Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sanjuro2
No, but it's definitely a plus. The real reason was that based on all intelligence, the U.S., Britain, and others, believed there was a link between bin Laden and Saddam, and that Saddam had WMDs. The result of the mission, regardless of what was or wasn't discovered, was the liberation of the Iraqi people. Oil is NOT the reason. Anyone who thinks that is allowing themselves to be brainwashed by the liberal media and Michael Moore.
|
I didn't get that from Michael Moore. I got it from the report written by a neoconservative think tank including several high ranking members of the Bush administration that was published a year before 9/11 and talks about the need for the United States to take over Iraq in order to assert American dominance around the world. I got it from the several Bush administration officials who have since stepped forward and told the media that Iraq was Bush's target from day one.
There was absolutely no indication of any link between al Qaida and Hussein (the two were archenemies) or that Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction (the only such weapons he ever had were sold to him by the U.S., and they all went bad years ago). So maybe you're right. Maybe Bush wasn't lying about his motivations for going to war with Iraq. In that case he's just incompetent. Because if he really believed all of that crap that spews out of his mouth, he would have to be incompetent. So those are your choices--evil or incompetence. Either way, it doesn't look too good for Bush.
mag
EDIT - Oh yeah. And if you actually believe that fairy tale about the "liberal" media, you obviously haven't turned on the news lately.
