Why do some people believe the war in Iraq is in retaliation of/related to 9/11?

Answer 1

BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SAYING IT FOR A LONG TIME.

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."


Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."


John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."


Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."


Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."


Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."


Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."


Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."


John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."


Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."


Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."



Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."


Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


John Kerry > October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."


Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."


Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."


Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."


Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."


Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."


Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."


Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."


Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."


Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."


John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Answer 2

Very few people do.

Here's a fact: Bush has NEVER said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Where do these people come up with the big fat idiotic lie that he has?

The only "link" he's ever made is that 9/11 has shown us that we are not safe, and that any country, such as Iraq, that sponsors terrorists AND has WMD could possibly do the unthinkable and arm them with WMD. When that threat becomes imminent, it is too late. 9/11 changed our level of tolerance for tyrants like Saddam.

But there has never been any Bush administration official that said Iraq had any connections to the events of 9/11. I challenge people who say that to provide proof. I won't hold my breath.

Answer 3

Because Saddam had direct links to financing terrorists, some people misinterpret that as a connection to 9/11. To claim that Saddam didn't support terror is to ignore about 250 television appearances where he sent checks to the families of suicide bombers. There is also the little discussed fact that Osama's number 2 man was caught in Iraq during our invasion, as he was recuperating in a northern Iraqi hospital from wounds suffered in Afghanistan.

But no, Saddam didn't have any direct links to 9/11, and I don't think anyone from either side ever claimed that. It's indisputable though that he did support terrorism and terrorist organizations for years.

Answer 4

Very simple : Because the friggin lying war mongering President ,the Vice President and the Secretary of the Defence Rumsfeld told them and the whole world that al qaida was behind the 9/11 attack.

Rumsfeld is on the record for claiming that he had :BULLETPROOF" evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Of course this lie along with the other filthy lie that Saddam had WMDs were deliberate lies because Bush et al knew that if they used SCARE MONGERING TO DO THEIR WAR MONGERING ,Americans would as usual roll over and die which they di of course.

What is absolutely incredible is that these two lies were the reasons the US is waging war in Iraq and the reason over 3500 US soldiers have been killed and over 400,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EFFECTIVELY DO NOT GIVE A DAMN.

All these humans slaughtered for a pack of lies and Americans just pretend it isn't happening and go about their business when in fact if JUSTICE is done and people are held ACCOUN TABLE FOR THEIR acts,Bush obviously has committed "High crimes and Misdemeanors" and MUST BE IMPEACHED after which he needs to be arrested and sent to the World Court to be charged with crimes against humanity .

Answer 5

Sept. 11

Rumsfeld Learns it Was Al Qaeda, But Wants to Hit Saddam
Rumsfeld had learned of four Al Qaeda connections, says he wants "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only UBL [Osama]" ... "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." CBS News
On Sept. 13, Wolfowitz was already talking about "ending states who sponsor terrorism" at a DoD press conference.

On Sept. 13, JINSA Issues statement saying: "In response to the attack on September 11, 2001 JINSA calls on the United States to: [this is their 1st bullet]
• Halt all US purchases of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food Program and to provide all necessary support to the Iraq National Congress (Chalabi's group ), including direct American military support, to effect a regime change in Iraq.

On Sept. 15 at Camp David's Laurel Lodge, Wolfowitz presented the argument that the United States should attack not Afghanistan, but rather Saddam Hussein. America Alone, p.204

James Woolsey was even quicker off the market, saying that Iraq should be the target, “no matter who should be responsible” for the attacks. (James Fallows, “Blind into Baghdad,” Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2004, pp.54-56.)

Answer 6

No. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over any sovereign nation. Iraq was invaded fully in compliance with United States law.

Answer 7

Dude, seriously, Bush called Iraq an Axis of Evil.

You put 2 and 2 together you get 4.

Answer 8

Are you serious? That idiot you helped get put in office made the correlation that is why some people believe there is a link even though there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq had no connection.

Answer 9

Because Bush and Cheney want to make people believe this , where they can justify a Preemptive Strike in Iraq breaking the 2ND Constitution. People now know that they are completely habitual liars., both of them.

Answer 10

That is what the Commander in Chief told us and Vice President Cheney says it is so today. It wasn't too long ago that our troops in Iraq still believed they were fighting because Iraq attacked America on 9/11. Libs forgot when Iraq and Iran attacked America on 9/11.

Answer 11

Because the current president tricked us into believeing that we are over there seeking revenge, then turned the war into operation iraqi freedom. Then decided to conquer the country. The president has been lying to us all along, and most people dont realize how much his agenda has changed, so the still think we are over there to avenge 9/11.