West Point Is Divided on a War Doctrine’s Fate

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I thought you did not want to argue?

Everyone knows Saddam was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, that has been conclusively shown. However, if 9/11 had not occurred, Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons would never have been able to get the political support needed to invade Iraq. That was only possible in the post 9/11 political climate when every politician was afraid to be seen as weak on terrorism.



really? you are going to quibble about that? maybe I will go back to discussing Vietnam.

You stated in a previous post:

"Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11. If Al Qeeda in all its wisdom had not butchered 3,000 innocent U.S. civilians, hundreds of which had to jump to their death to escape being burned to death, the neo-cons would have never had the green light to take out Saddam.

You want to blame anyone for the invasion of Iraq, blame Osama "he sleeps with the fishes" Bin Laden."



Now you just contradicted that post do you expect anyone to take you seriously now?

Why not blame it on the Neocons if it was their idea all along?And in stead blame it on Bin Laden when if it was on the "game plan" it would have happened sooner or later 9/11 attacks or not.