What did Iraq or Saddam have to do with 9/11/2001?  I know Saddam is not a good man.Whats the connection?
958769
Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Nothing. And no he was not a good man. But then, how many 'good men' are running countries all over the world anyway. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, Saddam's actions were a part of the culture. There is NO connection except that the Bush administration used 9/11, AlQuaeda, Osama, and Saddam?? as an excuse to visit havoc upon that country. In addiiton to which, in now uncovered (Freedom of Information) documents, the US had been looking for an excuse to invade, to remove Saddam and take over Iraq's oil reserves since Bush Sr. If the people of the UInited States had read, listened and demanded more, everyone would have been aware of this plan; and that includes our sorry representation in the House and Senate.\nSo Saddam has been sentenced to be hanged. So what.!!There's an appeal process which will likely keep him alive for at least another year. Actually not many people in the US give a rats azz about Saddam anyway.  They are more concerned with our troops and why the heck they are there anyway. Even the troops are beginning to ask questions. Those that is, who haven't been brainwashed.\nThe republicans will win or lose based upon what the voters want. Actually I am not too hopped up on voting anyway. If the Dems win, all I can say is that I hope they win by LARGE margins. If not, the Repubs will do everything in their power to keep the races OPEN ....
266896
I don’t understand.  In the 90s, CNN reported that weapons inspectors were being locked out of compounds for hours, then trucks would leave the back exit.  They were also being denied paperwork that they wanted to see.  They were getting frustrated and throwing their hands up.  Meantime, nobody followed any of the trucks, found out where they were going, or what was on them.  Then, like magic, the WMDs vanished like a fart in the wind.  Now, Bush is being called a bad guy, and the war is being called illegal, even though the UN resolved that action should be taken if Saddam did not cooperate.  When it came to the time to do something, China, Germany, France, and North Korea (was anybody actually surprised here) used their muscle against U.S. taking action.  Meantime, what were all those planes doing violating the U.N. no-fly zone, where were they going, and what was on them?\n\nGore testified in 2004 to the 9/11 Commission that the Clinton administration attack on Sudan al Shifa plant in 1998 was a valid attack based on a verified US threat.  Saddam Hussein had his chemical weapons chief help Shifa in its VX nerve gas research based on Saddam’s own unique brand of VX nerve agent, that contained the chemical EMPTA, unlike any other VS elsewhere.  Bin Laden had funded the al Shifa plant and EMPTA was found on its soil.  Obviously there was a WMD alliance between al Qaida and Saddam, or at least according to Gore.\n\nNow, the real story: If a democratic president was waging the war, democrats would be all for the war, and republicans would be calling it an illegal war.  That Moore guy would be doing “documentaries” (haha) about how bad Saddam was instead of how bad Bush is.  Meanwhile, these message boards are full of partisan hate, most of which has nothing to do with mainstream American feelings, which is usually guided by the press (sadly enough).\n\nOne more thing—with the mass graves, electrocution chambers in police stations, children being executed in front of parents who did not cooperate with the regime, dumping nerve gas on civilian populations, a population at large too frightened to speak out against the government, etc, etc, etc, I don’t understand why anybody thinks Saddam should have been just left in power.  Oh, negotiations????  Saddam jerked around the U.N. for 10 years after signing agreements.  If you say the WMD thing was a big bluff, then we can assume it was another Saddam game, he wanted war, and he thought he could win.
42000
i think a lot of it..comes from islam.  although it contains five pillars, of peace and charity - one is required to defend islam (this is played down by moderates and used mostly by extremists) and that is exactly what saddam did. he could have killed millions MORE, but in defense of islam it would have been somewhat acceptable.  islam does mean "peace" but when your new occupying power, US, are not brothers within the islam faith, we're technically the infidels, and shouldn't be tolerated.  the people of iraq are mostly peaceful people and should be viewed as such... But islam only allows that to go so far when you've lived under a theocracy your whole life...
19953
Not at all. First, Saddam had a strongly secular government. He cracked down on militant Muslims within his own country, why would he support bin-Laden? Second, all the evidence points to is that members of al-Qaeda met with members of the Iraqi government. Even the source below, highly biased towards the right, doesn't argue that anything any more concrete happened. I wouldn't call that "strong links." That'd be like saying we have "strong links" with China because our administration has met with them many times over the past decade.
