Today President Bush just stated that he did not send troops to Iraq because of the 9/11 situtation. You know, when the planes were used as missiles to attack the US of A. I thought that we were at war because we were redirecting what was done to us to those that had some relation to 9/11. Bush clearly stated that it wasn't the attack on the US that we went to Iraq, but because of the WMD that are troops was sent. Which lead to the freeing of Iraq's people, which is now staying in Iraq untill the job is done. How does this make you feel? Did we loose focus? What is the job?
2006-08-21 06:42:50 · 26 answers · asked by Game lover 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I guess my thing is, why is bush saying "We never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11" now? And what was said after 9/11 that made us go to Iraq?
2006-08-21 06:55:32 · update #1
Our reasons for being in Iraq change with the way the wind blows. First it was to get the terrists back for 9/11, although there was never any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Then it was to find the WMDs, which never existed. I think the current excuse alternates daily between "spreading democracy" and "pursuing the war on terror" (although there wasn't much terror in Iraq until we got there).
2006-08-21 06:48:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most political officials have very short memories, and they assume the rest of the country does as well. In fact, they also assume the rest of the country doesn't have access to video recording devices to check on them.
There's a phenomenon that child development specialists have observed. Ask a 2-3 year old what is inside a box. Then open the box and show them. Then ask them what they said was in the box before they looked. The kids will say (now) that they had said (before) what actually is in the box.
At that stage of mental development, the kids don't have the ability to distinguish between what they currently know, and what they said in earlier statements. Very reminiscent of most politicians.
One of the reasons I enjoy the Daily Show. They play recordings of current press conferences, back to back with recordings of press conferences two or three years ago. And they don't need to say anything else to make it funny. Just playing the recordings of actual press conferences.
Also, the reasons the US went to Iraq in the first place have nothing to do with why we're still there. We went to depose Saddam. Whatever the rationale or justification, that was the goal. We did it. Saddam is gone. Mission Accomplished.
But we're still there two years later. So, obviously that has nothing to do with why we went in the first place.
2006-08-21 06:59:44 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With the mention of "Building a New Mideast" by Condoleezza Rice, after the invasion of Lebanon was initiated by Israel, I look at the whole situation as Colonial Expansionism. America has no right to Build a New Mideast ... that should be determined by the Arab nations of the Mideast.
Bush promised America "JUSTICE" after 911 and it's been 5 years and Osama Bin Laden is still free to lead Al Qaeda. There's no sense in this! In September of 2001, Al Qaeda was really our only enemy. Now look. How many enemies can you count?
Iraq, is a quagmire. - The job is, to get our Soldiers OUT of Iraq!
Every reason Bush has given for the invasion of Iraq has been found to be untrue. Colin Powell resigned for just that reason. Bush has also disbanded the CIA Opperatives who were hunting Ben Laden.
Bush, is the one who coined the phrase, "Cut and Run." This is a negative phrase that conveys weakness ... Nixon said, "Troop Withdraw," when discribing removal of the Troops from Vietnam. Bush thrives on our fears to promote his agenda.
Look up the word "Terrorism" in your dictionary. Remember when reading this, Al Qaeda is NOT a Government ... but the Bush Administration is.
Saddam still claims his right as The President of Iraq and the Commander In Chief of it's Militery Forces ... I say, give it back to him! Only Saddm can control the Iraqi's.
Thanks for waking up!
2006-08-21 07:07:19 · answer #3 · answered by pickle head 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush tried to make a connection between Sadaam and 9/11. He then said that Iraq had WMDs-well of course he did-we gave them to him when we were at odds with Iran. But now-who knows. I always thought he was cleaning up after his Dad but in turns he made more of a mess.
2006-08-21 06:52:17 · answer #4 · answered by Christy W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's called mission creep. I think we went in for the right reason to get rid of a dictator that was a threat. Then the mission changed the real (neocons) got the idea that they might be able to change the course of history if they could create a modern, "democracy" in Iraq. That sounds like a good idea, but it's really not worth expending our troops.
I think we're stuck now we have to help the new government succeed and then get out.
2006-08-21 06:52:16 · answer #5 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We went to afghanistan for the 9/11 attack. We went to get Osama Bin Laden. When that failed and we couldn't find him, the direction was changed to oust a ruthless dictator that defied the UN council and was suspected of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. We went in to destroy the government. We did that. We went to find out what Sadam was hiding from the UN and other weapons of mass destruction. We did that. Now we are waiting for the iraqi people to have a stable democracy before leaving. I also think we're leaving troops there to come to isreals aid when the war starts. My two cents on that
2006-08-21 06:57:06 · answer #6 · answered by fortyseven 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no we are not in Iraq for the reason we thought. it was because of 9/11, but Iraq was not the ones that at tact. is was bin laden, but bush's family are friends with the bin laden family. watch the movie by Moore. Fahrenheit 911.
2006-08-21 06:53:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because 'boy-george' desperately wanted people to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 as an excuse to invade a country rich in oil & to keep our military-industrial complex alive & well for his heavy-contributing defense-contract buddies. Iraq had nothing whatever to do with the so-called 'war on terror.'
2006-08-21 07:06:03 · answer #8 · answered by Putt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We knew this before the 2004 election. Go figure. It was right wing radio talk shows that stressed the Iraq 9/11 connection ... It was probably misinformation leaked by the west wing, it certainly served the the administration's purpose.
2006-08-21 07:24:12 · answer #9 · answered by Sam 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
seriously.....bush and Blair should be ashamed of themselves. Bush knew about the possibilities of 'terrorist attacks' and did feck all to prevent the loss of many lives...which in turn gave him the perfect excuse to invade an already struggling nation (the same nation that his father left in crisis after his empty promises to the people of Iraq)..... I don't see either of them or their children actually in Iraq???? they just send other peoples kids to fight the so called war....I mean did they ever find bin laden or WoMD? erm no.....probably have more chance of finding Santa.....
2006-08-21 06:58:03 · answer #10 · answered by keriandjelly 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