Why would we find it interesting? It's just more of the same paranoia-induced fiction that we've debunked here numerous times. There isn't one single original argument either in the article, or in the comments.
People who believe 9/11 was "perpetrated to give probable cause" to invade Iraq are just nuts in general. It drives me crazy that people can be this nearsighted.
We had probable cause without 9/11; 9/11 just gave us motivation and increased urgency. The probable cause was simple and concrete: Saddam was required (by the fucking UN) to admit inspectors unconditionally. He flatly denied them, for years. He was given 2 or 3 final-chances, and still flatly denied them. That was probable cause enough, regardless of WMD's (which we SAW when we were there in the early '90s, so we had reasonable suspicion -- it's why there even existed a UN mandate!!) Come on, people...
... bitch.
ReplyDeleteHey, I'm not saying anything.
ReplyDeleteI'm just asking questions.
Thanks, guys!
Glad to send some of our silly traffic your way, Abby, and loved the whole story. :)
ReplyDeleteWhy would we find it interesting? It's just more of the same paranoia-induced fiction that we've debunked here numerous times. There isn't one single original argument either in the article, or in the comments.
ReplyDeleteIt all makes sense now!
ReplyDeleteWait, no it doesn't!
People who believe 9/11 was "perpetrated to give probable cause" to invade Iraq are just nuts in general. It drives me crazy that people can be this nearsighted.
ReplyDeleteWe had probable cause without 9/11; 9/11 just gave us motivation and increased urgency. The probable cause was simple and concrete: Saddam was required (by the fucking UN) to admit inspectors unconditionally. He flatly denied them, for years. He was given 2 or 3 final-chances, and still flatly denied them. That was probable cause enough, regardless of WMD's (which we SAW when we were there in the early '90s, so we had reasonable suspicion -- it's why there even existed a UN mandate!!) Come on, people...