"Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting public statements made by senior White House and Pentagon officials whose attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq."
What are your thoughts?
2007-10-22 05:32:54 · 31 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think Paul Wolfowitz's comments back in 2003 were self-explanatory. Especially the part that you didn't quote where he said WMDs weren't the reason either but just a way to convince the bureaucracy to grant the President powers to initiate war. It's not like he was disgruntled and didn't support going to war with Iraq. He just was astoundingly honest about everything at a time when nobodly else in the Bush Administration was.
2007-10-22 05:38:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
No we haven't, but nobody said we invaded Iraq because of 9/11.
THE FACTS:
After 9/11 occurred, we discovered that it was done by Al Qaeda people based in Afghanistan. We therefore invaded Afghasnistan.
A couple of years later, Sadam (from Iraq), in a separate problem, gave us concern that he might have "weapons of mass destruction." He actually didn't, but we invaded Iraq because of that specific problem, to get the weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Bush specifically said we were not invading Iraq because of terrorists (or 9/11). No one thought we were.
Anyway, after we were in Iraq for a while, Al qaeda came into Iraq to take pot shots at us (That's one of their techniques, attack us where we go).
SO: There is no evidence of a link between Iraq & 9/11 but this is exactly what everyone who reads the news already knows. It's not a "problem" for Bush--it just shows people don't know current events.
Also, Neither Bush nor our gov't committed 9/11. It was Al Qaeda.
2007-10-25 09:41:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just as there is no creadible evidence that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' there is no creadible evidence that Iraq was directly involved in the attack (and, anyone who'd ever donated to a muslim charity might have been indirectly involved, so that'd hardly be meaningful). Doesn't keep people from fervently believing one or the other.
My other thought is that the quote seems disengenous. Saying that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 does not actually contradict fears that, a couple years later, Iraq was aiding Al Qaeda.
2007-10-22 07:08:09 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only the fact we found a used Al Qeada training camp in northern Iraq but that's about it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and most people already know it.
2007-10-22 06:40:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately Hussein's Iraq was an obstacle to some of the American plans, so it's was a must destroy Saddam to clear the way. There was no chemical weapon as it was said to be a reason to atack the country and, obviously, Iraq had nothing to do with "Sept. 11"
2007-10-22 06:16:05 · answer #5 · answered by Sergio Oliveira 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They weren't involved in the 9/11 attacks. However the embassy bombings in the '90's were carried out by Al-Qaida members trained at the Salman Pak terrorist camp outside of Baghdad. At the time it was run by Saddam Hussein's security service. Reports of Al-Qaida members training in Iraq go back at least to 1997 as far as I know. I first came across them in 1999 when I was researching a briefing on Al-Qaida/Taliban links.
The members of congress were thoroughly briefed on Al-qaida in Iraq in October of 2002, half a year before the invasion. Many of the intelligence reports detailing this activity came from the Clinton administration in the "97-2000 time period.
Any "anti-war" politician who claims that they were "lied to" by the administration either has a very short memory, or is lying in order to pander to their political base.
2007-10-22 06:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by Mark S 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
None what so ever. Will it change the position we are in now? Not likely, but I would like to add that the possibility of Saddam assuming that we were the many troops we had stationed in Northern and Southern Iraq were vulnerable to attack he would have done so. For those soldiers in harms way I am very glad it was done. Had it not been done and all the military in those areas were killed, it would have been another blame on the administration.
2007-10-22 05:39:42 · answer #7 · answered by rance42 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Huh? The Bush administration never said or implied that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, so why the perpetration of this lie?
Linking al Qaeda to Iraq, based on confirmed contacts between al Qaeda operatives and officials in the Iraqi secret services does NOT mean that the Bush administration ever claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
This stupidity needs to stop.
2007-10-22 05:45:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Sounds like Wolfowitz is looking for a publisher.
2007-10-22 05:40:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes we have: no evidence. I think it's abundantly clear that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida or 9/11 prior to our military action. In the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow, Al Qaida has become involved, but only on account of our actions.
2007-10-22 05:37:55 · answer #10 · answered by Pfo 7 · 9⤊ 3⤋