Mr. Spinkles,
I do not believe I put words in your mouth re: Bush's statements about Saddam. I agree that you will find no quote Bush that says Saddam planned or contributed to the attack in any way. What I am saying is that immediately after 9/11, Bush began to link or perhaps a better word would be associate Saddam's name and Iraq with terrorism and al-queda. Mr. Bush consisyently brought up Saddam's name or Iraq anytime he talked about teeroriat attacks...He did not mention the terrorist camps in any other nation nor did he repeatedly bring up the Saudi government in relationship to terror.
Well, you did say "Can you show me the definitive evidence that shows that Saddam was aiding Al-quaeda and that these actions have a direct forebearance on the attacks on America?". This implies that I claimed to have such definitive evidence, which I did not. Anyways, I think Mr. Bush brought up Saddam's name a lot because he had an agenda from the beginning of his administration to end the years of deception and finally confront Saddam Hussein, and he was trying to garner popular support. That's politics. Politicians have agendas, they use rhetoric, and, as long as they don't lie, and as long as their agendas aren't focused on personal gain at the expense of what is best for the country, I do not think it is unethical. I do not think Bush has lied, nor do I see how invading Iraq will benefit Bush personally, nor do I think the use of force on Saddam was detrimental to our country--I think it was justified and will be beneficial in the long term for reasons I have stated earlier.
So, Bush's agenda had to be adapted after the 9/11 attacks, as bringing Al-Qa'eda leaders to justice became the main priority. I think Bush did a good job capitalizing on the global outrage of 9/11 by declaring a War on Terror which so far, has made Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others give their support and take tougher stances against international terrorism. Terrorist cells have been brought down by international cooperation in countries like France, Italy, Spain, Britain, and Pakistan.
Why do you think the majority of the American public initially came to believe that Saddam's Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Did they think this up all by themselves or could it be that they came to this conclusion based upon Bush's statements?
Bush's statements say nothing about Saddam being involved in 9/11, so I can only imagine where people got that from.
Put yourself in the President's shoes for a moment: your intelligence people tell you that Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qa'eda. Do you keep this a secret from the public because you are afraid some people will infer that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Or do you use this information to further your argument to use force on Saddam, whom you know is an imminent threat and a brutal dictator, and an obstacle in the way of Middle East reform and the elimination of terrorism? Given what your intelligence people (and those of every other country in the world) were telling you with high confidence about Saddam's WMD and with moderate confidence about his nuclear weapons, would you have risked another decade of inspections before taking action to prevent a possible disaster (especially after your failure to prevent 9/11)? Would you have risked a few more months and given Saddam more time to do something desperate? Or would you have simply asked Saddam really, really politely? Please tell me what
you would have done differently.
Do you define the Chechen individuals who butchered the innocent children in Beslan as rebels or terrorists? Personally, I call any group who slaughters innocent civilians for political purposes as terrorists. Why are we taking the time to communicate (not aid) with terrorists in Russia and yet had no patience with Bush's defined terrorists in Iraq? What kind of message does all our communication with terrorists in Russia do to our stance that countries who associate with terrorists are wrong?
I don't feel like I have enough information here. You said we were communicating with Chechen rebels. Now you're implying that we were communicating with the Chechen individuals who butchered the innocent children in Beslan. So I'm not sure with whom you say we are communicating. I also don't know what we are communicating...are we saying "Good work, terrorists! Keep at them Russians" or are we saying "Chechens--if you want your demands to be taken seriously, you must stop killing innocent Russians immediately"? If it's the former, I agree with you--that is hypocritical and we shouldn't do it. Though to be fair, I think our relationship with the Chechens started a long time before the Bush administration.
Mr. Spinkles, the majority of people, whether they support the Iraq war or not, are of the opinion that Mr. Bush mislead the nation on the the reasons we went to war with Iraq.
I respectfully disagree with the majority of people. I don't think Bush did a good job outlining the reasons to go to war with Iraq, but I don't think he mislead us. But now I'm wondering...does the fact that we are now discussing whether or not Bush mislead the nation on the reasons for going to war with Iraq mean you concede that going to war with Iraq was justified (for other reasons)?