View Single Post
Old 24th February 2007, 12:47 PM   #5
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Ace Baker wrote:

Why don't they want to capture bin Laden (or admit he's dead)? Easy. He's
worth much more to them alive and on the loose. Once bin Laden is gone,
they'll have to start over building up the next "public enemy number 1".
This takes time and effort. It's a hassle. The desire for permanent war
transcends the current administration, of course. Popular or unpopular,
hated or loved, Bush and co will be out in 2008.
Ahh! So it is that the CT transends politics. Let me tell you this, if BUSH and co had been impeached and tried for the war or 9/11, I can GUARANTEE the truthers would be satisfied, and would not say that the DEMS are in on the whole thing. Now, however, it looks like BUSH etal will be out in 2008, so in order to continue on looking for someone to hang, and knowing the REPS will fall from the limelight, they have to encorporate the DEMS into it now...very pathetic.

As for the premise that they have to keep OBL around, well then why did they capture Saddam? Wasnt he better left alive and hiding, so that they could continue to stay in Iraq forever, to insure he didnt come back into power the minute they left?

What about the head Al-Qaeda guy in Iraq. They killed him (Blew him up I believe). Wouldnt they have been better off letting him continue to create havoc in Iraq, so they would have to maintain a presence there?

This is where your rational falls short ACE.

It's similar to the question: If Bush and co. would do 9/11, why wouldn't
they plant WMD's in Iraq? The answer is the same reason Harry Truman didn't
strongarm Congress to get a declaration of war against Korea. He could have,
and likely would have left office less hated than he was. But long term, it
was much more important to establish the precedent that a president could
unilaterally declare war. So, next decade, Lyndon Johnson did the same
thing, after a nice false flag op to get some of the public on board.
Nowadays, the Constitutional requirement of a Congressional declaration of
war is considered a quaint anachronism.

Why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq? They wanted to establish an important
precedent of unprovoked war. No doubt they were prepared to plant WMDs at
any point in time, if it came down to that. But as the weeks and months
rolled by, there was no impeachment. No war crimes tribunal of Bush. So, the
loss of "approval rating" for a temporary president is nothing compared to
the precedent. Now future presidents (and the big-money boys who own them)
can sleep well knowing that they can get away with invading a foreign nation
based on completely made-up lies and no evidence at all.

Ace Baker
While this part is not related to the conundrum, I would say it is equally silly. The fact is that BUSH and cronies destroyed their careers, and their legacies with the Iraq War. They also destroyed their chance to maintain power. If they had have planted the WMDs, which would have been very EASY to do, the war would still be seen as needed, and the ratings would still be good, and the chances of the REPS maintaining power through this FEAR would have been VERY VERY GOOD. Yet they did not. Your suggestion that their desire for personal success, maintenance of power, and legacy, was superceded by creating a precedent is just STUPID.

Thats all I gotta say for now.

T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top