrote: “People just can't be wrong or make a mistake...it always has to be a conspiracy.”
In my opinion, if this administration had long ago adopted a willingness to admit mistakes and then move to correct them, maybe the thought of possible conspiracy wouldn’t be such an automatic reaction.
It’s almost as if monitoring a program and finding empirical evidence of needed change is some sort of sin to be hidden with these folks. “Flip-flopping” is not sinful, especially when properly supported; it’s responsible leadership in the case of elected officials.
It’s gonna be kinda tough to operate a direct democracy with a projected 335,000,000 residents by 2020, so these elected and appointed officials need to start consulting and collaborating with more than their cronies if America is going to retain the government intended by our founders. Of course, WE have to be the ones to hold them accountable, so we should call it conspiracy or merely mistakes—or whatever—as long as we pay enough attention to at least call it something.
You liberals are always looking for a conspiracy theory. You crack me up. People just can't be wrong or make a mistake...it always has to be a conspiracy.
Well, a group of people got together, and they decided that they would lie to everyone else about what they knew and what they were doing. Maybe that doesn't count as a conspiracy, maybe it does. But you don't have to be a liberal to be disgusted by it, whatever it's called...
Look how many of the usual players have hung around in the past few republican regimes. Rumsfeld, starting out in Reagans regime in a 'diplomatic' postion even got DOW to whip up all the special chemicals Saddam needed to do his thing. All Saddams evil gassing antics were just fine when it was for Reagan, not evil at all. Good for 'freedom'
Iraq was the most moderate of all the Middle eastern countries. Women didnt have to conform to any wack Islamic headgear type laws, could get an
education etc, Iraqi's were open to a lot of western ideologies. If you have an agenda to push or a business plan for the Middle East, this would be the logical place to start. Anyone who has even a 3rd grade level grasp on history knows Rumsfeld is a modern day Aros. His raison 'd etre is war and stirring them up from behing the scenes. I knew when the chimp appointed Rumsfeld someone was going to be eating bombs. This was his chance to star in his own war rather than play the behind the scenes roles he had in the past. To get to the point of the OP, 9/11 was a gift for the Bu$h admin to get this afformentioned agenda going in the Middle East way sooner than they were going to, previously. Due to the sudden and unexpected nature
of the gift and the intrinsic stupidity of the New World Order'ers the
plan to establish a strong Middle Eastern foothold in Iraq went catastrophically wrong. The shame is, this probably could have been accomplished by an admistration that used diplomacy rather than mindless violence. Not only that, we would never have an Iranian threat if Saddam was still in power. Bu$h upset the system of Middle Eastern stability with his mindless and violent power grab. To try to get back on topic, yes... Iraq / Saddam was used as a scapegoat to initiate a plan that had been in the making for years. In typical republiklan manner, shameless climber and exploiter nonpariel, Rudi Giuliani carries on the tradition.
I've seen various polls claiming that at different times between 45-65% of the American public believes Iraq was tied to 9/11, which just isn't true.
Members of the Bush administration seem to rarely miss an opportunity to mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. While some pooh-pooh the idea I believe there's been a deliberate attempt by this administration to connect Iraq to 9/11 in public opinion if not in reality in order to generate support for its policies.
f not why has such a large part of the population at times believed a connection that just doesn't exist?
Why do you continue this line of thinking when its been disproven to you multiple times?
I guess you are one of the few smart enough not to fall for such a dasterdly trick, Or maybe it is those like you or those who can't get over the 2000 elecetion, who continue to spread this propoganda until so many people believe its true.
Some of us read all the news fit to print, and news not fit to print. After reading it all, hearing it all, digesting it all, it is difficult to conceive or concede that the Administration is not responsible for a failed war. This failure is not a mark against the military, it is a failure against a strategy that the Administration is responsible for.
Too often those that continue to support the Administration's policy make the mistake that folks are against a war with merit, military personnel and those who serve their country. I hold all those serving our country in high esteem, and applaud them for their mighty efforts.
My question is are their efforts, the losses we've endured, the funds we have expended, necessary to the safeguarding of our country. When I ask myself that question it is invariable: no!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least we're watching!
