Osama killed 3,000 Americans for nothing. But hasn't Bush done the same thing?

Question

Oh sure, he said he had a good reason.
He said Saddam had WMD. But he didn't.
He said Saddam was a threat. But he wasn't.
He said Saddam helped al Qaeda. But he didn't.
He said Saddam would be replaced by a democracy. But he wasn't.

Conservatives really do live in their own world, don't they? Mr. Chili, noobody in Ira

Conservatives really do live in their own world, don't they? Mr. Chili, noobody in Ira

Conservatives really do live in their own world, don't they? Mr. Chili, nobody in Iraq was threatening my family. So no US soldier died in Iraq to protect my family. And a tip for Mr. "Hater" - if your "facts" are so outrageous that even Fox News won't touch them...make up new ones!

Karce: I agree with you re: the troops and I do not think Bush and Osama are morally equivalent. But the end result is the same.

Rich B: your "facts" are even lamer than "Hater's":

1. There was no evidence of WMD in Iraq after 1991 - when Iraq was ordered to destroy them.

2. Saddam never funded any terrorist who threatened the United States.

3. So there was a 1998 indictment on Free Republic that alleged an Iraq- al Qaeda connection but wouldn't provide any details? Since it's now 2007 - maybe you could????

Answer 1

Hey, "I Hate Liberals," the thing is, Saddam wasn't a threat to US. He might have been a threat to other places, but he wasn't a threat to AMERICA! The whole thing is that Bush claimed there were weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was hiding, but there weren't! And then he completely changed his reasons for waging war over and over again, contradicted himself countless times, and killed thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention our soldiers, brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins, and sons!!!

And if Saddam is a threat to Iraqis, that's really none of the USA's business. It's basically Vietnam all over again, only under the leadership of a much worse president! WHY do the presidents insist on shoving their noses into other countries' business?

It hurts to think that my cousin is risking his life in a pointless war, but I'm not going to delude myself and think that Bush ever thought of anything besides the amount of oil he'd gain.

Ok, this sounds really harsh, but I'm not trying to be. I don't believe in war unless you're trying to protect your own life. It honestly scares the crap out of me to think that out there, people that might have done something huge later on are dying because a man with stupid reasons told them to go to Iraq. I hate war the way other people hate their nightmares, or spiders, or anything really: irrationally. I know most of you don't honestly care, but I just wanted to explain why I was so harsh.

Answer 2

You are right about all of those things and I personally think that invading Iraq was a mistake (I support Afganistan since it was a direct link to the 9/11 attack) and I think Bush had a more personal reason for going into Iraq which was wrong

However, that being said: Saddam wasn't exactly the most innocent person in the world. The US did fight a war against him. I just think that they should have finished the job back then when they had the legitimete reason to do so.

Now, it just looks like Bush is trying to do something his father couldn't.

Spreading democracy to that region SOUNDS like a good idea and would have been benifical I think if it worked but they didn't even bother to do it right or think of the ramifications of their actions. But they did it half assed and only said they were doing it in the mad rush to provide a real reason for why they invaded.

The average GI in Iraq is only trying to do the right thing, do what they have been told and try to help. You have to respect them for that and I have nothing bad to say about them. It's the people behind the desks that I have words for.

However, I won't connect what Osama did to what Bush is doing, no matter what has happened I think that Bush was really trying to do something good, no matter how wrong or even twisted it was (I think he is a morron but I don't think he is evil)

No, I won't called him evil or call for his imprisionment, just call for him to be out of office because clearly he doesn't have the intelligence or the capacity to lead a country and lead it correctly.

We have already broke two countries. It is our responsiblity to fix them, stabilize them and make sure they are friendly. We just need to be able to have the leadership to do that quickly and correctly

Answer 3

1. No WMD? Pay attention. America sold him the WMD. He got them to use against Iran and ended up using them on his own citizens. Do you think he used harsh language to kill all thos people? Really man...

2. Not a threat. Okay. How was a man who offered dirt poor, ignorant radical Islamic zealots $25,000.00 to attack ant western interest?

3. A link to a NY Times article on the relationship between OBL & Saddam. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts

too long to quote, you're going to have to read it for yourself.

4. You'll have to pardon me, but I don't recall this being said. Got a source link so I can be convinced?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl

5. The current President of Iraq was elected by democratic vote. How is that not a democratic government?

So, in conclusion, no, the President has not done the same thing. Saddam was personally responsible for directly ordering the deaths of upward of a million of his own citizens. You have to have arms a mile long to make that stretch.

Answer 4

A central aspect of the official story about 9/11 is that the attacks were planned entirely by al Qaeda, with no one else knowing the plans. A year after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller said: "To this day we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot."[19] Since that time, federal officials have had to admit that they had received far more warnings prior to 9/11 than they had previously acknowledged. But these admissions, while raising the question of why further safety measures were not put in place, do not necessarily show that federal officials had specific foreknowledge of the attacks. One could still, as did the 9/11 Commission, accept the conclusion published at the end of 2002 by the Congressional Joint Inquiry, according to which “none of [the intelligence gathered by the US intelligence community] identified the time, place, and specific nature of the attacks that were planned for September 11, 2001.”

