>>If you don't think they had legitimate concerns, then you and I are in the same place as I am with KT. We can't even discuss it.
I think it's obvious they had legitimate concerns.
The debate is about the risks and rewards of action/inaction given the legitimate concerns before 9/11 that were heightened afterwards.<<
i should have said, "they don't have to either or." yes, they had legitimate concerns.
if my house is robbed, i have a legitimate concern that one of my neighbors stole my stuff, too.
that doesn't mean i ransack their homes based on "legitimate concerns." one doesn't go to war with "legitimate concerns." i think that's reckless behavior.
look, this administration *knew* saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, yet they KNEW they needed to manipulate people into associating the two in order to lie or ineptly execute their plan.
that's why they often mentioned saddam and 9/11 together, while never directly saying he was responsible. that was a well though out tactic that worked on a public that is unable to think critically. some 25% of americans still think saddam was in on the 9/11 plot - all b/c of this propaganda tactic and failing to to make the truth clear.
when people don't want to make the TRUTH clear, watch your back. when they actively set out mislead, never turn your back.
the busheviks are corrupt to the core - of that there is no doubt. they will lie, cheat and steal in order to execute their selfish agenda, both at home and around the world. |
