If Iraq did not do 9-11 then why do people say "Look what the terrorist did on 9-11"?

dontknow772002

A while ago, Zogby interviewed troops in Iraq, and found that 85% OF TROOPS BELIEVED THEY WERE THERE TO RETALIATE FOR SADDAM'S ROLE IN 9/11!!!!

85% of troops!

This same poll showed they didn't think weapons of mass destruction was the main reason for their involvement in Iraq, even though this was, of course, the first 'justification' that was used to push the war, by the Bush administration. These high numbers of people holding wrong beliefs about the nature of their mission go beyond any propaganda doled out by mainstream media outlets, they would indicate indoctrination going on within the military itself, or an appallingly low level of education among recruits, perhaps both.

As for why we are in Iraq... well a very small but very pushy bunch of people having access to Bush/Cheney are in cahoots with big oil and/or hawkish Israelis. These people exercise huge control over the mainstream media in the U.S. (you can see William Kristol every week on Fox News, for example, chuckling about how wonderful the Iraq war has been, and giddy for another war in Iran. He was one of the PNAC members pressuring Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein as far back as 1998. The PNAC (Project for a New America Century) also argued that a "catalyzing and catastrophic event - a 'New Pearl Harbor'" would be helpful in bringing about the changes they envisioned, including massive increases to the defense budget, multiple-theater wars in the Middle East, and a revival of the "Star Wars" missile defense system... they published this comment about the desirability of a "New Pearl Harbor" one year before 9/11!

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are gone now from the Bush administration (former Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defense); they both signed the PNAC documents that I referred to above, and were both heavily involved in pushing the Iraq invasion/occupation.

So what is William Kristol still doing on Fox News every week?

Meanwhile, they are building the largest embassy in the world, the new U.S. embassy in Iraq; it's larger than Vatican city. Is there any doubt that a permanent U.S. military presence (15 to 18 bases) was the plan all along?

As to 'why'? Well who knows what reasons a bunch of megalomaniacal nutcases give themselves for anything - these people never question their actions. These people think stability is "an unworthy goal for America" and sneer at anything which is "reality-based." In short, "they have a screw loose," in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. R.I.P.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1691370,00.html#article_continue

sources:
PNAC Letter to Clinton on Iraq (1998)
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Whose War? by Pat Buchanan - conservative American investigates those behind the current U.S. wars in the Middle East
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land -
"...This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--oil, and a need to have a secure military base in the region, among others--work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported..."
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaRaceAndRepresentation/PeacePropaganda

Zogby Poll - Troops Signal Desire to Return Home - Christian Science Monitor
"...One surprising finding in the poll is that 85 percent of those surveyed believe that the US's main mission in Iraq is to retaliate against Saddam Hussein for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks...."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/dailyUpdate.html

Bush Now Says What He Wouldnâ€™t Say Before War: Iraq Had â€˜Nothingâ€™ To Do With 9/11
"President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his â€œfreedom agendaâ€ and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. â€œNothing,â€ Bush defiantly answered. Watch it."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Massive New Embassy in Iraq Flaunts US Power, Critics Say
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0415-07.htm

Joe

We initially invaded Iraq to find the "weapons of mass destruction." 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

We thought, incorrectly, that the leader of Iraq, Sadam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction.

Later on, we got involved in an on-going war between Shiites & Sunnis as we tried to stabilize the gov't. Also Al qaeda & other groups came in to attack us.

We don't want to leave now because almost certainly Iran will gain control of Iraq & all its oil. Iran is a devoted enemy of ours, so we're stuck there until we decide to give it up to Iran's influence.

That's why we're there now

wanna know

Because they were misled or didnt listen.the terrorists who attacked the USA 9/11 were from Saudi and Afganastan Bushg misled the US on who the real attackers were,for several reasons one being oil ties with Saudi and the other a personal vandetta against Saddam for threatening the former pres.Bush 'life.I raq had nothing to do with 9/11.I am not saying Saddam was a good guy by no means but he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the US bottom lines Bush lied.

Cody B

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who tortured hiw own ppl, and killed them in efforts to find ways to kill us, he was evil, he was a murderer, and now hes dead and I raq will be better off for it! Your question is ascenine.

dreamer

Although i m from a different country, I totally agree wid " lossims2kbien ". As an outsider, I feel Mr. Bush planned to attack Iraq coz he wanted a revenge..and this revenge became a costly one for both Iraq as well as The US. My only wishes are that this bloodshed be stopped as soon as possible .There is already enough blood-shed of the innoncent's. Lets hope and pray for a better World.

lossims2kbien

We're in Iraq because George Bush said, "They have weapons of mass destruction" But they didn't. I believe, as do some others, being in Iraq was that Bush wanted to get revenge on Iraq for a (supposedly) assassination attempt on his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, which was (supposedly) foiled. Iraq didn't do anything in 9/11, only terrorists have to do with 9/11...don't go getting confused with that.

jennesis47

Hey, you should watch the documentary "Loose Change" about 9/11. It's very interesting... not very popular... but interesting nonetheless. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but it will definitely make you think.

