Couple clarifications need to be made here: 1)At no point was i "fooled" by this argument. 2) I wasn't fooled because the above was not given as the major reason for this invasion. Again the major reasons that we were given was that Saddam was an imminent threat because he "had" WMDs and had violated several U.N. resolutions. That was the selling point given to the American people, not that Saddam had played an integral roll in 9/11, though it is true it was suggested. The only big question in hinesight is why, just a hair over a year since 9/11 , did we decide this was our most pressing issue? Another theory I have is that the reason we were given is truly what the administration believed. It certainly added up. Saddam had violated numerous U.N. resolutions which would logically lead anyone to wonder what he was hiding. Was there also intelligence that indicated Saddam wasn't really that much of a threat? Probably. But I think that's one if those decisions you would rather take action on and be wrong, than be right and not have taken any.
Chimpy and Co made a regular habit of conflating Saddam Hussein's Iraq with Al Qaeda in the run up to the invasion of Iraq as evidenced by the following.
<blockquote>You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam. - George W. Bush, 9/25/02
<blockquote>There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. - RIchard Cheney, 9/14/03</blockquote>
<blockquote>"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." - George W. Bush, 9/17/03</blockquote>
It was the finding of the 9/11 Commission that there were no substantive links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
As for taking action, especially that of invading another nation, on questionable intelligence, that is never really a valid option. It was simply bad policy made for reasons that had nothing to do with Iraq's threat to America and everything to do with geopolitics and control of the region.
I see a bit of a flaw in that argument in this. What if we hadn't invaded Iraq? What if we had found, before we invaded, that Iraq simply wasn't a big enough threat to have to deal with right now? That doesn't change the fact that 9/11 happened and thus doesn't change that we were attacked by Al Queada first and before Iraq was ever in the cards. What it seems your saying is that somehow going into Iraq somehow stirred up a hornets nest. yet you also say the Al Queda aspect of it was small potatoes. Well, if that's true then Al Queda's animosity toward would not be any different right now than if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Without Iraq we would still be in this conflict with terrorists. Being in Iraq hasn't expanded Al Queda's ability to gather these, well, WMDs, that you claim make this the threat of all threats. That would be the case whether or not we had invaded Iraq wouldn't it?
Oh goody! I do so love playing "What if...".
Had we not begun diverting forces from Afghanistan in preparation for invading Iraq, rather than letting OBL escape from Torah Borah he could have been capture or killed along with most of his lieutenants. The Taliban could have been eliminated as a threat.
Instead, we now have both the Taliban and Al Qaeda making a resurgence in Iraq, both parties having forces that wintered over in Afghanistan rather than retreating to Pakistan as has been their wont in the past. There is strong intel indicating that a spring offensive by these parties is in the offing and our forces are spread too thinly in Afghanistan to be effective in checking such an offensive.
We might still be in conflict with terrorist entities, but their ability to act would be attenuated, and we would still have the good will of our partners and allies in rooting out these terrorist cells and uprooting the causes of terrorism. Instead, the credibility of US intel on anything is constantly called into question, this Administration has no credibility left on any issues, and the Administration calls for action on Iran are cause for little more than suspicion and doubt, even by our staunchest allies. And given that this Administration has produced little in the way of substantive, credible intel regarding Iran, that is how it should be.
But more to the point, since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, terrorist activity has increased, not decreased. Even when taking Iraq out of the equation, it is clear that this administration's "Global War on Terror" has been a dramatic failure.
<blockquote> - The rate of terrorism fatalities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250 percent that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks. This figure has been adjusted to account for the different length of the two periods and it implies an increase in average monthly fatalities of 150 percent. (Only in January 1998 did the database begin to include both national and international terrorism incidents.)
- The rate of terrorist incidents for the post-9/11 period is 268 percent that of the period prior to and including 11 September 2001. This implies a 167 percent increase in what might be called the average monthly rate of incidents.
- A fair portion of the increased activity is related to the war in Iraq -- but not all. Removing Iraq from the picture shows an increase in the average monthly rate of terrorism fatalities of more than 10 percent for the post-9/11 period. The increase in the rate of incidents not counting Iraq is 75 percent. - <a href=http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm38.html>War & consequences: Global terrorism has increased since 9/11 attacks </a></blockquote>
