Republicans: Please explain to me how Iraq is responsible for 9/11?

Question

I just read a question about republican support for the Iraq war, and an answerer said something like this:

"Did you have family in the WTC? What about on Flight 93? Need I say more?"

Now that we know Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda - no support, no money, no training of terrorists - why do so many still use that argument, despite the fact that no decent evidence has ever been found to support this view?

Answer 1

Iraq is of course not responsible for 9/11. The reason a lot of Republicans believe this is because George Bush LED them to believe this, without outright saying it. He accomplished this by basically saying this:
Terrorists are the cause of 9/11
Iraq is a terrorist regime
Iraq attacked us on 9/11 ( conclusion people were led to come to)
Saying that the President never stated that Iraq was the cause of 9/11. is being dishonest. We all know that's what he wanted us to believe. Once, it gets into the American psyche, it's hard to get out. The damage was done. Which is exactly what Bush and the neo cons wanted.

Answer 2

I'm not a republican, in spite of what some people think, but I'll answer your question anyway.

Saddam was less of a political leader or head of state than what most people would assume these titles mean. In reality, he was much more like a crime lord, a 'godfather', if you will.

After we supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, he assumed that he had at least the tacit approval of the US to take over Kuwait. He, in fact, did NOT have our approval to do this, and we kicked him out.

Insulted, he did what any mob boss would do, he sought revenge. Knowing that he could never challenge us militarily, he secertly cultivated and supported, with money and logistical support, various terrorist groups. This lead, among other attacks, to 9-11.

The biggest mistake we made, concern Iraq, was to leave Saddam in power after the first gulf war. If we had removed him then, it's likely that 9-11 would never have happened, and that no one would even know the name Osama bin Laden.

Answer 3

First of all when you say Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda you're just guessing, just as those that say he did are probably just guessing. We do know that Abu Nadal, the preeminent terrorist of our time, was found shot dead in his BAGHDAD condo after we invaded. Why was he there if Saddam was not colluding with terrorists? Or at least harboring them?

Was Iraq the best choice to start our war against terrorism? Who knows, only time will tell. Do I wish there was a country called Al-Qeadia where we could have started? Yes. But these people have to be brought down and Saddam and his punk sons were the lucking winners of the a$$hole lottery.

You questioning only makes our country appear weak. These guys sit in their caves eating beef jerkey and looking at us on the internet. They can see Americans can get medicine for their pets delivered to their front door for godssake. How do we not already look weak in their eyes. Then they see that over half of our country doesn't have the stomach to fight this fight and it emboldens them. If you think that is just rhetoric, you know nothing about the effect of moral on war. All you have to do is look back to Vietnam and see the effect punk college kids protesting had on the moral of North Vietnamese.

So when a good hearted person says "don't you remember 9/11?", at least his heart is in the right place. Unlike yours.

Answer 4

Well we finally learned that Flight 93 was indeed shot down,although I suspected that a few days after 911 when Rumsfield stated on a tv news program after being queried about whether the U.S. would shoot down planes, and his denial that such an action had taken place re Flight 93. I remember exactly his reaction to the question as well as his answer:

He looked away from the camera and said:
"well, if national security is at risk, yes, we would shoot down any airplane, even if there were civilians on board...but not with that flight..."
It was because he turned away from the camera while speaking that I knew he was lying. And here we are - four years later, and it finally comes out.
What else are they hiding from us?

...and no, Iraq is NOT responsible for 911. and neither was Saddam.
God help us when karma comes knocking. Because this time, she won't just knock, she'll kick the door in....

Answer 5

provided that 1990, Iraq has violated sixteen UN sanctions and diverted $21.3 billion from the Oil for nutrition application. as properly why could we must be "brining those in charge for 9/11"? Brining, the strategies-set of soaking in a salt water answer, could be seen torture.

Answer 6

Iraq is not responsible for 9-11. At least not that we know of, currently.

The decision to invade Iraq was made in order to establish a democracy, in the ME, for the purpose of ending radical Islamic terrorism (directly responsible for 9-11, incidentally). And taking out Saddam was long over-due.

It is the liberal media who has misled the US regarding this.

Answer 7

lol, you're now going to get a bunch of replies by bush supporters claiming that no one has ever stated the iraq war is a response to 9/11 and terrorism

Answer 8

The war is against terrorism, period. Nobody ever said the only terrorists we were interested in were the ones behind 9/11. Saddam's regime funded terrorism and allowed terrorists to train within Iraq.

Answer 9

Saudi Arabian men were responsible for the most part. Why don't we go make war there? Only Liberals claim that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Republicans know that it was weapons of mass destruction.

Answer 10

It's like a Tattoo. Once you brand a RedsStater he has it for life.

If Rush etal had said the Eskimos attacked America. They would be bombing the Arctic Ice. And claiming if we surge the ice it will all melt.

Democrats just want to cut some ice cubes and run to the closest Bar.
RedsStaters want to free the ice.
The church of NeoConanity wants to preach the Gospel of Ted Haggard and save the Ice.

Go big Red Go