Do Democrats still think that George Bush planned 911?

[SuperDemocrat]

Polls at the time suggested that a significant portion of the democratic party believed that Bush planned 911. I wonder if that is still true.

 

[Penelope]

I'm neither, independent, but heck no, neocon Zionists. I do believe he was told something big was going to happen, but that is it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm neither, independent, but heck no, neocon Zionists. I do believe he was told something big was going to happen, but that is it.

Please stop the nonsense. You post lib. You side with libs. You ARE a lib...
"I do believe"......Based on WHAT?

 

[Penelope]

I'm neither, independent, but heck no, neocon Zionists. I do believe he was told something big was going to happen, but that is it.

Please stop the nonsense. You post lib. You side with libs. You ARE a lib...
"I do believe"......Based on WHAT?

I am so sick of Republicans I am going to vote a straight Dem ticket. News flash never voted for a Clinton or Pres. Obama. I decided this 2 years ago , due to the behavior of the GOP's in office.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The idiocy of their argument was about stealing oil.

YET, we didn't steal the oil and Bush could have declared war on Iraq for any of the 19 times they violated UN sanctions...he didn't need this elaborate scheme to give an excuse to go to war.,

 

[rightwinger]

Polls at the time suggested that a significant portion of the democratic party believed that Bush planned 911. I wonder if that is still true.

I say bullshit

Polls showed Democrats gave Bush overwhelming support after 9-11

 

[Penelope]

The idiocy of their argument was about stealing oil.

YET, we didn't steal the oil and Bush could have declared war on Iraq for any of the 19 times they violated UN sanctions...he didn't need this elaborate scheme to give an excuse to go to war.,

Well 911 had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush had nothing to do with planning 9-11 but it is fully documented that he was indifferent to the threat of terrorism and that he used the attacks as a means to justify his horrendous decision to invade Iraq

 

[Londoner]

The Bush administration DID NOT plan 9/11. That is fucking insane. They merely used it as an opportunity to push through vital policy objectives in the Mideast.

I think the Democrats who questioned the Bush administration were concerned over W's ties to Saudi Arabia, including Prince Bandar and the Carlyle Group. For instance, had Obama helped the Saudi Royals, which included family members of Bin Laden, leave the USA days after 9/11, he would not only face conspiracy accusations from the Right, he would have been impeached fairly quickly.

The Left was also concerned over the policy paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which paper was given to President Bill Clinton by future members of W's Defense team. If you read that paper - and we know SuperDemocrat doesn't read policy papers - you will discover that Bush's Defense team had some compelling reasons to seek regime change in Iraq well before 9/11. In fact, Clinton was persuaded by the neocons, which is why he made regime change in Iraq an official policy objective.

SuperDemocrat is urged to read "Rebuilding America's Defenses". He will learn that the neocons believed that creating a U.S. client regime in Iraq was infinitely more valuable to US security than hunting Al Qaeda cave dwellers (whose ability to project force was, by modern standards, minimal at best).

[Like Reagan, the Bush team merely used the threat of terrorism as a springboard to achieve much larger global objectives. If you want to understand what this means, than read the next paragraph]

The only remaining question is whether the regional instability created by Bush was by design. This sounds crazy until you realize that many people think that instability in the Mideast (and the resulting terrorism) benefits our policy objectives, which objectives are the continued/longterm intervention in Mideast oil resources, which resources, if overtaken by an unfriendly power, could cause terrible damage to the US & Global economies. In other words, instability in the Mideast - the kind of instability that allows groups like ISIS to rise - gives us the required National Security context for staying in the region so that we can protect our very real interests. [Remember: Reagan supported both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. He likely did this because instability & balance of power in the region was better than the rise of a Super State which could leverage its regional power to withhold energy resources from the global economy or worse, replace the dollar as the primary petrol-currency, a move that would severely damage the US economy. Again: do you think someone like SuperDemocrat has ever studied the deeper policy objectives or geopolitical complications that drives our regional interests? Of course not. He's a partisan hack who traffics in the simplistic garbage he gets from the rightwing press]

Although they didn't cause 9/11, the Right benefited deeply from it because terrorism comports with their electoral objectives, which includes fear over domestic and foreign enemies. Remember: their platform is that the Left is anti-war and weak on crime. Indeed, they tell us how the Left appeases both external and internal enemies, and that only the Republican party can protect you from criminals, gang-bangers, drug dealers, pornographers, illegals, gays and terrorists. In other words, increased terrorism provides very real benefits to both the electoral and policy objectives of the Republican Party.

But I digress. There were and are rational arguments for maintaining our influence over this region, arguments that both the looney Left and moronic right (e.g., SuperDemocrat) don't understand. Unfortunately, the best laid plans don't always turn out so well. I'm hoping that if the Bush administration could go back in time, they'd ask for a Mulligan.

 

[Desperado]

Bottom line ; Bush by himself was not smart enough to pull it off.
Now do I think it was a couple of camel jockeys that took a few flying lessons.....No
Now lets talk Neocons and Israel now we may have something

 

[ColonelAngus]

The idiocy of their argument was about stealing oil.

YET, we didn't steal the oil and Bush could have declared war on Iraq for any of the 19 times they violated UN sanctions...he didn't need this elaborate scheme to give an excuse to go to war.,

Well 911 had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

Iraq violated 19 UN resolutions. Each one should have been met with force according to the UN.

Bush was stupid not to just plant WMDs in Iraq if he had already faked evidence.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Bush had nothing to do with planning 9-11 but it is fully documented that he was indifferent to the threat of terrorism and that he used the attacks as a means to justify his horrendous decision to invade Iraq

In Hindsight, it was an awful idea...but we didn't know what pussies the Iraqi people truly are. They have no desire to be free people. They take sanctuary in their cradle to grave reliance on the government.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Polls at the time suggested that a significant portion of the democratic party believed that Bush planned 911. I wonder if that is still true.

The alt-right are not Democrats

 

[rightwinger]

Bush had nothing to do with planning 9-11 but it is fully documented that he was indifferent to the threat of terrorism and that he used the attacks as a means to justify his horrendous decision to invade Iraq

In Hindsight, it was an awful idea...but we didn't know what pussies the Iraqi people truly are. They have no desire to be free people. They take sanctuary in their cradle to grave reliance on the government.

It was never a good idea

They were not a threat outside their borders, were not involved in 9-11 and were a distraction from the war on terror