To: jveritas
Now why would Iraq expect an attack in response to 9/11? Unless...
2 posted on
06/20/2006 10:24:35 AM PDT by
thoughtomator
(A thread without a comment on immigration is not complete)
To: thoughtomator
Exactly.
Also you notice in the second memo they were aware that the strike will be against Afghanistan but they were still taking all these military preparations.
6 posted on
06/20/2006 10:27:45 AM PDT by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: thoughtomator; jveritas
Now why would Iraq expect an attack in response to 9/11? Unless... Exactly!
jveritas, you ROCK. :-)
10 posted on
06/20/2006 10:33:02 AM PDT by
Allegra
(Mookie Sadr's Next!)
To: thoughtomator
Unless...
******
Could it be that Saddam was afraid that we would come after the WMD that weren't there?!!!
36 posted on
06/20/2006 10:58:23 AM PDT by
maica
(Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle --Abraham Lincoln)
To: thoughtomator
38 posted on
06/20/2006 11:04:10 AM PDT by
tomnbeverly
(Self pity and the sour sounds of Liberal whining will certainly frighten away any chance of success.)
To: thoughtomator
Now why would Iraq expect an attack in response to 9/11? Unless.........we publicly stated,the day before these memos were written,that "Some lawmakers have called on the United States to include Iraq in any military action, believing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has supported terrorist acts against America."
Not saying they weren't involved,but after a quick search I was able to find a CNN article from the previous day where we were implicating that Iraq was involved in 9/11.I'd expect as much from our government if another country accused us of bombing them as well.This could just be an alert caused by what was said the day before.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/23/ret.us.defense/index.html
40 posted on
06/20/2006 11:09:45 AM PDT by
quack
To: thoughtomator; jveritas; eyespysomething; ASA Vet; BIGLOOK; Ernest_at_the_Beach; backhoe; Cindy; ...
Another great job by jveritas. thoughtomator nails this with his simple question below:
"Now why would Iraq expect an attack in response to 9/11? Unless..."
43 posted on
06/20/2006 11:17:13 AM PDT by
Grampa Dave
(There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic wet dreams posing as journalism)
46 posted on
06/20/2006 11:29:11 AM PDT by
eureka!
(Heaven forbid the Rats get control of Congress and/or the Presidency any time soon....)
To: thoughtomator
Now why would Iraq expect an attack in response to 9/11? Unless... Yeah, no kidding. Here's a little clue for those people out there who are still perplexed, or in denial:
66 posted on
06/20/2006 1:02:15 PM PDT by
jpl
(Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
To: thoughtomator; jveritas
I agree, why oh why would Saddamn expect an attack unless....
Thanks, jveritas
93 posted on
06/20/2006 4:44:39 PM PDT by
shield
(A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc. 10:2)
To: thoughtomator
Iraq was the only nation that didn't lower their flag at their UN mission in NYC after the 9/11 attacks. That was a red flag to me then and it is one of many I continue to feel today.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
I truly believe 9/11 was a contract hit. Osama delivered the plan and the personnel while Saddam provided the diplomatic cover for money transfers and documents, and perhaps diplomatic papers allowing for passage of the perps.
JMO.
99 posted on
06/20/2006 6:05:19 PM PDT by
mitchbert
(Facts Are Stubborn Things .)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson