2 Comments
- ldrager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The neocons wrote about the reason---to have Iraq as a client state,
giving the US bases, assured access to oil. In fairness, their interest
in the oil is primarily strategic, the profits are just a nice side benifit. - zernike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0educate yourself with the 23 reasons Congress (including kerry, edwards, hillary etc) gave for authorizing the use of force including humanitarian reasons and noncompliance with the cease fire terms of the first gulf war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
they are remarkable similar to the reasons Congress Clinton approving regime change in 1998.
http://www.milnet.com/public-law-105-235.htm
why is it so difficult to see that, after 9/11, the US felt it had to deal with threats in a more proactive manner than it did in 1998. the paradox of having successfully preventing attacks since has made fools like you think the threats were all made up in the first place by a neocon (read: warmongering jew) cabal. have the courage to come out and blame jews directly instead of hiding being the neocon label.


What is Digg?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the