The war in Iraq has nothing to do with our freedoms.
Saddam and Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda, no connection to 9/11, had no WMD, and posed no threat to the USA.
So why should Repuglicans like Mitt Romney get away with saying the soldiers who are sacrificing their lives for Bush's lie-based quagmire are "defending our freedoms"?
2007-08-01
16:52:10
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/06/344/
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.
2007-08-01
16:59:13 ·
update #1
Absolutely... They said the same thing during the Vietnam conflict when the Vietnamese never posed any threat to us prior to the war. Trumped up propaganda and the propensity to use fear against ones own people is a well known tactic.
You have to remember that Mitt Romney is another religionist who supports war and his own brand of terror. Anyone with a background in superstitious ideology and who has an affiliation with a group who sees angels and follows the doctrines of radical and violent prophets are to be considered with reservation. Any of these people should be considered dangerous.
2007-08-01 16:55:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Don W 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
There are no U.S. Combat soldiers in Iraq. Left Iraq years ago. Don't you keep up with the News. NATO forces are fighting in Afghanistan. AND soon to be Korea
2016-04-01 10:20:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This war has nothing to do with individual freedoms... while Al-Quaeda and other groups want to kill Americans they do not want to overthrow the American government and take away our freedoms... I hate it when a politician states that the terrorists will "take away our freedom if we don't stand up to them..." Statements like that feed our hysteria over a bunch of thugs.
2007-08-01 17:11:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by cattledog 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What is your opinion of al Qaeda setting up shop in Iraq and exporting more trouble to the US? As for the WMD, Iraq was known to have them -- it used them. ("Chemical Ali" was just condemned for doing so.) Iraq was required to dispose of them in an accountable manner, and did not do so. Instead, Saddam secretly shipped all of the materials (amounting to several thousand tons) off to Syria, starting in June 2002; presumably they are still there, waiting for Osama's gang to try to figure out what to do with them. One may hope that they don't come up with good answers. Thirty pounds of U-235 is enough to destroy a city, and building a weapon to use the stuff is trivial -- I designed one in seventh grade.
2007-08-01 17:04:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
The soldiers in Iraq are fighting to keep each other safe so they can eventually come home. They are upholding a proud tradition in our military of never leaving anyone behind. In that sense, they are protecting our freedom. I agree that the Iraq invasion was a major blunder though. I believe we should work toward withdrawal as soon as it can be done safely.
2007-08-01 16:57:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Yes, it's a mis-statement.
Our soldiers have a mandate to defend our freedoms -- that's why we have a Department of Defense. But not everything they do automatically is in accordance with that mission.
2007-08-01 16:57:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Saddam WAS yes WAS firing on our aircraft.
Saddam was funding terrorism around the world.
Saddam did have WMD he used them and we found a lot.
When Clinton was in office there was not 60 days that we did not have military action in Iraq. This did not slow down as Bush took over.
It is late, so take your hand off the knife it is deep in the back of our troops.
I know this thought make you grin.
2007-08-01 17:05:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
If al qaida has no ties to Iraq, Why do we keep finding them there?
2007-08-01 17:03:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Well, they certainly can't defend it here.
Make a bet, see how much safer we are if we bring them home?
I can guarantee you, it would'nt take much for me to bet on it, cause I know what would happen, New York City or Miami, or Las Angeles would disappear!!!
But just keep emboldening the enemy, you're doing a mighty fine job, Sir.
EDIT:
Terry Z,
LOL! that was a hoot man!!
2007-08-01 17:02:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
6⤋
Blah, Blah Blah, Blah, Blah
Some people talk just to hear themselves.
Some people ask YA questions just to see if they can spell
2007-08-01 17:03:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