taking a survey here on 9/11?

Question

Okay, how many of you believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9-11. If not, how did we go from Osama Bin Ladin being the bad guy to Saddam being public enemy number one, and as a result, of our war on Terror, we needed to invade Iraq?

Isn't it interesting that as more details unfold, less and less people believe that we should be in Iraq?

Answer 1

No.

Our government knew that the American people would be so hurt and outraged that we would be unable to differentiate the difference between Saddam (who we love to hate) and the Taliban. Up to that point only those of us who were political buffs were following up on Osama and the Taliban. Dispite many articles by such magaiznes like Readers Digest and Time many had never heard of Osama bin Ladin.

Our government knew that the country would be in greiving. And, we wouldn't be able to question the government coherrently. There were some who were able to question despite their grief. But, they were termed as American haters. When in fact they were very patriotic to their country - they were Americans. They were those who loved their country so much they could stand up and tell the government they were wrong - when they were.

Now, you see the same thing happening to your Congressmen this election year. Those who go against the Bush policy are being labeled as terrorists by Cheney and others. Just look at Ned Lamont in CT. Whew.

The best thing you and I can do to avoid this in the future is EDUCATE ourselves. Never trust anyone. Heck, don't even trust my answer :))) Go find out for yourself - but, looks to me like you already have. :)))

Answer 2

I dont know if Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks but I do find it funny that Pres Bush has not even mentioned Osama Bin Ladin in years. I really don't think Bush cares about Osama Bin Ladin anymore now that he has Saddam. Think - How much has Bush said about Afganistan since the beginning of the Iraq war? It's like he got his way and now the heck with anyone else.

Answer 3

No one believes and the Government has never suggested the Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Don't get confused. Our reasons for going into Iraq were related to the broader war on terror. In hindsight, it appears that our intelligence was spotty at best, which is a real shame and a National embarassment. But we never suggested that we went to Iraq because they had something to do with 9/11.

The only connection seems to be that Saddam has funded terrorists for a long time, but that wouldn't be reason to go to war. At least it shouldn't have been at that time.

Answer 4

No one ever said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The issue became killing those that wish us harm before they could harm us. Every single person in the US government (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy included) thought that Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them (which he had already done once on his OWN people).

Saddam repeatedly refused to allow UN inspectors inside the weapons facilities, and since you have probably forgotten, let me remind you that the president offered to allow Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq to prevent a war.

And as long as you are on Osama, we ARE still looking for him, but we obviously can't run around and tell everyone how we are doing it. Besides, killing him won't stop terrorism. You have to kill them one at a time before they kill us.

Have you forgotten that day when 3,000 of our people were killed (some of them jumping from buildings so they wouldn't BURN to death)? Our world changed that day, but the liberals only changed for as long as it took to make it look like they were tough on terrorism too.

Answer 5

I don't think ANYBODY has suggested that Saddam initiated 9/11. His only [weak] link to the whole thing is support of the criminal bin Laden, and his brothers bin drinkin and bin sleepin.

The war in Iraq is based on the veiled threats of the idiot Saddam and partially by the fact that Bush's father didn;t finish the job 15 years ago. Saddam tried to kill Bush senior and that constitutes a vendetta, IMHO.

The war on terrorism has many fronts, welcome to the future.

Answer 6

Saddam Hussein, not responsible... but I would suggest that our government, since it already had troops heading toward Afghanistan, decided that the public wouldn't be paying too much attention, and so they pulled the old bait and switch. It's about the oil, not about Saddam, and not even about Osama Bin Laden. They had to protect Osama anyway to stay on good terms with some of their oil prospects, so Saddam made a great scapegoat.

Answer 7

Saddam had nothing to do with it, Osama Bin Laden did not want to work with Saddam. Our government went to Iraq because it wanted to, they were pLanning on going as 9/11 was happening even though they didn't have evidence because Iraq wasn't invoLved. not that Saddam isn't eviL, it's just he posed no threat.

Answer 8

No he wasn't responsible, just a bad man (so they say, but do we really know?) Since we didn't find Bin Laden, they had to get someone, so that the US citizens didn't rise up and say that the US going overseas was a waste. I think it was at first a panic decision, and then they figured why not stay in Iraq, because the financial gain would be great (except for the billions we have spent so far...I feel it was a diversion tactic, so we forgot about Bin Laden...Why don't we ever hear anything about him anymore?

Answer 9

Saddam was not behind the 9/11 attacks. It was in his own best interests to stay away from America. Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the attacks, however, finding him was too difficult so Bush went after Saddam instead.

Answer 10

Bush is obviously lost on what actions the US Army has to do. He does not want to attack Osama Bin Laden because Bush has monetary agreements with the Bin Laden family. Think about it, would you attack the son of a person who has in the past paid YOU an IMMENSE amount of money?? The war on Iraq is to finish the job that his father George Bush Sr. didn't finish.