Why the Iraq War indicates that 9/11 was an inside job

[spooked911]

If the official 9/11 story is true, and we wanted to prevent another 9/11 by establishing a western-style democracy in Iraq, and the war was a life and death matter TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11 FROM HAPPENING, why didn't the Bush administration take much more care and do the invasion properly???

Let's say the official version of the 9/11 story is true-- the 9/11 attacks were carried out solely by crazed Islamists who bubbled up from the sick depths of Islamofascism (which made them into the evil twisted creatures they were), and so they hated us and attacked us. They were fundamentalist Muslims who hated us for our western freedoms and for our support of Israel. Plus, they wanted to goad the US into a war in the middle-east, to start a massive holy war that would recruit all Muslims to fight the westerners.

That's the motivation for the terrorists, right?

Okay, so the Bush administration said, let's not simply kill the terrorists-- let's "drain the swamp" from which they arose. Let's make the Middle East more democratic (and I honestly have no problem with that, in principle). And Iraq is as goood a place as any to start, because they have this nasty dictator who might have had nasty weapons he could attack us with (somehow, maybe).

But, the important thing was to drain the swamp. Because the sure way to prevent Islamic terrorism in the future is to make the Middle East democratic and make all the Muslims like us.

So, the real goal of invading Iraq was ultimately to prevent another 9/11, right?

And the ultimate way we could do that was by truly promoting democracy and by doing good things so Muslims would see we're not so bad.

AND 9/11 WAS SO HORRIBLE THAT ANY GOVERNMENT WOULD WANT TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

RIGHT???

So what did the Bush administration do in Iraq?

We turned it into hell.

We tortured innocent Iraqis.

We bombed and shot and killed innocent Iraqis.

We did not have enough forces to secure the country and so terrorists took over that blew up innocent Iraqis.

One way or another, we killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis by invading Iraq, thus pissing off thousands and thousands of Iraqis.

Finally, instead of the secular society under Saddam Hussein, we established a Islamic fundamentalist government that is aligned with Iran.

There was almost no planning for the aftermath of the invasion, and what has emerged is almost certainly a hotbed for terrorists-- AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW 9/11 ATTACKS!



So again, if the official 9/11 story is true, and we wanted to prevent another 9/11 by establishing a western-style democracy in Iraq, because it was a life and death matter, a matter of rpeventing another 9/11--

why the didn't the Bush administration take more care to do it right???

Further, why did they fall into the trap of Al Qaeda, by invading Iraq in the first place?


What the the Bush administration did in Iraq really makes no sense, unless:

a) 9/11 was all a lie and the Bush administration always had complete control over any major terrorist attack

b) the Bush administration really wants to create more terrorists.

c) both of the above

Either option indicates 9/11 was a sham.

WHY THE INCOMPETENCE THEORY DOESN'T HOLD UP

I know the mainstream explanation for the difficulties in Iraq are incompetence on the part of the Bush administration-- but this simply doesn't hold water.

Incompetence doesn't make you torture people or throw out an extensive post-invasion plan crafted by the State Department!

Iraq was a HUGE UNDERTAKING, hugely expensive, with the lives of millions at stake.

If we buy the Bush administration line, the future of the US was at stake. This was not some trivial deal that they could do a rush job on. An analogy to what the Bush administration did in Iraq would be a heart surgeon doing a quadruple bypass then forgetting to sew all the arteries up and just putting the chest together with only a couple of staples. Even the worst surgeon wouldn't do that. Yes, I know war is unpredictable and all that.

But the Bush administration clearly threw out any reasonable approach and took an incredibly haphazard, essentially deleterious approach to the whole post-invasion period.

In the Iraq war, the future of the Middle East was at stake and the future of the US was at stake-- heck, according to the Bush administration's logic, the fate of the world was at stake, since the US is such an "indispensible player".

Yet they did a BOTCH JOB.

This makes NO sense by any official mainstream logic.

