Poll Says Most Believe Saddam-9/11 Link

This is some recent polling data. It reflects American public perception about issues of the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq? Do you think it reflects a gap between perception and reality in regards to these conflicts?

I think it reflects public ignorance. I find it hard to answer the poll, though. I believe there was indirect involvement from Iraq. Obviously there was no CLEAR evidence, which would indicate direct involvement. I think it's reasonable to conclude that they were probably somewhat involved, as we were at a state of undeclared occupation (by air) over their country for about 12 years.

Iraq and al-qaeda never worked together. top AQ officers in gitmo have denied any link as did Saddam. there was ONE training camp in northern iraq,(see: KURD CONTROLLED) where saddam had no power, but our allies in the current war* did (*with about one soldier dying per day still, the war isn't over) according to this only 25 percent think saddam and Iraq were directly involved in sept 11.

speaking of sovereign governments assisting the hijackers:
PBS newshour's GWEN IFILL asked senator bob graham(D-FL):
"Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?"

Graham responds: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing – although that was part of it – by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States."

gwen then asks him:
"Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?"

Graham responds:"It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today."

now, if that government were say the Taliban, or Iran's or Iraq's that info would be declassified and plastered all over EVERY newspaper in america, in HUGE print too. instead, it is classified as to just who that government is, it probably won't be public knowledge until it's turned over to the archives 25-30 years from now.take into account the prior to and after 9/11 about 200 people from a certain country were arrested,(spyring scandal ("Evidence linking these people to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the 200 strong spy ring and its connections to 9-11.)
and five from that same country were seen by several people celebrating as the WTC burned and later arrested then deported back to that certain country.(five arrested on 911)

so in my opinion, Iraq had nothing to do with it. for one, intel indicated that at least a foreign gov. was behind 9/11 yet it wasn't widely publicized (and won't be public knowledge for at least 25 years) meaning we were protecting them. for two both AQ and IRaq have denied working together EVER.

the reason people think Iraq=al qaeda=9/11 is because bush would very often mention the three in one sentence in many speeches.it became kinda subconscious.

(edited to finish posting as my internet explorer crashed to my desktop)

It may be somewhat logical to say Iraq had reasons for attacking the United States, but I don't agree that it is reasonable to conclude that Iraq must have been involved in the 9-11 attacks at some level.

It is heartening to see that at least the members of America's Debate are more in touch with reality than our average citizen. I think this is evidence of the fact that those who take a genuine interest in politics are probably better equipped to make make informed political decisions. Perhaps some sort of civics test should be required before voting in our national elections...

I would be interested to hear from that one lonely voice (so far) who believes that "the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization" - especially what they are using as foundation for their opinion. Is there someone here who still actually believes the Bush administration?

Before you get overly heartened, I would like to say that inferring Isreal was involved is even more ludicrous than tieing Iraq in to 9-11.

I would agree entirely. I think the best that can be assumed is that al-Qaeda may have been involved and that, if so, this was a direct response to US policies in the Middle East (though that would necessarily relate to our foreign policy in relation to Israel to an extent). Those who speculate on some Israeli conspiracy, though, have even less evidence than the grossly misinformed who imagine some Iraqi connection.

I was that one vote, I clicked the wrong button. No informed person in their right mind could think that.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html



The reported links to Iraq always sounded weak. The President was
determined to use the grief and anger of Americans over 9/11 to further
his own agenda. They wanted a scapegoat, pure and simple, and they weren't that interested in the truth.

I haven't heard any reasons to believe that Saddam or Iraq had any involvement in 9/11.

In reality, the PNAC has been pressing for war on Iraq all the while. It seems that we were too quick to forget about terrorism and jumped into Iraq with little or no reason.

If we cared about getting Osma so much, where is he? If we're concerned about terrorism, why are we focusing more effort into building Iraq than finding Al Queda?

"we started out by saying 'Osma Bin laden, we'll get him dead or alive' which quickly turned into 'well, he's either dead or alive'."

I don't think Saddam had any link at all to Al Qaeda. If he had, there would be evidence pointing to it. It is always difficult for a nation to cover its tracks when it goes to bed with terrorists.(Iran, Lybia)
If any foreign government was involved in 9/11, that nation is Saudi Arabia.

