With no defense of the indefensible intended this particular type of query is pure poison. It’s symptomatic of congenital ignorance and I’ve been hoping that someone (Media) would have picked up on it and call it what it is (or isn’t), but alas it appears not and so here goes.
The question that Bush, Clinton or any other stooge-like candidate should be asked is this: Knowing what you know now what other type of manufactured crisis would have come along and knowing that the entire scheme is meant and intended only to continue the political/economic flogging into submission of any entity willing to challenge the global consolidation of western-style finance and political demagoguery, would you have (still) gone along with it? Now that’s the question that needs asking!
Now, knowing that this question will never be asked let’s return to the retrograde use of the current iteration; how utterly infantile to structure a question as this: “If you’d known what you know now would you…?” particularly if you’re looking for the story behind the story which of course is what really needs to be known and told. Now this is where Hillary jumps in and says; “what difference does it make!” and of course she would be, perhaps the only time – ever, correct.
It should boggle the mind of any thinking individual on the occasion that these words breach the void of silence and soil your inner ear. After all no matter how one responds to the question the answer is hopelessly irrelevant and also mindlessly opportunistic. First, whatever occurred has already occurred and there’s no changing the outcome and even if you were to offer a contrary response are you not taking advantage of the equally unknown and summarily dispensed with it?
In other words, let’s say that George “W” had not invaded Iraq – based on the so-called and often alleged existence of chemical weapons – and if so then are we not conveniently suspending every other possible anomaly or provocation that would have likely taken its place? Is it not possible that given the climate at the time that Saddam Hussein could have become an accelerated target of Iran? Could he have engaged in further proxy battles with Assad in Syria, bludgeoning of the Kurds, the Shia Tribe (Houthis) in Yemen or further border skirmishes with Turkey or teamed up with Libya’s Gaddafi in a push against U.S. opposition to the relentless Russian interest-probing throughout the Middle-East or perhaps another Gulf of Tonkin or U.S.S. Liberty-like event?
You see, the battle is not in the question of whether or not anyone would have done anything other than what was done, the contest is in understanding that the media is not doing their job in exposing what IS ACTUALLY OCURRING regardless of the driving circumstances at any given time. The American public has gotten used to recovering from the mistakes and abuses of those acting in the name of their National interests. The American public has become numb to the mounting costs in dollars, but most importantly in the mounting body count in lives lost and limbs, features and minds forever lost and/or damaged by the unloading of the ever-effective false premise.
Still, numbness is no defense, it’s merely another false premise itself simulating a most temporary illusion and it’s absolutely necessary that we move past it and quick.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder