Jump to content
laripu

Hypothetical question

Recommended Posts

Bin Laden claimed to be innocent and I would give him more credibility than bush, but we need evidence more than someone's say so.

 

That's a really extreme statement. We know from bin Laden's own words that he was running Al Qaeda to attack America.

 

Bush may have been motivated by all sorts of things, and wrong-headed on all sorts of things, but I really don't think he was purposely trying to hurt America.

 

This page has lots of information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a really extreme statement. We know from bin Laden's own words that he was running Al Qaeda to attack America.

 

Bush may have been motivated by all sorts of things, and wrong-headed on all sorts of things, but I really don't think he was purposely trying to hurt America.

 

This page has lots of information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

I don't know why you don't think bush was intentionally trying to hurt America. It is common knowledge how to create a depression, and that is the economy bush put in place. bush lied to create the Iraq war to steal Iraq's oil. Considering all the dead and injured, with trillions wasted from our treasury a lot of damage was knowingly done. The Pat Act clearly removes all our freedoms. It is hard to justify that the loss of freedom for over 330 million people does not constitute damage. These are things he knew about. They weren't secrets.Pushing millions into grinding poverty is considerable damage. Lying about the 9/11 attacks is damage. So

 

when bush said "Bin Laden done it." I just don't believe him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he intentionally tried to hurt America because I think he was a terrible president, intellectually ill-equipped for the job. I blame it on incompetence, not malevolence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia...mber_11_attacks

Read the Wiki article .

 

Lots of comprehensive info and very convincing. It sticks to the official line which may be absolutely accurate. But in light of the many inconsistencies not mentioned in the article, the official line may mislead.

 

Many think Cheney was pulling Bush's strings in the early years of the administration. By nature, Cheney is a VERY far right chickenhawk.... And being the CEO of Halliburton, had a vested interest in war.

 

But the administration needed a way to galvanize the American people to accept any way to get even. Especially, invading the wrong country.... Many of us saw that Iraq was the wrong target at the time. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice engaged in so much deception and caused so much wanton death and destruction that their being responsible for a domestic attack is not entirely out of the question, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when Secretary Powell gave his speech to the UN on the mobile biological production facilities. That's when I realized they didn't really have evidence to support their casus belli. So, yes, they were misleading the public on why we went to war. That's unacceptable, even if it's not unusual. That's not incompetence; it's willful wrongdoing.

 

I don't for a second believe they took us to war in order to line their pockets with money. I think Bush and his advisers believed they could transform the Middle East by creating a model nation in Iraq. They naively believed that by removing Saddam, the Iraqis would develop into a freedom-loving democracy. With Iraq for an example, other nations would follow (like the Arab Spring, only with a good ending). It was a worthy goal, but extremely difficult to achieve, unlikely to succeed, and crushingly expensive in both lives and money. They misled, gambled, and lost.

 

We should also save some opprobrium for all those in Congress (including some Democrats currently running or considering a run for President) who voted to allow this. These are folks who should know better, but many of them were convinced, not by the biased intelligence reports, but by the polls showing broad support for a war. They were more concerned about their political future than doing the right thing. Either that, or they were too stupid to see what was going on.

 

Today, you can't find a single person who will say "Yes, I was for war with Iraq". At the time, 72% of us (http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx) were for war. Blaming Bush or Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for misleading us is a cop out. We all should have known better. Even if the WMDs had existed, that still wasn't good enough to justify the war. Just as Iran's nuclear program is not just cause for war today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when Secretary Powell gave his speech to the UN on the mobile biological production facilities. That's when I realized they didn't really have evidence to support their casus belli. So, yes, they were misleading the public on why we went to war. That's unacceptable, even if it's not unusual. That's not incompetence; it's willful wrongdoing.

 

I don't for a second believe they took us to war in order to line their pockets with money. I think Bush and his advisers believed they could transform the Middle East by creating a model nation in Iraq. They naively believed that by removing Saddam, the Iraqis would develop into a freedom-loving democracy. With Iraq for an example, other nations would follow (like the Arab Spring, only with a good ending). It was a worthy goal, but extremely difficult to achieve, unlikely to succeed, and crushingly expensive in both lives and money. They misled, gambled, and lost.

 

I don't believe for a second that Rumsfeld cared whether it was true or not when he famously said "We will be greeted as liberators". When it proved false, it didn't take the wind out of his sails one iota. Corporate profit, the highest good for followers of Ayn Rand, was the main motive and convenient wishful thinking was used as a justification.

 

Why are we constantly at war?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/01/03/u-s-wars-continue-in-new-year/

Is it to constantly create model democracies? I don't think policy makers are so incredibly dense that they don't notice it doesn't work. Cheney's Halliburton made the biggest profits in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say nothing of Aegis, Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp, AM General, etc, etc

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/3/

The Military Industrial Complex is huge. They make campaign contributions and they lobby (bribe) in congress. And war brings them profits far in excess of peace. And, the Middle East has the world's densest reserves or "pure sweet crude".

 

 

We should also save some opprobrium for all those in Congress (including some Democrats currently running or considering a run for President) who voted to allow this. These are folks who should know better, but many of them were convinced, not by the biased intelligence reports, but by the polls showing broad support for a war. They were more concerned about their political future than doing the right thing. Either that, or they were too stupid to see what was going on.

