Without 9/11, could Fratboy have gotten us into Iraq?

[Bonobo]

I think the answer is no. He would not have been able to accomplish it.

What do others think? Would it have happened anyway?

[blm]

1. It would have been something else, and the way they control the media

it would have worked out similarly. That part is painfully obvious by now - Downing Street Memos should have left no doubt.

[jedr]

13. Agreed, That's why they took control of MSM.

Re- pubs need a bogyman,and a war . They make their money from the military-industrial complex, and making money is the only thing that this administration is good at, and of course, at your expense.

[MrModerate]

2. No.Frakkin.Way

His presidency was sagging -- well on its way to cratering -- when 9/11 happened. Without the attack he would have been devoured by his own party by the middle of 2002 and marginalized by congressional pubbies.

Speculatively, I can see Rove jumping ship and Cheney fulminating in the background that the horse he'd rode in on had pulled up lame.

[dogday]

3. NO NO NO

NO Way No how.....

[John Gauger]

15. Look at all the other ways we have been pushed to war without

9/11. Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Nicaragua, Honduras. Bush needn't even consult Congress - the resolution was unnecesary. Ford bombed Cambodia in 1978 in violation of the War Powers Act less than a month after it was passed. There were absolutely no repercussions for him. When our leaders want a war, they get it.

[dogday]

21. And we have learned from that

People were not going to buy a war with Iraq... Not at all.....

[Nutmegger]

4. No because Bush Inc connected 9/11 and al-Qaeda to Saddam. [nt]

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. Highly doubtful. nt

[Fridays Child]

6. Nope. He needed something to whip up the frenzy and...

...LIHOP/MIHOP nothwithstanding, 9/11 was awfully convenient, considering that Cheney and his Big Energy friends began dividing the spoils of Iraq, months before that fateful day.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. I think he would've gone straight to Iran instead. n/t

[John Gauger]

11. I don't think so

Iraq was the goal from day one. Iraq was the one destablizing the global oil market, not Iran. Iran was playing by the rules. The oil industry was not requesting of Bush that he take out Iran. They wanted to take down Saddam.

[John Gauger]

8. Of course

The Establishment knows how to get us into a war. It's only a matter of time before we cave to their demands. 9/11 just made it easier for them. We all know of Rummy's statement that day, "things related and not."

[kilaana]

9. No way.

Not a chance. Even the PNAC agrees with that:

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
-- From PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

[catmandu57]

10. It would have been hard to do

But, this was number one thing to do on their agenda, it makes mihop look more and more possible.

[marmar]

14. It does make one pause...

If they were so determined to get into this war, what lengths would they have gone to in order to achieve the goal? When you think about it for too long, you need a drink. :beer:

[catmandu57]

18. And I gave up drinking

Jeeze it makes me wonder how in the world I've managed to stay sober these past six years.

[Richard Steele]

12. Nope. He needed 9/11 or something just like it.

Without that, America might have ousted him in under
4 years; we sure as hell wouldn't have let the little
fool go starting any shootin' wars.

He needed something HUGE to generate a swell of
mindless locksteppin' groupthink before anyone
would actually FOLLOW him anywhere.

And remember, he still had to start a POPULAR WAR
first, in Afghanistan, before he could start his crap
in Iraq. That was a big part of keeping people
complacent, and creating the public feeling that
it was already a 'done deal', so why resist?

[karynnj]

16. Probably

The President can commit troops in case of an imminent threat. The Downing Street memos include ways that they could "simulate" a cause to go to war. There are many precedents of presidents attacking countries without even going to Congress. When Bush started the build up in the Persian Gulf - it was the call of Senators and other people demanding that Bush go to the UN and Congress that even made him go to Congress.

[Double T]

17. Yes, bushco would have gotten US into Iraq at ALL COSTS........

9-11 ORIGINALLY had nothing to do with Iraq, it was the WMDs that were the original excuse for invading Iraq. Later bushco morphed and skewed the excuse for invading Iraq into a connection between Saddam and 9-11 when the WMD excuse failed to turn up any WMDs. Before bushco ever became president, the plan was ALWAYS to invade Iraq and get the evil doer that had allegedly attempted to assassinate 'poppy'.

[patricia92243]

19. why of course. 9/11 just made it easier. Bush wanted badly to be a "war

time President" and as he said over and over "Saddam tried to kill my father."

He would have found some reasons - some of them the same ones he actually did use. Remember: He wanted to use UN airplanes dressed up to look Iraq planes. This man is ruthless and will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants.

There is not a doubt in my mind that he would put at war with Iraq as he intended to do from day one.

[bowens43]

20. Yes.

Of course he would have. He didn't need the permission of congress to invade Iraq. He would have found a reason.

[arcane1]

22. PNAC wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" years before 9/11

they knew what they needed in order to get the political capital for such an invasion

and Bush would have NOTHING to justify said invasion on, had there been no 9/11

[left is right]

23. I think he could have for two reasons

I vaguely remember a pre-911 joke that talked of killing a million Iraqis and 1 Irishman and the punchline indicating that no one would care if it was only the million Iraqis.

And from the day * was selected, he has been regarded as God's anointed by everyone but os evil DUers