9-11-14: Better or worse than 9-12-01?

First off, Saddam harbored the lead suspect of the guys who did the 1993 WTC bombing. Which is a contributing reason your guy made Regime Change official policy.

And it's the height of pathetic that you don't think anything of note happened between the 1993 bombing, the official policy of Regime Change being instituted and the invasion in 2003. It must be so blissful to have spent the last 14 years thinking it has remained Sept. 10, 2001. Rent and other bills never come due. You must spend all of your hours watching professional wrestling in your mom's basement.

 

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."

Guess who said that, in reference to the 1993 bombing, even going against his own buddy? As much as he fucked up, even he couldn't even muster up a lie against it.

USATODAY.com - U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack

As for your second sad statement, that specific thing of note that you're referring to ... Did not involve the country that we attacked in 2003. It's really pathetic that you still believe the lie that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

And yes, my mortgage and bills are all paid up.

 

"'I cannot understand why President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act when he had absolutely no intention of implementing the provisions of that law,' Sam Brownback, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Near East, commented during a 2000 hearing on the issue. Chalabi, speaking during the hearing, went even further, saying that the INC has been 'routinely disparaged by adminstration officials from the National Security Council (NSC), the CIA, the State Department and the Department of Defense. And, while blaming the victim may provide temporary political cover for betrayal of US interests, ideals and commitments, it has done little for the confidence of the Iraqi people or Iraq's neighbors.'"

The INC, of course, being an adventure of ex-CIA man HW Bush.

 

Your OOpsie-like performance of putting words into my mouth is as pathetic as his. No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11. There were already other reasons well-established -- reasons that your heroes articulated quite nicely, despite your pathetic attempts to ignore them or say they were "lied to."

But be that as it may, all paradigms shifted after that event you apparently are unaware of in 2001. It no longer was OK to draw meaningless lines in the sand when it comes to despots seeking nuclear bombs to use against us. It's hilarious that your guy is in power and things have gotten much, much, much, much worse because of his policies, yet you still try to pass this all off on getting rid of a murderous despot 12 years earlier.

 

No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11? In his prime time speech on Iraq in March 2003, Bush mentioned 9/11 eight times. He didn't flat out say they were involved, but he sure as heck tried to lump them in with the 9/11 terrorists.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

If you're referring to yourself, you mentioned that Saddam helped one of the 1993 bombers, and used that as justification for the 2003 attack, and you lumped the 9/11 terror attack in your post. He didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and it sure as shit seems like a waste of an awful lot of lives and resources to have attacked a country to get one man in retaliation for something done 10 years before.

I think this is now the third time it's been pointed out to you, the policy that the current guy did was the one that had been agreed to by the previous guy. And it's awfully naive of you to think that the current situation would still have occurred even if the despot was still in power. He was in power for 24 years. No ISIS.

He gets thrown out, the country degenerates into civil war, our guys keep getting killed after their commander in chief declared Mission Accomplished, we finally somewhat tamp things down to the point where the new people in charge feel confident they can control things on their own and tell us to take a hike, a new group of pissed off people arises, the people in charge lose control, and ... What? We're supposed to play referee again and keep getting our people killed because the children refuse to get along?

As far as "all paradigms shifted", um, no we didn't need for "all" the paradigms to shift. It did because our people in charge decided that "EVERYTHING CHANGES!!!" Because they wanted, for their own selfish reasons, to have their party be in a permanent majority (tm Karl Rove), the Patriot Act, which I'll admit my side continues to lack a spine and supports. Hence the Orange Alerts, in which even one of your guys admitted was done just to scare and distract people. Hence, why we get our bags given a cursory search at stadiums and our shoes taken off at airports. Because, you know, #everythingchanges.

BTW, if despots controlling nuclear weapons is your definition of a good reason for going to war, then why haven't we gone to war with China? Or North Korea?

 

Probably because they aren't threatening to attack us. But I guess you're too fucking stupid to figure that out.

 

Fine. Have it your way. 9/11 didn't change much. You stick with that.

Also stick with the idea that Hussein was a good guy, nevermind that he used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. Keep insisting Hussein never would have used chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, even though he had already used them against his own people and against the Kurds.

Also stick with the idea that your guy didn't make Regime Change the official national policy. Everything happens in a vacuum in your world, right? It seems you've taken too many forearm smashes to the head.

 

SJ Geopolitical Theater, sponsored by Brawny, now sporting a modern bohunk with just a little scruff.

 

They're not?

North Korea threatens to attack U.S. - CNN.com

U.S. threatens peace in South China Sea, Beijing says - CNNPolitics.com

Speaking of being too fucking stupid ....

 

Nobody has said that 9/11 didn't change things. It's that it shouldn't have changed "everything", as certain people, like yourself, said it should. And nobody is saying that Saddam was a good guy. But if we're supposed to go to war because the leader is a bad guy, then there's a lot of countries that we'll be going to war against. You sure you want to use that as a precedent?

As far as Regime Change, , if you'd bother to have read YF's post, it said Regime Change, led by Iraqi opposition It didn't say Regime Change, led by us. But you're too caught up in your simple narratives to even bother to notice that.

 

This excerpt from that link is quite revealing:

"Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero."

Imagine that, the American public overwhelmingly had the story right shortly after the attack, yet a few months later nearly half had the story wrong. Doesn't that seem counterintuitive? Normally you'd think we'd have a better understanding after there's been investigation and evidence and facts uncovered, yet in this case we saw the opposite occur, how does that happen?

I'd say the answer is because our executive branch had a transparent agenda to dishonestly confuse the American public on the issue (and, btw, Cheney was even more shameless about this than Bush). When our leaders claim to be giving a speech about 9/11, but instead spend it repeatedly mentioning a country and leader that had nothing whatsoever do with that event, that ain't an accident. It was a calculating ploy to mislead the American public with word combinations that they damn well knew would lead to people making false associations and believing things that simply were not true.

 

Kim can threaten all he wants. China's not going to let their pet country attack its biggest customer. But again, I guess you're not smart enough to understand that.