 

Today, you can't find a single person who will say "Yes, I was for war with Iraq". At the time, 72% of us (http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx) were for war. Blaming Bush or Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for misleading us is a cop out. We all should have known better. Even if the WMDs had existed, that still wasn't good enough to justify the war. Just as Iran's nuclear program is not just cause for war today.

 

It's hard to say how much those in congress knew. Or whether to believe them. Of more importance, IMO is how much lobbyists dollars influenced their vote.

 

Of the 2016 candidates who were in congress at the time, Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chafee are the only ones who voted against the war. Hillary, Joe Biden Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum voted yes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/14/only-a-third-of-the-114th-congress-was-around-for-the-iraq-vote-but-a-lot-of-presidential-candidates-were/

 

It seems to me that members of congress are often more influenced by which industries give them the most lobbying dollars than the public good. Most would like to rationalize that they are doing good while reaping profit for themselves, so they often voice sanctimonious justifications of their decisions.

 

To end unnecessary, harmful wars, we need lobbying and election reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he intentionally tried to hurt America because I think he was a terrible president, intellectually ill-equipped for the job. I blame it on incompetence, not malevolence.

I remember when they kept making that claim about Reagan. He was just incompetent, not malevolent. They said it over and over, while more and more damage was being done. I can't buy that someone is politically brilliant enough to become president, yet can't figure out the simplest arguments. For example, when the investigators where reporting there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the bush white house kept saying there were. They knew there were no such weapons. All the reports said they weren't there. I agree with another poster that even if there were, it wasn't a sufficient reason for the war.

 

I would argue that bush was either on drugs and alcohol, or was so brain damaged from his previous drug use that he did have significant problems forming coherence. But even a flat out drunk knows when he is outright lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumption would be that any nuclear attack ont rh US would not be the work of a nation state, but of some terrorist group, probably foreign, but possibly domestic. Retaliatioon with nuclear weapons would therefore be unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When 9/11 hit, I remember I just came back from Hawaii the night before, and that morning I was driving my 2 year old son to day care on my way to work. First thing I thought of was our neglect for Afghanistan after we helped them clandestinely against the war with Russia. Then I thought of the bomb they placed in the parking garage years earlier when Clinton was president. Then, I thought - how the hell did these guys get into planes with box cutters.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, I thought, there's no way they got any type of weapon of mass destruction that would be worth invading them over - absolutely no justification. After the gulf war we had fly overs constantly, and in the beginning inspectors on the ground - they were economically blocked for a number of years by extreme measures and not knowing much other than what was common knowledge, I thought, the notion of making a big deal out of Saddam's insanity at the time was absolutely

ridiculous since we'd already contributed to a horrible general poverty for the masses in the neighborhood. And so in essence, I thought it was saber rattling at best and clear stupidity in truth.

 

But guess what - the media sold it. Guess what, I was at a rally against the invasion in San Francisco where everybody there also knew this, and there were at least a few thousand people protesting,

And guess what, the media didn't show the protest - like it never happened.

 

And guess what also, this kind of crap has been going on for a long long time in this country! And I was absolutely disgusted by the entire affair. My brother and his friends were in Vietnam - I know what that did to this country, how long the Vietnam war continued to hurt our economy and our social conscience.

 

Those assholes, thought they could mimic the first Gulf War in a weekend and be done with it. Those same assholes did nothing to help Afghanistan after the war with Russia had ended.

And those assholes are assholes who don't know shit about foreign policy or the rest of the world, or what is right and what is wrong. And guess what, those same assholes still for the most run things. And yeah, the Donald could say something like that and get away with it, and if he ever did, I'd be like - you go Mr.Trump, you dick!

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Bush believed his own BS, I believe that Nixon did in fact, lie many times, but he did so because he thought that the country needed his policies to be followed. I think it is a given that no president will ever tell the entire truth, because the media and the people cannot (as they say) handle the truth. No one wants to hear that some problems cannot be solved by the USA. For example, the USA is not capable of making Syria a functioning democracy, and there is no possibility that Syrians will ever consider the USA to be a friend, because the USA supports Israel and Israel bit off a chunk of Syria (The Golan Heights) and will not give it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Bush believed his own BS, I believe that Nixon did in fact, lie many times, but he did so because he thought that the country needed his policies to be followed. I think it is a given that no president will ever tell the entire truth, because the media and the people cannot (as they say) handle the truth. No one wants to hear that some problems cannot be solved by the USA. For example, the USA is not capable of making Syria a functioning democracy, and there is no possibility that Syrians will ever consider the USA to be a friend, because the USA supports Israel and Israel bit off a chunk of Syria (The Golan Heights) and will not give it back.

I don't believe bush could possibly believe the nonsense. It never made any sense. Much of what bush said was gibberish designed to elicit an emotional response, not thoughtful consideration.

 

Further Nixon committed treason against the United States of America. We have much evidence on tape. Perhaps you heard the audio tape of President Johnson talking with Dirksen (top republican in congress) where Johnson was complaining that Nixon had negotiated with the enemy to prevent them from accepting the cease-fire negotiated with Johnson. Nixon told they they would get a better deal after he was elected. Dirksen admitted it was treason and said that it shouldn't happen.

 

No investigation?? No rule of law in America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...