Bush uses 9/11 to Justify Iraq War

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Lo and behold, the great U.S. President George W. Bush decided to use the 9/11 attack, the attack by the Taliban of Afganistan and Al Qaeda, to justify the war in Iraq. That is just sickening how he is using a day of mourning in which thousands died to justify an invasion of a country that never was a threat to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

 

The "brutal enemy," as he calls them in his speech, is Al Qaeda, which had no links to Saddam Hussien's reign. In fact Osama bin Ladin hated Hussien's secular government and would have killed Saddam himself if given the chance.

 

Senator Edward Kennedy stated that the president should be ashamed of himself for "using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," I agree with Kennedy in full on this.

 

Bush states that Hussien was a "clear threat" but he had no weapons of mass destruction, there are no links between Hussien and Bin Ladin beyond the fact they hated each other, and so far that nation is falling ever closer to civil war. We are accomplishing nothing in Iraq beyond making the lives worse for its people by invading. So far we have at least 2670 US soldiers dead and over 20,000 wounded for nothing. Thousands more Iraqis are dead or have been wounded by attacks.

 

Well, it is too late to do anything about it now and whoever is going to be president in 2008 and possible much much later will have to deal with Bush's legacy of death and ineptitude.

[Walsingham]

You all know my feelings on Iraq, so I shan't repeat them. But I do agree it was distasteful to try and make a connection that nobody believed in the least. Particularly when the lack of a connection was formally admitted the other day. But I've never been a fan of his administration.

 

And can we PLEASE not have another Iraq war discussion? Can we try to keep this about the link only?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Well, my goal of the topic wasn't to discuss the Iraq war but how Bush is trying to justify it through tenuous links and trying to manipulate American voters to vote for the incumbents so that Congress can "stay the course" as Bush sees it.

 

Oh, linkie: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_6

Edited September 12, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[Checkpoint]

And could we PLEASE stick to one account?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Eh? Who are you talking about?

[Checkpoint]

That would be the 6 Foot Visible Alt.

[Walsingham]

Well, my goal of the topic wasn't to discuss the Iraq war but how Bush is trying to justify it through tenuous links and trying to manipulate American voters to vote for the incumbents so that Congress can "stay the course" as Bush sees it.

 

Oh, linkie:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_6

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I figured that was your intent, mate, since you started the thread!

 

I think these weak argument disasterously undermine what is going on in Iraq/Afghanistan. We need to focus on the future, not how we got here. We need solid sensible bloody arguments, not outright lies. It's not as if there's any shortage (in my opinion).

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I think we should just stay on topic here.

 

Partisan politics should not come into play on a national day of mourning. It should be a day of reflection and have it be the one moment that both sides can stow the rhetoric.

 

The time for decisive leadership is now but we need a leader which both sides of the issue can trust to get the job done right and as efficiently as possible. Bush isn't that leader because a good chunk of his credibility got deep sixed with Iraq. I myself was fully behind him when we went to Afghanistan which I think the vast majority of Americans were. Every act up to the point he diverted our forces to Iraq was supported by both sides of Congress and we need that sort of support and decisiveness again with the troubles facing the Middle East.

 

The fault of the Democrats is that they are too focused on criticizing the decisions of this administration and yet not giving any good ideas to help solve the problems over there. Cut and run my sound good on paper but doing that will only destabilize the region even worse.

Edited September 12, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[Gfted1]

*sigh*

 

Another Hades rant, yay.

[astr0creep]

Usually, with terrorist attacks, the group who did it proudly takes credit for it.

This was never done with 9/11. Al-Qaeda has never said they did it, they never took credit for it but they were happy and impressed by the attack(I remember this from a video broadcasted by Al-Jazeera on 9/12/2001 and retransmitted over here on the news). Also, Al-Qaeda was a relatively minor group in 2001 and it was debated multiple times that they did not have the means to execute such an attack.

Bin Laden is supposed to be an exile from the Saudi Arabian Royal family, allies of the US.

 

Also, no one seems to remember this and please, correct me if I'm wrong but shortly after the first week of attacks in Afghanistan, GW Bush was given "Emergency powers", giving him full control of the military with the option of declaring Martial Law in the US if the need would present itself, among other things.

 

I'm just tyoing stuff from memory so please, correct me if I'm wrong and don't hold it against me. :">

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Do you think the president isn't in the wrong in politicizing 9/11 and trying to link it to the Iraqi war, Gifted1?

 

Astrocreep I believe that Bin Ladin did in fact claim credit for 9/11.

Edited September 12, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[Xard]

Bin Laden stated that attacks were even more destructible that they had hoped for

[astr0creep]

Do you think the president isn't in the wrong in politicizing 9/11 and trying to link it to the Iraqi war?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I do think that. I think he is in the wrong.

I also think he is a puppet reading a text on a teleprompter and that he has no idea whats going on anywhere, just like most leaders of democratic countries.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

So where does this leave the average American on the street, eh? Do we just grin and bear it or should be do something about it and if we do what should it be?

[kirottu]

You all know my feelings on Iraq, so I shan't repeat them. But I do agree it was distasteful to try and make a connection that nobody believed in the least. Particularly when the lack of a connection was formally admitted the other day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kinda feels like really stupid move. I mean, I see it backfiring Bush totally.

