- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Last edited:
From the link:9/11 nor AlQ was used as a reason for invasion.
9/11 was not used later in the war.
The "fear" of AlQ was that they could destabilize or control Iraq. This is not a "used AlQ" but a fact and it was, in reality, a danger.
President Bush declassified portions of a 2005 intelligence assessment Tuesday that alleges that Osama bin Laden authorized allies in Iraq to plan operations both in and outside of that country targeting the U.S.
...
The declassification came just as the White House was in final negotiations with Congressional Democrats about a 2007 supplemental spending bill for ongoing military operations in Iraq.
Read more: Bush's Intelligence on Al-Qaeda in Iraq - TIME
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10347835President Bush said Wednesday American intelligence had shown that as late as 2005, al-Qaida was planning new attacks outside Iraq that were thwarted by the timely capture of key leaders of the terrorist group.
From the link:
Believe me, intel isn't as good as you think it is. Especially in nations that we have alienated. Sure, we can find a guy in the US who blew up the Boston Marathon. We can track a guy to the UK easily as well. But we cannot get inside the Irans and North Koreas of the world. We have distanced ourselves so much that any American is going to be viewed as a threat.American Intelligence is the best in the world. There is no way in hell--across the board--they ****ed up that badly in regards to Iraq. NO WAY. From the beginning, it's obvious as day the intent was to invade, and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. It's incredible to me that some here still refuse to see it.
No, but they used the "al-Qaida Connection" as an excuse once the WMD excuse ran out. :-/
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.Do you deny that AlQ was in Iraq then? If you accept that as fact, then how is it "using AlQ" to be concerned about their presence?
I honestly don't know if it was that (I think it unlikely) or if it was some kind of maneuver to gain power in the Mideast. Personally, I think Iran and Iraq fighting among themselves for generations was a good balance at the east end. It was also a damn poor strategy to take on a double war.Of course, it was never about terrorism, it was never about weapons of mass destruction, it was Bush's personal vendetta against the guys who tried to kill his daddy. We spent many billions of dollars on a personal vendetta.
Please add poll option "get over it".
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.
Of course, it was never about terrorism, it was never about weapons of mass destruction, it was Bush's personal vendetta against the guys who tried to kill his daddy. We spent many billions of dollars on a personal vendetta.
A historic election will take place tomorrow in Iraq. And as millions of Iraqis prepare to cast their ballots, I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, and why we cannot -- and will not -- leave Iraq until victory is achieved….
We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.
Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions -- including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Hussein’s….
As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq could show the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions…. History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a common and peaceful future.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged people to vote in defiance of "enemies of the political process".
"I say to all those who are afraid for the future of Iraq and afraid of a return of violence and dictatorship that we will fight by casting ballots," he said.
On polling day, some voters said their main concern was still the security situation.
"Security is the most important problem that all of them should be working for; without this, life would be so difficult," said student Abdulsahib Ali Abdulsahib, who was out early to vote in central Baghdad.
I asked Haider - an enthusiastic voter - why he thought the turnout was low. He said that people were afraid of violence. "But I would not let that put me off. I don't want to lose my vote and my right - it's a battle and we have to win it."
I honestly don't know if it was that (I think it unlikely) or if it was some kind of maneuver to gain power in the Mideast. Personally, I think Iran and Iraq fighting among themselves for generations was a good balance at the east end. It was also a damn poor strategy to take on a double war.
Actually Bush wanted them to find out IF Iraq was behind the attacks. Which of course makes sense because Iraq was the only country we were at war with at the time.People who were there, as I recall, reported that Bush immediately wanted them to find some link between 9/11 and Iraq, even if one didn't exist.
Actually Bush wanted them to find out IF Iraq was behind the attacks. Which of course makes sense because Iraq was the only country we were at war with at the time.
American Intelligence is the best in the world. There is no way in hell--across the board--they ****ed up that badly in regards to Iraq. NO WAY. From the beginning, it's obvious as day the intent was to invade, and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. It's incredible to me that some here still refuse to see it.
You're the one refuting al-Qaida was used to promote the war.AlQ was in Iraq and, while not able to strike the US themself, they were planning stuff. Do you deny this?
No arguing that.People who were there, as I recall, reported that Bush immediately wanted them to find some link between 9/11 and Iraq, even if one didn't exist. He was looking for a fight and his ego cost this country many billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
You're the one refuting al-Qaida was used to promote the war.
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.
It was used as propaganda. I cited articles showing as much. There are other examples, that just happened to be the one that came up first. Were you not in the States from 2005-08?I'm refuting that AlQ was used as propaganda. That's your claim. AlQ was, in fact, in Iraq. They were, while not capable of striking the US themselves, making plans.
Spell-check sometimes does that, and my typing is atrocious.I presume you meant "excuse".
It was used as propaganda. I cited articles showing as much. There are other examples, that just happened to be the one that came up first. Were you not in the States from 2005-08?
Spell-check sometimes does that, and my typing is atrocious.
All I've seen you post is one article in which Bush claimed AlQ was in Iraq and making plans - and that was true. Thus, I see no propaganda.
Propaganda
2 :the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
I see nothing there that says anything about spreading lies.
Propaganda - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
BSWe weren't at war with anyone at the time, sorry. Unless we had troops on the ground, we were not at war.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?