G
gdalton
1st argument
There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In a Boston Globe report writer Scott Lehigh argues “More than a year ago, the 9/11 Commission reported that there was no ''collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” So I found the 9/11 commission report to see what it had to say. This is taken directly from www.gpoaccess.gov/911, in the report they describe a terrorist cell in Iraq that was taking a beating from the Kurds, the report says “In 2001, with Bin Laden’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” And it goes on to describe a longer history of connections saying that in 1997 Saddam was staying clear of Bin Laden because Saddam was trying to re-build relationships with some of his Middle Eastern neighbors but by 1998 Saddam had changed his mind and “it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings were apparently arranged through Bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.” The report goes on to say that in 1999 Al Qaeda’s relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan was beginning to become strained so more meetings were set up and “Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq” which Bin Laden declined because he felt his position in Afghanistan was more favorable. Then to top it all off after the 9/11 attacks Bush received “A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action:al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq.” So even though the 9/11 Commission report clearly shows a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda Mr. Lehigh still cites it as his source for denying the relationship existed.
This is only one example of this, there are quite a few more but I will not bore you with them.
2nd argument
Bush lied about WMD’s in order to push us into war.
There are many who believe the arguments posed by President Bush leading up to the invasion of Iraq were lies, especially his assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and in order to keep America safe and continue the war on terror we would have to disarm him by any means necessary. Now in my previous argument I showed that the US government did know about connections between Saddam and terrorist organizations but did we have evidence of WMD’s. If not then Bush did in fact lie to the public, but if the information given to him showed that WMD’s were plausibly in Saddam’s arsenal then Bush only acted on the information he was given.
People convinced that Bush only wanted an excuse to rally the American people behind his insatiable appetite for war constantly tell us the WMD’s were all a lie and Bush knew it, as an article on onlinejournal.com illustrates
“Repeatedly, we were told that Saddam supported the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks and that he was going to supply them with the weapons of mass destruction he had hidden from the UN inspectors. The propaganda was successful; an overwhelming majority of us came to believe his lies”.
But it would seem that it was a lot of people, not just the Bush administration, who were doing all this lying. CNN posted an article on their web site back in 2002 which had this to say, "”Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and saran. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”
So from what I could gather it seems to me that the evidence the Bush administration was presented by US intelligence, the UN, and other experts showed the possibility that Saddam did in fact have WMD’s. To top it off there have been several reports, often over looked, of small amounts of WMD materials found all around Iraq but I believe the biggest find was reported in a 2004 article written in the New York Times which said that 500 tons of uranium was found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Now if that isn’t massively destructive I guess my definition of WMD’s is misconstrued.
Now I know there are many more arguments against Bush and what a lot of people seem to want to label “his war” but I only hit on these two because they are the most prominent. And by the way incase you haven’t heard the U.S. Congress does indeed have a say in what actions our military will take, and no I am not a Bush fan.
There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In a Boston Globe report writer Scott Lehigh argues “More than a year ago, the 9/11 Commission reported that there was no ''collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” So I found the 9/11 commission report to see what it had to say. This is taken directly from www.gpoaccess.gov/911, in the report they describe a terrorist cell in Iraq that was taking a beating from the Kurds, the report says “In 2001, with Bin Laden’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” And it goes on to describe a longer history of connections saying that in 1997 Saddam was staying clear of Bin Laden because Saddam was trying to re-build relationships with some of his Middle Eastern neighbors but by 1998 Saddam had changed his mind and “it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings were apparently arranged through Bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.” The report goes on to say that in 1999 Al Qaeda’s relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan was beginning to become strained so more meetings were set up and “Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq” which Bin Laden declined because he felt his position in Afghanistan was more favorable. Then to top it all off after the 9/11 attacks Bush received “A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action:al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq.” So even though the 9/11 Commission report clearly shows a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda Mr. Lehigh still cites it as his source for denying the relationship existed.
This is only one example of this, there are quite a few more but I will not bore you with them.
2nd argument
Bush lied about WMD’s in order to push us into war.
There are many who believe the arguments posed by President Bush leading up to the invasion of Iraq were lies, especially his assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and in order to keep America safe and continue the war on terror we would have to disarm him by any means necessary. Now in my previous argument I showed that the US government did know about connections between Saddam and terrorist organizations but did we have evidence of WMD’s. If not then Bush did in fact lie to the public, but if the information given to him showed that WMD’s were plausibly in Saddam’s arsenal then Bush only acted on the information he was given.
People convinced that Bush only wanted an excuse to rally the American people behind his insatiable appetite for war constantly tell us the WMD’s were all a lie and Bush knew it, as an article on onlinejournal.com illustrates
“Repeatedly, we were told that Saddam supported the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks and that he was going to supply them with the weapons of mass destruction he had hidden from the UN inspectors. The propaganda was successful; an overwhelming majority of us came to believe his lies”.
But it would seem that it was a lot of people, not just the Bush administration, who were doing all this lying. CNN posted an article on their web site back in 2002 which had this to say, "”Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and saran. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”
So from what I could gather it seems to me that the evidence the Bush administration was presented by US intelligence, the UN, and other experts showed the possibility that Saddam did in fact have WMD’s. To top it off there have been several reports, often over looked, of small amounts of WMD materials found all around Iraq but I believe the biggest find was reported in a 2004 article written in the New York Times which said that 500 tons of uranium was found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Now if that isn’t massively destructive I guess my definition of WMD’s is misconstrued.
Now I know there are many more arguments against Bush and what a lot of people seem to want to label “his war” but I only hit on these two because they are the most prominent. And by the way incase you haven’t heard the U.S. Congress does indeed have a say in what actions our military will take, and no I am not a Bush fan.