Have you seen the GOP ad with the legless vet from Iraq who says "they attacked us on 9/11"?

Question

Isn't it CRIMINAL that the GOP is lying to the American
people to justify this poorly-planned quagmire in Iraq?

Saddam had:
NO WMD.
NO TIES TO AL QAEDA.
NO CONNECTION TO 9/11.

These are the FACTS.

The terrorists who planned and executed the attacks of 9/11 had NO CONNECTION to Iraq. The so-called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" are not the same people who attacked us on 9/11 either. Why the lies?

http://freedomswatch.org/video.aspx

THIRD VIDEO DOWN THE PAGE.

Answer 1

I find it interesting that there has been so much outrage and cries for Democrats to denounce MoveOn.org for its ad, but no similiar protests that Republicans denounce Freedom's Watch for the ad you mention, which does use emotional appeal and a lie to sell the war.

A paraplegic vet says "they attacked us on 9/11". Yet even Gen. Petraeus stated that he's not aware of that connection. When asked by Sen. Byrd if there was any connection between 9/11 and Iraq, Petraeus replied, "Not that I am aware of, Senator."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/12/1410237

Back to Freedom's Watch...
"Ari Fleischer, President Bush’s former press secretary, is now a spokesman for the Freedom's Watch, a new group of prominent conservatives behind the $15 million ad campaign . Mr. Fleischer said the central message of Freedom’s Watch is that “the war in Iraq can be won and Congress must not surrender.” Fleischer couldn't even remember the soldier's name when asked on Hardball.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/23/ari-fleischers-propaganda-iraq-war-ad/

Apparently Freedom's Watch had enough 'lead time' on the content of Petraeus' report to create the ads and get them on the air beginning Aug.22... just in time to 'remind' members of Congress returning from vacation. Oddly enough though, MSNBC and CNBC refused to run the ads; FOX and CNN had no such qualms about taking some of that $15 million.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018302.php

Answer 2

And that's not to mention the fact that Bush has all but ignored the actual culprit behind the attacks (Osama bin Laden) and failed to bring him to justice, but he has also exacerbated the global terrorist situation, because not only is there now a terrorist crisis in Iraq that didn't exist during Saddam's regime, but now a whole new generation of terrorists is being bred, because the war has become a cause celebre among the Islamic fundamentalists.

