When did you realize that Iraq had nothing to do wtih 9/11?

Question

Was it before or after the Iraq war started?

Answer 1

Well before Iraq was secualr Al Queda despises secular living it was a NO BRAINER

Answer 2

I knew all along, being that I was in the service for Operation Desert Storm. President Clinton had steered us in the direction of the next conflict, long before the planning for 9/11 occurred. Our involvement was secured to Iraq, without Osama bin Laden playing right into it. He was the biggest sucker, in all of this, as he was unaware what the impact would truly be.

With George W. Bush's formal assumption of powers as President, according to Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, an attack had been planned since the inauguration, and the first National Security Council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill went on to say that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.

This is what happens when the politicians don't let the military run the war. Generals Schwarzkopf and Powell both tried to get the Congress and the President to let them finish the thing with Saddam, but, they said no, and then proceeded to reduce the force strength of the US military, closing bases, decomissioning ships, and moth-balling equipment. So, when we finally did go to war, we had insufficient numbers, and not enough equipment... All at the better judgement of the Congress, who then points at the President, like a co-conspirator brother caught doing something and trying to save his butt from punishment. I don't blame those who opposed action, or opposed reducing troop strength. I do blame those who played a part in weakening the military, and then voted to send our boys and girls into harm's way. That's the awful truth. Bush may not be the best leader. Heck! He might very well be a bad one. But, when a man is a US Senator for 40+ years, and says the President of 2 Years, with NO Federal level experience, tricked him, I find it offensive beyond the definition of the word. People are lying to us, and it isn't just in the Oval Office.

Answer 3

Ummm...since the the day the 9/11 attacks happened and Osama and his gang took credit for them. Seriously, anyone who had two functioning brain cells and who watched any kind of news report knew that from day 1. Unfortunately, some people failed to utilize their two properly functioning brain cells and when they heard words like "terrorism" and "Iraq" in the same speech, they automatically assumed that Iraq was responsible for the terrorist attacks.

Personally, I think that it made sense to take a closer look at Iraq. We know that Saddam had already developed weapons of mass destruction as he'd used them on his own people. We knew that he was refusing to allow UN weapons inspectors access to his weapons facilities (a man who has nothing to hide, will hide nothing), giving us further reason to scrutinize his activities. We also knew that we'd dropped the ball (for many years, through many different presidencies...both Rep. and Dem) when it came to hunting and capturing known terrorists who presented a threat to the safety of the U.S. Which, ultimately led to the attacks on Sept. 11.

So, in an effort not to let someone slip by us again, we took some action to ensure our safety NOT because Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11. It's unfortunate that some people became confused.

Answer 4

The same time EVERYONE else did. When the tapes were aired showing Bin Laden and the terrorists who flew the planes all said they did it.

We didn't go to Iraq because of that and most everyone knows it but Saddam did allow them to train in northern Iraq which had nothing to do with anything. That was found later.

Answer 5

Iraq's Saddam supported terrorism. We wage war not to revenge 9/11 but to eliminate terrorists forces to secure US' future. Whoever protects terrorists and lends them ground to train their forces must be eliminated before terrorists are strong enough to do another 9/11.

Answer 6

I knew before. I also knew what the reasons for going into Iraq were. And I knew it wasn't just because of intelligence about WMDs. Also for so many peoples benefit WMDs don't just refer to Nuclear weapons.

Answer 7

Pretty early on, I would say. I think Bush would have better served himself if he had said he had intelligence that Bin Laden was in Iraq, and that he was aligned with Saddam. The USA would have bought it, and they would have had no problem with its invasion. Afterall, the whole country was supporting the invasion of Afghanistan... He lost credibility when he all but abandoned the mission there and moved on to Iraq. I suppose he thought that everyone would follow his thinking that WMD were connected to Bin Laden, but it didn't take long for that one to get blown up!

Answer 8

before. Bush didn't tell us that they were involved, he said that he had intelligence that iraq had WMDs. After he decided to go, without any proof, I started to question EVERYTHING. I physically felt ill when I heard we were going, and was very disheartened that many decided to lead with their emotions, and not facts. 9/11 was horrible...but that wasn't a good reason to justify MORE killing.

Answer 9

well i guess most will say before, but i doubt that one, most Americans don't know or even try to find out what the facts are, lets face it it was only last September when bush actually admitted this one, it suited him fine to let the uninformed ones ( and theres many ) believe this one. good old fox news how would Americans find out anything without them

Answer 10

When I heard most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's, I had a pretty good idea.

Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?