Was this the reason why the USA attack Iraq? Please, answer it like an American who put the USA first!?

Question

By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency

"..Jerusalem----April 2.....The American Jewish Congress today congratulated Paul Wolfowitz on his election as the president of the World Bank.

In Israel, The Jerusalem Post had selected Paul Wolfowitz as its Man of the Year for 2002. The Post stated: "On September 15, 2001, at a meeting in Camp David, Wolfowitz advised President George W. Bush to skip Kabul and train American guns on Baghdad. In March 2003, he got his wish. In the process, Wolfowitz became the most influential US deputy defense secretary ever -

"When President Bush says, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons" -- that's Wolfowitz talking.

Israel has long waited for an administration that understands that the principal problem in the Middle East is not the unsettled status of our borders. It is the unsettling nature of Arab regimes -- and of the bellicosity, fanaticism, and...."

Answer 1

And furthermore:

Lies, Fraud and Deception to Promote War in Iraq
Don't buy the Bush spin that the lies about Iraq are only "16 words" -- the administration lied, deceived or committed outright fraud about every single point they used to justify invading Iraq (except to say that Saddam was an evil man.)

The "16 words" spin reveals just how shameless their lies are. Short lies don't matter? Well, Clinton got impeached for just 8 words -- "I did not have sex with that woman." Even by that ridiculous standard, Bush is twice as big a liar as Bill Clinton.

The uranium allegation (the "16 words") is famous because the fraud is so obvious. That charge, which Bush stated directly in his State of the Union speech, was based on blatantly forged documents -- one purported to be from a Niger official, to himself. The Bush Administration knew they were forged. They had been told several times that the charges were false, including by our own CIA and State Department. Bush and his top aides fought to put the words back in his speech, using weaselly phrasing -- Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has actually argued that the statement wasn't a lie because Bush didn't SAY Iraq did try to buy uranium, he just said "British intelligence HAS LEARNED that they tried to buy uranium." Once again, Bush imitates Clinton, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.

Before considering each of the dozens of individual deceptions, lies and misleading statements that Bush and his aides used to push the US into war in Iraq, let's not lose track of the big picture. The Bush administration justified war, immediate war, because alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those weapons do not exist. They have not existed for years. The Bush adminstration knew this, because a top Iraqi defector told us this over 4 years ago, but they kept that information secret. And weapons of mass destruction were not the reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. Top officials have even admitted this, saying flat out that they had other reasons but chose WMD because it was the most effective argument politicially.

There were many other deceptive charges by the Bush administration -- about unmanned drones, orders to use chemical weapons, aluminum tubes, links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, etc. But don't forget the big picture. The Bush administration knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. They deliberately and consistently lied to the American people about this, to justify war in Iraq. And more than 3000 US soldiers have died as a result.

Answer 2

And please, ask a question like an inteliggent person who puts rational thought first before he mouths off...

And explain the following:

What does Wolfowitz getting an award from the Jerusalem Post have to do with anything?

What does the AJC congratulating Wolfowitz have to do with anything?

And what does Wolfowitz expressing the opinion of himself, Bush, members of the Bush administration, most conservatives, and about half of America have to do with anything?

Answer 3

The Bush family had a grudge against Saddam because he successfully led his oil industry into trading in euros instead of US dollars. This stands in contrast to the Saudi Arabians who are still firmly committed to trading in dollars. Saddam broke free and so he had to be not merely deposed but humiliated as an example to others who might be thinking of switching to euros.

Let's not forget that the Bush family business interests have been intertwined with the business interests of the Bin Laden family. Thus it's no surprise that Osama Bin Laden is still at large. If they really wanted to bring Osama to trial they would have captured him by now. If the American authorities are too incompetent to achieve this then they could have asked Israel's Mossad to go get him, the way they got Adolf Eichman. But so long as George Bush is in office, you can't expect American resources to be committed to arresting Osama Bin Laden.

Instead, they maintain the distraction of attacking and invading Iraq, which has never attacked us. The crime of 9/11 has been called a "war" and although none of the attackers were Iraqis (all but two were Saudi Arabians) Bush pretends that this crime was an act of war.

The war on Iraq is intended to fool Americans into imagining that a threat is being dealt with. It provides an excuse for Bush to pose as a "wartime president" and supervise the steady erosion of Americans' freedom. He may claim there is a national emergency but if so then it is of his own making in keeping with his own agenda. It does not serve America's interests.

Answer 4

If Bin Laden is not there, I don't know.

Answer 5

i would answer but you wouldn't understand because of your unfounded hatred for our President BUSH