was there any connection between 9-11 and iraq???

Question

al gore, both clintons, countless people in congress say NO there was not. NO WMD'S.......... so why are we there again?

Answer 1

The same people you just quoted said there WERE WMD's in Iraq pre-war. So which is it? Their cowardly flip-flop asses can't stick to anything except interns for Clinton.

Yes, there is a link, it's called terrorists. But I guess you call those "Freedom Fighters" and they were only fighting for their freedoms at 9/11 eh?

Answer 2

No, there was no connection. The Administration knew that when it was trying to make us believe that there must be.

The offical line on the subject now is that even though Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 attack he was bent on doing something similar, so we had to act. The problem with that premise is that Hussein had no capacity to do it. He had no operable WMD's. Moreover as a fascist dictator his goal was military conquest in the region, not a terrorist side show by attacking the US the way the 9/11 hijackers did. Because of 10 years of sanctions limitations as a result of the first gulf war, Hussein had no ability to conquer anything.


All of this was known then. But because the UN inspectors had been barred from Iraq (by Hussein) for the previous 2 years, no one outside of Iraq knew exactly what his capacity might be. (even though we said we did know, that we knew he had WMD's and we knew right where they were - none of which was true) That and the hysteria of 9/11 was all the President needed to wedge us into Iraq.

So why are we there? There was enough oil, there were enough Neo-Cons bent on terra-farming democracy, there was the thorn of not having ousted Husseing 10 years after the first gulf war, there was a new world and our place in it after the 9/11 attacks, there was the near certainty that invading Iraq and ousting Hussein would be a cake walk (so who cared about the reasons), and there was just enough misinformation and disinformation to get the country behind it.

Answer 3

Not exactly. 911 was a plot hatched my Osama Benladen in afganistan and the Alqueda.

At that time in history we became worried about ANYONE with terroist Links. ANyone that had terroist training camps. Anyone that could provide either willing or non willingly weapons that could be used against us.

Iraq was a very unstable Place being led by a very bad man who had a history of doing very bad things.

Whether or not here were WMD's there, it was obvious that having SADAM there was a BAD thing.

He PRAISED the Bombings immediately after they had occoured.
He WANTED everyone to think that the WMDs were there because he wanted everyone else in the world to thinks he was a BIG and powerful man. WE believed him. the president believed him.

NOW as to while we are there NOW.

Because we CAN't Leave the mess in the condition that it is after we got in. EVERYTHING that we do has a consequence. We don't want to be responsible for leaving the country in civil war.

AT the same time, we are NOT fighting Iraqis in Iraq, but we are figtin IRAN in IRAQ. They are funding the war effort and have been for some time. They are providing weapons and money to help KILL Americans.

ALSO, the Terrorists are NOW in IRAQ. We are figting them in IRAQ because it is better to fight them there than in the US.

If we leave, the terroist organization will just get stronger.. THEN they will be free to fight us in the US>

Which would you rather have?

OBVIOUSLY, if we could find a way out of Iraq without creating greater danger for the Iraqi People and the rest of the people of the world including the US, we would.

As for LYING?? Members of Congress had access to exactly the same flawed intelligence that President Bush relied on which said there were weapons of mass destruction. AFTER reviewing the evidence, they VOTED to allow the IRAQI Invasion.
THEN to save face, the congress backed away claiming they were lied too. The fact is they were given miss information from the intelligence community that President Clinton dismantled before he left office.

Making a decision on bad information is not lying, it is just making the best decision you can with what you think is the best information.

HAVE YOU ever spanked the wrong KID after being told the wrong information (as in the other kid lied and you believed it). You can't ever take back that spanking.
BUSH can't UNINVADE a country. He spanked the wrong kid. BUT the information that Congress and he was given was flawed.

NOW we are looking for the RIGHT way out. And without making things WORSE than they are WE have the responsibility to do so.

Answer 4

Chris, this is a question that hangs people up but is easily explainable. Where as I have become a vocal opponent againt the war and the Bush admin, I can understand why we would have initially attacked Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was an enemy to our country who was eventually going to go out of his way to strike back at us for the years of abuse and embarrassment we inflicted upon him.
At some point he had WMD but he simply was smart enough to get rid of them and make an *** out of Bush.
All Bush had to do was tell the truth as to why we were going into Iraq and that was to over throw Saddam's govt. Had he simply told the truth and not made up all of these lies about WMD and needing to bring Democracy to Iraq and all of that other bull chit he would not be in the boat he is now but he lied and it's his lies that sunk his policy and his credit with the American people.

Answer 5

Actually, Al Gore, Clinton, and congress all said that there were wmds in Iraq. And Al Quaeda had training bases in Iraq. AND if we didn't do something about Iraq, we would have been stretched too thin to handle anything else.

Answer 6

To tell you the truth, we have a really good reason that we are in Iraq. Hussein was keeping the terrorists in safe harbor in Iraq. And now the terrorists think that they can get away with all these car bombs everyday. We are doing our best in Iraq, and I give my appreciation to all the soldiers fighting in our armed forces. And Iraq did have WMD.

Answer 7

I bet you're one of those people that supported going in Iraq at the beginning, right??? Everyone heard at the beginning how Iraq is harboring Al Qeida, and everyone was like "go get em"....

Now everyone wants to change their minds and pretend they were against it since the beginning... Even our own senators and congressman are doing this...

The thing is, we are there now... We're not getting out until the Iraqi government says they want us out... So what if they havnt found any WMD's.... Doesnt change the fact that were there now....

So quit asking these same questions over and over again about "when are we getting out of there" and "why are we there" and "why havnt we found anything yet".... All you're doing is giving the insurgency more reasons to fight... They see the reactions of all people crying about this, and they do more harm... Because of people like you asking questions like this, you are letting the insurgency win the propoganda war... Which is hurting our troops..

Answer 8

There is no proof what so ever. Our friend, Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than any other country. Our intelligence even knew about it but was so inept as they still are to be able to make a rational decision based on facts not LIES.

Answer 9

Good question. I suspect that the reason was so that we could get a toehold in the middle of the oil-producing countries. That's not happening is it?
As far as I can tell, the only thing that the government response to 9-11 accomplished was an erosion of citizen privacy. To what purpose? Are we safer? Does the world sympathize with our efforts ? Are we able to keep our borders safe?
Whether you are a democrat or republican, you have to realize that our government is spinning out of control. The only people being punished and ignored are American citizens.

Answer 10

A small group of neoconservatives took over the Bush administration. They agitated for a war against Iraq from 1996 on. The members of PNAC included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle,Wolfowitz and the new World Bank President Zoellick. Their web site will inform you.

"A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile governments, advancing democratic and economic freedom"

Sounds like Bush's foreign policy, to me!.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here's one of their articles: "Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough" January 1998. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm