Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Alternative time line
Published on October 19, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Imagine if we hadn't invaded Iraq. How would the election be different?

Well, first we now know that the oil for food program was a total scam. We also know Saddam was in the process of bribing France, Russia, and China in the hopes of ending sanctions.

We still wouldn't have gotten Osama Bin Laden in all likelyhood so there would be this terrorist dictator in Saddam who was openly opposing us who, by all accounts in 2003, was in possession of WMDs with every intent to aid terrorists.

This article gives a pretty credible alternative timeline of how things might be.


Comments (Page 1)
on Oct 19, 2004
"we now know that the oil for food program was a total scam."

Almost EVERYONE in the world community knew that for years. It was actaully one of the main arguments of France, Russia and China for lifting the sanctions after the desert fox operation.
on Oct 19, 2004
Honestly, if there wasn't an invasion of Iraq, I think that a different candidate would have won the Democratic Primary.... and Bush would probably have been in a much better position politically than he is now so he may have been almost unassailable.
on Oct 20, 2004
The election would focus on the economy and internal matters!

Ouch!

I'm sure Bush would have found some foreign threat to divert attention. Though to be fair the US would be billions of dollars richer and maybe that money could have been spent on the national debt? There would also be another 1000 of so americans alive to vote for Bush.

paul.
on Oct 20, 2004
I'm still trying to figure out by whose accounts did he have the WMD's and was trying to aid the terrorists?
Bush Administration, Brits, CIA....? Who? ... Didn't our president just recently say that we had faulty intelligence?
I just love it when people like yourself the "RepubliBORGS" pull some shit like that out of your ass.
I don't understand why you can’t just admit that this was a war that was obviously planed long before the 9/11 and that it had nothing to do with terrorism. The only people that felt threatened by Sadam were Israelis and they wanted him out. Sadam was never a threat to US.
People like your self keep repeating this stuff as if it is a fact, for a good reason though; you are hoping that it will stick with some lazy Americans that don’t care to do any research themselves, that rely on “Fair and balanced” news outlets (which doesn’t mean only Fox News and talk radio, it also includes the so-called left-wing media outlets MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, etc., which are basically a well-oiled PR machine for corporations and our corporate run government) to infuse wisdom and truth about the country and the world that they live in…. It is sad…. Really sad.
on Oct 20, 2004
I don't understand why you can’t just admit that this was a war that was obviously planed long before the 9/11 and that it had nothing to do with terrorism


you are hoping that it will stick with some lazy Americans that don’t care to do any research themselves


Apparently, the limit of your reasearch is watching Fahrenheit 911. Why not move to France?
on Oct 20, 2004
We still wouldn't have gotten Osama Bin Laden in all likelyhood so there would be this terrorist dictator in Saddam who was openly opposing us who, by all accounts in 2003, was in possession of WMDs with every intent to aid terrorists.


Draginol: Are you saying Saddam had WMD's in 2003 or that Bin Laden did or what?

Actually, Bin Laden and Saddam were competitors for terrorist loyalty and dollars. We did Osama a big favor by taking out Saddam because it unified his cause.

I would say that what would have happened would be much different. I think this campaign would focus on which is a greater threat: Bin Laden or Saddam or Kim Li of North Korea or the Iranians and the winner is........?

on Oct 20, 2004
].
Apparently, the limit of your reasearch is watching Fahrenheit 911. Why not move to France?


Actually, see Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward. Based on interviews given to Bob Woodward by President Bush. You could also read Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty (with former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill), or Bush's Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, or The Politics of Truth by Ambassador Joe Wilson (called by President George HW Bush "a true American hero").
on Oct 20, 2004
I think he means that it appeared like Saddam did, so Bush would potentially get hit hard by that. Especially if what happened was compared with the Project for a New American Century letters were used in the attack.
on Oct 20, 2004
Are you saying Saddam had WMD's in 2003 or that Bin Laden did or what?


Search on the Securtiy Council briefing for May 28, 2004 (reported by one organization on June 11, 2004) and Demetrius Perricos.
Items have been found abroad with UN tags on them.

Actually, Bin Laden and Saddam were competitors for terrorist loyalty and dollars


There is more than little evidence they had a mutual relationship
on Oct 20, 2004
There is more than little evidence they had a mutual relationship


Yes. They met once and from that day forth loathed each other, spending half their time criticising each other and the rest attacking the US. They were hardly in bed together. Sudan's the one who probably got any weapons that were hanging around.


I still think Bush would win the election, even without the advantages of the War on Iraq or even the War on Terror. And it's not because I think the US people are stupid or anything like that. Bush's team is simply one of the best political teams I have ever heard of. You can say that he speaks like the village idiot and that Karl Rove is evil incarnate, but really it's obvious how effective they are. Even in the face of considerable losses and a mediocre economic situation (complete with rocketing national debt) Bush has not only retained his support but from all reports increased it. Even if you don't agree with his politics you have to accept that he is an incredible politician.
on Oct 20, 2004
Actually, see Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward. Based on interviews given to Bob Woodward by President Bush. You could also read Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty (with former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill), or Bush's Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, or The Politics of Truth by Ambassador Joe Wilson


I don't believe even Mr. Woodward claims the war was "obviously planned" pior to 911. I also believe that perhaps the Irani's and Kuwaiti's, maybe even the Kurds might have felt threatened by Saddam. I know plenty about Richard Clarke (Clinton, Clarke and Albright had the opportunity to have Osama on a platter and rejected it), Joe Wilson (he certainly has no axe to grind) and the rest.
on Oct 20, 2004
Yes. They met once and from that day forth loathed each other,


Keep dreaming
on Oct 21, 2004
I don't believe even Mr. Woodward claims the war was "obviously planned" pior to 911. I also believe that perhaps the Irani's and Kuwaiti's, maybe even the Kurds might have felt threatened by Saddam. I know plenty about Richard Clarke (Clinton, Clarke and Albright had the opportunity to have Osama on a platter and rejected it), Joe Wilson (he certainly has no axe to grind) and the rest.


I assume you're familiar with PNAC, which has as one of its primary objectives the overthrow of Iraq. The positions of PNAC members in the Bush administration suggest that their influence was not inconsiderable. Surely it's not beyond reason to assume that they would at least use some of their influence to achieve their stated aims. I would if I was in their position.
on Oct 21, 2004
Apparently, the limit of your reasearch is watching Fahrenheit 911. Why not move to France?


T B I've watched and read more than Fahrenheit 9/11 and don’t relay on Michael Moore to tell me what the truth is.
My conclusion comes from the obvious fact that a huge percentage of this administration is actually Jewish and has a great influence on our foreign policy (not that the same thing wasn’t going on in the Clinton administration). Jewish lobby in Washington is also very, very powerful and influential, with a lot of money to spare. Jewish representation in the congress (10 out of 100) and House of Representatives (27 which is 6.5% of the house) is disproportional to the percentage of people who declare themselves as Jews (2.2 % of us population). But saying anything about that is taboo in this country, especially for politicians and anybody involved in Hollywood. God forbid if you mention a Jew and to much power or influence in the same sentence, or the treatment of the Palestinians, you are automatically declared an anti-Semite and it is demanded of you to publicly apologize or else… Again, sad but true…

On the French thing, please spare me… The Europeans have just started reading from our rule book. Self interest, greed and national interests above anything else. French and Germans figured, why die for Israeli or US interests? They had their own thing going on with Sadam, it was “all about the green” (we invented it, so what seems to be the problem? you know what they say: “money makes the world go around”). And why should they? We do the same things around the world picking and choosing countries to attack or not, get involved or not, send special forces to assassinate certain unfriendly individuals, send special envoys and money to influence elections in foreign countries (very democratic by the way), etc.
It is amazing that when others start playing by our (made up) rules, we get pissed off and declare them the enemies, now that we’ve made up new rules again. The theory of “Either you are with us, or against us” is completely retarded. You have to be a complete idiot not to realize the fact that in life nothing is either black or white. We live in a colorful world, and our interests and ideas about life and the world in general differ from an individual to individual, country to country… So don’t blame the French for ultimately doing the right thing and not supporting a lie.

PS. Keep eating the freedom fries and may I suggest Mickey D’s they are the best, also tuna salad on a freedom croissant might be a better choice.


Jews in the Bush Administration

Ari Fleischer (2001-2003) White House Press Secretary
Josh Bolten Deputy Chief of Staff
Ken Melman White House Political Director
David Frum (2001-2002) Speechwriter
Brad Blakeman White House Director of Scheduling
Dov Zakheim (2001-2004) Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense
I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Adam Goldman (2001-2003) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Tevi Troy (2003-2004) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Noam Neusner (2004-) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Chris Gersten Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS
Elliott Abrams Director of the National Security Council's Office for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations
Mark D. Weinberg Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs
Douglas Feith (2001- ) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Michael Chertoff Head of the Justice Department's criminal division
Daniel Kurtzer Ambassador to Israel
Cliff Sobel Ambassador to the Netherlands
Stuart Bernstein Ambassador to Denmark
Nancy Brinker Ambassador to Hungary
Frank Lavin Ambassador to Singapore
Ron Weiser Ambassador to Slovakia
Mel Sembler Ambassador to Italy
Martin Silverstein Ambassador to Uruguay
Jay Lefkowitz (2001-2004) Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council
Blake Gottesman President's personal aide
John Miller Director, State Departement Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons


Link



on Oct 21, 2004
It is a conspiracy the Five Jew Bankers are going to take over the world!!

Didn't you all watch that episode of Sealab 2021?!?!?!?!?!



- Grim X
Meta
Views
» 589
Comments
» 31
Category
Sponsored Links