It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Bush Says US In Iraq Because Of Attacks On US

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
In a recent statment, President Bush defended the war in Iraq By claiming America was forced into the war due to the 9-11 attacks. During the talk, President Bush resisted calls from congress members on a firm timetable for the return of American troops in Iraq. Reasons cited was the safety of the Iraqi people.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON (AFP) -
President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Bush began a public relations offensive to defend the war as his approval rating has dropped well below 50 percent with Americans expressing skepticism about the invasion.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So now it is because of 9-11 that we went to war with Iraq. I suppose that since the original reasons of WMD have proven false, its OK to change reasons to 9-11 attacks on America. Has anyone told Bush that Saddam did not hire the Hijackers for 9-11? Has Bush forgotten Osama? Further more, if Saddam really had anything to do with 9-11, now is the perfect time to charge him with the crime. He is in custody and on trial, yet charges have not been brought agianst him. So Bush is symantically blaming Saddam for 9-11, but when it comes to charges for justice, there is not a voice to be heard........

[edit on 6/19/05 by Kidfinger]




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
To whom ever sent the 'No:Biased' vote. Would you please care to explain how this story is to biased for ATSNN? I have stated nothing but facts in my opening paragraph. While my opinon paragraph may have been biased, it is allowed to be so.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I voted for your story because it meets structural criteria. I do have to disagree with your analysis. The WMD issue was made salient because of 9/11. Bush never lied about WMDs, he and most of the people who oppose him are on the record as having believed that Saddam had WMDs. Personally, I think it is still possible that they might be found, in time.

Regardless, as Bush stated in his first State of the Union address after 9/11, America did not have the luxury of finding out about WMD capabilities of any nation after one went off in a major American city.

No one is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq more than Saddam himself. He is a tyrannical, mass murdering, enemy of the free world and the world will be a better place when his life is finally ended. Iraq will be a better place when the enemies of freedom are finally vanquished.



[edit on 05/6/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Grady, I completly agree with your analysis of Saddam. He was an evil despot that could have used a bullet in the head 25 years ago. However, I am fervently agianst the Bush administrations reasons for going to war. If you are going to go to war, you damn well better be 100% positive about your reasons. If you are only 95% sure, you better keep your troops at home. The fallout from one single mistake is sometimes enough to split a country, as we have seen here in America. Half of us feel like we have been lied to by the very government that we have trusted and believed in.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
.
The Whitehouse knew the aluminum tubes were for rockets and not for centrifuges, because they barred DOE employees from telling the facts about them to reporters.

But then what would you expect from a Deserter, Coke-head Alcoholic?

I guess that is why the 'War on Terrorism' doesn't spend any money guarding our southern Border. These people are cross-eyed.

A little rich justice . . .
The corporate leaders of America support illegal slave labor crossing the border,
Well a Qwest exec was shot and killed by an illegal who fled justice in Mexico, like that recent cold-blooded cop-killer did from Denver.

Makes me want to think there is a little justice from time to time.
.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I voted "YES"...I feel that this piece is ATSNN worthy and also the same reasons stated by Grady. Personnaly, I believe that WMD's were exported from the country as soon as Saddam cought wind that the US was coming in. I have no proof of this, it's just what I think.

"Bush Says US In Iraq Because Of Attacks On US" is a correct statement.
Would the US have gone to war with Iraq when we did if 9/11 was just another day, no WTC attacks? If the attacks have not occured we would not be over there in Iraq now. Im not getting into reasons or justifications for the war, Im just stating the obvious.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Man... i can tell you he is becoming stupider every single day. 911 has nothing to do with Iraq A$$hole!

pardon my bad language
i getting piss a bit here.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   


911 has nothing to do with Iraq A$$hole!

I hope that wasnt directed towards me? Im assuming it's not, If it was Im sure you would have clarified it.

9/11 and the war in Iraq do have alot to do with each other. At the time the war in Iraq kicked off America was still "wounded" from the 9/11 attacks. Bush used this to his advantage to push for the war in Iraq, hoping that the "wounded" America would back him up. Use what you have and go with it...only this one back fired and now the majority of Americans feel the war was not justified.

See my point....so are you saying that they are just two totally seperate acts, they have NOTHING to do with one another?

Edit: 9/11 = Afghnaistan, well since we were already on a roll there, I guess the powers that be decided to move on to Iraq.



[edit on 19/6/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
.
Iraq was all about Saddam's ego.
He believed he was [going to be] the 'Great Arab Leader'.

There were no terrorist training grounds in Iraq, because they wouldn't have been servile to Saddam.
Saddam was paranoid and essentially isolated, he had no good working realtionship with anyone.

After the first spate of weapons inspections after the Gulf war, Saddam had no WMDs.

Now terrorists are flooding into Iraq and many Iraqis and Arabs are becoming more anti-American, as we kill more civilians for no good logical reason.

I don't know what some of you Iraq War supporters are smoking, but please share, it must be some serious halucinogen.
.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   


I hope that wasnt directed towards me? Im assuming it's not, If was Im sure you would have clarified it.

9/11 and the war in Iraq do have alot to do with each other. At the time the war in Iraq kicked off America was still "wounded" from the 9/11 attacks. Bush used this to his advantage to push for the war in Iraq, hoping that the "wounded" America would back him up. Use what you have and go with it...only this one back fired and now the majority of Americans feel the war was not justified.

See my point....so are you saying that they are just two totally seperate acts, they have NOTHING to do with one another?