944711
No, it has never been proven that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack.  On the other hand we know that  Saudi Arabians made up the majority of those actually involved in the attacks that awlful day.  Our invasion of Iraq has cost the USA many of our sons and daugthers lives and wounded thousands, changing their lives forever, on top of that thousands of Iraq's citizens have been killed and thousands have fled their homeland since we went in to make their lives BETTER....  Now we have created a terrorist haven and brought Iraq to the point of civil war and the present administration does not have a clue as to how this all can be resolved.  They had done so little research about Iraq that they thought we would be welcomed as liberating heroes and the battle would be over when we stopped bombing.  Now three years later the situation in Iraq is worse not better.  What a mess!!
686459
Eh? What did invading Iraq have to do with terrorism?\nIn fact, we've made it a breeding and practicing ground for terrorists.  They can now go there, practice making weapons and terror, and then use it against the west.  Saddam did not tolerate terrorists, and you never heard of a single suicide bomber or terrorist attack in Iraq while Saddam was in control.
751824
I never thought that in the first place and I do not remember Mr. Bush ever stating that Iraq did have anything to do with 911. He did cite collusion with terrorists as a cause for invading, but never 911. I know there are people who cannot separate the 2 events, but they drew this inference on their own. Generally I do not hear a lot of normal people citing 911 in relation to Iraq. Rather those who support the war do it because of these reasons.\n\n1) They believe Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power.\n2) They believe Saddam Hussein was dealing with terrorists\n3) They believe the people of Iraq deserve the chance at freedom\n4) They believe that we should have finished what we started in 91.\n5) They believe it is all about oil, revenge, or both.\n\nbri2003: Then your knowledge is limited because there was an ever escalating pattern of terrorist attacks against American interests beginning in 1979.  \nHostages in Iran\nMarine barracks bombing in Beirut\nFirst World Trade Center bombing\nKoby Towers bombing\nThe USS Cole Bombing\n911\nThis is just a small list of the incidents of terrorist attacks against American targets.
448161
a couple of points...\n\nA. anyone who says 9-11 is a retard... osama is in Pakistan... not Iraq... I know it's hard for you to wrap your mind around... but there is more than one country in the middle east... cite the link of 9-11 to Iraq... oh that's, right there aren't any \n\nB. See, defense contractors make a lot of money when we go to war... then if they make trillions, they give trillions to those that support the wars, like Republicans... also if we go to war in the middle east, the instablity it causes dirves up oil prices, so they make money and donnate more too... and our president may have some ties to oil as well?\n\n\nrfjanssen... simple question... why doesn't Bush do something about Osama... he's in Pakistan... he's "picked" on us? is he just a pansy?
1019763
It was right although we should have taken care of business when his father was president.  To kodadom92, President Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9/11.
1127055
First of all, the entire world believed there were WMD in Iraq, based on Iraq's own documents and history of use, and much evidence and material has been found to support the existence of active chemical and biological weapons programs, even a few chemical warheads.  The fact is that the chemical and biological agents can be produced quickly from raw materials when needed and only stockpiles of the raw materials are required.  Of course, these raw materials usually have other legitimate uses and thus can be reasoned away.  \n\nFurther, the invasion of Iraq was in response to the numerous violations of UN secuity council resolutions dealing with WMD, several of which authorized the use of force.  Saddam was known to, and bragged about, helping international terrorism, and even though he probably didn't have any direct connection to 9/11, his connection to terrorism in general is well established.\n\nSo, get your facts straight and stop spewing this liberal, why-can't-we-all-just-get-along garbage.  There is evil in this world and it must be rooted out and destroyed at every opportunity.
573347
umm...You must be really young, ignorant or both. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. He USED weapons of mass destruction on the Kurdish people in northern Iraq...He used them in the war with Iran...He invaded Kuwait to steal their oil. He violated the U.N. resolutions regarding the cease fire after the first gulf war repeatedly. Saddam ran torture chambers. He murdered Iraqi Olympic athletes if they did not win a medal. He ruled his country as a ruthless blood thirsty dictator. Saddam actually had giant shredders...like wood chippers that he put his political opponents into alive. Saddam would have had Nuclear weapons if the Israeli Air Force had not destroyed their facility in the early 80s. Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 cash to any palestinian family that would use one of their children as a Suicide Bomber to go Kill Israelis'. Saddam had met with leaders of Al Qaeda to plan future attacks on the USA and Israel. Saddam Hussein was embezzling money in the U.N. oil for food program to use as bribes to pay off the Russians and the French to change their votes at the U.N. Security council. Under Saddams rule, Women were not allowed to be educated. Under Saddams rule watching sattelite T.V. and getting on the internet was forbidden. All of this and more...and you have the audacity to place President Bush, who is trying the best he know how to protect America and spread freedom and democracy around the world, in the same league as Saddam Hussein? You and any others who think this way are so far out of touch with reality, so full of Hatred for President Bush, that you are incapable of rational thought or an unbiased opinion about what is really going on in the world. Unbelievable...
