At the time we invaded Iraq, did you believe Hussein was behind 9/11?

[Faun]

Why do you people argue over facts that you create?

We went to war because of the 15 or 17 times that Iraq ignored UN resolutions, PERIOD. That is exactly why we were able to acquire a coalition.

I really, really, despise when people try to re-write history. It is all about WMDs, it is all about Busch senior, it is all about this, that, or the other. Ridiculous.

Now, if you geniuses want to discuss how Bush really felt, and the real reason Bush went to war, go ahead. I could probably agree with 50% of your tin hat ideas. But, it was legal throughout the world, and if Saddamn complied with the UN resolutions, poof, no legal war. No coalition, no nothing.

In essence, this poll is a question that has no bearing on WHY we went to war; obviously meant to NOT give the answer that was real, while promoting a specific political agenda.

That's some interesting logic, ya got there. Hopefully, you can clarify ....

You'll recall, Bush's coalition was not actually sanctioned by the UN. Although Bush said he was going to press the UN to vote on the issue, he ultimately backed down from doing just that after learning he didn't have the support of the UN. So help me understand your reasoning here and pardon the English ..... but ....... how the fuck is it you think we invaded Iraq over ignored U.N. resolutions when the U.N. wouldn't approve of the invasion???

 

[Darkwind]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

 

[Faun]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

WMD were the main reason. Without WMD, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to launch the invasion he salivated over.

 

[Darkwind]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

WMD were the main reason. Without WMD, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to launch the invasion he salivated over.

WMD was the main focus of the LEFT....it was ONLY one item in a laundry list of items justifying the war...

Of all the items provided as justification, it was ONLY the WMD's that turned out to be wrong. Which is why the LEFT has staked their entire rewrite of history on it.

 

[Faun]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

WMD were the main reason. Without WMD, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to launch the invasion he salivated over.

WMD was the main focus of the LEFT....it was ONLY one item in a laundry list of items justifying the war...

Of all the items provided as justification, it was ONLY the WMD's that turned out to be wrong. Which is why the LEFT has staked their entire rewrite of history on it.

Well that doesn't pass the smile test ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." - Bush​

... g'head .... this is where you try to convince the audience that Bush didn't mean what I said.

 

[whitehall]

The authorization and parameters of the mission in Iraq are spelled out in an official document. Since the U.S. is a representative government we rely on our elected officials in Congress to authorize the use of military force. It might be politically expedient to poll common citizens about their understanding of a decade old resolution but it's easy to guess that the "poll" is just another prog propaganda mission. I could ask if anybody in his right mind thought Yugoslavia was a threat to the U.S. or world peace for that matter but Bill Clinton never consulted the representatives of the people before authorizing U.S. bombers to obliterate a defenseless country to force the surrender of one man. Legal scholars are still arguing whether Harry Truman had the authority to send Troops to Korea under an executive order.

 

[Adrian]

If you are going to lie, you had better have a good memory. For the benefit of the Neo-liberals who can't seem to recall how things went down, I give you a little example of the REAL stances of prominent liberals at the time. Enjoy.

Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote Speech:

Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program:

Al Gore Discusses the tie between Iraq and Terror…:

Any questions?

Maybe if liberals were more grounded individuals they would be patriotic rather than treasonous. Perhaps they would love America and what she stands for rather than seeking to destroy this force for good in the world in favor of the failed socialist and even communist models of the past and present. If you can watch these videos and not feel disgusted by the leftists' need to try to alter history despite the plethora of hard evidence that betrays their madness.

Liberals are extremely dishonest about the events leading up to the war. Combine that with a liberal msm and you have embedded reporters desperately try to find something wrong with a nearly flawless defeat of Saddam's military machine, and liberal politicians dig up every negative thing they can find to politicize the war.

It was a fiasco on many levels, but according to my memory and the video record there was much more to it than the Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left would have fools believe.

 

[Faun]

If you are going to lie, you had better have a good memory. For the benefit of the Neo-liberals who can't seem to recall how things went down, I give you a little example of the REAL stances of prominent liberals at the time. Enjoy.

Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote Speech:

Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program:

Al Gore Discusses the tie between Iraq and Terror…:

Any questions?

Maybe if liberals were more grounded individuals they would be patriotic rather than treasonous. Perhaps they would love America and what she stands for rather than seeking to destroy this force for good in the world in favor of the failed socialist and even communist models of the past and present. If you can watch these videos and not feel disgusted by the leftists' need to try to alter history despite the plethora of hard evidence that betrays their madness.

Liberals are extremely dishonest about the events leading up to the war. Combine that with a liberal msm and you have embedded reporters desperately try to find something wrong with a nearly flawless defeat of Saddam's military machine, and liberal politicians dig up every negative thing they can find to politicize the war.

It was a fiasco on many levels, but according to my memory and the video record there was much more to it than the Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left would have fools believe.

Sure, I have a question .... which one of them tried to establish a connection between Iraq or Hussein with September the 11th?

You realize that's what this thread is about, right?

 

[OKTexas]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

Though not directly involved in 9/11, Hussein was an enabler of terrorism, paying the families of suicide bombers of several organizations.

 

[Adrian]

If you are going to lie, you had better have a good memory. For the benefit of the Neo-liberals who can't seem to recall how things went down, I give you a little example of the REAL stances of prominent liberals at the time. Enjoy.

Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote Speech:

Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program:

Al Gore Discusses the tie between Iraq and Terror…:

Any questions?

Maybe if liberals were more grounded individuals they would be patriotic rather than treasonous. Perhaps they would love America and what she stands for rather than seeking to destroy this force for good in the world in favor of the failed socialist and even communist models of the past and present. If you can watch these videos and not feel disgusted by the leftists' need to try to alter history despite the plethora of hard evidence that betrays their madness.

Liberals are extremely dishonest about the events leading up to the war. Combine that with a liberal msm and you have embedded reporters desperately try to find something wrong with a nearly flawless defeat of Saddam's military machine, and liberal politicians dig up every negative thing they can find to politicize the war.

It was a fiasco on many levels, but according to my memory and the video record there was much more to it than the Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left would have fools believe.

Sure, I have a question .... which one of them tried to establish a connection between Iraq or Hussein with September the 11th?

You realize that's what this thread is about, right?

It's obviously about a lot of things. As for the OP's question, only uninformed fools believe Hussein was involved in 9/11. About the same number of fools that say it was in inside job, or the number of fools who think Bush didn't have justification and a green light from Congressional Democrats who later did the typical Neo-liberal thing and tried to claim differently even though the dirtbags are on record.

Nice job trying to divert attention from the damning evidence I posted though. Sadly, no one is falling for it.

 

[Faun]

If you are going to lie, you had better have a good memory. For the benefit of the Neo-liberals who can't seem to recall how things went down, I give you a little example of the REAL stances of prominent liberals at the time. Enjoy.

Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote Speech:

Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program:

Al Gore Discusses the tie between Iraq and Terror…:

Any questions?

Maybe if liberals were more grounded individuals they would be patriotic rather than treasonous. Perhaps they would love America and what she stands for rather than seeking to destroy this force for good in the world in favor of the failed socialist and even communist models of the past and present. If you can watch these videos and not feel disgusted by the leftists' need to try to alter history despite the plethora of hard evidence that betrays their madness.

Liberals are extremely dishonest about the events leading up to the war. Combine that with a liberal msm and you have embedded reporters desperately try to find something wrong with a nearly flawless defeat of Saddam's military machine, and liberal politicians dig up every negative thing they can find to politicize the war.

It was a fiasco on many levels, but according to my memory and the video record there was much more to it than the Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left would have fools believe.

Sure, I have a question .... which one of them tried to establish a connection between Iraq or Hussein with September the 11th?

You realize that's what this thread is about, right?

It's obviously about a lot of things. As for the OP's question, only uninformed fools believe Hussein was involved in 9/11. About the same number of fools that say it was in inside job, or the number of fools who think Bush didn't have justification and a green light from Congressional Democrats who later did the typical Neo-liberal thing and tried to claim differently even though the dirtbags are on record.

Nice job trying to divert attention from the damning evidence I posted though. Sadly, no one is falling for it.

While I find it adorable how you think I'm the one diverting by pointing out you're diverting from the thread topic, it's ludicrous to claim 70% are uninformed people for believing the Bush administration.

 

[there4eyeM]

We knew Rumsfeld had been behind Hussein.

 

[BlindBoo]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

The only way Iraq was a continuing and real threat to the worlds premier superpower was if they had usable WMDs. That or if they were involved in 9-11 is the only reasons Congress authorized the use of military force against them.

 

[imawhosure]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

The only way Iraq was a continuing and real threat to the worlds premier superpower was if they had usable WMDs. That or if they were involved in 9-11 is the only reasons Congress authorized the use of military force against them.

Says you, lol. How many democrats were on that committee that seen the same thing Bush did and voted for it?

I am telling you, it was a legal war. Doesn't mean it was correct, but the breaking of the UN resolutions was the tipping point. People do not want to admit that.

You don't have WMDs? Ok, our inspectors will come in and verify your claim. You won't let us? Why if you don't have them?

This whole farcial liberal song and dance is ridiculous. And remember, the smartest woman in the world, Hillary Clinstone agreed. Guess we know not to call her at 3AM, now don't we!

If Bush was dumb, then Hillary was most dumb? Why? Because he wanted to do it, but in the world according to the left, she didn't, lol. This means that she was CONVINCED to go in was the correct thing to do. Must have been a right wing conspiracy, lololol.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I was against the Gulf War and I thought invading Iraq was a big mistake.

 

[there4eyeM]

Congress did not have the courage to declare war, so it wasn't one officially.
The invasion was illegal by international law and treaties approved by Congress and, so, binding under the Constitution.
Those who broke that law are criminals.
Clinton voted for it and I won't vote for her.
Bush & Co. are war criminals and should be tried as such.

 

[Care4all]

Memory getting shaky?

12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq

Two sections from Rumsfeld's notes, dictated to Stephen Cambone. [Source: Defense Department]Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.”

9/11 Timeline

Bush Defends Assertions
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

None of that says Hussein was behind 9/11. The question is, how do you remember it? So if you believed when we invaded that Hussein was behind 9/11, go ahead and vote that

Even though the Administration was trying to convince America that Saddam was connected to 9/11, I knew it was a LIE, I never supported the war in Iraq, I never supported the Admin choosing to let Osama go by the wayside...I knew how important it would have been if Osama was caught, dead or alive, as EARLY as possible.....so to show the Jihadists, that "Allah" was on our (America's) side....and the one way we could have nipped the continued terrorism, was to show them their Earthly leader and hero(Osama) was wrong and done in....as I said, the earlier the better, as far as mind/war games.

Instead we were lead astray by our admin who from day 1 wanted to pin this on Saddam or figure out a way to get America to support an Iraqi War,

and this blunder of a war against Iraq will continue to hurt us for a century if not more....Thank you President Bush! (And Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and Feith and Rice and Bolton and Perle etc etc etc)

 

[Darkwind]

Congress did not have the courage to declare war, so it wasn't one officially.
The invasion was illegal by international law and treaties approved by Congress and, so, binding under the Constitution.
Those who broke that law are criminals.
Clinton voted for it and I won't vote for her.
Bush & Co. are war criminals and should be tried as such.

No they are not, but good luck with that.

 

[Darkwind]

Memory getting shaky?

12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq

Two sections from Rumsfeld's notes, dictated to Stephen Cambone. [Source: Defense Department]Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.”

9/11 Timeline

Bush Defends Assertions
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

None of that says Hussein was behind 9/11. The question is, how do you remember it? So if you believed when we invaded that Hussein was behind 9/11, go ahead and vote that

Even though the Administration was trying to convince America that Saddam was connected to 9/11, I knew it was a LIE, I never supported the war in Iraq, I never supported the Admin choosing to let Osama go by the wayside...I knew how important it would have been if Osama was caught, dead or alive, as EARLY as possible.....so to show the Jihadists, that "Allah" was on our (America's) side....and the one way we could have nipped the continued terrorism, was to show them their Earthly leader and hero(Osama) was wrong and done in....as I said, the earlier the better, as far as mind/war games.

Instead we were lead astray by our admin who from day 1 wanted to pin this on Saddam or figure out a way to get America to support an Iraqi War,

and this blunder of a war against Iraq will continue to hurt us for a century if not more....Thank you President Bush! (And Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and Feith and Rice and Bolton and Perle etc etc etc)

This is a lie. The Bush Administration NEVER tried to tie Iraq with 9/11.

 

[there4eyeM]

Law breaking is not criminal activity?

Acting contrary to the Constitution and the interests of the US is not treason?