Let's not wash the post-9/11 (or hellz, any event) discussion with terms like "all Americans" and "complete support.
Let's not wash the post-9/11 (or hellz, any event) discussion with terms like "all Americans" and "complete support." I remember 9/11. I remember the days and weeks after 9/11. I remember a year later and the discussion to invade Iraq. I remember the headlines and the opposing view to not invade. I remember the arguments in real life and the ones on burgeoning social media sites.
And for all my memories, I can't recall a single instance where "all Americans" were on the same page about how to react to the actions of 19 hijackers.
I do remember the urging of caution. Why invade Iraq when the hijackers were all Saudis? Why invade Iraq when al-Qaeda was based out of Afghanistan? Why invade a sovereign nation that was not involved? Because it was conveniently adjacent?
BecauseLucifer Dick Cheney seriously wanted to invade Iraq? Because one Muslim is as good as any other Muslim? Because Afghanistan was too far away and we needed closer bases in order to strike from? Maybe because we needed to "bring democracy" to a state with an elected official and the most liberal society in the Middle East? Oh yeah, it was for the oil. No wait, it was a long term strategy to split the Middle East with western ideals much like a split Europe after WWII. No, it was because Iraq was a poor nation and we had a moral (christian) duty to lift them out of poverty.
Oh yeah, it was the WMDs that we knew Iraq had but couldn't prove to the people or the UN when Democrats forced Bush to send Colin Powell to the international community to make theBush Cheney administration's case.
Against all professionally informed opinions we destabilized the Middle East for generations to come, created more enemies than we had before and ensured militant theocrats held sway over not only the Middle East, but the world. We killed thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and countless more. We gave up on the Constitution as well as "liberty and justice for all" because 19 men who worked for a religious zealot living in a cave wanted to punish the US for perceived crimes the Saudi royalty knowingly allowed. (Goes back to Gulf War 1)
Some of us knew these things were going to come to pass if the President had his way. We debated against it, following the actions to their inevitable logical conclusions. We wrote our congresspersons, wrote letters to the editors and alienated warhawk friends.
As Bush told the country 9/11 wouldn't change America we called him a liar. When he declared "Mission Accomplished" we called him a fool. When we called for Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld and Wolfowitz to be charges with war crimes for breaking multiple international treaties and pacts we were told it's the cost of being free even though those same actors were erasing any such liberties. (To be fair, war crimes is a little more complicated than just being outraged)
No, we were not all on board nor in agreement on the actions taken in a post-9/11 era.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/post-911-america-terrorism-fear-us-diplomat
And for all my memories, I can't recall a single instance where "all Americans" were on the same page about how to react to the actions of 19 hijackers.
I do remember the urging of caution. Why invade Iraq when the hijackers were all Saudis? Why invade Iraq when al-Qaeda was based out of Afghanistan? Why invade a sovereign nation that was not involved? Because it was conveniently adjacent?
Because
Oh yeah, it was the WMDs that we knew Iraq had but couldn't prove to the people or the UN when Democrats forced Bush to send Colin Powell to the international community to make the
Against all professionally informed opinions we destabilized the Middle East for generations to come, created more enemies than we had before and ensured militant theocrats held sway over not only the Middle East, but the world. We killed thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and countless more. We gave up on the Constitution as well as "liberty and justice for all" because 19 men who worked for a religious zealot living in a cave wanted to punish the US for perceived crimes the Saudi royalty knowingly allowed. (Goes back to Gulf War 1)
Some of us knew these things were going to come to pass if the President had his way. We debated against it, following the actions to their inevitable logical conclusions. We wrote our congresspersons, wrote letters to the editors and alienated warhawk friends.
As Bush told the country 9/11 wouldn't change America we called him a liar. When he declared "Mission Accomplished" we called him a fool. When we called for Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld and Wolfowitz to be charges with war crimes for breaking multiple international treaties and pacts we were told it's the cost of being free even though those same actors were erasing any such liberties. (To be fair, war crimes is a little more complicated than just being outraged)
No, we were not all on board nor in agreement on the actions taken in a post-9/11 era.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/post-911-america-terrorism-fear-us-diplomat
Comments