English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Apart for the need to steal their oil and build a base in the region.

2006-08-09 13:17:47 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Please note how confused the NEOCON message is. Our attack on the administration's 9/11 conspiracy is consistent, with thousands of examples.The responses however are a jumble of progressive and anquished lies.

2006-08-09 21:00:30 · update #1

16 answers

Blah ! Blah!

9/11=Afghanistan
Iraq=Ousting Dictator (WMD, Human Rights Violations, etc...)

Some your more famous Lib/Dems prior to Iraq:
Bill Clinton said on February 17th, 1998, "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Senator Hillary Clinton:
On October 10, 2002 she said, "In the four years since the inspectors left,intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability,his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists
including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


John 'cherry-picking' Kerry said on January 23rd, 2003,"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime.He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

On September 27th, 2002 Senator Kennedy said,"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Even worse, they have intentionally denied acceptance of the results of the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction lead by Judge Laurence H. Silberman and former Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.). The commission examined the pre-war intelligence
and reported that not only had the intelligence about Iraq's illicit weapons been overwhelmingly faulty and wrong,
but they completely exonerated the President's White House and administration officials of charges from Democrats that they had pressured intelligence analysts
to shade or change their reports because of political pressure.

2006-08-09 13:22:50 · answer #1 · answered by Boredstiff 5 · 0 0

lol, Iraq only supplies 5% of our oil. Canada and Mexico supply 1/2 the rest.
There was no direct connection between bin laden and Saddam hussein, but there is video proof that american troops fought al qaeda commandos in bagdad the very first day they arrived.
As far as Im concerned, if he let al qaeda build a base in central bagdad, hes one of them.

And finally, nobody ever made that connection. Condi Rice said "Maybe" but not yes.
I'd like to point out that the war is called "operation: iraqi freedom" not "operation: overthrow saddam and find wmd's". The main perpose was to remove a dangerous man from power.

2006-08-09 13:21:03 · answer #2 · answered by Doggzilla 6 · 0 0

Well it's been almost five years since 9/11 and oil production in Iraq is still very much below pre-war amounts. If Bush and buddies wanted to steal Iraq's oil they are doing a lousy job.

2006-08-09 13:26:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The evidence that the government promised us that linked alqaida to 9/11. The evidence that sent us to war with Iraq...It was all promised.

Guess what? No such evidence has been revealed or shown to us.

This war is a blatant misuse of power on behalf of the U.S. government.

2006-08-09 13:22:11 · answer #4 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 0 0

Can you show us any quote from Bush saying that Iraq WAS responsible for 9/11?

I didn't think so.

2006-08-09 15:11:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Fine I will agree that Saddam violated UN resolutions. So why did we not let the UN take care it? The reason is because the UN is a worthless piece of crap. So why do we care about UN resolutions? It is not the USA's responsibility to police the world. I am tired of seeing US soldier's die because the rest of the world can't take care of their own problems, that includes Serbia too.

2006-08-09 13:39:17 · answer #6 · answered by beren 7 · 0 0

It was never said there was a link. 9/11 = War on terror
Iraq = Saddam ignoring all UN resolutions after gulf war.

There ....does that make it easier for you to remember?

2006-08-09 13:22:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Um, there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq....but that wasn't why we invaded them. Instead of being Humanist...why don't you try being "read a newspaperist"

2006-08-09 13:35:34 · answer #8 · answered by loubean 5 · 0 0

There is no link between the two

2006-08-09 13:23:56 · answer #9 · answered by class4 5 · 0 0

Can you prove that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Grow up and move on.
note to asker....this is about killing all terrorist ...nothing else.

2006-08-09 13:26:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers