Why do some liberals claim that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

Answer 1

Because Saddam claims to have nothing to do with terrorism.

Answer 2

It is one of those statements/beliefs which is both true and untrue. Since it turned out that the "intelligence" information about WMDs was largely false, it is true. Then it becomes a matter of whether or not it was an honest mistake. I don't have an answer to that. On the one hand, we all know that the words of politicians are to be taken with a grain of salt. If you have faith in politicians, I suppose you deserve your shock. On the other hand, for us that part of the world is a strange place. And there are major questions about how bin Laden escaped Tora Bora when we practically flattened that mountain and needed only to surround it--he absolutely could not have escaped as it is easy to form a circle. Instead, we not only failed to put boots on the ground, but recalled those which were already there.

It could be that we forced the issue and made Iraq a part of the War on Terror for a purpose and legitimately so. We have not been attacked since 9/11. Even so I don't feel a great faith in our "intelligence" services and Homeland Security. One feels we have been lucky, especially considering that our southern border with Mexico is a sieve through which it would be easy for a terrorist to pass.

But has it been luck? Remember the cat-calls Pres. Bush got when he pointed out that if they are fighting us there (Iraq), it is better than fighting them here? Some people thought that was a stupid thing to say, but what if it is true? Yes, there are other issues: a horrid, never-ending (so it seems) war; troops denied basic equipment, not to mention that we have body armor which is impervious to practically every sort of firearm that is not being purchased and issued to our soldiers; our wounded being neglected and abused; and more things than should be listed here.

But it will be interesting (bad choice of words?) to see if we get attacked after we leave Iraq. One, or both, seem certain to me.

Answer 3

The argument is that Saddam was a dictator, and he saw the Taliban as a direct threat to his empire. So he always made sure that they could not establish a foot hold in his country. He also considered Iran a deadly enemy and would have attacked them if they posed a threat. That is why the US government endorsed him 20 years ago because he disliked the Iranians so much. I think you can come up with a dozen reasons why we should be there and a dozen reasons why we shouldn't. The real problem right now is why wasn't it handled better? There have been people saying that the real reason we are over there is because Bush JR felt that senior did;t finish the job. Bush senior was advised by the joint chiefs that they did not have a contingency plan for going into Bagdad and that we would see a lot of casualties. Give me the old conservatives anyday?

Answer 4

Nobody says that.

What some folks - including many Republicans - admit is that there was no support for anti-US terrorism coming from Iraq *before the US invasion*.

However, now that Bush has spent US lives and money to invade and occupy Iraq - taking US influence away from those areas actually affected by and supporting anti-US terrorism - Bush's plan (or lack thereof) has created a new haven, focus, recruiting tool and training ground for anti-US terrorism.

This (non)plan also screwed up his credibility by crying wolf on imaginary WMDs in Iraq, so nobody believes him now when he says Iran is making nukes. Its alienated our allies and also greatly strengthened Iran's position by installing a Shiite government in Iraq.

No, what the libs are saying is that the Iraq war has a *lot* to do with the War on Terror. Unfortunately for all of us, the Iraq war has for four years weakened us while strengthening our opponents.
Plus, theres no way out of this madmans war. Thanks, George!

This is why the leader of the United States Senate has called it the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history.

Answer 5

I don't suppose you just heard that our troops are staying longer in Afghanistan, because we are losing ground there. We gave up on looking for Osama binLaden and the people who caused 911. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 but we diverted our attention there. So actually the War on Iraq has a lot to do with the War on Terror. It is causing the U.S. to lose sight of the real War on Terror.

Answer 6

because government estimates say that there are only about 1,300 total non-Iraqi fighters in Iraq... you could probably find that many, probably more, in about any middle eastern country... (probably far more even in America right now, scary enough)

about 95 percent of the insurgents are Iraqi natives, according to the Dept. of Defense Intelligence...

and the 9-11 report says it had nothing to do with 9-11... WHICH LETS GET REAL, that's why we started the war and most likely who we should be focusing on...

but this is you're big main battleground on terror?

so I guess the real question is... why do some conservatives say it has something to do with the War on Terror? because there are a handful of terrorists there? There are many countries with that?

frankly, Iraq has nothing compared to Pakistan and Afghanistan...

BUT EVERY COUNTRY HAS SOME TERRORIST LINKS... if you want to find them... heck we helped Osama out when he was fighting the soviets... we could be "terrorist conspirators" if you wanted to paint that picture...

you want to find the countries that are the BASES of terror and DESTROY THOSE BASES.... and, from everything I've seen ever, that isn't in Iraq...

Answer 7

That was accurate years ago, but according to our own intelligence community who put out the Global Trends in Terrorism report, Iraq which did not used to be a hotbed of terror, now has become the biggest magnet and draw for those who would want to fight back and now do us harm. Global recruiting for terrorists has skyrocketed due to this war in Iraq, the report says. Now we are in one hell of a mess, for every day we stay more terrorists are born, and if we leave we likely will be turning Iraq over to those same terrorists we had such a big part in creating. We are now damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If we are to find anything like a sensible and practical solution to this dilemma, it is going to take a lot broader solution than the one we are following. If we don't, we will have shed all that blood for nothing, US and Iraqi, and bankrupted our country at the same time. Now that the Chinese own so much of our mortgage, maybe we can ask them to help.

Answer 8

I don't think it's whether the war is about terrorism or not, it obviously has to at least to some extent otherwise the people would not allow for it to happen... i think the real question people are asking if there are greater or hidden motives coming out from the war. I
think people question if the war is about stopping terrorism, getting oil, keeping America as the worlds hegemon, spreading democracy or what not....
either way people are starting to ask questions to understand things better which is a positive step towards peace

Answer 9

Because Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror before Bush invaded on a lie.

Answer 10

It has everything to do with the war on terror. Instead of having to risk crossing our borders, the terrorist now have over 100,000 targets conveniently located in the middle east. Why travel when you can snipe at Americans from the comfort of your own region?

Answer 11

Because you didn't hang Osama did you and he initiated the war on terror unless of course Saddam and his sons flew the planes into the WTC.How can people forget that and all those people that died and Bush who promised to track them down went of on his own personal agenda.After the Iraqi war is over Osama will be rubbing his hands in glee at all the willing new recruits that Bush has created.