What if, after 9/11

[louis c]

BushCo found out 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq. That the leader of al-Qaida was Iraqi. That the money raised for the devastating attack on this country could be traced to Iraq. And that schools in Iraq which advocated hatred toward America, indoctrinated nearly all the hijackers.

Why should his response not be the same, now that we know all that evedince belongs to Saudi Arabia?

[cheezus]

1. because we like cheap energy

[LynzM]

2. Read House of Bush, House of Saud

The Bush family and the Saudi royal family have lots of ties, and it'd be like going after a friend. Not that Hussein didn't used to be a 'friend', but still... and besides, Bandar has a lot to say about oil prices, so...

[louis c]

3. I've read parts of it

and I know the story. My question is mostly rhetorical

[LynzM]

4. Gotcha.

But some people haven't, and I haven't been around long enough to really know who's being rhetorical, and who's really asking. Sorry! I agree, totally ridiculous... but try telling that to, oh, say, 1/2 the U.S. population. Ugh.

[chookie]

5. He's gotta lot of 'splainin' to do

I don't fault His Chimperial Highness for not attacking Egypt or Saudi Arabia in revenge for Sept 11 -- it would have been quite inappropriate, as the creeps who committed this atrocity were not doing so on behalf of their states. To declare a state of war between our nations would have been wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence of Saudi "nationals" involved.

IT was wholly inappropriate to target Iraq, a state that was no way associated with the events of Sept 11, or involved in sponsor of terrorism against the US. It was wholly sheer opportunism motivated by ideology and twisted personal agendas.

There was a lot of confusion during the first week after the events, when people were merely acting spontaneously to events. But just over a week later, there was a conscious spin that started -- of preparing America for the long-term war in the Middle East that the NeoCons had been fantasizing about for decades. People like Perle, Wolfowitz and Woolsey were fairly rubbing their hands together and licking their chops in anticipation of what they were going to be able to get out of Sept 11 -- their fondest wish come true.

George W had been planning to invade Iraq all along -- for oil, and to "protect" Israel (and, I would argue, there is an "Oedipal" element of patricide involved in this as well). It came up in the first Cabinet meeting, in fact. He had instructed his subordinates to find a way to do it for him -- and thusly they advised him that he could use Sept 11 to achieve it. So what if he had to lie, and that it would be a strategic setback to American longterm interests? This action will go down in history as one of the stupidest acts by an American president....

Invading Iraq "because of Sept 11"? How about, because he could get away with it because of Sept 11?

[Fear]

6. LINK

Only one documentary you'll have to watch.
First coupla minutes in Dutch, the rest in English, explains everything (it's about the Carlyle group) and more....

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/bb.20030516.rm

[seabeyond]

7. exactly he talks the slight obtuse and decade old contact

with iraq, but but all this comes from saudi and nothin, just go after iraq