Answer 3

That commercial didn't sit right with me, either. I respect the person depicted for the sacrifice he made, but you can just as easily find a vet against the war. It doesn't add any credibility to the commercial -- it is instead meant to exploit people's feelings and fears... pulling on those heart strings. "and by the way what was the stuff they found in the offices of the Wepons Inspectors from the UN uh..." ^ That was nerve gas brought to the headquarters in 1996. Note this was well before the invasion. It is nearly unanimous, from left-wingers to people like Karl Rove (on MTP last weekend), that there were no weapons of mass destruction following the invasion. While the stuff you referenced is believed to have been made in Iraq, we knew Iraq had other chemical agents at some point, because we had the receipt. While Iraq was not cooperating fully with inspections, the message sent to Americans in the build up to the war, that Saddam and his WMDs posed an immediate threat the the United States, was incredibly over-hyped. "He was also a tyrant on par with Hitler. He murdered his own people. Also a fact. Did you forget about the mass graves that were shown on the evening news?" ^ Then why aren't we in Darfur if we care about genocide? Why haven't we knocked off any of the worlds other "evil" dictators? Saddam was not on par with Hitler, that's a very hyperbolic statement, but he was a very bad man. I'll give you that. Oh, and why did he murder his people? The killings you referenced are probably from the retaliation for an uprising that *we encouraged* following the first Gulf War, and then we left them high, dry, and dead. We even supplied some of the weapons Saddam used against his own people. See above... and below. The defense secretary at the time, one Mr. Dick Cheney, defended the decision not to finish what we started because of the exact thing that happened when we invaded the second time, and is still happening now, and will be happening for years to come. We're now mediating a civil war, a "quagmire" by Cheney's own words - keeping it relatively contained, for now. While we can't pull out immediately, I think destroying a country, killing (intentionally or no) its citizens, leaving them without basic necessities, causing an exodus, and making them hate us will.... make them hate us. How does that stop terrorism? It seems common sense that it would breed it instead. While the battle in Iraq *today* does include elements of groups like Al Qaeda, the justification, planning, and execution of the war all went horribly wrong. Our international credibility & good will is incredibly low, our military is stretched nearly to its breaking point, and we're spending over 7 million of our tax dollars *every hour* on our effort in Iraq. Our efforts in Afghanistan, an invasion which I do feel was justified, is being dragged down by the focus we've put on Iraq. Al Qaeda is rebuilding, and we have lost the overwhelming support and capital we had before we blew it all on this invasion in Iraq, so we can't put any *real* pressure on countries like Pakistan, where we believe Al Qaeda and the big man Osama are hiding. The country which 15 of the 19 hijackers were from, and which many people feel is playing a counter-productive role in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, is expected to get $20 billion in arms from America. Israel... $50 billion. That's what you call checks and balances, I guess. We in the U.S. have been sticking our noses in the Middle East for decades, providing arms to countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Any of those names sound familiar? More of our tax dollars at work, because we all know we don't need it for stuff at home like, say, securing our borders, inspecting imports, or improving our health care system. We've also toppled governments, supported horrible regimes, and the West in general has done some things truly deserving of the type of hatred we see from these people towards us. We're using the Middle East to fight proxy wars. And, newsflash, that also breeds hatred of, and violence towards, the United States. We need to face it -- we're either intentionally setting this region ablaze with conflict to set them against themselves, or we're bumbling fools. I think it's a bit of both. Most Americans don't understand the the history, the religion, the conflicts, or anything else about the Middle East. They only know what they've been told, which isn't much. This extends to our leaders. Bush should have read "Algeria", the original insurgency handbook, before the invasion instead of three years after. It was required reading given by my Lebanese professor in Intro to Middle-East Politics 101 right before the Iraq invasion. Bush should have also known the difference between the ethnic and religious groups, and how the country was divided and formed in the first place. Hell, he should have just taken Middle-East 101 himself.

Answer 4

I haven't seen it... thank goodness I haven't been watching TV, I would just start yelling at the screen... it's criminal that they misinform our soldiers about why we're fighting... if it's true he was fighting in Iraq (and not Afghanistan) I am horrified that the ad would be made
----------------Updated-------
okay, I've watched it now, and here's what I've got to say
-He's a good guy, he's a patriot, he is a defender of our country
-I do not believe he is in any way deceiving us, he has convictions that the operation in Iraq is necessary to protect our freedoms
-He does not specifically say the original attack on Iraq was justified, but that we should stay in Iraq to prevent a terrorist win. I can agree with that to an extent
-WMD were given to Saddam by the US decades ago, he disarmed after 1998 airstrikes and UN inspectors confirmed this
-This is not a GOP ad, it is an ad to stay in Iraq which is not directly GOP.
-I personally believe the main issue in Iraq is how we are funding terrorist groups in Iraq and supporting a government which is hand-in-hand with radical Islamists. Didn't you hear them shout "Muqtada" when they hanged Saddam?

Answer 5

9/11 and fear is the bulk of what they have to run on- do you really expect them to give it up just because of a minor thing like it not being true?

Answer 6

I hate dirty politics. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! It is time to end this war! It is time to bring our young men and women home.

Answer 7

It is criminal, but only the dumbest, most stubborn Americans still believe that lie. As a result, the GOP will get pounded at the polls in November, 2008.

Answer 8

Yes I have, and it's a disgusting continuation of the reactionary rights attempts to tie Iraq to 9/11 to sway the uninformed voters.

*See above: Yes Mel - I do know more than that soldier, and you and this idiot in the oval office you voted for.

Answer 9

Never heard of it. Googled it and it lead me back to your question here on Y!A. And I already know Iraq and 911 are separate issues. Duh.

Try writing these wonderful people in Washington who all thought Sadaam was a threat:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Answer 10

It's probably time to face the reality of terrorism, and move past your personal feelings about Iraq.