Was attacking Iraq a correct decision for the president to find the so called weapons of mass destruction?

Question

The Iraq War, sometimes called the Second or Third Gulf War or in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing conflict which began with the United States-led 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and their domestic and foreign supporters was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No substantial evidence of any such connection has been found.

Answer 1

Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda


On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas. link


On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....." link

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying." link

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official. link link link

Able Danger, a highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, supports information from the Czech Republic’s intelligence service that Mohammed Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001. link link

On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York." link link link

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.
must see pictures link


Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan. link

CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities." link link

On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. The authorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" and "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens." link

Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan." link

On April 25, 2003 CNN reported that Farouk Hijazi had been captured by U.S. forces. Farouk Hijazi was a former intelligence official who may have plotted the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993. He was also a contact between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden. Farouk met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 and is also believed to have met with bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990's. video

While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service's [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." video link link

On May 7, 2003, a federal judge in New York awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida." link

On September 13, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq by the name of Barham Salih gave a speech in which he said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime." link link

Answer 2

Great post Lavadog. But if I know liberals like I think I do they won't read what you cited becasue it goes against what they believe. They rely on emotions and what they think are good intentions over facts. And add in that their leaders have invested in defeat from the begining of the Iraqi war for political reasons thinking and hoping it will make Bush look bad. Political gain over the safety of our military in harms way is not only shameful but borderline treason. Isn't it funny that they say they are the champions of things like freedom of speech and equality, yet they back the ones who will take all those rights away as fast as they can. They are helping their worst enemy by dividing our country in a time when we should be united. They think they are a shoe in in 09 just like they thought in 00 and 04. If the Americans who back these pathetic people wake up and see the truth they will loose in a land slide along with their do nothing congress. I'm not saying the republicans are that much better. We need a strong conservative leader who believes America's needs should come first over their party or their backers. If this doesn't happen then we will be like the country of Iran at best. I want to see the peacenics have rallys then and see what they do to you.

Answer 3

I don't think the Iraq war has anything to do with weapons of mass destruction or a connection of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. I may be too much into secret conspiracys but I think we were over there because of oil. I think there's top secret oil mess going on that the American public is not aware of. I heard that the atomic bomb dropped on Japan was created in secret using government money without congress's approval. I think I read that in a book in the juvenile section about different wars. If that is the case, there could easily be things we don't know about Saddam and oil that would cause our leaders to engage in war and use the excuse of "it's to find weapons of mass destruction" to get us to go along with the war and not bring down the morale of any troops we have as family members.

Answer 4

This subject feels as old as the JFK conspiracy topic, the true fact is that we are in Iraq and for so many crucial and dangerous reasons no matter what, we cant just "leave" now and that is that!

All the up and coming liberals (candidates) are playing to the publics feelings, not one of these people will pull our troops out of Iraq until we stabilize the area and the Iraqis are able to police the country, don't fall for the Democrats misleading statements just to get elected.

In reality we're going to be in Iraq for a long, long time no matter who is the next President and maybe the President after that.

Answer 5

It was only one of several reasons.
Ask yourself these questions.

1. Where did Saddam get all his chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians and Kurds? (Clue: He manufactured them)

2. What did he do with them?

If he had destroyed them, why did he jerk around the UN weapons inspectors like he did?

There is much evidence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war.

The fact that Saddam violated all those UN resolutions was reason and legal cause enough to go in and squash him like the roach he was.

If he had no Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, nor the facilities or equipment to produce them, it made no sense for him to behave like he did. In light of how he ended up, I am sure many will agree.

Probably one of the greatest political blunders of all time.

Answer 6

You obviously never read the Congressional Resolution which authorized military force against Iraq and was passed in 2002. The reasons listed mirror those which first appeared in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I've listed the URLs for both of those documents below.

Answer 7

the only complicated information on television anymore is interior reach information. there is extra info attainable now than ever till now in background yet maximum of it incorporates opinion and politics somewhat than chilly complicated info. we desire a reliable source for international information that is substantiated. In offering the information as opinion, human beings somewhat have no theory of what's real. they have a tendency to choose for aspects. particular we are broke. No we are no longer broke. that could look an basic adequate declare to coach or disprove yet it keeps to be disputed. for this reason no longer something is achieved anymore and maximum every person is preceived as idiots in a political talk. the 1st declare: "you watch FOX", or you watch "MSNBC". it somewhat is how some distance we are being dumbed down. seem in any respect the internet sites that have sprung as much as say whether comments made are real or no longer. it somewhat is adequate evidence that we desire a valid information source that purely tells the info without the opinion.

Answer 8

The argument is good up to ,"some US officials cited........"
Cited claims are no more fact now than they were then.
The first one was to protect the oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the second was just to ensure oil supplies for an uncertain future.
keep buying stuff and paying taxes.
support the war
or don't.

Answer 9

OK. So it was about securing our resources and making profit. That is what war is usually about.

Answer 10

yes

Answer 11

Dick Cheney was right . . . in 1994.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003624798