Does everyone realize Osama bin Laden and his sect of al Qaida were never welcome in Iraq?

Question

Yes, everyone, al Qaida is the smallest of the fourteen known terrorist factions which exist in Iraq. However, like many groups (take for example the Christian faith), al Qaida is not comprised of a large group of like-minded people. In fact, the members within the different sects of al Qaida often attack EACH OTHER, in addition to attacking us. When Bush told you that he was invading Iraq because al Qaida was there, he didn't technically lie. But he failed to tell you that al Qaida in Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC/Pentagon/Pennsylvania tragedies. THAT sect of al Qaida was, and remains, in Afghanistan. We were misdirected.

Point being, since apparently it's not clear... we were MISLED by the President into thinking that, by going into Iraq, we were going to be able to punish those responsible for 9/11. What happened to that impassioned speech he made about "Dead or Alive"? Why are 3,000 Americans so unimportant to him?

Answer 1

No, and now it is a focal point of the war on terror, as Bush says. Once again, the Bushies have created their own reality.

Answer 2

Bush said clear and present danger was hiding in Iraq. Saddam had yellow cakes and the next attack would be a Mushroom over America.

Now I'm all for a good sauteed mushroom. And yellow cake is good when made into a pineapple upside down cake.

But wouldn't it have been better to have the chickens roasted with a little Hinze 57 than our goose cooked by the commander and Chef.

Answer 3

HERE IS THE REALITY, FOR ALL YOU POOR FOLKS WHO BELIEVED THE LIES OF BUSH:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/

Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link
Long-awaited analysis also finds that anti-Saddam group misled U.S.

Updated: 3:31 p.m. ET Sept 8, 2006
WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.

Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam’s government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was “a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts” to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, “exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks.”

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq “were a tragic intelligence failure.”

Answer 4

Yes. But here were contacts even the Weak *** 911 commission report backs that "there were contacts, but not collaboration" also "no linkage between 911 and Iraq.

And do you realize it is a War on Terror not on Al Queda?

Saddam supported terror, maybe not the flashy Al Queda kind, but he did pay families of suicide bombers, he did murder in the hundreds of thousands in his own country, he did violate 17 UN resolutions, he did shoot at our pilots, Bush received the ATUMF.

But you are right, let us think that Bin Laden is the be all end all of terrorism.

ADD: To the asker of question. I thought Bush ONLY used the "Saddam has WMDs" to "mislead" us into Iraq? Will you make up you mind or are you changing it to there were 2 ways he misled us. You sure it wasn't 3?

Answer 5

We no concrete verifiable evidence of this different than the media and the president(the two common liars) . one million. This replaced into supposedly got here approximately final week! 2. There are no longer any pictures of the physique as there have been of others 3. The physique replaced into buried at sea 4. press states on bullet to the pinnacle- that isn't Spec Ops protocol - head pictures are discouraged! 5. Week previous information then the presidents grand stands on previous due night television- why have been we no longer recommended each and every week in the past? 6. The timing of it incredibly is uncanny!! there is not any verifiable purpose evidence - i desire to work out the ineffective physique!! We, the folk would desire to have been recommended while ( and definitely IF) this got here approximately - no longer each and every week later! The president is in grand stand campaign mode- i think neither him nor the clicking- instruct ME THE physique!!

Answer 6

Many do realize that ( mostly Democrats).

Sadly the country was very angry after 9/11 and Bush directed this anger towards Iraq - easy and convenient target. Another sad observation is that an average American does not care about facts and truth.

Answer 7

Bush marched us directly into Bin Laden's trap.

NOTHING else we could have done would have created more jihadis for bin Laden than our invasion of Iraq did.

We have become the Soviet Union, and Iraq is our Afghanistan, and fighters are there from all over the world, which was absolutely not the case before we "took over".

Answer 8

Why then did musawi have dinner with Saddam months before 9/11, Why did Saddam send 2 portable dialysis machines to Usama in Tora Bora just before 9/11
What about the training camps in Iraq, you cant tell me Saddam didn't know.

Answer 9

Yes. But I also know Saddam kicked UN inspectors out of his country.

Violated many UN resolutions.

Had things he was not supposed to have.

Fired on our aircraft inforcing no fly zones.

And supported Palestinian suicide bombers that attacked Israel.

So, good riddance I say.

Oh and also, it's the "War on Terror" not the "War on Al-Qaeda".

Answer 10

Any suspicions the Bush Admin had were put to rest soon after the invasion. There was no connection and Zarqawi didn't join until later. The "experts" on terrorism and fighting wars are amazingly ignorant.

Answer 11

its pretty clear that Saddam was antiAl-Queda. There really isnt anyone that disputes that. there were no training camps there, it was all a bunch of hoopla like Iran is going to nuke us. Osama is welcome in Saudi Arabia and thats where hes at. Why hasnt the CIA renditioned him????