Why does Bush continue to confuse the war in Iraq with the "war" against terrorism?

Question

Why does Bush continue to confuse the public that the war in Iraq is indicative of a purported strategy against terrorism in which, as he said in his state of the union address, "one question has surely been settled — that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." Why is he still trying to say that Iraq was some kind of a terrorist state?

Further issues he still confounds for everyone: "From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense." The war in Iraq cannot "protect" the U.S. from another terrorist attack, and it never will. Osama was never caught, so how are we protected by bombing Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East?

Answer 1

Confusion and obfuscation are the greatest tools any imperialist government can have. Bush believed Iraq was a terrorist state, and now he's made that true.

Answer 2

Every war is fought for some objectives set before hand. The war in Iraq was also started with 2 Objectives and those were (1) Elimination of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and (2) Removal of Saddam government because of its support for terrorists. The first objective could not be achieved because there were NO WMDs what so ever and 2nd objective was not big enough to actually wage a war. US could remove Saddam with other means like a coup, internal movement by Iraqis etc (as US has done it in other countries in the past), so it is safe to say that the actual objective was to have physical control over the oil wells and that has been achieved. War against Terror is a commercial slogan thats why neither UN nor majority of the nations participated/ supported the war. The only countries that actively participated were the ones who had direct concern with the oil. The innocent civilians and US soldiers being killed in Iraq is infact an act of terrorism and must stop. In all the fairness all the foreign forces must be sent back from iraq and Iraqis should be let free to decide upon formation of their government and how they want to live. No country has any right to interfere in another country's internal affairs as all the nations in the world are equal and have the right to live freely and independently.

Answer 3

The war in Iraq IS the war against terrorism, brudda.
---

Why does Bush continue to confuse the public that the war in Iraq is indicative of a purported strategy against terrorism in which, as he said in his state of the union address, "one question has surely been settled — that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." Why is he still trying to say that Iraq was some kind of a terrorist state?
----
If you're talking about Saddam, it was. If you're talking about now days, it still is. People need to realise that many of the enemies that were in Aghanistan (where people are wanting us to fully relocate) are now in Iraq. Thousands of terrorists didn't grow out of the ground. They came from other countries.
====

Further issues he still confounds for everyone: "From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense." The war in Iraq cannot "protect" the U.S. from another terrorist attack, and it never will. Osama was never caught, so how are we protected by bombing Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East?
-

1.) Osama is out of power. While he's still dangerous and should still be caught, he is nowhere near as dangerous as he was pre-9/11. He's going to be on the run for the rest of his life.

2.) The terrorists are cought in a war right now. They have little time to attack us, although I'm sure they always plan to. No attacks in this country isn't just thanks to Iraq though. It's also thanks to better homeland security. Either way, it's no coincidence we haven't been attacked since then.

3.) We don't just "bomb" Iraq or other countries. We speciffically seek out certain targets on the terrorist food chain. We've killed many leaders of terrorist cells which both cripples their morale and there money in certain occasions. By doing so, we've also taken some intel from certain things which provides us with information to protect our country.

Answer 4

Tour view of what a terrorist state is is somewhat skewed IMO. Iraq and Afghanistan both had vast terrorist training camps. If you think back a little bit you may remember when Clinton had the "baby food factory" bombed well he also had empty training camps hit( this was in Iraq and i agree with him for doing it but think he should have done more). Saddam was without a doubt a supporter of terrorism and other than the acts he committed against his country he also tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated, He encouraged the Muslims to strike out against the west in his speeches. Bush did not accuse Iraq of the crimes of 9/11 but he accused Saddam of supporting and giving free pass to terrorist in his country (there is plenty of evidence of that). As for the WMD's I will just say this some have been found and although they are old they are still WMDs. If 25 intelligence agencies said that Saddam or for that matter any other nation that would us them against us had WMDs and our president failed to take it serious I would be very upset. Congress and Bush did the right thing based on the intelligence they had. Both the Dems and Repubs by majority voted for the war and I agree with them.

Answer 5

He's not confused, but you sadly are. While I agree with you that Iraq was not exactly a terrorist state and did not have any direct connection to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda, they clearly do now. One common argument from the Iraqi War critics is that it is creating more terrorists. That is almost right. The military presence in Iraq is increasing terrorism IN Iraq, and personally, I'd rather have them there than here.

The fact is that our country has not been attacked on our own soil in almost 5.5 years. Some famous guy once said that war is one activity where it doesn't pay to have home field advantage, and I'd agree.

Since our military is in the terrorists' backyard of the Middle East, they are not in our backyard attacking us. Also, the attempts they do make our often discovered by troops raiding their training camps that are now present in Afghanistan and Iraq. So attacking them there has two benefits: it keeps the majority of them occupied and provides access to intelligence on their plans to attack us here.

I would say that the initial resumption of hostilities in March 03 when we shifted operations from north and south Iraq only to all of Iraq (known as Operation Iraqi Freedom) were NOT part of the "War on Terrorism." As evidenced by the name of the operation, it was to effect regime change and free both the Iraqi people, and our military from the Iraqi commitments we've endured since 1991.

However, now that we're there, and Al-Qaeda has made it CLEAR that they intend to fight us in Iraq, it IS NOW a vital part of the war on terrorism.

Answer 6

Bush was left with a mess after Bill, left office. Clinton knew there was a terrorist cell in the US but choose to let it slide until the new President took office. These terrorist are the ones that we found out about on 911. Clinton also was offered Osama, by Turkey if memory serves, and refused that it wasn't legal. Saddam Hussein had once tried to build a nuclear plant with the sole purpose of building a bomb. Israel bombed it in 1978. It was built with the help of France and Germany. (remember they wouldn't help us) Saddam had killed 5000 of his own people with chemical weapons. It was logical to the world intelligent community that he had WMDs and would try to get the bomb. After he through the inspectors out and violated numerous UN resolutions, it was logical for us to take him out once and for all. No one could have predicted what happened after the conventional war. Crazy Muslim clergy have used the invasion to further there ends by telling there people, they will go to heaven and have lots of virgins to have sex with. The war there now is nothing but, terrorism with very little of conventional combat. Remember there have been no more terrorist acts here because of the good work of this administration. No one wants to see our men and women get hurt, but 3000 is a long way from the deaths in other wars where 10,000 have died in a single week.

Answer 7

I suppose because it ha been firmly established that Al-Quida has been and is now in Iraq fighting our troops. Even the leaders of that terrorist group admit that and they are taking a stand in that nation so I would just as soon make the middle east the war front versus say Chicago.

Answer 8

A free Iraq is a extremist governments worst nightmare. It threatens their very survival by their own peoples hands. This includes Iran and Syria(the 2 major funders of terrorists). If Iraq stand free than Iranian and Syrian governments will probably fall from within thus nullifying the millions funneled into terrorist organizations.

Answer 9

He's not really confused. By invading Iraq (which didn't have any terrorists at 1st) he brought most of the terrorists to Iraq to fight US troops. He created an 1980s Afgahanistan in effect. So now the war in Iraq is directly related to the war on terror because of the jihad being fought against US troops in Iraq by insurgents/foreign terrorists. The only problem is Bush has created 10x more/new terrorists by sending US troops to Iraq.

Answer 10

Why do Democrats keep trying to separate them. What religion were the 911 hijackers? What religion is behind the Iraq violence?What religion Has a segment who wants Israel, And America to disappear. What religious group has committed 90% of all terrorist activities In recent history. Columbus sailed to America looking for a way to India that didn't have to go through Muslim lands. Why? They want everyone who disagrees with their religion dead.period