But it DOES make sense if 9/11 WAS A SHAM AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO SOW TURMOIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

[seemslikeadream]

1. and even a grandmother in the middle of a midwestern cornfield

knew enough about the history of Iraq to understand what would happen after "Mission Accomplished"

[spooked911]

2. Hmm, I'm surprised the OCTists haven't tried to rebut this

Is there a problem with my argument,or not?

[CJCRANE]

3. I'd go one war back - Afghanistan.

If they had killed or captured bin Laden and then stayed in Afghanistan for the long haul, pumping in money for reconstruction and hunting down every last al-Qaeda and Taliban operative - I would have applauded them.

I must admit - I was very gung-ho at the beginning of the Afghan campaign and actually believed that B*sh was doing the right thing. However, when he let Mullah Omar slip away near the beginning and then let OBL skedaddle over the border at the end of the campaign - I knew something was up.

[seemslikeadream]

4. and a little Invasion of Haiti

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1638310

WHILE I SIT HERE TRYING TO THINK OF THINGS TO SAY


SOMEONE LIES BLEEDING IN A FIELD SOMEWHERE

SO IT WOULD SEEM WE'VE STILL GOT A LONG LONG WAY TO GO

I'VE SEEN ALL I WANNA SEE TODAY

WHILE I SIT HERE TRYING TO MOVE YOU ANYWAY I CAN


SOMEONE'S SON LIES DEAD IN A GUTTER SOMEWHERE

AND IT WOULD SEEM THAT WE'VE GOT A LONG LONG WAY TO GO

BUT I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE

SWITCH IT OFF IT WILL GO AWAY

TURN IT OFF IF YOU WANT TO

SWITCH IT OFF OR LOOK AWAY

WHILE I SIT AND WE TALK AND TALK AND WE TALK SOME MORE

SOMEONE'S LOVED ONE'S HEART STOPS BEATING IN A STREET SOMEWHERE

SO IT WOULD SEEM WE'VE STILL GOT A LONG LONG WAY TO GO, I KNOW

I'VE HEARD ALL I WANNA HEAR TODAY

TURN IT OFF IF YOU WANT TO (TURN IT OFF IF YOU WANT TO)

SWITCH IT OFF IT WILL GO AWAY (SWITCH IT OFF IT WILL GO AWAY)

TURN IT OFF IF YOU WANT TO (TURN IT OFF IF YOU WANT TO)

SWITCH IT OFF OR LOOK AWAY (SWITCH IT OFF OR LOOK AWAY)

SWITCH IT OFF

SWITCH IT OFF

SWITCH IT OFF

SWITCH IT OFF

SWITCH IT OFF

TURN IT OFF


thanks phil collins for the words
my heart to the people of Haiti

[CJCRANE]

5. I don't much know about Haiti.

I wasn't paying attention in those days.

I think in the end, the outcome of an invasion will always be determined by the motive. And generally the motive will be bad no matter what the rhetoric is.

Or put another way - if a better President had invaded Afghanistan or Iraq he might have succeeded in getting a good result. But a better President would never have done it in the first place.

[spooked911]

7. Yes, Afghanistan was a sure sign that something was up

but I think Iran nailed it.

They really didn't care about Islamic terrorism.

[seatnineb]

6. Right on Spooked! You can "becha(l)" life money has something to do with it.

Bechtel headquarters in San Francisco was targeted by protesters who saw the company as a critical part of the military-industrial complex that is closely aligned with the Bush administration. The company is the 17th largest defense contractor in the country. Between October, 2001 and September, 2002, the Defense Department paid Bechtel $1.03 billion, nearly 10 percent of Bechtel’s total revenue of $11.6 billion in 2002.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog organization, reports that all six companies that were originally allowed to bid for the contract are heavy donors to American politicians, particularly to the Republican Party. Combined, they gave $3.6 million between 1999 and 2002, 66 percent to Republicans. Bechtel itself contributed $1.3 million of this.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/bech-a29.shtml

[spooked911]

8. Money, money, money, MONey!!!

Damn straight that was a major reason for 9/11.