I see Vox Day on his blog
just tossed out the ''allowed it (9/11) to happen'' meme.
Now I'm not going to call him or anyone else ''names'' for doing so, but I will use my own blog as a forum to disagree with that concept.
I belive the president had three missions he sought to accomplish from day one. (i.e. the day he was sworn in as President of The United States):
1. Reverse Clinton's '94 tax hikes (quickly accomplished)
2. ''finish daddy's job'' in regards to Iraq (prior to launching my own blog I reffered to it as ''Get Saddam'')
3. Quickly accomplish another
'86-style ''amnesty for illegals''.
My opinion is had the events of Sept.11th
NOT occured, what is today being disparaged as ''the Senate Bill'' would have flown through Congress with Tom Tancredo being the sole source of resistance to it there. The Senate would have ''rubber stamped'' it and by roughly late November or early December of 2001 the President would have been gleefully
signing it into law.
He would have indeed
delivered the Christmas present he promised Mexican President Vincente Fox on Friday, Sept. the 7th
2001. As I spelled out in ''Wal-Mart ticked me off Part II
As to goal #2, starting likely in January 2002 (and after getting accomplishment #3 signed, sealed and delivered) the ''Iraq is a major threat to America'' campaign would have begun in ernest.I do indeed belive
''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' has no connection whatsoever
to the events of Sept. the 11th
. NONE AT ALL
Afganistan? Had 9/11 not occured, the ''Taliban'' would still be ruling it with an iron fist today. Bin Laden would have been free to roam Afganistan (and Pakistan) at will, and most Americans would not have even heard of
''Al-Quida'' until they began to stage attacks on our forces in Iraq.
And yes, we would indeed have
130,000+ troops in Iraq today.
That's right, the events regarding Iraq would have unfolded just as they actually have done. My opinion has always been that the current President Bush saw Iraq (and Saddam) as ''daddy's unfinished business'' that HE
intended to ''complete''.
The so-called PATRIOT Act? That (or something quite like it) likely would have been implemented sometime in 2002 as a response to the problems created by the 2001 Amnesty Act or sometime in 2003 as a response to the anti-war protests that began around the fall of 2002. 9/11 was not nessesary for that
to occur either.
That massive ''Embassy Complex'' in Iraq
be under contruction today.
That's correct, I'm QUITE CONVINCED that with the exception
of our actions in Afganistan, events would have unfolded exactly
as they have actually done.
9/11 was responsible for our involvment in Afganistan. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's quite likely Pat Tillman would still be alive and playing pro football. Just not for the Arizona Cardinals, he would have left that
sad sack team the first chance he got.
Nor would there have been much opposition to ''the Dubai Ports Deal''. In fact it would have been barely noticed at all.
As in regards to the Blogosphere the blog ''Little Green Footballs
'' would exist, but other than Cycling and Apple Computer fans few people would have even heard of it. Nor likley would Pajamas Media
The reason I belive as I do (that Bush would have perferred
that the events of Sept. 11 NOT
occured) is well-put by Steve Sailer
:The Bush Betrayal: Maybe He’s Not Thinking But Feeling—Family Feeling, Mexican Style.
As I noted the first time I posted this link, this article has nothing to do with Iraq, but I think it explains the 'why' of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' quite well. Even if you have read it before
, read it. As far as I'm concerned this one paragraph states the 'why' of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'':
"The Bushes have always been ultra-ambitious and ultra-competitive, including with each other in their nonstop sports. Constant competition comes with costs, though. The great psychological burden of George W. Bush's life has been his consciousness of his inferiority compared to his father."
That quote alone explains a lot to me, but here is a quote from Bush himself
in 2002 that supports the above: "After all, this (Saddam Hussein) is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
. That is why I'm quite convinced that our involvement in Iraq today is personal to him and in fact unrelated to 9/11.
The (Iraqi) WMD's.
Many on the right now positively bristle with anger
at the mere mention of the acronym. Because even considering what has been found to date of them is unconvincing that Iraq either posed a threat to The United States of America or that they were ready ''to give (those WMD's) to terrorists'' to use against us.
Which explains WHY the right bristles with anger
at the mere mention of the acronym ''WMD''. They realize if the perception of Iraq being a serious threat to The United States falls apart the (American) public support for ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' falls apart with it.
And with it Bush, the Republican Party AND THEMSELVES
for the death of over 2500 and the permanent maiming of many, many more.
They have a vested interest
in ''Operation Iraqi Freedom''. Right-wing bloggers such as Charles Johnson
, John Hawkins
and 'Michelle Malkin' (the reason I think that name is a 'pen name' is rather obvious on her blog
) as well as most talk radio hosts HAVE A LOT TO LOSE
if things don't turn out well in Iraq.
That is why they are so ferocious is their defence
of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' and President Bush. If it (and he) sinks, they
sink with it (and him). And it's why they so strongly push ''happy talk'' when it comes to Iraq. A local talk radio host goes so far as devoting an hour for ''Good News From Iraq'' and his station heavily promotes it
To put it very bluntly
, I don't want ANY Americans in Iraq anymore. As in today
I know I'll hear and read ''but you don't support the troops'', in fact I DO SUPPORT THE TROOPS and that is why I want them OUT of Iraq
Right-wing whiner; ''BUT, BUT, WHY
?!?!?''. Because we have put them in harm's way where they cannot possibly succeed
. ''Sensitivity Training'' for U.S. MARINES?
''Sensitivity Training'' for MARINES IN A COMBAT ZONE?WHAT IS THAT
?!?!WOULD YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT
posted by YIH @ 1:31 PM on