Saddam & Al-Qaeda

Here is a direct quote from bushes decleration of war transcript

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


So how did the adminsitration not lie by making a false connection between iraq and 9/11 in there ramp up for war? Or is bush one of those right wing hateing jurnalists spreading misinformation?

once again....the administration was not lying. They acted on information they had. Yes, they should have waited longer, but military action was going to happen sooner or later. The inspectors had plenty of time....we just wouldn't give in to saddam's bullshit...First he kicks the inspectors out for years....for what? Actually ballad, the rest of the world was saying he had WMDs, and that he was a threat to europe...and also to give the inspectors more time. Your dear liberals were saying he had WMDs, and he needs to be stopped now. But oh well, I guess we're used to hearing liberals contradict themselves over and over. Hey bballad, you can always use Ted Kennedy and Al Gore for the truth of things, and for reliable information. LOL.


cheers.

Quote:

---

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

---

Where's the lie in that? Al-Quida and Saddam had ties...the 9-11 commision verified that themselves. What the difference is, that saddam had nothing to do with 911. As a matter of fact Al-Quida hates Saddam...but they still used him. When one of the top head of Al-Quida was wounded in Iraq fighting againts the Coalition....guess who took him in and took care of him, and let him operate from Iraq? Actually Saddam didn't even know that 9-11 was going to happen, but the issue is that he harbored terrorists. Once again my friend, you're not reading the facts....just the journalistic bullshit that you find in your town.

Bush and Blair had not got the proof needed to go into Iraq for the reasons they stated. Also if they had any real interest in hurting terrorism they would have went into Iran.

i belive the "packaging' was just fine and based on valid reasons...i just wanted to know why it matter to negative who approved of the outcome. the reasons he gave were valid 'concerns' i might add.

~+~+~+~+T+~+~+~+~

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/410014|top|06-18-2004::08:05|reuters.html

The key word there in your Bush quote bballad is "including" did you read the sentence before that? Is this the quote everyone on the anti-war effort is using to justify their stance? That to me doesn't make a justification for war based on 9/11 but then again I don't care about the connection so I could be reading it wrong. To me it says. If your are a terrorist country we are going after you, especially if you had something to do with 9/11. After all they went after Afganistan first. Where does it say, Saddam and Al Quida are buddies?

The "most of us" who thought it was nuts that saddam didn't have WMD does not include me or the united nations or France or anyone. The issue was giving him more time to come clean, Bush decided after an entire decade and the passivism that lead to 9/11, time was up.

Maracu, I keep stating something I would have liked to see. That is Bush getting the support of Iraq, defeating Saddam. Then using that momentum to topple the stronghold in Iran. Didn't happen and will not happen now. Even if they attack again, which they will. Thanks to the tremendous effort to stop any kind of offensive. Even before Iraq there was discontent at the effort in Afganistan looking for every little nugget of negative light to shed on the US and it's military efforts to shutdown the capability of people opposed to democracy to destroy metropolitan infrastructure. And in doing so aid the expansion of Al Quida. They aren't going to go away when we leave them alone. Hell now they are operating almost in the open in Saudi Arabia. This especially pieves me when the left has been on a witch hunt to prove those in key positions in the United States DID NOT do enough to prevent 9/11 Damn it confuses me.

Roadclosed,
The oppposition will always try to prove that the goverement is not doing enought. If it was the democrats in power now it would be the republicans doing the bitching. I get the impression that it is been taking to extremes.
On the international front the USA invasion of Afganistan was seen as a very positive step in the "war on terror". Everyone would agree that the taliban goverement was a legitamit target. The problem with IRaq in part was Bush was sending in the troops regardless of what ever else happened. I belive that even had Saddam surrender there would still be American troops in Iraq today.

"I belive that even had Saddam surrender there would still be American troops in Iraq today."

i fully agree with this, but you do realize that surrendering as far as saddam is concerned doest quite mean the same as it does to everyone else. for him its just a way of gaining more time.

There would have to be, Al Quida and a host of others would take over in a second. I don't like having them over there, I think it's a necessary step to clean a virus on the planet. That virus is blind hate. Look there now, even with the troops Al Q is everywhere. Imagine the outcome if they left June 30? Iraq was not the best target, Iraq was a stepping stone. The stone has lost it's footing now. There is NO WAY, support for another war would come now. Iran and all the other countries who actively train terrorists are safe. Unless posibly if Al Q is stupid enough to launch another devestating attack that kills entire cities of people. The strife here in the US has nothing to do with war. It is big people manipulating little people for political power. Except me of course. :D I read the Iraqi constitution with delight, and wonder could we use that as the stepping stone I desire. I peaceful place in the mid east to launch counter offensive to a problem that has been around since the 7th century?