2007-08-19 08:01:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, it's Clintons fault and 911 changed everything, at least that's what these cons tell me.
2007-08-19 08:08:53 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, Al-Qaeda had been quite active for well over a decade before 9/11, but it is true that we never took any action against them, even when we knew where Saddam was with all certainty. A policy that definitely contributed to 9/11 and in no way deterred it.
It is not true that Al-Qaeda never existed in Iraq before our entry there.
It is well known that they trained there with the support of Saddam. We never heard about it because they never committed any acts of terrorism in Iraq. This doesn't mean they were not active there, however.
Saddam's calling for celebrations in the streets on the eve of 9/11 was a blatant rallying cry in support of Al-Qaeda and only further proves his open support of Anti-American sentiment throughout the world.
As a nation, we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, just as we have in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. It would be remiss of us to give up a stronghold in a region that is so volatile and filled with hatred for western culture. Coming home would only re-enforce the latitudes given terrorism under Clinton and as already stated, that has already been proven NOT to work when 'fighting' and protecting ourselves against terrorism.
When will people realize that condoning terrorism through inaction is what led to 9/11 and our current situation. This problem should have been nipped in the bud well over a decade ago. We can not afford to turn back.
EDIT: Those who are feeling 'lied' to about our role in Iraq have only themselves to blame for assuming that it was ever our plan to go in, take care of Saddam and retreat.
History has shown that reality has never worked that way and any assumption otherwise was due to their own fallacies in thinking and their own baseless personal agendas.
2007-08-19 15:28:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no plan to end the war. There was never a plan to begin with. It was thought that we could go in, remove Saddam and then leave and everything would be peachy-keen. And then Bush could say that he got one up on his dad. Sure, that worked.
No, they are not in there because of Clinton or 9/11. they are in there because of Bush.
Saddam was a threat only to the people in his country and since his father said he was okay with that threat, then Bush should have stayed out of it and concentrated on bin Laden and that group. Now, according to the government, they are just as strong.
2007-08-19 15:21:16 · answer #3 · answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush's policy is to keep the troops in Iraq until Hillary is elected president so that when the U.S. troops leave without securing the country, that can be blamed on Clinton.
2007-08-19 15:11:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Al qaeda never existed in Iraq until Bush created the power vacuum they were waiting for.
2007-08-19 15:07:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I see no method at all sir.
Apocalypse Now. Comment directed at Kurtz.
Originally lifted from Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad, Comment directed at the supervisor (Kurtz as well) of the Ivory aquisition forward base.
2007-08-19 15:27:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
more specifically because of bill IGNORING 911
african embassy bombings
clinton no response
uss cole
clinton no response
wtc one
clinton no response
at least six chances to capture or kill bin laden in sudan
clinton no response
....thats my point.
2007-08-19 16:43:41 · answer #7 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