hussar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 02:59 PM
Original message |
Ok now that it has been revealed that * planned to attack Iraq |
|
before 9/11 what are your thoughts on that event now?
|
Kamika
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It's hardly a surprise |
|
My feelings are the same as before
|
hussar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. I always believed it was set up |
|
but some others on DU said there was no way it could have been, this latest revelation confirms my belief.
|
cliss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The things that I have read here at the DU and elsewhere on this matter have been accurate. There's no reason to doubt what many people have said all along: the PNAC set its sights on Iraq with the knowledge that it was the 'weak link' and could be easily toppled.
So to be completely accurate we should say, "Bush and his henchmen planned to attack Iraq long before 9/11".
I think that unless one was in a coma, one should have heard some rumours to that effect.
|
lovedems
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. And now PNAC is setting its sight on Syria |
|
It looks like we have a pattern here. Bomb the shit out of Afghanistan and then turn our sights to Iraq. Bomb the shit out of Iraq and then set our sights on Syria. I am sure Iran and Lybia would follow.
All we are capable of doing is bombing the shit out of these countries and making them dangerously unstable. Yet are told ad naseum that we are safer. In the words of my favorite movie villan Dr. Evil, "Yeah, Riiiigghht"
|
greatauntoftriplets
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Mine are the same as before. |
|
It was an illegal preemptive attack. Also, O'Neill is only confirming -- from the perspective of a former regime insider -- what has been said previously.
|
BeatleBoot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:08 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Reaffirms Everything We Have Been Saying |
|
Bush used 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq.
And he's counting on the people of this country to be naive enough to give him a pass on the fact that there was no connection between 911 and Iraq.
Like I said before, he's a sissy.
|
BigDaddyLove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. I agree that Bush and Friends used 9/11 as an excuse to...... |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-11-04 03:27 PM by BigDaddyLove
invade Iraq, but in my mind it still doesn't prove a LIHOP or MIHOP scenario (with regard to 9/11), nor does it give either theory any more weight.
|
Torrey Pines
(147 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I suspect that the real issue now is why, going forward, the Administration is opposed to allowing the UN a greater role. Can the Administration openly state that we must continue to go it alone in order to control the oil and reconstruction decisions in order to benefit friends of the Administration?
|
Upfront
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 03:42 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Didn't We All Know That? |
|
I did. The media will let it slide.
|
pretzel4gore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-11-04 04:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
one of local centrist, as opposed to wingnut, radio guys said 'well, this is hard to swallow, it means the president lied and mislead!' though when a called mentioned the PNAC actually planned it the guy dismissed that as 'conspiracy' since PNAC is just part of what the Pentagon etc do all time!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 07:33 AM
Response to Original message |