Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[d-ray657]

None of the other terrorist attacks indicated the type of sophisticated weaponry that would be able to take out an airplane from the sea. To the extent that the visual and forensic evidence suggests a rocket, how would terrorists have been in position to launch such a weapon from a little bit off of the coast without being detected?

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JonL]

I don't believe that even the most trigger-happy administration would go to war over a largely failed bombing attempt and the downing of a single airplane in a terrorist attack. If they had evidence, or could even concoct seemingly credible evidence linking Iraq to these events, the response would be severe but measured. A limited airstrike on military targets, a tightening of sanctions, even covert ops... but not the all-out war we waged. I think Finnbow's got it right:

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm firmly convinced that the Iraq invasion was a NeoCon wetdream to restructure the Mideast, via the domino theory, into a peaceful region compliant to our (and Israel's) geopolitical interests.

The whole WMD threat was nothing more than a "bureaucratic" justification that they thought would work in the wake of 9/11, and Wolfowitz said as much.

Saddam was a convenient boogeyman and the WMD/terrorism rationale was a threatening enough reason to justify their big adventure in the sandbox. The Downing Street memo cast further light upon this (as did the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson brouhaha). The NeoCon's had a compliant nincompoop in the White House (with a grudge), an strong ally there as well (Cheney), and a cabal of NeoCons in DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith) and a weak, easy to roll National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

Sincerely, I have no doubt about this being the case. However, America is unwilling to admit to itself that we spent so much in blood and treasure on such a cynical misadventure.

I totally agree with this post. ^^^

Originally Posted by d-ray657

None of the other terrorist attacks indicated the type of sophisticated weaponry that would be able to take out an airplane from the sea. To the extent that the visual and forensic evidence suggests a rocket, how would terrorists have been in position to launch such a weapon from a little bit off of the coast without being detected?

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Regards,

D-Ray

As a resident of Long Island, I don't think the missile theory is so far fetched. The planes fly very low over the Atlantic very close to shore on their approach/departure from JFK. There's plenty of open water out there where someone could easily fire a smallish anti-aircraft rocket from a decent sized recreational boat, of which there are many out there on any given day. I'm not saying I believe the theory, but I don't see it being at all impossible.