How did Iraq hit USA on 911?

Question

Is it fair that we went to go kick the crap out of some small country unrelated to 911?
Is it fair that the American public was repeatedly led to believe that Iraq somehow had something to do with 911?
Bush said "I never said it was related"?
Is this a big bald faced lie?

If you defend Bush on this, are you living in a twisted fantasy world of spin?

Answer 1

Iraq was never a haven for terrorists, Saddam never supported terrorists, he often threated Al qaeda operative. Invading iraq was simply to avenge Sr. and draw attention away from binladen, who is still alive and uncaptured after 6 years.

Answer 2

9/11 was an opportunity for the Bush Administration to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American population.

Iraq was not involved and did not harbor terrorists. Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan should have been the targets for retaliation. They got the Afghan part right.

Answer 3

Actually, in the very beginning Bush & Co. justified going to Iraq by saying that there were WMDs AND that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, so yes, it is a bald-faced lie. Not only that, but if Bush had really cared about getting justice for the 3,000 who died in the 9/11 attacks and wanted to keep the US safe from terrorists, he would have focused on going after Osama and the rest of al-Qaeda instead of invading a country that was in no way involved in the attacks.

Answer 4

Bush knows full well that he and his administration have tried tying Iraq to 9/11, over and over again. Otherwise, why would we even be there? To fight tyranny? Well then, why haven't we invaded China, Sudan, Burma, North Korea, or Cuba? To avenge 9/11? Most of the hijackers were Saudis; none were Iraqi.

Iraq was low-hanging fruit. Bush wanted revenge, and exploited the deaths of 9/11 to invade. Oh, and completely by coincidence, it has the second-largest number of oil deposits in the world.

Answer 5

Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11, it was an after thought after our troops couldn't find BinLaden in Afghanistan, so he decided to try and end what daddy started in the Gulf War, which lasted a whole 3 days!!! Saddam did need to be taken out of power, and after that was done, we should have left, but by then al-qaeda followed us to Iraq and decided to fight us on Iraqi ground instead of our own ground or in Afghanistan, as to give their leader ample time to find a secure hiding place to call the shots. If we would have put the amount of troops into Afghanistan that we currently have in Iraq, binladen would have been found by now and tried and convicted by his peers as was with Saddam. President Bush has changed his story about Iraq so many times no one knows what the truth is, first it was WMD's, then it was al-qaeda, but al-qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after our invasion, sure there was fighting, but it was religion based and still is, al-qaeda has just enhanced it by attacking more civilians to try and get one of ours. Every time one of our soldiers lose their lives, it's a feather in al-qaeda's cap. If the President really wanted to protect this country against terrorism, he should completely close our borders to all outsiders, if they can't get in, they can't attack us.

Answer 6

We did not go to kick the crap out of Iraq. We went to kick the crap out of Saddam, and to help Iraq stand on its own feet without a lovely twisted tyrant torturing and murdering his own people.

We all assume Iraq was directly related to 9/11, because operations over there began shortly after our efforts to halt terrorism began, but Bush was not lying when he said "I never said it was related." He didn't say it was related. We assumed.

I just think it's funny that people want us to go intervene in Darfur (which I do think is a situation that needs help, don't get me wrong), but now that Saddam is gone no one remembers or cares that similarly horrible things were happening in Iraq and sanctioned by their government.

Answer 7

Actually what you hear when someone says Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 is a misquote. *LOL* Probably someone who hated Bush before 9/11.

Bush did say he was against those who supported terrorism and that Saddam was supporting terrorism. That is NOT a false statement.

But here's the probable logic used when they came up with Bush says Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Al Qaeda orchestrated 9/11(true)
Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. (true)
Saddam supported terrorist organizations (true)
Therefore Saddam supported Al Qaeda (false)
So Saddam supported the terrorist that caused 9/11(false)

Answer 8

They didn't, and Bush, his administration and the Republicans have stated for the past 6 years that Iraq didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, so why are you asking this stupid and false question?

As for "fair", what does "fair" have to do with anything in the world? This isn't kindergarten.

Answer 9

no one... i do no longer think of each and each man or woman did that... i understand for a reality that no-one gave "undesirable intel" that delivered approximately Iraq different than the President himself. the people like Micheal Moore are only speaking out against the loopy point of corruption interior the fashionable government.

Answer 10

IT NEVER WAS...

We went into Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction, becaus they don't exist, the republicans had to turn the story to play on the fears of Americans...now it is about terror.

We are simply training them to come after us and giving them reason to do so......this is actually how Bin Laden (sp) was created by republicans before.

Bush has said it and the republicans imply it every time they say we are fighting terrorism over there before it comes here.

Answer 11

(actual quote)

"You know one of my hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the War on Terror." George W. Bush 9/6/06

P.S. the dittoheads are out in force this morning...maybe they are right after all...all the hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqis because Rush & Hannity never lie, right?