Text 32279, 46 rader
Skriven 2016-04-08 22:36:11 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 32246 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Belgium Releases Terrorist
==================================
Hello David,

 >>> You haven't named one Iraqi - and have given no evidence to support
 DD> the claim
 >>> that Iraq was involved in the 11 September 2001 event.

 EC>> I did not name one Iraqi because neither I not anyone I have ever
 DD> heard
 EC>> of in the last fifteen years has EVER claimed that any of the
 DD> hijackers
 EC>> was Iraqi.

 EC>> You also create a strawman by claiming that the 9/11 attacks were
 DD> used
 EC>> as an excuse for the Iraq action.

 DD> That is EXACTLY what someone claimed in here, that I replied to, and you
 DD> jumped into the thread.

In 2006, GWB admitted there was no evidence confirming that Saddam
Hussein had anything to do with the events of 9-11.  Nobody in the
Bush administration had ever made the claim that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the attacks.  So why the criticism of GWB?

In 2002, in his State of the Union, GWB told Americans (and the
world) what he planned to do, and why.  He named three states in
particular (Iran, North Korea, and Iraq) as terror states, calling
those states an "Axis of Evil" that could not be allowed to continue
sponsoring terrorism.

If it was really about oil, as you have suggested, the US could have
simply bought the oil.  Saddam Hussein was more than willing to sell.
And he didn't care who bought it.  As long as he got the cash, he was
happy.  The US had been buying oil from Iraq for decades.  Europeans
had been buying oil from Iraq for decades.  Even China had been buying
oil from Iraq.  Everybody was happy.  Nobody was complaining.  So it
really had nothing to do with oil.

State-sponsored terrorism.  That is what it was all about.  GWB made
the argument in his 2002 State of the Union speech.  Listen to it.  Or
read the transcript.  It's all there.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)