Don Rumsfeld did. "Now we can attack Iraq", he reportedly said on September 11.
2007-09-11 03:46:17 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, Morpheus, one question. Are you in favor of "removing" every head of state of a country that has done bad things since 1988? How about China? How about Israel? How about Indonesia?
2007-09-11 03:52:24 · update #1
ruth, I agree with you that those who voted for the war and changed their minds are hypocrites. However, the Left did NOT support or vote for this war. We have led the anti-war movement, in the face of a phalanx of conservative opposition calling us traitors for five years. If you'll recall.
2007-09-11 03:57:37 · update #2
No and as 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq I don't see the point.......
2007-09-15 02:37:50 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I keep coming back to the question, If anyone else had been elected president would we even be at war in Iraq? I think there was an agenda by the Bush admin. before 9-11 even happened. And it was kind of a stretch to go from Osama to Saddam. We seem to have more terrorist than ever in the world now. I don't feel any safer.
2007-09-11 11:00:54 · answer #2 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Awesome question! In fact, it's been said that within 5 hours after the attacks, Rumsfeld ordered his staff to dig up as much "evidence" as possible linking Iraq to the attacks. It's obvious that Bush & Co. wanted to go to Iraq all along and that they saw the 9/11 attacks as their golden opportunity to do so.
2007-09-11 10:52:56 · answer #3 · answered by tangerine 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I was Active Army at the time when 9/11 happened...as we sat in the Operations and Training Shop of Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, the first thing that was mentioned was that Iraq may have had something to do with it...that was after the second plane hit...which in the past they had, you know like the first attack on the WTC on Clinton's watch...remember they were trained in Iraq...the problem with you libs is that you do not know military tactics...you have to have a place to fight these people...Afghanistan is too mountainous, but Iraq is flat...and Saddam needed to die anyway...why not let us fight them on the Left Coast, would you like that?
2007-09-11 11:08:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Attack Iraq ? No. Getting Bin Laden and his ilk, yes. If the Administration could bring Bin Laden to justice and dissolve Al Quida I would've (as well as the world) had much respect for Bush. If he wanted to go into Iraq afterward just to depose of Hussein I could see it. But to me everything backward on top of all the poor planning.
2007-09-11 11:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by cjgt2 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. It was important to cut off the head of Al Queda and the Taliban.
Both are still here and growing stronger by the day in Afghanistan while we fight insurgents in Iraq.
2007-09-11 10:58:23 · answer #6 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yea, it was a destiny looking for an excuse, ahhh, Washington. These guys never forgave President Bush, the other one, for not entering Iraq in '91.
2007-09-11 10:55:32 · answer #7 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, (and I say this hesitantly because some of my Conservative brothers and sisters do not agree with me), no.
I watched the Kerry-Bush debate and saw them both talking about war in Iraq and I did not want it. Because I do not trust Islam's ability to have any kind of democracy until they value basic human rights.
Now we are there. The situation has changed. Now I support our efforts to fight terrorism with everything I have, which is basically my time and my speech.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: I abhor the Left's stance in politicizing this war after they voted for it.
2007-09-11 10:52:39 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No it was not then it would still not be a necessity today. we had no business in Iraq, none what so ever. the enemy was the Talibans, Al qaeda and Iran ... not Iraq.
one note to Morpheus comment. Do you forget why Saddam gazed the Kurds? let me refresh your memory. We the US backed the Kurds, we secretly armed them and trained them to topple Saddam Hussein after our failed attempt. when the Kurds decided to act we told them to wait, they didn't want to and we let them act on their own. we dropped them like old pair of socks. mind you it seems to be something we are best at. we also backed Saddam against Iraq then turned against him when we didn't need him anymore, we armed Palestinians and they turned those arms against us. my question is ... when will we learn?
2007-09-11 10:58:17 · answer #9 · answered by caliguy_30 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I didn't. I thought how could we have trained these people to fly planes here in this country and then have them turn on us? I thought that it would be very hard to fight an ememy who has such little regard for their own lives, much less ours. But at no time did I think that we should attack Iraq.
2007-09-11 10:51:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