Would the neo con Nazis have invaded Iraq even if 9-11 hadn't happened?

[Philosoraptor]

We know they had plans drawn up 'just in case' such an attack occurred, and we know how deeply they have exploited the awful tragedy, but would we be where we are today if it hadn't happened at all?

Some will say, 'no, the horror of nine eleven was the catalyst for our two current wars', and that Americans would never have accepted two 'wars' in the middle east if it had never happened.

I just can't stop thinking about that awful day, and the awful direction my nation has taken since.

[zanne]

1. I'm sure that Bush and his buddies planned it...

Even before Bush "won" the presidency, I'm sure they had it all planned out. (I'm sure Cheney and Rumsfeld were salivating over the idea).

[demnan]

2. Of course

after all, Bush's precious daddy was threatened. Thousands had to die for that.

[Dogtown]

3. If 9/11 had not occurred

There would have been a 9/12, or 9/13.


But those dates don't have the same marketable resonance. My point is, they would have found, or manufactured, *some* excuse for their plundering.

[CJCRANE]

12. My guess is the anthrax attacks would have been bigger nt

[Dogtown]

15. Good point

It's quite possible that was their back-up plan.

[Enthusiast]

22. Oh, never gave that much consideration.

You could be right.

[madokie]

4. sure they would have

best I remember they tried to get Clinton to do it for them in '98

[rox63]

5. The Iraq invasion was planned by the PNAC folks long before * got to the WH

They would have found another way to invade if 9/11 hadn't happened.

[baldguy]

6. 9/11 only delayed it by a year.

The Bush Regime was building up to invade Iraq in Dec of 2001, they just redirected it to Afghanistan temporarily.

[CJCRANE]

11. It was Blair, Powell and Clarke (amongst others) that delayed it

by pushing for going for al-Qaeda first. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all wanted to tie 9/11 to Saddam and attack Iraq first but the evidence wasn't there. So they had to wait and use a year long MSM propaganda campaign to make the connection in the public mind.

[baldguy]

13. Ah, yes. "There are no good targets in Afghanistan."

and "I'm not going to waste a million dollar missile by shooting it up a camels butt."

Thank you for reminding us.

[DailyGrind51]

7. PNAC had been pushing for the Iraq invasion long before 9/11!

PNAC had embraced Ahmad Chalabi and fellow exiles back in the early '90s as Iraq's "government in exile" and had sent a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 advising invasion and regime change.

[MiniMe]

8. Yes, the difference is that it would have happened sooner and we wouldn't

be in Afghanistan too.

[annabanana]

9. inevitably

It was the whole point of a B*sh presidency. That's what he was there for.

[KharmaTrain]

10. There Would Have Been Another "Potemkin"

Maybe another attack on a ship in the Gulf or an alleged invasion of Kuwait or a nasty letter from Saddam (anthrax)...this regime was hellbent on going after Iraq one way or another and IMHO would have created some incident prior to the '04 elections. The game of this regime from Day One was to use the Executive to profit...a war with Iraq was just too tempting to pass up, they would have found a motivation.

[dysfunctional press]

14. it's the main reason that dumbya was installed by poppy's court.

of course...DUH!

[zbdent]

16. They were itching to do it well before ... they just got distracted when

oh, lets say ... China got hold of a spy plane ... now there would have been a great war for Bush to have gone into :sarcasm:

[DRoseDARs]

17. PNAC signatories had openly petitioned Pres. Clinton, so w/PNAC signatories going into the Bush WH..

...I'd say a definite maybe. :)

[stillcool]

18. Yes

[bemildred]

19. Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11.

9/11 might actually have slowed it down because they had to do Afghanistan first.

[stubtoe]

20. I'm sure they would have thought of something else.

They probably had multiple contingency plans, knowing them.

[whatchamacallit]

21. They wanted Iraq from day 1 - 911 was key to the outrage needed for the "doctrine of preemption"

I'm surprised so many people think BushCo simply got lucky

"Trifecta" my ass:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

23. Yes.. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

24. As Iraq never had one thing to do with the 911 attacks, yes of course

the bush regime would have used some other bullshit excuses for the "supreme crime" war of aggression against the people of Iraq.

O.peration I.raqi L.iberation

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. If I remember correctly

I believe that Ron Suskind wrote a book about Paul O'Neil (The Price of Loyalty?) in which O'Neil recounts that invading Iraq/overthrowing Hussein was a topic of discussion at their first cabinet and suggested that it was more of a matter of "how" than "why". Al Franken, in "The Truth (with jokes)" got it right IMHO when he stated (sarcastically, of course) that the Bush administration really deserves credit for thinking that it could have pulled off an invasion/occupation of Iraq WITHOUT the tragedy of 9/11/01. My guess is that they would've eventually thought of SOMETHING to justify an invasion/occupation. Weren't they also apparently talking about painting a spy plane with UN colors and trying to provoke the Iraqis into attacking it?

[bamacrat]

26. They would have tried.

But they did not have the fear card that is 9/11. It shuts people up and makes the weak bow in submission. The country at the time would have maybe been behind some bombings of "terror camps" but a full scale invasion. Im not sure, the international community would have objected much more had there not been a 9/11.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. They would have found some excuse

After all, even 9/11 wasn't Iraq's fault.

[question everything]

28. Yes. I've heard that before the 2000 elections

Wolfowitz appeared in front of an audience and said that if Bush were the next president, he would attack Iraq.