Attempts to link Saddam with Al Qaida are obviously suggesting a 9/11 link. Bush administration officials make comments that are contradictory ind imprecise. "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." George Bush -- State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 None of this evidence has ever been produced. In fact the intelligence community backed away from it immediately. U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS PUZZLED BY BUSH, POWELL CLAIMS OF SADDAM-AL QUEDA CONNECTION "Intelligence officials said they are puzzled by the administration's new push. "To my knowledge, there's nothing new," said a senior U.S. intelligence official who asked not to be identified. The expectation within the CIA regarding Powell's speech, the source said, "is that it's going to be more comprehensive than bombastic and new." Intelligence officials have discounted if not dismissed other information believed to point to possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA said it can find no evidence supporting post-Sept. 11 reports that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers in the attacks, met with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, Prague, in 2001. Similarly, intelligence officials described reports that Hussein is funding an Al Qaeda-connected extremist group in northern Iraq as "wildly overstated." There is no evidence so far to confirm that Iraq is arming, financing or controlling the group, known as Ansar al-Islam, one official said. "There isn't a factual basis for such assertions," the official said. " 02/03/03 (bushwatch.com) Quote/Claim: "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” - Condoleezza Rice [Source: DOS Web site]" Fact: "President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” - (Globalsecurity.org) But Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaeda operatives did have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government. "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented," She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability. (politicalstrategy.org) Quote/Claim: "It is not surprising that people make that connection [between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks]...we don't know [if there is a connection]." -- VIce President Dick Cheney [Source: Meet the Press transcript] Fact: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. - Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04" (politicalstrategy.org)
Like martin said, there were many reasons to go to war with Iraq, but that doesn't mean the Bush administration didn't attempt to use people's emotions from 911 to aid their cause. IMO, Bush did use America's fragile state to his advantage to invade Iraq. That doesn't mean the whole war was based on lies. I don't believe Bush ever said that the reason to go to war with Iraq was because of 911, he merely attempted to connect the two so that the American public would support him. And like Sabanfan has said, that's not a bad thing - Saddam was a snake & deserved to be taken down, mentioning the actions of another snake that had already attacked just made more people get behind the motion.
Gee, I don't know what in the hell ever gave me that idea. Couldn't be the fact that you quoted me then made inflammatory remarks, could it? Here's a tip: if you want to avoid being mistaken as addressing someone, don't quote them. Likewise, all you Bush cheerleaders post the same things over and over in response to such claims. Why does it matter? If you're so sick of it, why even bother clicking on the link? Responding to it only perpetuates the matter. Thought you might have learned this by now. And it really gets old seeing people cry about whomever making such posts. Unless you think you have something to add to the topic, just be a man and let it go. It makes no sense to pop into a thread that you think is a waste of time and state what a waste of time you think it is. You might want to check that because I never insinuated that you were wasting your time. I was using your own logic against you to show you what a double standard you were suggesting. Re-read, closely. Speaking of crying...geez, dude. You're welcome. I get negative rep A LOT from things I post on here. Most of the time, the giver doesn't even have enough balls to give a reason, or even get involved in the thread. They 'neg' me strictly on the grounds that they disagree with me. Personally, I think that's stupid. I only red people when they ask for it by going out of their way to be inflammatory or abusive while putting zero thought into their posts. I 'negged' you because you blurted out the most unprovokative, ill-logically based cliche' that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Not that the system needs anysuch justification. But since you seemed to be so worried about it, I thought I'd be nice enough to fill you in. I don't know why you care so much about your reputation, anyway. You don't win anything for getting more points. Get over it.:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
The snake wasn't in the yard. A better analogy is this: If your child gets bit by a snake in your yard and you then find a snake pit, nowhere near your yard, full of snakes, and see one snake that you especially dislike, do you send in some boys to kill it, or 1st determine whether it's poisonous?
The anti Bushies (not you Parso) are trying to make it appear that Bush manipulated the situation in order to go after Iraq for personal reasons. Bush wanted to go after Saddam for sure, not to avenge a personal affront, but because he perceived himas a threat. To Americans. He did it as POTUS and his motives were not personal. Debate after the fact all you want about whether it was a wise move, but don't try to portray the President as some conniving little weasel bent on using the power of his office to right some personal wrong inflicted upon his family. That's just stupid.
I think it's okay to question the president's motives. I seriously doubt that that the reasons the President listed to the American public are the only reasons behind going to war with Iraq. Anytime someone tries to kill your father, there's going to be some deep ill-will against that individual. I don't think this was the reason to go to war with Iraq, but it certainly had an effect on Bush's though process concerning whether or not we should. IMO, some of the possible underlying reasons to go to war with Iraq that you don't see mentioned very often are: Revenge (probably over exaggerated by anti-bush folk), Strategic Position in the Middle East, & National Pride (didn't go as well as he probably hoped). The problem is when people want to deny any real reasons that we went to war with Iraq & blame it all on Bush's underlying motives.
I still can't believe that people accept that and honestly don't see the folly in it. A public should never have to be 'sold' on a war. I forget whom it was, but some prominet president (the likes of Roosevelt or Jefferson) made that same statement. You fight a war out of necessity, and therefore should not have to convince people that it's the right thing to do. It should be blatantly obvious to them, the way Afghantistan was to us. Further, it's disgraceful and reprehensible to feed on a people's emotions to justify or sell war. Bush & Co. strongly mimmicked Michael Moore by doing this. People always complain about how Moore focuses on negative aspects to conjur up peoples emotions and sympathy, thus causing them to feel sorry for his subjects to the point of abandoning factual reinforcement. Think about how they sold this war to the public: by forcefeeding the us countless images of how brutal the conditions were in Iraq. They knew that their stated reasoning was feeble at best and would certainly turn out to be revealed as false. Therefore, they fed on people's emotions to the point where they were willing to forget about any and all of the 'promises' that were to be fufilled once the invasion took place. Funny how that turned out, isn't it? It is especially so when you consider the other countries that are committing just as greusome of human rights violations that we don't seem to be the least bit concerned with coughsaudiarabiacough. Ok then, adhering to that faulty analogy, how would you justify killing that snake if doing so is going to cause you to neglect more pressing family issues for years and years? How do you justify killing that snake if doing so causes some of your other children to die? How do you justify killing that snake if it is only going to enrage other snakes, who then produce further generations of snakes who will be bred with the same rage towards you? But that's just it. None of the 'guarantees' were met. Nothing that they swore and promised would be revealed upon the invasion panned out. Nothing. Therefore, the American public is left with only questions as to why we ended up there. You must always question the motives of those in power. Power can do very bad things to people. In the first post I made in this thread, I brought up the fact that some people don't seemed to be too concerned with acquiring the truth or the answers. And I've asked this question a million times on here, only for it to be continually ignored by the supporters. If you actually buy the 'bad intelligence' bit (which I don't), it doesn't seem even the slightest bit odd that our 'intelligence' has never even come close to being this colossally wrong about anything? I mean, according to Bush, they dreamed up thousands of things that weren't there, and George Tenet even claimed that finding all of them would be a 'slam dunk'. So then, why is it that they've never even come close to missing so badly on every single claim? Further, this sort of thing should severely call into question the ability of those who interpret them (i.e. the president). If the intelligence was that bad, shouldn't those higher-up have been able to make that distinction? If not, it should be easy to assert that they are unfit for their positions.