Also, That Operation Iraqi Freedom was initially going to be Operation Iraqi Liberation, until someone realized the acronym was O.I.L.? :p

Lastly, everyone has the right to their own opinion. I don't think the public will EVER be privy to the actual reasoning behind the Iraqi War, so all we can do is speculate... and remember... no matter WHAT your opinion on our government and our reasons, the members of the US Armed Forces are out there anyway. They were told to go-- they WENT. They need our love and support no matter what, because they don't have the luxury of sitting here debating whether we should or should not be in Iraq.

knight

Yep, heres our looser again trying to make a fruitless point. LOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anonymous

Okay, first of all, Iraq, as we have found out had nothing to do with 9/11/01.

At the time though, according to US intelligence, Saddam was suspected of harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, and funding Al Qaeda. This was one of the initial thoughts about 6 years ago. This theory by the US seemed to be completely made up, mainly because the US did not have ANY intelligence officers in Iraq. The theory couldn't have been any more wrong, in fact, Saddam had made it a goal to eliminate or exile any extremists, terrorists, or dissenters.

A second theory was that Saddam had recently acquired Weapons of Mass Destruction. Before September 11, 2001, Saddam was having a lot of trouble controlling his country due to the economic collapse after the Gulf war and the Iran-Iraq war. There were many riots in his country as the Shiites started to fight Saddam for control. Because of this, Saddam put down the opposition groups using force, and then Saddam attempted to acquire a BRUTAL reputation amongst the Iraqis, a person who would NOT back down. When the UN asked Saddam to reveal the supposed nuclear plants, Saddam refused, trying to keep his image amongst the Iraqis, and to show that he would not back down from the international community. Saddam then kicked out all weapons inspectors from his country.

This made many countries worried, especially the US, although the UN decided it didn't have enough evidence of any nuclear weapons being produced. Before the Iraq war began, the CIA decided to plant intelligence officers in Iraq and use parts of the dissenting Iraqi intelligence to help for an assassination of Saddam via US satellite guided bombs from military jets. This backfired and the CIA was quickly discovered by Saddam. Because of this, the US immediately went to war within Iraq and defeated Iraq's army.

Now another interesting point is that A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani scientist who worked in a Western nuclear power plant stole nuclear material. He set up an organization that helped Pakistan to create their first bomb. He also sold nuclear material ilegally. One of his customers would have been Iraq, but Saddam refused to buy, thinking it was a giant trap set by the UN. The CIA learned about ALL of this information BEFORE 9/11/01 from what I understand.

Daniel F

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 Bin Ladin did he is in Afghanistan, we have 19,000 troops in that war and a 150,000 in Iraq fighting Bush's war for oil.
North Korea poses a bigger threat than the whole Middle East put together. Bush likes to pick on weak countries, He has no wish to face North Korea's 1 Million man army and its Nuclear weapons.

0123456789

it dont matter where the slime ball terriosist are from, as long as we kill em all

lisab

Troll. What kind of education do you have? Conranger is gives awesome anserws to the BS you try to speard. Please seek attention elsewhere.

Buzzy B

Terrorist come from everywhere

These people said it better as to why we are in Iraq

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â€” if necessary â€” to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Edge Caliber

To make Saudis and Israel happy is the way I see it. Considering most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia they should have been next on the list, not Iraq.

h h

Eruidiot....

Because your thinking in countries, not people.

Its the Islamic fundamentalist movement.

With Iraq at least we will have Iran surrounded and have a beachhead in that area to project power.

Let me ask you this....Why do you care about Iraq at all? Its not your country, and its not like you actually care about members of the US Armed Forces. You do not care about Iraqi civilians.

So why do you care?

Answer: your warped political beliefs.

Btw 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton dismantled the CIA over the course of 8 years, he got into office and then did nothing foreign policy wise with the exception of Somalia which he was forced into because the outgoing President Bush had already ordered that operation.

If Bill Clinton had not dismantled the CIA and our military for 8 years then we would have had the foreign intelligence ability to stop that attack before it took place.

Hence people like yourself start wars, not end them. This statement is true each and every time.

sparhawk7322

Because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

lordkelvin

The only people that say that are Liberal Leftist when posing some question about being in Iraq... The rest of us know why we are there and the danger the world is in

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: