It's never been linked except, in the minds of the anti-Bush.
2007-11-01 12:04:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by wider scope 7
·
3⤊
5⤋
Fact #1: Saddam was a terrorist. Among other compelling evidence, he financed the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children by paying the families of suicide bombers a reward.
Fact#2: U.N. Resolution 1284, December of 1999 - the U.N. inspection team was replaced by UNMOVIC and was rejected by Saddam. Before their departure, they had located and destroyed 48 long range missiles, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 tons of chemical agents. Despite the contrary rhetoric, there was no verifiable confirmation that Saddam did not have additional chemical arsenals.
Fact#3: After the events of 9/11 - it would have been very fool hardy to ASSUME that Saddam no longer had any chemical arsenals of that they would not have funneled their way into the hands of the terrorists.
It is not that difficult to connect the dots - it is, as you point out in your question, "international terrorism" and it is well documented that these radical militants cannot confine their hatred and blood lust to within their own countries. Perhaps it is a legitimate argument that we need different strategies or policies concerning our war on terror, but it cannot be argued that our previous policies of inaction and no effective response only resulted in more innocent victims and finally culminated in the events of 9/11.
2007-11-01 19:44:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
They were fighting over the Garden of Eden
http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/tl/tl012404.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-garden-of-eden_x.htm
and Bush had to get into the hunt like Indiana Jones.
2007-11-01 19:12:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Zardoz 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Nothing. You will need to do a little homework. First on Iraq and why we are there, and what we did in response to 9/11. I'm getting a little tired of trying to teach you kids.
2007-11-01 19:10:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
As quoted by Pres Bush " Nothing"
2007-11-01 19:10:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
He used WMD's, that in itself was reason enough to believe not only did he have them he would use them. Please don't forget we had soldiers in the country when we attacked Afghanistan, they were there protecting the No Fly Zone.
2007-11-01 19:06:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by rance42 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
Evidence that he was a terrorist who had access to weapons of mass destruction.
2007-11-01 19:09:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero
2007-11-01 19:09:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Yes, Saddam bragged that he had WMD's.
Democrats Demanded that Bush do something about it.
And he did.
(But.... Bush should have know that the Democrats would betray us. I knew they would. Because they always do.)
2007-11-01 19:04:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by wolf 6
·
5⤊
6⤋
Nothing. That myth has been busted for years now.
2007-11-01 19:04:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by dude 7
·
3⤊
4⤋