we went to war against Iraq for the following reasons.
1. 23 UN violations - only one was for WMDs which were found and supported by Dems at one time.
2. Saddam provided training manuals and funded the attack on the USS cole which had an aniversary yesterday
3. Zarakawi had been allowed to set up an Al Qaida training base there
4. congress voted for it - including the democrats
2006-10-13 05:35:37 · 17 answers · asked by Shiraz Syrah 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, like Afaganistan and the Phillipines.
2006-10-13 05:37:20 · update #1
There is proof of evidence between Al Quaida and Saddam, but even without that, they think he is flawless and would make a better leader than President Bush in America.
Liberals want the taliban rule.
2006-10-13 05:49:32 · answer #1 · answered by buffman316 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes GW and others have said the war in Iraq is part of our greater war on Terrorism - and that was started on 9/11. The relationship has always been claimed - and there is nothing wrong with that.
Truth of the matter is Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers - that has not been disputed. How long until he started paying the families of al queda's suicide bombers to hit the US? Al queda was allowed to set up camp in Iraq after we chased them out of Afghanistan. No Al Queda and Saddam were not politically alligned and its clear they feared each other. Still they had the United States as a common enemy. While they may not have fought together they both would have gladly caused us harm - one did. I'm glad we didn't wait for the other one.
2006-10-13 05:45:26 · answer #2 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to Richard Clark, the minute President Bush returned to the White House on 9/11 he wanted Clark's' staff to get him evidence of Iraq's' involvement in the attacks.
Clark had to prove to the President that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Zarakawi had nothing to do with Al Qaida before the invasion if Iraq it was only after the invasion that he aligned with Bin Laden.
Your statement indicates that Al Qaidia had been established in Iraq prior to the invasion would lead one to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Which is it, or do you like it both ways?
2006-10-13 05:52:19 · answer #3 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we all know that congress members vote in accordance with the majority view of their constituents in hopes of winning them over for re-election. The emotional state of the nation was used to strong arm support for going to "war against terror" which on its very face is illogical and clearly a euphemism. United States citizens were all for going after Bin Laden and those who attacked American soil...and then *poof!* cut to Iraq. It's common knowledge to anyone with a willingness to think critically that this war is far more political than it is advertised to be. Did the Saddam issue need to be rectified? Certainly. But the initial motive was to seek restitution for 9/11 in the form of going after the attackers. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with that.
It wasn't a surprising maneuver. The vast majority of United States citizens are generally clueless as to the function and happenings of their government.
We make ourselves easy to manipulate.
2006-10-13 05:47:53 · answer #4 · answered by southyrn_belle_4ever 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's why: although Bush & Co. never explicitly stated that they did, they suggested it through the wording of their speeches. As a result, at the time we went into Iraq, SEVENTY percent of Americans believed that Iraq DID have a hand in 9/11. That wouldn't have happened on its own. They knew they couldn't actually make such a statement, because sooner or later it would be known to be false, and it would come back to haunt them. Fortunately for them, they didn't have to, to accomplish the goal: building public support for going into Iraq.
2006-10-13 05:44:08 · answer #5 · answered by James L 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Silly Republicans need to pull the penises out of their ears and listen. The arguement is not that we went to war, but that we went to war for the wrong reasons. This war is about toppling Saddam's regime and building a democratic state in Iraq. It's not about "fighting terrorists wherever they hide". They dont ALL live in Iraq wandering the desert Einstein, think about it.
And by the way, some of your facts are wrong. Bet you got them from a Republican website. You're a regular Woodward&Bernstien aren't you?
2006-10-13 05:44:38 · answer #6 · answered by pouchless 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well that is not what president bush told us when we went to war. He stated that there was a direct link between Al Qaida and Iraq. So now you are admitting that he lied.
2006-10-13 05:43:37 · answer #7 · answered by courage 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Search for Bushisms online. Specifically when George is caught off guard when he is asked what 9/11 had to do with Iraq and he states "nothing!".
2006-10-13 05:41:16 · answer #8 · answered by ajax138 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know it is odd. They say that a large percent of the population think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The only place they could have gotten this idea was hearing libs saying there was no connection and assuming they were lying.
2006-10-13 05:38:06 · answer #9 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush lied to Congress about WMD
2006-10-13 05:37:21 · answer #10 · answered by JS 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