BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

Ah but that wasn't what I was saying. I was countering the comment that the world was a safer place since we invaded Iraq. I statre that it isn't. It might be safer for us but I believe taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda where ever we find them is what made it safer for us (Americans)

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

Ah but that wasn't what I was saying. I was countering the comment that the world was a safer place since we invaded Iraq. I statre that it isn't. It might be safer for us but I believe taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda where ever we find them is what made it safer for us (Americans)

Short term you might be right. The long term view is the one that bears looking at and has been ignored for the most part.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

Ah but that wasn't what I was saying. I was countering the comment that the world was a safer place since we invaded Iraq. I statre that it isn't. It might be safer for us but I believe taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda where ever we find them is what made it safer for us (Americans)

Short term you might be right. The long term view is the one that bears looking at and has been ignored for the most part.

Well the will be specualtive at best because there is no way we will ever know.

 

[RadBrad]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: RadBrad

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: RadBrad

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET
"

You know it is quite amazing, but a couple beer buddies of mine were discussing
bombing Iraq 10 years before 9/11.

Bush Admin only did what needed to be done 10 years ago.


What is the big deal?

The big deal is that Rumsfeld and some hawks were saying, 'forget afghanistan, lets bomb iraq instead, there are better targets there' even though they KNEW Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was behind this. THAT is the big deal. :disgust:

I would rather guess that the conversation was more like, 'when were done in afghanistan, lets bomb iraq also, cause we might not ever have another chance'


Like I said up there "Whats the big deal"

It needed doing.


What you don't get is that bush was lieing to you, not me.

I saw the wink, years ago!

Yeah sure, that's a nice excuse. And no, rumsfeld and his crew of neo-CONmen were saying they'd rather attack iraq instead of afghanistan because it had better targets. TRY TO JUSTIFY THIS :disgust:

If Your Idol Kerry was going to start a war on terrorism in response to an attack, I beleive he also would
want to hit the best targets first, but of course discussing what you want to do and what you actually do
are (and were) two different things.

LIKE I SAID What's the big deal?

Maybe in fifty years when the records are declassified, we will know why the discussion took place.

(If it actually took place)

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

Hey dumba$$, the first priority of defense is protecting the United States!!! Yes, it's a shame that those other attacks occurred and people died But we have not had another attack since 9/11. If you look at the other terrorist attacks that have occurred, they did not take much in the way of expertise or planning. Al Queda is on the run.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

Hey dumba$$, the first priority of defense is protecting the United States!!! Yes, it's a shame that those other attacks occurred and people died But we have not had another attack since 9/11. If you look at the other terrorist attacks that have occurred, they did not take much in the way of expertise or planning. Al Queda is on the run.

Byte me you swishy little Hobbit, explain how invading Iraq has made the world a safer place?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: etech
You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

what other matters besides iraq?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

Hey dumba$$, the first priority of defense is protecting the United States!!! Yes, it's a shame that those other attacks occurred and people died But we have not had another attack since 9/11. If you look at the other terrorist attacks that have occurred, they did not take much in the way of expertise or planning. Al Queda is on the run.

I think I recall reading (here I think, if a subscriber wants to do a search) that, while people are quick to climb a mountain and scream "There hasn't been another attack in all this time since 9/11!", there hadn't been an attack going back the same amount of time from 9/11 either.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

Ah but that wasn't what I was saying. I was countering the comment that the world was a safer place since we invaded Iraq. I statre that it isn't. It might be safer for us but I believe taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda where ever we find them is what made it safer for us (Americans)

Short term you might be right. The long term view is the one that bears looking at and has been ignored for the most part.

Well the will be specualtive at best because there is no way we will ever know.

So the people saying that the world is definately a more dangerous place because of freeing Iraq don't know either. Can we agree on that also?

Long term is still to be seen. The chances that removing a cancer like Saddam will help seem to be pretty good to me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Well, what ACTUALLY happened was that we went on to crush much of Al Queda and destroyed the oppressive regime of Saddam. We haven't had a terrorist attack since and the world is a much better place without Saddam. It's absolutely pathetic that some of you people live in a self created world of negativity. There are some of you that need to seek counseling.

And you need to pull your head out from your lower extremeties as it's obvious to me the only thing you are observing with any clearity is your lower intestinal tract. I seriously doubt that the Spanish, Turkish, Iraqi, Balinese and Indonesians think the world is a safer place as they all have endured deadly terrorist acts since the Dub's excellent adventure into Iraq.

What's the possibility that there would have been even more attacks if we had not gone into Iraq?

I haven't the faintest idea!

Edit: I think the attacks in Spain and Iraq probably wouldn't of happened.

You are most likely correct about the attacks in Iraq, those people would have still been under the rule of Saddam.

The attacks in Spain also had to do with other matters besides Iraq. To put it another way, do you think Al Queada would have just sat around stroking their camels and done nothing? If not, than blaiming the attacks on the war in Iraq is disingenious.

Ah but that wasn't what I was saying. I was countering the comment that the world was a safer place since we invaded Iraq. I statre that it isn't. It might be safer for us but I believe taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda where ever we find them is what made it safer for us (Americans)

Short term you might be right. The long term view is the one that bears looking at and has been ignored for the most part.

Well the will be specualtive at best because there is no way we will ever know.

So the people saying that the world is definately a more dangerous place because of freeing Iraq don't know either. Can we agree on that also?

Long term is still to be seen. The chances that removing a cancer like Saddam will help seem to be pretty good to me.

Getting rid of Saddam is dwfinately a good thing. Lying to the American People to get them to support getting rid of him isn't though.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Long term is still to be seen. The chances that removing a cancer like Saddam will help seem to be pretty good to me."

No other "Cancers" need removing in the world???

 

[Gaard]

Getting rid of Saddam is dwfinately a good thing. Lying to the American People to get them to support getting rid of him isn't though.

Exactly. Why is it that so many people think that because the removal of Saddam was a good thing it negates (or otherwise makes it ok) any misleading that Bush & Co may have done?

 

[replicator]

Also on MSNBC
Ex-Bush adviser: Rumsfeld urged Iraq war early

"Clarke also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration?s efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush?s presidency.

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush?s national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions."


Still, the amazing Bushites will find some way to rationalize this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.

Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

Developing...

The Drudge report

Is it me or is Rummy sound like a little boy crying home to mommy...

"But, mommy! It was Iraq's fault!"

This was confirmed on 60 Minutes tonight, of course. There seems to be no end to the repugnant behaviors of this administration. We lose 3000 innocent people in the most heinous terrorist act in U.S. history, and all Rummy can think of is his PNAC plan to conquer the world. He should be sharing one of those cages in Gitmo.