ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Even Wolfowitz, the architect of the war with Iraq, admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and AQ. See http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold13.html

I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Al-Qaeda's build up in northeastern Iraq--that started in December 2001, 3 months after 9/11--was one of Congress's 12 valid and sufficient reasons (i.e., whereases) for why they gave the President the authority to invade Iraq.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Even Wolfowitz, the architect of the war with Iraq, admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and AQ. See http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold13.html

I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Al-Qaeda's build up in northeastern Iraq--that started in December 2001, 3 months after 9/11--was one of Congress's 12 valid and sufficient reasons (i.e., whereases) for why they gave the President the authority to invade Iraq.

AQ now is present in 60 or more countries. I guess you feel that we better get busy invading all those countries.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I guess you feel that we better get busy invading all those countries.

One of those countries at a time, from most AQ to least, is my preference.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Please show any evidence where Bush EVER linked Iraq or Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11.

Dont post what you think he said, but show the actual statements linking the two.
If he did it, then it should be easy for you to prove.

Bush NEVER blamed Iraq for 9/11, nor did he ever link them to 9/11.
Your charge is pure BS!!

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Please show any evidence where Bush EVER linked Iraq or Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11.

Dont post what you think he said, but show the actual statements linking the two.
If he did it, then it should be easy for you to prove.

Bush NEVER blamed Iraq for 9/11, nor did he ever link them to 9/11.
Your charge is pure BS!!

I am eager to see how you will quibble with this. http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Please show any evidence where Bush EVER linked Iraq or Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11.

Dont post what you think he said, but show the actual statements linking the two.
If he did it, then it should be easy for you to prove.

Bush NEVER blamed Iraq for 9/11, nor did he ever link them to 9/11.
Your charge is pure BS!!

I am eager to see how you will quibble with this. http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

HELP!

I CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE YOU REFERENCED THAT CLAIMS: "Bush EVER linked Iraq or Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Bush did claim that Saddam Hussein had a cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda. That claim only implied that Saddam had agreed to provide al-Qaeda sanctuary in northeastern Iraq. While al-Qaeda did find for itself--until the USA invaded Iraq--a sanctuary in northeastern Iraq, it was never substantiated by any valid evidence, that Saddam helped them obtain and maintain that sanctuary.

2 Replies

Northeastern Iraq was outside of Saddam's control, due to American-imposed "no fly" zones and American support for Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Bush did claim that Saddam Hussein had a cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda. That claim only implied that Saddam had agreed to provide al-Qaeda sanctuary in northeastern Iraq. While al-Qaeda did find for itself--until the USA invaded Iraq--a sanctuary in northeastern Iraq, it was never substantiated by any valid evidence, that Saddam helped them obtain and maintain that sanctuary.

Bush claimed more than just a relationship with AQ. See http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Yes, Bush did claim that Saddam did lots of stuff that was subsequently shown not to be true!

Hell, Congress, in its October 16, 2001 resolution granting Bush the power to decide whether or not to invade Iraq, declared 23 things about Iraq, Saddam, and al-Qaeda, of which only 12 turned out to be true and sufficient.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Bush did claim that Saddam Hussein had a cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda. That claim only implied that Saddam had agreed to provide al-Qaeda sanctuary in northeastern Iraq. While al-Qaeda did find for itself--until the USA invaded Iraq--a sanctuary in northeastern Iraq, it was never substantiated by any valid evidence, that Saddam helped them obtain and maintain that sanctuary.

This is also a lie. Saddam never had a cooperative relationship with AQ. He hated the AQ, and it hated him for being secular.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Absolutely right. Saddam was an enemy of Bin Laden and his movement.

Ican has never been able to grasp this fact.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Easy.
Nowhere in your link does it say that Bush blamed Iraq or Saddam Hussein for the events of 9/11.

You made the claim that Bush did exactly that.
Now, its up to you to prove that claim.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

From your second link...

Quote:

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president

So once again, you made the claim so you need to prove it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

From your second link...

Quote:
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president

So once again, you made the claim so you need to prove it.

Bush strongly implied this. This was successful in having the majority of the public believing it.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
It is naive to think that this group would saunter from north eastern Iraq to the US to perpetrate acts of terrorism. To use this as a pretext for an invasion of the entire country--when this group was operating in an area out of the control of the government of Iraq, and in direct control of the US and its allies in that area--isn't naive, it's devious.

Al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq was not under anyone's direct control until a some time after we and our allies invaded Iraq. You keep confusing a "no-fly zone" with a no-go zone. Northeastern Iraq was not a "no-go zone" under the control of the US and its allies.

The same could be said of the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan until they grew 1996 to 2001 to a sizeable force that did support "sauntering" from Afghanistan to the US to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

What was under direct control of the US and its allies was the territory described as the "no-fly zone" in north eastern Iraq. This control afforded the US' allies--the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan-- in that territory to flourish. Before the US' invasion one group of these peoples, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), were ready to mount peshmerga offensives against the al Qaeda affiliates there, Ansar al-Islam. These offensives coupled with heavy air support would have been all that were necessary to deal with Ansar. A full invasion of the country to deal with a small group of extremists in an isolated area there was utterly stupid. The presence of this group in that area of Iraq was merely a pretext for the invasion and occupation of the entire country.

After the attacks of 9/11 the thought of any terrorist groups sauntering on over to the US from north eastern Iraq to perpetrate acts of terrorism is even more stupid.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Infrablue wrote:

After the attacks of 9/11 the thought of any terrorist groups sauntering on over to the US from north eastern Iraq to perpetrate acts of terrorism is even more stupid.

That's quite analogous to what the Clinton Administration thought after al-Qaeda attacked our World Trade Center in 1993, re-established itself in 1996 in Afghanistan, and subsequently attacked our African embassies and our Destroyer Cole.

Yet , al -Qaeda members did saunter over to the US to perpetrate acts of terrorism in 2001 in the USA.

But I agree that our invasion of Iraq should have focused on eliminating al-Qaeda from Iraq. However, to accomplish that may have required the USA to invade more of Iraq than just northeastern Iraq.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It isn't very analogous to what the Clinton Administration thought after the WTC attack of 1993. The Bush Administration's authoritarian approach to the 9/11 attacks what with its draconian curtailment of civil liberties, racial and religious profiling, etc. as they were implemented within the US paled the approach taken by the Clinton Administration.

It was largely because of these measures that the Bush Administration took that no terrorist attacks have occurred post-9/11. Conversely, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, by and large, have been inconsequential in this regard.

0 Replies

Coping with Hamas lies is as hard as war.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091102/NEWS04/911020312/-1/NEWSMAP

0 Replies

@Advocate,

So you admit that Bush NEVER said that Saddam was responsible for or connected to 9/11?

That directly contradicts your earlier claim, but at least you can admit you were wrong.

1 Reply

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know