 

Though, did they think USA population doesn

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I just think the whole affair right now is the result in failure of leadership. Not only by the Bush Administration but both sides of congress. In issues of war we cannot be divided and we cannot have a leader that has cause such divisions. There needs to be cooperation and trust in our government if we are going to succeed in the war on terror.

[Azarkon]

The President's speech sounded good, because it hit all the keywords: freedom, bringing democracy to the world, freedom, keeping American safe, freedom, brave American men and women, and did I mention freedom?

 

I think it'll play well with those who already support Bush, and may draw some of the more gullible who were on the edge. But he's really not said anything new - the central theme of his administration is already dead clear: everyone wants freedom, but freedom must be paid for in blood and oil.

[astr0creep]

So where does this leave the average American on the street, eh?  Do we just grin and bear it or should be do something about it and if we do what should it be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well Democracy is democratic only when we vote. After that, there is very little that is different from a dictatorship. There is just a lot more bureaucracy(sp?) to hide the corruption.

 

A year or two ago there was this big scandal here in Canada involving sponsorship, public funds and high ranking politicians apparently in the Liberal party(most of the culprits were Quebecers, which did not surprise me at all).

It became quite apparent that democracy is an illusion and politicians are in power only for the opportunities, legal or not, to make money and the lifetime pension that comes after the 4 year terms are over.

The good of the people, wether it be in Canada, the US, Irak or whatever, is the last thing on a politician's mind, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives alike. They're all the same.

 

I would say Americans should take advantage of a certain amendment of the Constitution and use their right to bear arms in a more active manner. I would say we all should.

For the good of the people and our children's future.

 

But I won't say it.

[LoneWolf16]

Why hasn't this guy been kicked out yet? Clinton gets the boot for lying about a BJ and this guy lies about a country's affiliation with a terrorist organization in order to annihilate its government, then replaces it with one that's much more susceptible to his administration's agenda?

 

That line bush said about never having said Iraq and Al-Qaeda were affiliated was freakin' priceless.

 

At least with the BJ there weren't any actual explosions.

 

 

 

Was that biased enough?

[Volourn]

"Al-Qaeda has never said they did it"

 

Yes, they have. Multiple times. Heck, yesterday, they released a video where they were 'showing' Bin Laden interatcing with the 9/11 planners. Nice try though.

 

As for Bush justifying the Iraq War through 9/11. Well... while Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 directly; it's more like 9/11 was a wake up call in that the US decided not to ignore their enemies any more. That's what happened to AQ. The US pretty much ignored them, and that's why they were able to make 9/11 happen. Now Saddam, an enemy of the US, will not have the power to ever orchastrate an attack on the US. Period.

 

As far 'using 9/11' to justify stuff.. how about using 9/11 to try to justify attacking Bush or attacking the US for its 'evils'.

 

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP

[kirottu]

As for Bush justifying the Iraq War through 9/11. Well... while Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 directly; it's more like 9/11 was a wake up call in that the US decided not to ignore their enemies any more. That's what happened to AQ. The US pretty much ignored them, and that's why they were able to make 9/11 happen. Now Saddam, an enemy of the US, will not have the power to ever orchastrate an attack on the US. Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that the truth then US should attack Iran, North Korea and some other countries as well.

[Volourn]

Don't be silly. You can't go attack every single enemey you have just because they may be a threat. You have to pick your targets intelloigently (of course, the US has made a lot of mistakes in their war's aftermath against Iraq; but that's another issue).

 

Even as powerful as the US is, they aren't capable of successfully attacking a mass of countries like they did Iraq with a full ground war.

 

Example: I have 20 people enemies I want to beat the crap out of them all. That doens't mean I'm gonna go start fights with all of them at the same time. That's just dumb. Now, one at a time, and I'm in a business to deal some hurt!!!

[Fenghuang]

You all know my feelings on Iraq, so I shan't repeat them. But I do agree it was distasteful to try and make a connection that nobody believed in the least. Particularly when the lack of a connection was formally admitted the other day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kinda feels like really stupid move. I mean, I see it backfiring Bush totally.

 

Though, did they think USA population doesn

[kirottu]

Don't be silly.  You can't go attack every single enemey you have just because they may be a threat. You have to pick your targets intelloigently (of course, the US has made a lot of mistakes in their war's aftermath against Iraq; but that's another issue).

 

Even as powerful as the US is, they aren't capable of successfully attacking a mass of countries like they did Iraq  with a full ground war.

 

Example: I have 20 people enemies I want to beat the crap out of them all. That doens't mean I'm gonna go start fights with all of them at the same time. That's just dumb. Now, one at a time, and I'm in a business to deal some hurt!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, US should attack some new country after Irak has been dealt with?

[Volourn]

"So, US should attack some new country after Irak has been dealt with?"

 

That's for them tod ecide. If they feel it's worth the risk, and they believe they have reason to feel threatened by said country enough to warrant an attack then they should so what they must.

 

That goes for any country.

 

I guarantee you if countries like Iran, or North Korea could attack the US and successfully beat them; they'd do it. In a heart beat. No questions asked.