I would say the topic misses the point. Iraq has been a shooting war since 1991..it hasn't stopped or gone away. I would say that, even if Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11..the use of this trajedy to put an end to a decade old struggle is worth it. The Iraqi people were the only ones paying for all the good gulf war 1 did and the sanctions the UN put on Iraq. Notibly the French and Russians were actively breaking this..but that is another story and I will not digress. i just hope that Bush has the gonads to see this through all the way. So far I am impressed with the war he has conducted the operation so far. For all the nay-sayers out there..one only needs to look at the end of WW2 to see the parallels in what is going on now. We do know that TOP AQ people were hiding in Iraq..that much is pretty clear though. Again I didn't support Bush in the last election but, the anti-bush people better start getting a grip and quit deluding themselves on what he is doing and what is going to be required. Leaders make the big decisions, that much I am impressed with him. Domestic policy..heheh that is something else.

cusbilla - if you don't want to debate the posed question, you don't have to. Do not come in, however, and take it off topic by telling us how much you dislike it and then going on an anti-anti-Bush rant. Thank you.

There's little doubt Iraq had some interest in working with Al-Qaeda, however there is no evidence (that I know of) beyond that to connect them to the 9-11 attacks.
Iraq and Al-Qaeda

I do think the amount of people who believe Iraq was connected to 9-11 represents a disconnect with reality. Though this is hardly unique to this country. Perfectly normal, annoying as it may be...

The poll does not have an option between "Iraq is working closely with Al Qaida" and "There is no evidence whatsoever"

The answer is somewhere in between, which is why I nulled my vote. A good example of how a flawed poll will give you flawed results.

Iraq and Al Qaida have had ties going back over several years. Whether Iraq gave material help specifically for the 9/11 incident is unknown (and probably unlikely).

The results of this poll do not, however, say that War in Iraq has no relationship to the War on Terror.

Oh its just silly to think that the Iraqi Baathists and Al Quada Islamists could even see to being civil to each other let alone working together.

Lets go over their records:

Hussien believes in a secular, pan-arab nation, despises non-Arab islamists and only tolerates islam at all because so many Arabs follow it.

Hussien saw fundementalist islam as such a threat to secular pan-arabism that he invaded Iran in an attempt to crush the first Islamic revolution.

Hussien put down Shia revolts and is highly suspicious of the Iraqi Shia for their Iranian sympathies.

Hussien publically supports and suggests his admiration for atheist leaders like Castro and Tito, and is himself likely an atheist (note, Hussien's Baathist philosophy is anti-Soviet and anti-Chinese but he doesn't have a problem with non-aligned communists, its part of the whole self-determination thing.) Hussien has also publically stated his admiration for pre-Islamic Arab religions.

Bin Ladin on the other hand, believes in an Islamic nation with regard only to religion and no regard for an "Arab nation."

Bin Ladin even after Sept 11 called Hussien an infidel and agitiated for the overthrow of his goverment, along with the goverments of all secular Arab states.

Bin Ladin supported an anti-Baathist terrorist organization in northern Iraq as part of his Al Quada network.

There is simply no way they are possibly working together.


The more interesting question to ask is, is Bin Ladin working with Al Quada? The answer is probably no. Al Quada, like the Earth Liberation Front, is really more of a brand name than an organization. There is no Al Quada politburo which issues orders to all of its cells across the world. Smaller, regional terrorist organizations with Bin Ladin's political and religious philosophy simply choose to associate themselves with him by wearing the name "Al Quada", this is why on the news all of the post-sept 11 terrorist attacks are said to be the work of "such and such" terrorist organization, the "Al Quada affiliate for such and such region." There is no operational command for Al Quada like a military organization, just autonomous and loosely connected cells that affiliate themselves with the idea of Al Quada.

That's the current conventional wisdom on the matter. But new evidence has come to light that flies in the face of that assessment. It's laid out here in a more general Iraq/Al-Qaeda thread:
Iraq and Al-Qaeda

A couple interesting points:

Saddam did indeed oppose the Shia population backed by fundamentalists clerics. But Al-Qaeda is a largely Sunni Muslim organization (Bin Laden, you may remember is a Saudi). They have that is common.