Unfortunately for the official account, however, there are reports indicating that federal officials did have that very specific type of information. I will give two examples.

David Schippers and the FBI Agents: The first example involves attorney David Schippers, who had been the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of President Clinton. Two days after 9/11, Schippers declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents about the attacks six weeks earlier--warnings that included both the dates and the targets. These agents had come to him, Schippers said, because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. They asked Schippers to use his influence to get the government to take action to prevent the attacks. Schippers was highly respected in Republican circles, especially because of his role in the impeachment of Clinton. And yet, he reported, Attorney General Ashcroft repeatedly failed to return his calls.

Schippers’ allegations about the FBI agents were corroborated in a story by William Norman Grigg called “Did We Know What Was Coming?”, which was published in The New American, a very conservative magazine. According to Grigg, the three FBI agents he interviewed told him “that the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11th.”

If Schippers, Grigg, and these agents are telling the truth, it would seem that when FBI Director Mueller claimed that the FBI had found no one in this country with advance knowledge of the plot, he was not telling the truth.

Answer 5

How exactly did Bush kill Americans again? My brother is an Army Soldier (technically national guard) but HE is the one that signed the papers! He was not forced, there is no ******* draft! My brother signed over his damn life to fight for our future to prevent terrorists from coming to America, and so did the soldiers that lost there lives there! I'm sick and tired of people talking **** about that, do you even have anyone in your family close to you that's in the service. Anyone that's fighting in combat there or has been there multiple times? I probably doubt it, and if you did you wouldn't be saying the same things. You should be proud that there's people over there doing the job because if not then there probably would be a draft and your *** just might be there! So you need to be proud of what there doing.

Answer 6

I think the Marines who massacred the Iraqis and were found guilty should be executed as well. Oh wait we are in America and no one gets executed the same week they are sentenced. Iraq is a long term deal. No wasting away thinking about the past let the Iraq situation work itself out and see what happens. I think it is too late to just leave now.

Answer 7

they r the same ... Saddam was expired and bush went to Iraq to destroy Saddam!!!
but have u guys really think that what's USA doing here in Mideast ?
its none of the US business to come over Mideast and kill ordinary people in Iraq, Afghanistan and etc.
The US gov is pretending that they r the one who want peace in the world :)) ... they r the one who wanna save the world.
but they r not. they r destroying other countries for none-sense reason .

Answer 8

The Bush administration orchestrated the attacks on 9/11, as a way to TRICK the public into supporting military invasion of Iraq/Hussein for its own agenda.

Do an internet search for "OPERATION NORTHWOODS" and read the REAL formerly classified documents in which the U.S. government detailed its plans to FAKE TERROR ATTACKS, including using HIJACKED COMMERICIAL FLIGHTS, for the purpose of blaming Castro and gaining public support for ousting him and taking military control over Cuba. Sound familiar?

Note that Saddam Hussein was NOT tried for anything related to 9/11. Consider how much MORE money and effort was put into finding and executing him than in tracking down Osama bin Laden, who was allegedly responsible (even though the man in the infamous needle-in-a-haystack "confession" tape is clearly NOT him - compare and see). The 9/11 attacks are not even mentioned in the FBI's Wanted poster for him. Bush stated that he was "not concerned" about bin Laden because HE KNOWS that Osama had nothing to do with it, and that the U.S. already had plans for starting a worldwide war as of 9/9/01, two days BEFORE the faked attacks.

Don't take my word for it. READ the documents, and consider the mountain of other fishy facts and evidence exposed by LooseChange911, Cooperative Research, and other sites and decide for yourself.

Answer 9

The UN and Congress said Saddam had WMD

Saddam was a threat to the Iraqis, and he would eventually start another war (He started 2 in the past 20 years)

British Intelligence got proof from a couple of Taliban leaders that Saddom had funded Al Qaeda, but had nothing to do w/ 9/11

Saddam has been placed by a democracy, thats why the Iraqis had the power to execute him.

Answer 10

Boy, are you confused. There were good reasons. And yes, there were WMDs found in Iraq earlier in 2006 (I guess you only selectively listen to the news?). Saddam was a clear threat, Al Qaida was in Iraq before we attacked and there is a democracy, fledgling as it is, but they've had three free elections now. Guess that doesn't count in your book.

You're biggest mistake is that Osama did not kill the 3,000 Americans for nothing. HE WANTS TO KILL ALL OF US. They are driven by hatred for us and are committed to our demise, and they will take what they call the apostate muslims (ones that don't agree with their take) right along with us. So, wake up sister!