9-11 and the 'war on terrorism' - Why did Bush* attack Iraq?

[Q]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" - George Bush* - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

- The Bush* administration convinced congress and a good many Americans that we had to attack Iraq because of their 'connection' to the 9-11 terrorists and before Saddam attacked the United States with 'weapons of mass destruction'. But months later the Bush* administration was saying that there WAS NO connection between 9-11 and Saddam/Iraq. In other words, they were lying.

- The disconnect is astounding. Worse...Bush* is now receiving accolades for capturing someone that had nothing to do with the war on terrorism or the previously stated reasons this nation went to war.

- The Bush* propaganda campaign surrounding the war on terrorism has been so successful that even Democrats are congratulating him for this 'victory' in a 'war' proven to be unnecessary and criminal.

- The war and occupation is based on easily provable lies. There was no need to attack Iraq to protect the national security interests of the United States. Bush's* war isn't about terrorism at all. It's about following a plan (PNAC) that was set in motion before the Bushies took office. It's about greed and empire.

- A quote from a fellow DUer: "We have to portray ourselves as patriotic as Republicans".

- Is patriotism about supporting wars even when they're wrong? Is it about waving flags and killing children in the name of 'freedom'? Or is patriotism about being suckered into war and being too proud or afraid to admit it?

[ComerPerro]

1. Thank you, Q

I wish more people would point that out. Fuck the capture of Saddam. Maybe we can "fight" the "war" on terror.

[fishguy]

2. The purpose of the war

With all due respect to Father Andrew Greeley, the purpose of the Iraq war was to install a pro-American government on top of the world's second largest oil reserves.

[frank frankly]

5. right-o

it is that simple, fishguy.

throw in some rampant war profiteering and jerkoff dreams of Apocalypse-wanters, and you are there.

[Q]

11. The Saudis (Bush* family friends and business associates)...

...wanted the US out of their country. So the deal was that they would support Bush's* attack on Iraq in exchange for the US getting out of Saudi Arabia.

- Everybody wins (except the American people and the Iraqis): Bush* gets the oil AND more military bases in the middle east from which to launch a series of attacks against nations on the PNAC / axis of evil list.

- How can it be that so many Americans are unaware of what's happening in their own government? You can thank the American media.

[frank frankly]

3. I spoke with many people the last 2 weeks and the media is not trusted

Dumbya has fucked up too many things already for people to swing back to him. Capturing Saddam will not trump the months and months of violence awaiting our troops in Iraq. It will not trump the lack of WMD.

Just because the media doesn't care about no WMD doesn't mean most people have forgotten. The people I've spoken remember what they were told before the war and to them it has already worse than advertised. He has already blown it.

This election is going to be close, but that 50% who say Bush should not be re-elected have shown they can see through the lies and misdirection of the media. They will not support him again.

The people are less fooled than I suspected, and those who aren't fooled are really PISSED OFF!

Bush is gone in 2004.

[Q]

15. Many on the Right don't trust Bush*...

...but they would rather have him as 'president' than a Democrat. The Bushies are depending on the faithful to help them pull off another 'close' election that can be manipulated or outright rigged.

- Keep in mind what they (literally) got away with in 2000. They don't care how they're perceived by the Left as long as the faithful right turns out to vote for their 'victorious leader'.

[arcane1]

4. "We have to portray ourselves as patriotic as Republicans"? WTF?

Fuck that, we are INFINITELY more patriotic then the Repubes, no matter what lies and vitriol they send our way


If Bush had followed MY Iraq plan, there would be 500 more living Americans, thousand more who could still walk and see, and untold thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, and their survivors would not currently be screaming for our blood...

Plame would still have a job PROTECTING US FROM WMD, and all her contacts would still be solid

there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER patriotic about the current Repube plans and actions. Ann Coulter could find treason all day long if she would look in the right place.

I DARE any freeper fuckhead to question MY patriotism! :grr:

[Q]

17. Indeed...I saw that statement yesterday...

...on one of the 'Saddam was captured' threads. The poster was 'warning' us that we would look 'unpatriotic' if we didn't jump up and down with glee at this sign of 'success' in the Iraq war.

- It seems we've 'moved on' from being upset that George* lied us into war in the first place. Now we're told to 'celebrate' a illegitimate war so as to 'look' as patriotic as the warmongers.

[many a good man]

6. WMD + 911 = LIES

Given the unimaginably huge percentage of Americans who were/are under the misimpression that Iraq had anything to do with 911...

this HAS TO BE THE MAIN POINT IN ATTACKS AGAINST BUSH.

This point has to be repeated ad nauseum in the campaign. Although we can't pinpoint W actually stating this outright, a montage of clips of him associating Iraq and 911 will drive home the point.

He LIED by saying intelligence of WMD was rock solid when it was not. We don't want to be lied to any more.

I want to see this quote ten thousand times before election day:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" - George Bush

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" - George Bush

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" - George Bush

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" - George Bush

[Q]

9. Look around you...

...half of the population doesn't know that Bush* lied and the other half literally doesn't care.

- This doesn't bode well for Democracy or the Democratic party in 2004.

[pansypoo53219]

7. this was nothing but an oedipal

show off by the idiot george to show off to his ma and poppy.
look ma, i got sadaam!

[Q]

8. At the very least...

...the capture of Saddam should be a reminder to the American people that he was a puppet of the CIA and the Reagan and Bush administrations.

- The Bushies stood by and did nothing as 3000 died on 9-11 and have since used death and fear to advance a far right political agenda and enrich themselves and their 'associates'.

- War on terror, my butt.

[mb7588a]

10. Possible Atta-Baghdad Link

Stress on "Possible."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=911601

[leftchick]

12. YAWN!.....

...that is bogus.

[Q]

14. Nations don't go to war over 'possible' links...

...but here we are.

- It's strange that if you do a search on articles about Bush's* denial of a Iraq/9-11 connection...you'll find stories about Cheney 'suggesting' that there 'may be' a connection between this or that group.

- Perhaps you should do some research on how some despotic governments use misinformation to spread lies and confuse the masses. It gives them 'plausible deniability'.

[leftchick]

13. my reaction to the "capture"

BIG FUCKING DEAL! He was no threat to me or my country. Or any country surrounding Iraq for that matter. The attacks against our soldiers in an illegal occupation will continue and quite possibly become worse because of this. Chimpass* fucks up everything he has ever done.

[Q]

16. But does the 'other side' consider it...

...a 'fuck up'? No, they don't. They've convinced themselves that George* is fighting a legitimate war for a good cause: fighing 'terrorism'. It doesn't matter to them that you can't win a war against a noun...any more than you can stop drug use by waging a 'war on drugs'.

- What has become clear is that George* isn't fighting a war on terrorism. He's waging war for the SAKE of war and a political agenda. Several of the more 'liberal' Democrats have come right out and said this...but the people are encouraged to dismiss them as 'partisan' or worse.