Saddam did more than tolerate Islam, he used it repeatedly as a PR tool to stir up the public. He clearly didn't despise it enough to ignore it entirely. There is little reason to believe he wouldn't use Al-Qaeda in the same fashion.

Actually, Bin Laden is from the Wahhabi sect of Islam, which is an extreme fundementalist type of Islam that came from milder Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. This religious interpretation is actually much more similar to the version of Shia Islam practiced by Hezbollah, or the Iranian goverment. Al Quada operatives are either followers of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia (which can be said to be "Sunni" historically speaking, but not in practice) or Shia muslims from else where.

This is percisely the type of Islam that the Baathists despise.

Isn't there an old Muslim adage..."Me against my brother, me and my brother against anyone else"?

We went to bed with the Communists in Russia to fight the Nazis.

And you know what, Mrs. P? There's a modicum of evidence that we got into bed with Russia to fight the Nazis. I believe some people even knew about it at the time!


Getting back to an earlier point, though...


Actually, turnea, that "evidence" is a single document from 1998 discovered by a journalist last April in which a name was heavily redacted, then "restored" as "bin Laden". Even if the name is correct, the "bin Laden" in that document is identified as a "Saudi opposition leader". There are two major Saudi opposition groups - the Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights and the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia. While it's quite likely that several people with the popular Saudi name of bin Laden might belong either or both, Osama bin Laden is a member of neither (never mind having any sort of leadership role).

You ask, quite rightly, why that "evidence" has only been covered in two newspapers (the Daily Telegraph and the Toronto Star), each of which published a single story on the document nearly five months ago. I suspect that the answer is obvious: because it is without merit.

If there were anything to that "evidence" - anything at all - do you not think that the Bush administration would be trumpeting it from their pulpit at every possible opportunity? Do you not think it would've been broadcast by Fox News every five minutes for several weeks? Look at how everyone ran with the fictitious story of Mohammed Atta's meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April of 2001. They kept trying to sell that one even after the FBI demonstrated that Atta was in Virginia Beach at the time of the alleged meeting. If the "evidence" which you've now cited several times more often than any media or government agency has even mentioned it had any substance whatsoever, we would all have heard about it ad infinitum.

Not that it hasn't been pointed out enough already or anything, but Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda were - and remain - enemies. Saddam Hussein has denied any link between the two. Osama bin Laden has denied any link between the two. The Bush administration, with the largest intelligence gathering (and manufacturing) apparatus in the world has been unable to provide any links between the two. Now, some are suggesting that unless a negative can be proved it must be assumed! "Where's the evidence that a relationship didn't exist?" is a question posed in the related thread (I paraphrase). It is self-evident that the utter lack of evidence of such a relationship is the evidence that there was no such relationship.

Where's the evidence that George H.W. Bush wasn't involved in the Kennedy assassination? Where's the evidence that NASA hasn't covered up signs of intelligent life discovered on Mars? Where's the evidence that Ted Kaczynski wasn't framed by the FBI? Where's the evidence that the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't engineered by the government in order to clamp down on civil liberties? Where's the evidence that Osama bin Laden isn't a CIA agent now retired in Miami? Hey - we could play this game all night. Come on. If this were a legal case, no DA in the country would even entertain the fantasy of bringing it before a judge. Even shreds of evidence (which actually exist for the forementioned hypotheticals) hardly make a case. But regarding a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, no evidence means no evidence.

I can see someone reaching for their keyboard already: Yes, but prove that there's no evidence! Puh-lease.

I would suppose his leadership of Al-Qaeda could be described in this fashion, since he is no great friend to the Saudi regime (as far a I know). That said, you are correct that it could be any "Bin Laden" (something that I previously failed to consider). Are any other Bin Laden's leaders of Saudi opposition?
I was under the impression that both "The Toronto Star" and "The Daily Telegraph", though each having their on biases were reputable papers and would run with a story like that without a correction... could be wrong.

Possibly, of course, they may have been trying to avoid just that sort of situation...
..and both are well known for their exceptional candor.

Yes, and I believe you mistook my question. The claim was not were is the evidence that the link didn't exist. Rather the question to the poster who had acknowledged that he/she believed Iraqi officials met with Al-Qaeda representatives, was: What was the evidence that ties were severed because of the hate between SH and OBL as claimed? I was simply asking that he/she back up the assertion.

Do we know that they haven't since retracted or "corrected" the story? I have not been able to find such a retraction online - but, then, that's not the sort of thing any newspaper tends to overly publicize.


What situation? Broadcasting the single shred of evidence - at last - that they haven't been lying through their teeth for months? Why on earth would they want to avoid that doing that?? Look again at the phony Atta story. If the Bush administration and its media supporters were willing to run with that well after it had been proved absolutely bogus, why would they not promote, with as high a profile as possible, a corroborative story that was true? Unless, of course, it wasn't...

Apologies for misinterpreting your question from the other thread. As there was no evidence that a "relationship" existed, I read the question as "Can you provide evidence that the non-existent ties were severed?" - and would still see that as asking for proof of a negative. If the person you were addressing was assuming that there had been a relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, then it was their mistake.

My first post, here.

I'm not quite sure what credence this article carries. Maybe you can read it and come to the conclusion that it is entirely possible that there was some form of a link between Iraq and Al Quaida.

You can dismiss it or you can find a different perspective. I, personally, don't know the exact truth like the next guy, but I am open minded and try to read all the articles concerning this argument, that I can.

This may be considered bias by some or that it lacks credibility because of a slant. To those people, at least I can say I have provided you with some entertainment.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/033jgqyi.asp

IN THE LEAST!! it is more than biased, it is pure propaghanda. the weekly standard was founded by william kristol, who in 1998, along with seceratary rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons, urged clinton to attack Iraq. ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm ) kristol is the kind of person that would only allow certain people to write for him (IE other neocons)

from CNN.com:

the only REAL evidence of any Iraq-AQ connections is the anser-al islam camp. that was in an area of Iraq NOT controlled by saddam by the way, but our Iraqi war allies, the kurds.

but this thread is not about AQ and Iraq being connected (which there is no real shred of evidence for) it is about Iraq being involved with the 9-11 attacks, which deputy defense seceretary Wolfowitz says doesn't exist:
( source: anti war dot com ) source: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with The Laura Ingraham Show (bold part is admission. the underlined part: there is NO evidence that iraq had WMD, even NOW after they sent in david kay, former inspector a month ago, un able to find sources yet)

Iraq had no direct government link to the 9/11 attacks. I think we can all agree on that. We begin to part over whether they had any indirect links. And we go our seperate ways over whether those indirect links coupled with the potential for even greater support of terrorism were enough to justify our invasion.

I am firmly in the corner of supporting our pre-emptive invasion. We could ill-afford to sit back and wait for an even more horrific 9/11 scenario. One supported by Hussein, or anyone else.

Even for a cynic such as I finds the depths of duplicity, deceit and disingenuousness of this Administration to be stunning! The contempt that Donald Rumsfeld and his lying ilk have for the American people constantly finds new expression.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons President Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged." --- Associated Press

To these people not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.

So if it wasn't about terrorism and it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction and it wasn't about oil, then can somebody please tell me what it was about?

I wonder if the 5 that voted a link between Iraq and 9/11 have been paying attention to the news today. Bush should have removed all doubts with his statements today.

God be praised, George Bush has been enlightened! More seriously, I wonder why this information came so VERY late to everyone. Ideas, anyone?

NT,

I'm still not sure where all the confusion comes from. Even in the statements you quote, the administration's position is quite clear. Allow me to summarize:

1. Terrorists were responsible for the acts of 9-11.
2. Iraq openly supports terrorism, primarily Palestinians.
3. The War on Terror is against any nation that openly supports terrorism.
4. There are ties between Iraq and Al Quida, but no direct links between Iraq and 9-11 have been found.