Edit: 9/11 = Afghnaistan, well since we were already on a roll there, I guess the powers that be decided to move on to Iraq.

no i was not directed towards me... i was directed towards bushco.
but i still thinks iraq don't take any part with 911.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
You dared to criticise Bush. That gets you an automatic No: Bias vote from the Republican rent-a-forum-trolls that im sure are paid to frequent these boards. They dont care/are too thick to realise that the "No: Bias" vote applies to the source article/intro paragraph, not the fact that the ATSNN poster expresses their opinion in their concluding paragraph.

Story is fine, gets my vote.

[edit on 19/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by Subz:
You dared to criticise Bush. That gets you an automatic No: Bias vote from the Republican rent-a-forum-trolls that im sure are paid to frequent these boards. They dont care/are too thick to realise that the "No: Bias" vote applies to the source article/intro paragraph, not the fact that the ATSNN poster expresses their opinion in their concluding paragraph.

Story is fine, gets my vote.


Republican Rent a troll forums! LMAO!

Thanks for the vote subz.


And thanks to all else who voted for this as well.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
So, why aren't we in Saudi Arabia because of 9/11? I mean, the hijackers were almost all Saudi, the operation was funded with Saudi and Pakistani money, and Saddam was a sworn enemy of Islamic fundamentalists, who, again, were the people who orchestrated 9/11.

Not to mention the multitude of official reports from both the US and the UK which conclude that Iraq's involvement with 9/11 was minimal.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
It seems that the MWDs "tale" is not longer believable, so the "war on Terror" because "9/11" worked so good with the American public, I guess he is giving it another shot.

I guess it when from "danger from MWDs" to "Saddam was planning to get his nuclear program back again" to "Iraq and the world is better without Saddam" to " the liberation of the Iraqi people"

And now is 9/11

I wonder what is going to be next.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

I wonder what is going to be next.


What gets me is he has the biggest advantage in fixing his image and he wont even use it. The American people as a whole have a very short memory span. If he would just shut up about it for a year most complacent Americans will have forgotten all about Osama and the fact that he had no ties with Iraq.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
But the Dulfer report and even the downing street memo in a way prove that Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attacks. Al-Queda was the one who claimed resposibility for the attacks, not Saddam.

So in a sense Bush is saying that the latest invasion of Iraq was a kneejerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Then why during a press conferance on sept 19th 2002 Bush did Bush say he had no plans for attacking Iraq? even tho the downing street memo says otherwise?

Maybe because he is LYING and trying to cover up the fact his is still LYING!

Remeber this: When Clinton lied, no one died.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Any reason for the invasion of Iraq that comes from the lips of the incumbent POTUS has little bearing on reality. These are just little soundbites with no necessity for logical connection between them and any previous reason. The field of changing reasons appeases enough of the propaganda-fed non-apathists. There are no daily anti-war protests and for many people who see how far the Bush administration has deviated from ethical and moral conduct in too many of their dealings, there is a climate of fear of the consequences of dissent. This is no free America.

Public opinion and approval of the administration's performance matters very little any more in the implementation of the neo-cons' agenda.

But a media-massaged trial of the Saddam Hussein du jour will be interesting as it may provide an opportunity for the Bush administration to capitalize on the recall of what a rotter Saddam was after he outlived his usefulness to the US.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Talk about taking a quote completely out of context. Either that, or all you Bush-haters just can't read. And to think... you guys are the ones who call Bush dumb!

He said we were at war because we were attacked (9/11), which is true. We are at war in Afghanistan still. We are at war in many other parts of the world, not just militarily, but diplomatically, financially, and so on. He went on to say that we went to war with Iraq because they were a threat, and they wanted to harm us. With Saddam ordering the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait, as well as shooting at our coalition jets patrolling the No-Fly Zone on a daily basis, I would agree that Iraq meant us harm.

Maybe Bush should just dumb-down his speeches from now on so all of you crazy, left wing radicals can understand what it is that he's saying.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Maybe Bush should just dumb-down his speeches from now on so all of you crazy, left wing radicals can understand what it is that he's saying.


I think I'll have a crack at this. Ras, we understand completly what Bush said. To paraphrase, we are in Iraq because of the attacks on America. You cant dumb it down much more than that. What the uproar over this is, is that he is flipping his flop once agian. America was told we were going to Iraq to disable Saddams WMD. Iraq's WMD had NOTHING to do with the attacks on American soil or intrest. I will say this agian, Iraq's WMD had NOTHING to do with the attacks on American soil or intrest. Unless you can show me where a chem warfare munition hijacked planes and piloted them, then there is no connection. Agian we feel like we are bieng lied to by an office that has every obligation to be truthfull with the public.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow
Man... i can tell you he is becoming stupider every single day. 911 has nothing to do with Iraq A$$hole!

pardon my bad language
i getting piss a bit here.


There is nothing *stupid* about Bush and his cronies. They're just being really obvious now with how *stupid* they consider the American public to be and how much respect they really have for you (none).

Come on people...they lied about WMD, all those lucrative defence contracts awarded - especially to Halliburton, Cheney's former employer (who has been receiving deferred payments from them). Now this new contract to build a bigger better Guantanamo. BushCo is laughing in your face all the way the bank...literally. Its so obvious most people can't even see it. Pathetic. How dumbed down can people be???? You all should be screaming at the top of your lungs!


[edit on 19/6/05 by AlwaysLearning]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join