English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

And Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11?

2007-05-30 09:14:22 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/06/344/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqqaeda

Pentagon report says no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
Fri Apr 6, 11:46 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) -Interrogations of Saddam Hussein and seized documents confirmed the former Iraqi regime had no links with Al-Qaeda, a Pentagon report said Friday, contradicting the US case for the 2003 invasion.

A two-page resume of the report was published in February, but on Friday the Pentagon declassified the whole 120-page document.

According to the inspector general of the US Defense Department, information obtained after Saddam's fall confirmed the prewar position of the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon intelligence that the Iraqi government had had no substantial contacts with Al-Qaeda.

This position was shored up by interrogations of Saddam, the former Iraqi president and other top officials captured by the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, the report said.

2007-05-30 09:34:27 · update #1

It contradicts a strong argument for the invasion made by the administration of President George W. Bush that Baghdad had a working relationship with Al-Qaeda.

The network, based in Afghanisation and led by Osama bin Laden, was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States in which almost 3,000 people were killed.

2007-05-30 09:34:47 · update #2

BY THE WAY, THE STORY ABOUT CLINTON REFUSING TO ATTACK OSAMA IS A LIE:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

2007-05-30 09:36:34 · update #3

21 answers

Of course Saddam did, don't you listen to Fox News? What's the matter with you? They're the only news station reporting this so it must be true. I mean, it's not as if Fox News has a right-wing political agenda, or is run by right-wingers, or anything like that.

2007-05-30 09:20:50 · answer #1 · answered by psatm 3 · 2 5

I supported the attack on Iraq and had no illusions that Saddam had anything to do with Osama or 9/11.

The reasoning was:
1) Saddam had used chemical weapons on internal and external enemies.
2) By all of the world's best intelligence estimates, Saddam had chemical and possibly biological weapons. His own actions were designed to convince others that he had them as well.
3) Since 9/11, the President was willing to take out a potential threat before it became an actual threat.

Of course, we all know now that Saddam did too good of a job trying to convince the world he still had these weapons when it seems he did not. Had he just allowed the UN inspectors to do their jobs unfettered in the first place, this would not have been a problem.

This does not mean I support the way the war was conducted. Historically, the only way a war is won is when the victor completely wipes out the enemy's ability and will to fight. While we did this with the regular Iraqi army quite effectively, we did not do so with the insurgent elements (domestic and international) that have come into the picture.

Since May 2003, we have allowed it to become what it is today. Simply put, we are too nice. We need to seek out and completely destroy the enemy supply lines and their lairs. We know they hide among the civilian population and that is too bad. Once you bomb the heck out of an entire neighborhood because you know the enemy is somewhere in there they will get the message fast. We did it in WWII and we were able to subdue two empires spread out over three continents in less time than we've been fooling around in Iraq. If we had done this four years ago, we would have a more stable govenement in Iraq today and our troops would be coming home. Because we tried to play nice and limit collateral damage, we have to increase the number of troops. Yes the left would have had a fit and peace protests would have been crazy, but it would have been over by now.

2007-05-30 17:29:21 · answer #2 · answered by Rob B 7 · 1 1

Let's see if I can simplify this for you. Saddam was a terrorist dictator who supported terrorists all over the world. Terrorists attacked the USA on Sept. 11, 2001 and killed over 3000 Americans. President Bush has a job to protect the USA. Saddam gone. Saddam's sons gone. Osama in hiding and scared to show his ugly mug. The President is protecting you and your family. He is also protecting your right to be an idiot. You both are doing a fine job.

2007-05-30 16:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 1 1

No, I don't understand that. I find it very difficult to understand how so many can continue to deny that there is a relationship. I don't understand how those same people can hold one person accountable for information he was given and then pardon hundreds who acted on that information when he passed it along. Doesn't everybody in Congress have a responsibility to educate themselves on issues before voting?

But then I can't understand why so many conservatives think that Clinton spared Osama for reasons that weren't well thought through. He made a decision based on the information at hand and his best ability to predict the possible outcomes within the short moments available. Osama lived, we wish he hadn't, and for all we know there might be thousands more dead American soldiers if Clinton had made the decision not to disclose the missile launch.

Maybe some day enough of the leftist and rightist nuts will get tired enough of making stupid accusations that there will be room to discuss solutions to problems rather than poorly placed blame.

Stop asking stupid questions about blame. Start opening dialog about solutions. It's clear that you care about the welfare of America. Prove to us that you are intelligent enough to exercise that care through looking for real solutions for our current real problems.

2007-05-30 16:33:24 · answer #4 · answered by Automation Wizard 6 · 2 1

all that explains why Al Qaeda rushed in at once to try and save saddam when nobody else in the middle east gave a truck

2007-05-30 16:47:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

So what? What difference does that make? We are now at war and we must finish what we started. We can't abandon the troops nor can we abandon the war. The only acceptable conclusion for the current situation is to finish the job and emerge victorious.

2007-05-30 16:21:00 · answer #6 · answered by Truth 1 · 3 2

I love that you pick up on things that the president said himself in public addresses to the nation months ago and still hammer it into the ground. If Iraq ends up better than it started maybe they'll do it back to you and the cycle can go on and on.

2007-05-30 16:19:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Yes I do, and I still justify going in there because not just Al Qaida is a threat to us. If people from all over the middle east hate us, would you rather have the bees come in your house and sting you or throw a rock at the bee hive and start the battle there? Just look at all the Syrians and Saudis that keep coming to fight. Better there than here I say.

2007-05-30 16:17:08 · answer #8 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 7 4

Yea, they do. But there connection is only a geographic one, we need Iraq for the war were about to pick with Iran.

2007-05-30 16:21:42 · answer #9 · answered by Herby190 2 · 1 2

He was killing his own people, right? He was keeping oil profits from his people right? He was a threat to other middle east countries, right? Saddam was a terrorist, of a different nature.

2007-05-30 16:20:51 · answer #10 · answered by kevin d 1 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers