Because, apparently, the New York Times continues to believe the invasion of Iraq was caused by 9/11

From Richard W. Stevenson’s “G-8 Meeting’s Focus Shifts to Terrorism”, published hours after the subway bombings in London, comes this egregious renewal of the Bush adminsitration’s age-old canard:

And it seemed perhaps fitting that the American and British leaders were together at the moment when Britain confronted its version of the 9/11 attacks that transformed the national security policy of the United States and ultimately led them to send their militaries together into Iraq.

RELATED: The Downing Street memo (a primer)

4 replies on “Because, apparently, the New York Times continues to believe the invasion of Iraq was caused by 9/11”

maybe he means that it “ultimately led them” because it gave them the excuse they were lacking before. (though I admit it’s a stretch.)

We would not have gone into Iraq if September 11th had not happened. Go buy a clue.

very briefly, i just wanted to throw this in there before this becomes a “I don’t get the point of what was being said above” routine…
the language used by the writer at the times is a replication of the line of thought and public speaking methodology of president bush for the past several years…in other words, restating voer and over again a condition of causality that did in fact not exist, i.e., THIS leads to THAT.
of course, we know, and knew all along, that THIS (9/11) did not in any way lead to THAT (iraq) outside of the creation of a climate of public support and confusion that -enabled- the invasion.
in other words, the 9/11 attacks did not LEAD the two nations to send their miliatires together into Iraq, it ENABLED the creation of a public climate that allowed us to turn our backs on facts, such as planning by the late-90s Clinton and pre-elected Bush Administrations to look into regime change.
does this make sense, now?

Comments are closed.