1009118
You would probably be suprised at how many people legitimatly believe there is a connection between the former Iraqi government and Al-Qaidi.  No matter how often it is proven otherwise.\n\nBush just calls it the war on terror so he doesn't have to fess up that the real reason we went there (Apparently WMDs) was just a lie.  Oh well, the republicans will be out soon and maybe we can get this country back in a decent order.
780264
Saddam was a friend to Reagan and Bush Sr., because during the time of their respective presidencies, Iraq was at war with Iran, and the US government supported Iraq and the Saddam Regime. One theory is that the CIA, and the US government, gave Saddam the OK to invade Kuwait because the Kuwaiti government had plans of screwing with the oil supply. However, Saddam went too far, and so the US military had to reel him in and put a short leash on him.\n\nThe theory is actually rather plausible, considering that Bush Sr is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, in which the Bin Laden family heavily invests; and considering that James Baker, the Secretary of State under Bush Sr., and whose law firm, Baker Botts, represents foreign oil interests and lobbyists. (As a side note, isn't it interesting that James Baker is now heading the so called Iraq Study Group, to develop a new strategy for the war in Iraq? And, isn't it equally interesting the Baker Botts law firm defended the Bin Laden family against the law suit brought on by the families of the 9-11 victims?)
185622
As strange as it sounds...I DO think Saddam should be put back in power.\nHere's why.  We had no justification for going into iraq in the first place...people can pretend we did, but we really did not.  Bush USED the 9/11 tragedy as justification for invading their country. \nNext, there are three distinct groups of poeple in Iraq, and no democracy is going to make them get along. The country truly is in chaos.  Saddam was able (albeit with the sword) to keep something of a working country there, not a civil war.&#92;  I don't believe Saddam is a good person or even a good leader, BUT I DONT WANT MY TAXDOLLARS AND THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS IN THE MILITARY LOST TO FUND BUSH'S VENDETTA.\n\nPut Bush on trial for war crimes.
890379
Iraq was not like it is now when Saddam was in power. Saddam was a threat to his own people, and those around him, period. World threat? Threat to America? Not by any thinking person's stretch of the imagination. We had to retaliate for 9/11 and a group of brilliant people decided Iraq was the path of least resistance after we topple their tyrant to install a democracy. Wishful thinking at its best, we are starting to see the worst. Things have degraded to their tribal levels split along religious sects. We invaded without understanding the culture and history of the region. Hatred and war are long time bed-partners in the middle-east. Just to keep the excitement growing we can now add extremely twisted, hate filled, religious fundamentalist zealots adding to the killing in the name of Allah.  Baghdad is eerily starting to look like Saigon. We won't need a strategy to get out, we'll need emergency evacuation.
1044146
Yeah, Saddam used WMDs IN THE 80'S. Fair enough. Bad guy. But did he actually have WMDs that he could actually use in 2003? No way. They were, even by Santorum's account degraded at that time.
708556
the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with demorcay, which was a front, or making the world a safer place, it had to do with a personal vendetta against Hussien by Bush, who tried and tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 but couldnt , who insitsted there were wmds, but couldnt find any, and anyone who said they did, please cite the source, it was also for oil! Meanwhile Bin Laddens boys continue to operate, why vbecause instead of pouring the amount of troops needed to kcik their butts in Afghanastan, we decided to invade Iraq! That alone should raise eyebrows, but it gets worse if you investigate just how the twin towers colsaapsed, when steel does not melt at the tmp that  the building got to, nor should it of free fell! SO someone hide something, and used Hussien as a shield so that they could accomplish their goal, which was $$ oil all powerful presidency, curtailing civil rights!