That's about it, and I'm not aware of any statements to the contrary. I think the confusion must stem from too many people trying to read too much into the statements, as they have been quite clear. There have been numerous times, as you point out yourself, that the administration has in fact stated that there are NOT any direct links between Iraq and 9-11. Given the points above, I am not sure how these statements could have been made any differently.

Hobbes, in the Impeach Bush thread I believe I posted examples of how The Bush Administration has tried to draw a direct connection between the 9/11 terrorists and Saddam Hussein, so I won't repeat them here.

However, very little comes of out of the White House that is accidental or without each word being carefully scrutinized to make sure it is on point and on message.

Let's just address two parts of your summary. The War on Terror is against any nation that openly supports terrorism.

Openly supports terrorism? Well, in that case shouldn't we have invaded Saudi Arabia and not Iraq? 15 of the 19 suicide bombers were Saudis and none were from Iraq. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi national. Osama's relatives were allowed to fly back to Saudi Arabia after the attacks. The Saudis have funnelled money to terrorist organizations.

But we attacked Iraq. Riiiiiiiiiiight. :

There are ties between Iraq and Al Quida, but no direct links between Iraq and 9-11 have been found.

The ties and links to Saudi Arabia being a much worthier candidate for the "Axis of Evil" than Iraq are substantial and lengthy, but Bush have aimed the gun soley at Iraq and to a lesser extent, Iran and Syria. Why is Saudi involvement in 9/11 being ignored while the Administration strains to find a smoking gun with Saddam and Al Qaieda's fingerprints on it?

The Bush administration has consistantly said that there is nothing that proves Iraq was directly involved in 911. I remember that there were a couple of expatriated Iraqis implicated in the Oklahoma City bombing and one of them worked at the Logon Airport for a while. He quit because he said he didnt want to be implicated if something happened. Its not unusual for these Islamic nations to support militant factions or even terrorists. Personally I dont think Sadam and the Iraqis are bright enough to pull something like that off, the Saudis are though.

The Bush Administration definitely has constantly linked the war on Iraq to the War on Terror. Bush went so far as to say that you could not distinguish between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the war on terror.

Yet, Iraq, a country with motive for sponsoring attacks against us, does not have a long list of reputed attacks against us. (Unlike Saudi Arabia (its citizens) and Iran).

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

The Bush adminstration has worked extremely hard to get the American public to associate the 9-11 attacks and the war on terror with the need to attack Iraq. Without this the American people would not have been led so easily into this ill-conceived war and dangerous occupation. ("liberation")

May/1/2003



Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda Are Not Allies

Very good point Amlord. The Iraq war is a battle in the WOT. Others might be fought diplomatically (let's hope), through education, through foriegn policy decisions etc. But we may have to fight again one day.

Given the fact that a large chunk of the support for the war came from public acceptance of dubious claims- implied 9/11 involvement, embellished WMD allegations, and the very debatable claim Saddam would pass his WMDs to terrorist proxies, i think it's safe to say the war was justified to the electorate on grounds that greatly exagerrated it's importance as a battle in the WOT. Even after inflating the importance, the admin. refused or was unable to foresee the very predictable high costs involved in making the victory "stick" in the ways they suggested. When you consider all the possible moves after Afghanistan, we basically took a very expensive (in money, deployability, and lives) course with minimal benefits. I believe this establishes why the admin. muddied the waters about an Iraq-9/11 link.
That being said, I think it's instructive that the debate here keeps turning from the topic to indirect links to 9/11 to direct AQ/Iraq links to mere suggestions that they met. If all the evidence is accepted as credible, it establishes nothing more than a corespondence, likely tenuous based on their animosity. Its much more likely the "common interests" pursued at any meeting would more likely be regional intelligence concerns- who's doing what to Middle East groups- but joint operations or weapons exchanges don't seem in Saddam's interest. Terrorists are dramatists, 9/11 was about attacking symbols. Sadddam is a dictator, obsessed with keeping power. Killing a bunch of civilian Americans and not taking credit fails to strengthen his hand militarily and politically. His open support of anti-Israeli terrorism is good PR for someone who wants to be a secular Imam, leading a pan-Arab alliance. A secretive attack on America just puts his position in jeopardy- he knew people like Wolfowitz were just waiting for an excuse. As it turns out, not much of one was needed.
I think alot of the suspicion toward Saddam about 9/11 springs the lack of depth in knowledge of foreign affairs in the general public. There are ALOT of "bad guys" out there to get us in many, many different ways. It's easy to disregard MO when something happens and blame Saddam. It fits the narrative logic the world refuses to play by. Bin Laden was relatively obscure before 9/11 and few people cared about the Taliban. Bringing Saddam into it as a pro-terrorist enemy of the U.S. "from the right region" fulfills common sense when you want to blame someone you've heard from by that description and can't name anyone else. As far as right "region" goes, Iraq is a low-priority island in a sea of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Phillipenes . . .

