It is part of the big lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie After the fact of our invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush said that, but Cheney to this day still says the opposite to the loyalists.
2006-12-18 02:30:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by michaelsan 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
No one ever said there was one, except for war opponents who falsely tried to put words in the administration's mouth.
If an accusation that Iraq planned 9/11 was ever to be made, it would be in the Iraq War resolution. But it's not there:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
What people said was that, after the September 11th attacks, everyone took the threats of rogue states and WMDs more seriously. People also asked why Bush didn't "connect the dots" and prevent the attack.
A rather mundane example might illustrate the point. Why is it that when a part on one airplane malfunctions and causes a crash, the FAA asks owners of all aircraft to check that same part - even if the parts were clearly not manufactured at the same time, or even if the planes are different models? Simple - TO PREVENT IF FROM HAPPENING AGAIN! The same idea was behind Iraq.
Again, given all Saddam had done, he was a pretty big "dot" to connect. We'll never know what he would have done had we left him in power, so we'll never know with certainty what, if anything, was prevented.
But again, I think it's inconsistent to say the least that Bush didn't connect the dots in Afghanistan and "rushed to war" in Iraq. If people don't support pre-emptive action AFTER 9/11, then how on Earth would they have supported it before?
My view is that everyone was somewhat asleep at the switch before 9/11, and we are more vigilant now.
PS There is a difference between saying there were connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, among other terrorist groups - which was true - and saying Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Why do war opponents deliverately confuse the issue? Ironic that they claim Bush lied and distorted the facts, when that is exactly what they are doing!
2006-12-18 02:46:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because it becomes harder to justify the Iraq war to themselves if it was not defensive. If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD's then, deep down, they know there was no reason to invade. Saddam being a dirt bag isn't enough of a reason, especially if we're in an ongoing war on terror where our forces could be needed elsewhere. There were other methods that could have been utilized to remove him that didn't require sending in 150,000 troops.
2006-12-18 02:32:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
i think of an entire new study into 9/11 is warranted to tell you the very fact bro. yet I swear to you the folk on YA are so brainwashed by making use of the valid tale that I guess which you would be suggested as a conspiracy theorist for even posting this questions. human beings have been asserting this for years yet in simple terms now its seeing the sunshine of day and anybody is turning a blind eye to it. There are some issues goin on in this united states of america that in simple terms at the instant are not good. And the yankee human beings dont even see it by using fact they are blinded by making use of different "information"
2016-10-15 04:20:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seems like they're doing anything they can to prop up the house of cards they've erected. I'd prefer to look forward and deal with the situation we're in. I don't care who did what - although I think history will VILIFY GWB - we have to plot a way ahead. Too many lives at stake to sit around and fret about how we got here.
2006-12-18 02:31:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
bush never said that but ok i will think about it . lets see women were geting raped like crazy and nobody was able to do any thing about it but because of the war that has stoped eveyone over there had to hope that they would be able to feed the family one day a week the kids had no shoes there was no schools and all of this has changed because of us
2006-12-18 02:36:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by jared 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
al queda and al zarqawi werent in the same group. who cares? this danny is so stupid he cant make a simple association of islamo terrorists intent on destroying the US.
look at his question last week, lil danny needed to know what a stock buy back was.
i dont take military advice from a liberal moron that doesnt know the definition of a stock buy back.
spend more time is school and less here.
2006-12-18 07:59:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush and Cheney said on a number of occasions in 2002 and 2003 that their was a connection. Lies of course. there are people that still believe that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293
2006-12-18 02:56:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I believe some of the hijackers trained in camps in Iraq...that could be on eof the links
2006-12-18 02:29:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Damien 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
They(GOP) wanted to get voted out of congress. And they did just that.
2006-12-18 20:55:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