iraq and al queda

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

answer with the general intent of how you perceive the question.
if you have issue with the term "directly" "aiding" etc, simply vote how your perceive or not if you insist, but either way explain the conditions you'd vote yes and the conditions you'd vote no. other wise just vote.

Edited April 14, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I do with people would reply. Maybe easter is preventing. The boards aren't that happening. A poll does say that 70% of the American public thought Iraq was directly related to 911.

[ironmonk]

It shows a great deal of ignorance when someone says:

"Al Queda and Iraq are not connected; therefore the war was wrong".

The American public was not lead to believe that the Iraq war had anything to do with 911... liberals aka liars in the media on the left have been saying "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"... Which lead the ignorant to believe that the claim was made... The claim was never made. Only the ignorant would believe such a thing.

The poll that says 70% of american public thought Iraq and Al Queda were connected was done on some very ignorant people that shouldn't have been asked because they did not pay attention. It shows a sad fact that too many people will assume things before they actually study. They speculate on things that they have no idea about... which is simply stupid. One would think that the people taking these type polls find homeless people to ask that do not have access to current events.

Also, polls are not always the best thing to go by... wording of the questions and who is asked skew them... you will get what you messure.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Iacobus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 15 2006, 02:33 PM']...
The American public was not lead to believe that the Iraq war had anything to do with 911... liberals aka liars in the media on the left have been saying "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"... Which lead the ignorant to believe that the claim was made... The claim was never made. Only the ignorant would believe such a thing.
...
[right][snapback]948363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The 9/11 Commission said that Iraq and 9/11 were totally independent events, connections between AQ and Iraq will slim and questionable. The 9/11 Commission reported in a briefing that:

"no credible evidence [existed connecting Iraq, Saddam and 9/11]"

Futhermore, from their report (typed from an authorized edition of the Commission's final report): (page 334)

Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore the possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Saddam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way." While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq.

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chieft staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusions that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (disscuseed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

From the back cover of the report,

"In November 2002 the United States Congress and President George W. Bush established by law the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission. This independent, bipartisan panel was directed to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks, identify the lessons learned, and provide recommenddations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism."

Seems like part of the goverment to me.

[Shawn]

I guess Saddam Hussein was training terrorists in aircraft highjacking strategies at Salman Pak just for the fun of it.

I dont know whether Saddam was directly responsible for 911 or not, though I doubt it. But I also think its completely beside the point.

However, he WAS financially and practically supportive of international terrorism and that fact alone makes his removal necessary and just.

The 911 Commision (which was flawed due to the presence of Democrats) only said that no proof existed of a FORMAL alliance between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It did not say, as some have contended, that there were no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Some opponents of the Iraqi phase of the war against Islamic terrorism use what I call the "single weed" argument against any military action not directed exclusively at Al Qaeda. This argument states that because (in theory) only Al-Qaeda was responsible for 911 then the US can only take action against them alone.

This makes no sense.

If you have an entire garden full of weeds, then removing one weed only achieves nothing. The other weeds remain and new ones quiclky replace the one you have pulled.

The Middle East is choking with weeds. Al-Qaeda. Hizbollah. The Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas. Islamic Jihad. Syria. Iran and so on.

IF we and our grandchildren are to have any hope of living in a world in which Islamic terrorism is no longer a threat to us then we must rip all of the weeds out by the roots now.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Shawn

[MichaelFilo]

Hell, I sure as hell was told there was a link. Of course theres not.. Saddam is a warrior, not a terrorist. He storms armies into lands, not planes. He'll blow up people, and shoot them, but never fly their own planes into them, it's simply not his style.

The question is, was there a media type movement attempting to link the two? I'd say there was, and inf act in the rushed weeks before the war, much was said that probably will never go accounted for, but the most memorable (although fading) arguement for going into Iraq was WMDs.. now it's democracy. At the time, I'd say there was an attempt to link it, although it wasn't the single arguement made by the government (note, the entire government, because hell, most of it is full of war-hawks).

God bless,
Mikey

[ironmonk]

Saddam supported terrorist financially... in the sums of hundreds of thousands of dollars to suicide bombers families.

God Bless,
ironmonk