PennDerek,

First, very good post, IMHO ;-). Please allow me to respond, in order to perhaps refocus the debate on this thread.

.

Here's my take on this, only opinion, but I think it's what really 'went down'. The reasons listed above were what was told to the public, but I don't think they were the real reasons the actions against Iraq were taken. The focus was still WOT, but I think the real reasons were either viewed as difficult to explain to the American people, or difficult to pass muster in the UN. There are two main reasons the war on Iraq was viewed as necessary in the battle against terrorists. First, Saddam Hussein's consistent refusal to abide by the UN sanctions, and seemingly 'get away with it', fueled anti-US flames in two ways. One, it led to conditions (continued sanctions, therefore deprivations to the Iraqi people) giving credence to the 'us vs. them' mentality in the Middle East. Two, it demonstrated that it was certainly possible to stand up against the US, providing evidence of Osama's 'paper tiger' portrayal. Second, Saddam clearly had a direct influence on continued terrorism in the area, mainly in Palestine. Third, even the possible of WMD would give Saddam power in the area, against which we might be put in difficult situations (how far would we go to defend the area if there were a credible threat that Washington DC and New York would be bombed, gassed, etc.). Note all this requires is a credible threat, and that there are numerous mechanisms for delivery--I could easily see a nuclear bomb arriving in a container cart, through a terrorist organization. Such a threat would drastically reduce our ability to respond to a crisis in the Middle East, so merely the indication that such a threat was becoming more likely would pose a security issue for the United States. Fourth, and probably most importantly, terrorism is so prevalent in that region for a variety of social, cultural, economic, and political reasons. To elimate terrorism would take a fundamental change in these dynamics in that area. Iraq represented the only real opportunity to enact such a change.

All of these reasons are very related to the WOT, even though they are not the direct reasons cited. Each was cited at some point in time prior to the Iraqi invasion, so they were all clearly somewhere on the radar scope. Were they the real reasons? I don't know. I suspect they had a major influence in the decision, but that the other reasons, particularly the WMD angle, were viewed as being better mechanisms to use through the UN (yes, insert your own comment about how that turned out here). Would this be the first time the government ever took actions without fully explaining the reasononing behind it? Hardly.... Would I blame anyone for calling them out on it...no, I think that is fully within a citizen's rights. But these are different questions than the accusations of outright lies that are being discussed here....

I would like to say ditto to the previous post. I would also like to ask a question. If there was only a 10% chance that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that would be utilized against the US, would that justify the war? Another question if we had taken no action and an Iraqi WMD was set off in the USA, killing tens of thousands, what would the political ramifications have been? Those opposing this war seem to think that we should have known beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD's before taking action, I see no strong reason for this position. The situation in the Mid East is a bit complex and the administration simplified the complexity of the problem and admittedly emphasized intelligence indicating Iraq had WMD's while de-emphasizing contradictory intelligence reports.

Absolutely not. There is a ten percent chance that a lot of countries will someday sponsor an attack against the United States. If we keep attacking all of these countries the percentages are bound to go up.

From the post before that. I would say it is a logical and well thought out post that I disagree with. This should be a world in which you can defy the United States and still be in existance. If this wasn't true than we would have had to nuke France decades ago.

We are in more danger of looking like a paper tiger by proving that no power, even the mighty hegemon the United States can really dominate the world as we overextend our forces and put them in countries and show that we cannot remake other countries in our own image or to our specifications.

