Do you believe that Bush did a bait and switch with the capture of Saddam?
362115
No! Saddam deserved everything he's getting!Osama will probably end up in a hole too and we'll em!
1023667
I am certain the election was stolen both times by the low handed illegal tactics of Bush and Company. It was close for sure but stolen never-the-less.\nThe sort of tactics used to steal the elections is exactly the same sort of tactics he is using now to spy on the American people.\nCan't someone somewhere expose this guy for what he is in such a way to show even the religious right the error of their thinking.
655886
Is this the same trickster who changed the reasons he invaded Iraq?\n\nI expect him to say next that Clinton and Kerry made him cause the mis-step
257079
It was not for want of trying that Bush and Blair failed to find a real reason.   To attack Iraq will go down in history as the dumbest move ever.   Sorry - the second dumbest : the first was to take Saddam alive AND PUT HIM ON TRIAL!!   This farcical process matches the one against Slobodan Milosovich at the Hague and is going the same way, with a fairly good- and straight-looking defendant outshining his prosecutors in every way, just as Milosovich did at the Hague, and Goring and Streicher did at Nuremberg (another kangaroo court).
20673
If they've caught BinLaden they would have made sure to publicize their "victory" to everyone as was the case with Saddam Husseing. But surely they haven't and anyway the US was the one who got him in order to use him to fight Russia and then he turned around on them!!!!
140201
YES YES and TES. 2000 and 2004 were rigged. They'll do it again in 2008. Its a shame that a Dick and a Bush runs the White House. GWB isn't even qualify to run his own life much less that of the USA. Thats right he not he does what his Daddy tells him. The Bush family and their "friends" killed JFK JR. by booby trapping (s) his plane. Get the Kennedys out of the picture and they have control. It won't, however, last forever :)
974678
He didn't fool all of us, but, yes, as a country, we were duped by the great liar.\n\n\nAs you can see from a number of these answers, he's still fooling people.  It is amazing there is anybody left that still links 9/11 and Iraq.
429101
Bush lied to the American public by saying Hussein was a threat to humanity. He decieved congress by showing false facts. He lied to the world by saying Iraq had WMD, which they dont. \n\nBush wanted to win popularity in America and make a new ally in the Middle East. he failed in both areas.
1090762
Yes, I think so. I’ll give you a few reasons, but first let me give you a little history. I don’t know how old you are, but you may recall that Saddam Hussein had a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War. In fact, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he actually used these weapons in battle. That’s where the whole WMD scare came from.\n\nThe United Nations ordered Saddam to stop the invasion, but he refused and eventually the U.N came to Kuwait’s defense. Saddam’s troops were beaten back to Iraq, all the way to Baghdad. But rather than invade Baghdad and remove Saddam from office, the U.N. called a cease-fire on the condition that Saddam give up his WMDs and not re-invade Kuwait. Saddam agreed to these terms, and so the Gulf War ended.\n\nIn 1992, Clinton was elected and over the next two terms he discovered just how dangerous Saddam was. For starters, Saddam broke the condition that the cease-fire was based on. U.N weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked as they attempted to verify that the weapons had been destroyed. When the inspectors went to a location where they thought WMDs might be stored, Saddam basically told them to wait at the front door. Satellite images taken while the U.N. weapons inspectors were forced to wait show convoys of military trucks slipping out the back door. It’s not clear whether there were WMDs in these trucks, or if he was just trying to make everyone think there were. But either way, everyone thought he still had WMDs. \n\nIn 1998, Saddam raised the stakes even higher by completely kicking the U.N weapons inspectors out of the country. He no longer made them wait at the front door; he didn’t let them come into the country at all. This was a clear violation of the agreement that he made that the Gulf War cease-fire was based on, and President Clinton didn’t like that one bit. In that same year, he ordered the U.S Air Force and Navy to bomb Iraq, because Saddam refused to let the weapons inspectors back in. That softened Saddam up a bit, and he finally agreed to let the U.N weapons inspectors back in. Clinton told Saddam that if he tried anything like that again, the U.S could bomb him without warning.\n\nWhat’s sad is that at the time, Republicans accused Clinton of trying to distract the U.S from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, instead of crediting him for doing what was in the best interest of security – both for our country and other countries around the world. Why would Republicans do this? Anytime you credit the opposing political party for doing something well, you increase the chances that they will be re-elected, which obviously reduces your own party’s power.\n\nAfter Clinton left office, Saddam started playing the “wait at the front door” game again. Bush now had to make a decision as to how to deal with Saddam, and since we were already “next door” in Afghanistan it made sense to remove Saddam from office. Saddam was still playing games to make the world think that he had WMDs, and that coupled with the genocide that Saddam committed were two darn good reasons for invading the country.\n\nIt turns out that we never found WMDs; Saddam was only bluffing, but we did find mass graves of people that Saddam murdered. If anyone ever opposed him, Saddam had him or her killed and dumped into a pit. This is why there was enormous support for the war right when Saddam was removed from office. He was a mass murderer, and a huge majority of Iraqis were thrilled to have him removed from power because they could not do it themselves. They ran out into the streets and danced and celebrated. \n\nSince then a lot of support has eroded because of the ongoing war. Even though the original invasion was justified, “war is hell” and people start to get tired of all of the bloodshed. \n\nThe majority of the insurgents are Saddam loyalists - Sunnis that are no longer enjoying the power that they had for several decades. Sunnis only make up about 20
704594
My gut tells me he, and others, knew the intel was bad before he invaded Iraq.  Starting with that premise, who was really to blame?  And was the intelligence skewed from the beginning to support his obsession with invading Iraq?  All of those who believed him and his Administration - Congress, the American people, the UN, European leaders, etc. were deftly led astray and then left wondering about the usefulness of our intelligence agencies after the truth was revealed.   Funny how after the intel was proven to be bad, the reason for invasion morphed into freeing the Iraqi people from their dictatorship.
1131933
In an effort to make it look as if he was actually accomplishing something after the 9/11 attacks.  If we all remember correctly it was not Saddam Hussein who was instrumental in those attacks, but rather Osama bin Laden.  here we are 4.5 years into this and still no bin Laden.  All the emphasis is on Iraq.  When did Iraq came into this picture?  It's the classic bait and switch tactic used by so many con men prior to Bush.
185901
I'm on the fence about this. I think it was ploted by this administration to insight patriotism in the peaople and as incentive for war. Somewhat like what was done in the 70's. But was it Bush's idea? No he isn't smart enough. It had to be someone higher up like his father or the Freemasons. I know I may sound crazy but its just my opinion. \n\nHey I might be wrong and Bush is probably the best president we've had in years. \n*bursts out laughing*
1034177
The fact that we caught one means we ARE on the right track (with a few detours) and that just proves that the Liberals were....OMG...WRONG!! Just wait though...next move Bush makes , they'll be back bashing everyone and everything they can get their hands on. Personally, they don't know what they're talking about! Bush is acually doing Something while liberals want to sit back here and hide. GO MILITARY!! GO BUSH!!! GO AMERICA!!!
744171
doesn't matter what we'd do IF... there's a thousand what would you do if's that you could think about in your mind. the point is, we're NOT in charge, and we didn't make those decisions. and if Bush made the wrong one's, he has to take the blame for that, not have his decisions lessened in their weight by trying to wonder what we would have done. he was elected to do a job, he was trusted to do a job. when he fails, he has to take the wrap. it's not for me to wonder what i would have done because it wasn't be who botched the job. it was him.
866402
Yes it was just. Saddam Hussein illegally invaded another country with the intent of stealing their oil and land.\nThe world united against him for this unjust act he committed.\n\n    This is in no way relevant to todays war.
942736
No, I don't think Saddam actually said that, or would support such a statement.  Nonetheless one of his attorneys is on record as claiming that he did.  It may be a PR stunt, or the attorney may have independently decided to defuse Saddam's expected outburst.  Lawyers are a weird bunch.
893857
Fishy, yes.  Also inevitable.  Oversight and accountability are clearly not tolerated by this administration.  The guy should have known better than to actually do his job!