If Bin Laden & Associates are responsible for 9/11 what did Iraq and Saddam Hussein have to do with it?

Question

Why has the war campaign changed from I don't even remember what they started with to "war on terror" to "support our troops" to "operation Iraqi freedom" There are alot more powerful countries than Iraq to have worried about. Why when you think of a "terrorist" u think of a middle eastern Muslim? If we took over Iraq obviously we have a hold of their oil no? So why are gas prices so high the last 2 years of George Bush's term? There obviously is not a shortage of oil and you can't say they are keeping it in Iraq for the Iraqi people since over 655000 people have been killed. How can Americans think that they didn't come from another country? We ALL did. No one has a right to be here above anyone else and no one chose what country-family-sex-religion-nationality or skin color they were born into. Open your mind & heart & eyes. Use your brain and mouth for the better not for worse. Educate yourselves. The World Wide Web is at your fingertips. Peace sells but who's buying? Question media

Answer 1

This is a very good question. I can only give you my thoughts on it. If you go back to the first days of the bush administration, we had a very liberal tax reduction for the wealthy. This paved the way for the working middle class to pay for the upcoming fiasco. Cheney had a closed door energy meeting with the oil company people. He refused to tell the American people what transpired at that meeting. That alerted big oil & all the industries associated with oil to gear up for the biggest windfall they had ever experienced. I think they had every intention to invade Iraq long before it actually happened. Bin Laden threw a wrench into their plans, but also provided them with the perfect excuse. Then came the biggest play on bull#@%! you have ever heard by a government. Saddam was the reason for evil in the world. He was an evil butcher, killing his own people. He had to be dealt with.(If you believe all that rhetoric why aren't we in Africa helping all those beleaguered people). We had to go into Iraq. We would be hailed as liberators(I think they really believed that). However it didn't happen that way. We re-ignited a war that has been happening for centuries. But, with Saddam gone, there was no one to control the Sunnies & Shites. We got imbedded in the problem we started. War on terror, don't hear too much about it, just same old talking points. Just enough to keep it alive.
Bottom line: Saddam had nothing to do with it, Iraq is were the oil is!!!

peepers98

Answer 2

saddam used mustard gas on his own population to see if was a good weapon, he played hide and seek with weapons inspectors for ten years, Clinton did not have the balls to handle him properly (it wasn't PC to enforce the international law) therefore it was left up to the next admin. Iraq was a training ground for terrorists as is Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (just to name a few)!
i hear you (prove it!) here is the problem the borders in the mid-east are as porous as the US border with Mex. people come and go at will Terrorists are by nature nomadic so they will shift locations to avoid detection and capture(duh) then add in the Us media who will broadcast to the world how, what, when, and where the military is so, I ask you "if you raped your neighbors wife, and he called you and said "I know what you did, I'll be at your house at 7:25 tomorrow morning with my shot gun so I can kill you" , would you really be home at 7:25 the next morning? no you would 300miles away learning how to shoot, and hiding evidence like OJ Simpson!!!!" so way did we not find what we were told was there? because it was moved to Syria!!!!! wake the F--- up America, Islam wants you dead. Not believing this will not change the facts, TRUTH IS TRUTH EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEF IT. THE SUN SHINES EVEN WHEN THERE IS A STORM THE SUN IS STILL SHINING EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE IT!!!!!

Answer 3

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

http://www.geocites.com/truthsawyonline/clintonhtml

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9755.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

http://wwwfindarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mO

Try these, read the whole page not just the headline. TY for your valuable time. Pass them on.
http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

Focus is that these threats and concerns carried over and were real b4 Bush and are linked together. The Iraq war and dead counted existed b4 in peacetime 4,417 died under Clintons watch but who's counting.

The World Trade Center was hit from below '93 I believe because due to sources it was vulnerable there. It was alright. It took a few more years and training to figure that an a/c was a bomb. Fire needs o2 and goes in search of it. No gravity involved. WTC7 was linked underground via power stations they built around. It collapsed as would any structure after stress. Now I figure there was enough time to get out any "material of compromise" b4... Computers? So it was destroyed on purpose makes no sense. Science and logic prevents it. Just emotional backwash and distractions with nonsense. Good people buy this BS? Loose change is like watching Fox news with BO just edited tape and noise.

Answer 4

I recall the days and weeks immediately following 9/11, and I recall further that after the American people passed through short periods of shock and sorrow, they emerged into a period of fury. Anger can't describe it; neither can rage. It was fury, plain and simple.

Americans wanted to be fair and not to tar an entire religion with the brush of 9/11, but when Americans saw images of people in middle eastern countries dancing in the streets to celebrate our losses, and when we listened carefully but in vain for the denunciations of islamist terrorism to come from Muslim countries, our fury escalated dramatically into a determination to hit back hard, very hard, not necessarily with punctilious accuracy any more than the 9/11 terrorists had taken punctilious care to avoid taking innocent life when they attacked us.

In my observation, the most important thing in the minds of Americans at that time was that a very big message needed to be sent very soon, a very forceful message, a very hard message, a message that communicated eloquently the fact that those who hit us below the belt with sneak attacks like 9/11 should expect reprisal and retaliation more devastating than anything they had imagined, as should those who aided, harbored, financed, and encouraged them.

We felt no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anybody in particular was responsible; we felt that those who gave moral and material support to terrorism should bear the burden of proving to our satisfaction that they were not involved or pay a price. Denunciation and disavowal of terrorism and terrorists would have been a good start, as would cooperation in identifying the specific terrorists or groups that had been involved, but it didn't happen. We were puzzled, then annoyed, then furious. We wanted GWB to get the hell moving and smash somebody in the mouth, hard, and he wasn't moving, dammit!

The actual events and emotions of those days have become lost in the fog of spin that has encrusted the facts to the point that the overlay is now considered to be a more accurate depiction of what was happening than what was actually happening was. I won't waste my time trying to discredit the overlay of misinformation. I'll limit myself to describing the atmosphere of those days and weeks as I observed and experienced them.

In essence, the atmosphere that I observed and experienced was one where the American people were becoming impatient with delay in hitting back. The president was proceeding cautiously, as he was right to do, but he was also being pushed hard by the American people to hit back hard and soon. The time for dithering and fibrillating was over.

It was time to impress upon islamist terrorists the importance of learning the lesson that was taught to Admiral Yamamoto, who had planned and carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor. When he learned that the American aircraft carriers were at sea and not moored in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack, he was quoted as having said that he feared that all the Japanese had accomplished was to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

This is a perspective that the liberals, some of whom have big mouths and never shut up, have not mentioned at all in their accounts of those days and weeks. No weapons of mass destruction? So what? Our motives were not defensive; they were retaliatory and retributive. That's the reality.

Answer 5

Nothing at all. Bush was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and only used that as an excuse. He has even admitted that Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or 9/11. But he claims that Hussein was so evil he needed to be removed. Of course we don't remove evil leaders from countries that have the ability to bomb us which is why those countries want nukes.

Answer 6

Because Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad

Family has priority over logic.

Go Team Bush Go

Answer 7

Nothing

Answer 8

Absolutely nothing.

Answer 9

They ticked George Sr. off and Baby George had to protect Daddy's honor...

Answer 10

Only liberals say that Saddam has something to do with 9/11. Our President keeps saying (over and over again) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Saddam threatened us...We took him out first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!