Did You Catch the Senate Intelligence Committee's second report, which concluded that there not only was zero connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that Iraq was the one country IN THE MIDDLE EAST where Osama bin Laden could not operate?
2006-10-06 17:13:10 · 14 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sure looks that way to me! This is what I have always thought. Now look at what we have done. Iraq is a hotbed of violence and a magnet for every nut who wants a quick way to get to his 72 virgins, or however many they are supposed to have. We should have kept our focus on getting Bin Laden instead of invading a country that was no threat to us!
I never could understand the motive behind going to war with Iraq. We have wasted our resources and money. The worst part is, the brave young American lives that were taken because of such an awful decision. Anyway, we have BIGGER fish to fry, like North Korea, Iran! Our resources are wasted on Iraq and now that there may be a REAL need to go to war we will be reluctant!
Those of you who think the world is better off without Saddam, I agree. I just don't agree that it was up to us alone to do it! Too many wasted resources went to this endeavor. It almost looks as if Bush was trying to distract us from the real goal of catching Bin Laden.Why should we have spent all of this money on rebuilding Iraq when New Orleans and most of the gulf lay in ruins? Charity begins at home! I don't think Saddam was ever connected to Al Qaeda. This was a lot of propaganda coming from the Bush bunch to make us think that war with Iraq was justified.
The whole Iraq thing makes me sick! I have a nephew there. What is he really there for? A lot of fishy things are coming to light. What about Bush giving Bin Laden's kin a safe escort out of the country right after 9-11? I think they should have been interrogated somewhere! What is up with that one? What was the dire need to go to war with Iraq if there was ZERO connection? Like I said, a fish stinks!
2006-10-06 17:34:23 · answer #1 · answered by Marie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The thought that this war is completely unrelated to terrorism and Al Qaeda is absolutely ridiculous. How can anyone believe that a ruthless dictator like Saddam would have no ties to a terrorist organization. Come on people, forget your hatred for the president for one second and use your heads. The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Did anyone think that democracy would prevail in Iraq within a few months or even a few years? Look back in our own history and realize what it takes for a free country to survive. Perhaps it will take 20 years for it to happen and maybe they will go through civil war to acheive it, but a free and democratic state is better than a dictatorship at any cost. Oh, and if the war was for oil, don't you think we would be benefiting from that with gas prices below $2.00 a gallon by now.
2006-10-06 17:55:56 · answer #2 · answered by C D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Intelligence is always in limited. Hopefully we are all intelligent enough to realized how stupid and incompetent all departments and agencies - including bloviating "Intelligence" - of government can be. I am a very liberal person who would NEVER EVER cast his vote for somebody like GW Bush, but let me share a few thoughts here.
1) Intelligence (CIA and Defense) and UNSCOM reports in late 2002 and early 2003 equivocated on the matter of possible (prohibited) Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. There is no question about Iraqi non-compliance with U.N. resolutions!
2) The war in Iraq started in March 2003, and over the next three and 1/2 years no prohibited WMD were found in Iraq (not to be confused with there being none. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack," as anyone as pompous and dim-witted as Don Rumsfeld knows.)
3) There were, and are, no ready solutions the problem of U.N. resolution non-compliance. Enforcement of U.N. resolutions must come from somewhere, else there is no difference between the UN and the piteous League of Nations. Right now the world system depends heavily and utterly on American enforcement, and countless nations hypocritically decry its enforcement. What other way is there? That is what is needed. Please tell the way out of this arrangement of (implicitly) agreeing to the single "policeman", and then protesting that policeman's actions. We're all waiting. I will ask presently. Look for my question: "What is the way out?"
2006-10-06 17:43:11 · answer #3 · answered by voltaire 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, I really believe that he expected everything to fall in place when it didn't in 3 weeks the opposition saw a chance and attacked. This relentless attack has given Iran and Syria reason to believe they can win. They in turn dumped more resources into the frey and here we are another Vietnam. The news media has lots of stories and everyone is happy. Note that you haven't heard much of West Nile Virus since Saddam has been overthrown, some say that's the real WMD. Also I'm glad we ended the oil for food scandal.
2006-10-06 17:29:26 · answer #4 · answered by dante f 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush lied, manipulated the intelligence, gave false information and made his family a whole lot of money by starting an unnecessary and useless war to eliminate a non-threat and to allow the bin laden family enough time to get osama into a safe place before going after him. then, wanting to help his friends make even more money, he diverted the war on terror to iraq where he has created a disastrous plan of action and caused irreperable harm to the us image in the middle east, and around much of the world. then he insists all is well. what garbage.
2006-10-06 17:20:38 · answer #5 · answered by de bossy one 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
What Bush did in reality is unfathomable. He invaded a country that absolutely no ties to 9/11. He even said so himself. Yet his Vice President to this very day will insist that they did. The deceiving and lying that is going with this administration is beyond pale.
2006-10-06 17:27:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe it had a lot to do with Daddy issues on his part, both because Saddam threatened Daddy Bush, and possibly also because he wanted to prove he could succeed where Daddy hadn't, in getting Saddam. He did, but look what happened as a result.
2006-10-06 17:16:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Oh I already know that, he kept terrorist out of his country. America isn't enough for Bush to screw up, he has to invade and control Iraq too. I have one thing to say... oil.
2006-10-06 17:27:49 · answer #8 · answered by Robin W 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes indeed ! He took revenge of his father and wanted to have OIL of Iraq. He should be just punished properly.
2006-10-06 17:16:29 · answer #9 · answered by dotab 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes to ques. #1, And yes to #2.
It's a real biotch, isn't it?
I wonder if we'll ever find out what the agenda REALLY was.
2006-10-06 17:16:24 · answer #10 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