Do you think policies of attacking "whipping boys" are effective?

If the US can't identify who attacked the WTC, they attack Iraq instead....

After the many explanations of why we were going into Iraq, to claim it was because of the WTC bombing is incredible.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 . . . Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

Quote:

The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs.

That claim of course has been proven false and was supported at the time by known false information presented by Colin Powell and others. The Bush administration had decided to prosecute this war and was determined to do so over all advice and legitimate information. This includes reports by the CIA and the Chief Weapons inspector for the United Nations, Hans Blix. Blix is beyond reproach. He earned his PhD from the University of Cambridge; in 1959, he earned a Juris Doctor in International Law at Stockholm University, where he was appointed Associate Professor in International Law the next year. Between 1962 and 1978 Blix was a member of the Swedish delegation at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. He held several other positions in the Swedish administration between 1963 and 1976, and from 1961 to 1981 served on the Swedish delegation to the United Nations. From 1978 to 1979, Blix was the Swedish Foreign Minister. He became Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1981 and 1997, and was hand picked by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. He is quoted in a 2004 interview as saying:

Quote:

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 . . . Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

The whipping boy explanation is the only reasonable one, although it's possible that a far less sensible reason was the motivation, for instance elevating Halliburton stock or poking Saddam in the eye for thumbing his nose at Bush Senior.

Actually it's on the record that Bush received but ignored reports from the CIA but chose to ignore them. This includes a comprehensive briefing by George Tenet, CIA Director and reports from French intelligence as well. This is corroborated by Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe and two other senior officers, reported in an interview by 60 minutes. There's really no question at this point, yet you drone on reciting the party line of nonsensical lies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

You're living in a fantasy land. Bush knew the CIA, French Intelligence and the United Nations all agreed, there weren't WMD's. It was plain and simple, a lie.
Regardless of the reasons for the lie, Iraq still functioned as a whipping boy. In addition to not having WMDs, It was pretty much common knowledge that:
1) Bin Laden was not there
2) The 9/11 hijackers were not from there
3) There were known hostile parties elsewhere who had attacked the U.S. Military HQ in Riyadh, the USS Cole in Yemen, and the Embassy in Nairobi.
https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/list-of-islamic-attacks-against-america/

Further, you yak on, make grossly incorrect assertions, and haven't produced a single reference to back you up (understandable, given that you want to make false claims) while I've backed up every point. Funny how that works.

Granted. I hadn't seen that before, but your main point is still mostly wrong. The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs. Even had that nonsense about 9/11 not been in the resolution, the possibility that Saddam Hussein had hidden rather than destroyed his former WMD programs is the primary motive. Your statement that we invaded Iraq merely because we couldn't identify the perpetrators of 9/11 is wrong.

I think just about everyone acknowledges the use of collective punishment is wrong.

, we attacked Iraq for violation of the provision of the treaty signed at the end of the first gulf war which guaranteed UN inspectors free and unfettered access to look for WMD and WMD development programs. After the many explanations of why we were going into Iraq, to claim it was because of the WTC bombing is incredible.