By becoming an occupying power in the Middle East without any real Arab allies vastly increases the possibility of raising the ire of Islamic jihadists.

If we want to reduce the environment that causes terrorism the best thing we could do would be to focus on the positive goal of trying to bring about a Palestinian state in the Middle East. This will diffuse the impression held by most of the Middle East that America is in support of Israel at all times.

Our attack on Iraq was very dangerous to the war on terror because we lost our political capital by doing so. Other countries now are very reticent to support our actions. We have strained relations with and the credibility of the United Nations. And by example we have shown that preemptive wars are all right.

If we develop a real problem with Iran now, a country that does seem to developing a nuclear program, a country that really has sponsored terrorism against the United States in the past (and it even has been rewarded for it in the Iran-Contra affair) we will have tremendous difficulty getting support for any kind of action against the United States.

The reasons listed in the previous two posts are about as logical and acceptable reasons for going to war against Iraq this year, but they do not IMO constitute sufficient reason for unleashing the worst manmade force on the world. We had other options, and fighting a war to shape the contours of the international world is aggressive empire building.

The last couple of posts should probably be in the Iraq/WOT topic, as it seems most of us don't buy a Saddam-9/11 link, but here goes-
Hobbes- agree with much of what you say as being reasons why Saddam's removal is a good thing for the U.S. as well as Iraqis, but I still think the costs of doing so ourselves outweigh the benefits, especially in the context of a war on terrorrism where other priorities might be more pressing. Our attack curbing terrorism is possible only in the very long term: aside from the predictable attacks on our soldiers, we managed to provide a great recruitment tool to AQ. We declared war on radical Islamic fundamentalists, emphazing that this wasn't a cultural Crusade against Islam in general or Arabs, then proceeded to attack a moderate secular Arab state despite a plethora of more fitting targets. We had our reasons, but I don't think bin Laden's recuitment posters will mention them, especially if our own President was less than forthright with the real reasons.
Hugo and Hobbes- One thing I think everyone needs to keep in mind is that there are many kinds of WMDs. The material necessary for even a "regular" dirty bomb as opposed to a nuclear bomb is difficult to come by for terrorist states- ask Libya. The case for Saddam's WMDs was weakest by far in the nuclear area, and that was with all the evidence and allegations that have since come to grief.
Outside of such advanced bomb options, the remaining WMD can be unwieldy and underwhelming. Unless you have a great delivery system- very difficult with biological and chemical weapons- most existing B and C weapons have low kill yields- a decent release of sarin in a Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo cult killed "only" 12. That may sound cold, but many more Americans have already died in Iraq. We don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that WMDs will be used against us before going to war, but considerations of what specific weapons, their deliverability, likely losses, and chance of getting used against the U.S. need to be considered in the cost-beneft analysis before we send men off to die, especially when we might need them elsewhere. I don't think a 10% chance of WMDs capable of killing 10,000 plus Americans being used has existed since the Cold War, probably the Cuban Missile Crisis, and then the threat was much, much worse and solved diplomatically.

I think what some of the people posting here and most of the American public fail to realize is that the Administration did not say or imply that Osama and Sadam were buddies and played tennis together. They did not suggest that Sadam helped plan the attacks. They only suggested that Iraq's leadership encouraged terrorism.

1) Sadam allowed anti-American terrorist organizations to exist within his boarders.
2) Sadam fueled the fire by aggravating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He used to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for their relative's actions. One of his Armies had the sole function of preparing to invade Israel.

So he may or may not have had direct links to 9/11. But the issue of Sadam’s support of terrorism isn’t really an opinion thing. He supported it.

-CBSnewslink

Yeah, I'm sure constantly referencing the 9/11 attacks in interviews when talking about Iraq and vaguely mentioning it being the "region" or "geographic base" for AQ wasn't meant to mislead anyone. Since when is Central Asia in the Middle East? Oh, wait, they must have meant Saudi Arabia. But didn't say it. Guess they forgot. myabe they got the U.S. and Israel confused and thought it was Hamas who did 9/11.

The poll in question refers to people who believe an Iraq-9/11 link is proven, not just possible. This is mistaken. I wonder where people got the idea?