At this point, only the insane and retarded believe that 9-11 and Iraq are related. Another lie the administration handed you. . .

If that was the case,we should be at war with the Saudis,who are KNOWN supporters of terrorists.Instead,Bush wants to turn our already poorly monitored ports over to the UAE.Funny behavior for a party who wants to shake down every ethnic looking person at the airports and spy on it's own citizens to suddenly ask us to "trust" known terrorist supporters and funders because "they have changed their ways" !

Why has this been put up on the site. It is a brilliant example of how stupid the republicans think you all are. They think they can make stuff up to goto war and cause the deaths of hundred thousands of people. OH wait they still won the vote! Most of you may not know but this has provoked so much anti-american hatred all across europe as its a total disrespect for the people who have died in this unjust war!

I'm pretty sure Binny Boy took the responsibility for 911. That was the reason for the Afgahn invasion (where's Binny anyway?) What will the reason be for the Iran war....on....terror!

Iraq had no part in 9/11 and Saddam's goverment while terrible did not support or succor terrorism. Our ally Saudi Arabia has a much worse history when it comes to haboring terrorists.

Try not to confuse the Iraqi War with the Afghan War. This was not part of the justification for war with Iraq.

This is a horrible excuse for invading Iraq. Before the war started there was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9.11 attacks, or that he was a threat to us. The evidence about weapons of mass destruction all pointed towards the conclusion that Hussein didn't possess any. And as for his ties to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, the two men despised one another. They would never have gotten together to fight the United States. The idea that Saddam Hussein was involved with bin Laden, and the idea that he was a threat to the United States was just a lie to get Americans to go along with the idea, rather than thinking for themselves. And unfortunately, it worked. NOTE: I'm not saying that Hussein was a good person. He definately was an oppressive leader, but so are numerous other rulers- so what makes him so dangerous??? Nothing.

Iraq had no role in 9/11...and BUSH pounding his fist on his desk during the state of the Union address did not convince me otherwise.

It's true, Saddam does have a past relationship with Al-Qeada. They tried to kill him twice. UPDATE: Just saw a new poll today, apparently 73% of Republicans polled believed not only that Saddam was directly behind the 9/11 attacks but also that WMDs had been FOUND in Iraq. If you'll recall Bush actually said Saddam attacked us in the first debate. A difference of opinion is fine but the fact that so many continue to believe blatant untruths is a disturbing stigma in an electoral democracy.

People you need to keep up on what is going on around you because if you did you would realize how ridiculous this statement is. There was no connection. If it is retaliation for 9/11 you got the country wrong. That would be Saudi Arabia, the home to 15 of the 19 terrorist. If it is for terrorism we should start the war on terror in the United States on our foriegn policy, not countries that have NEVER been a threat to America.

Well Well Well, I suppose Saddam and Al Qaeda hated eachother...this is why Al Qaeda agreed to not strike in Iraq as long as Iraq provided weapons to them. Additionally an Iraqi official attended the planning of the 9/11 attacks; additionally Al Qaeda warriors have been known to receive treatment in well financed iraqi hospitals (only available to members of the bath party and people in bed with them) Get a clue liberals

This is not a reason at all. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Even Bush has said so.

There was no connection, repeat no connection between the attack by the Saudi's and four other people, none that were from Iraq.

Utterly irrelevant, as even the neocons in Bush's administration have admitted.

Extension of War on Terrorism? Yes, 5 stars. Retaliation for 9/11? Not directly, 3 stars. However, is there any question now that there's a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Nick Berg, an American businessman was recently murdered in Iraq by a group linked to Al-Qaeda. They filmed themselves cutting off his head for the world to see. This is just one peice of evidence. Saying that there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam is like saying the world is flat. Apparently to some people it is (just like their heads) We knew long ago that Hussein was in bed with Al-Qaeda. The problem is people look for proof in the wrong places. They think that if Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks then he would be flaunting that fact. He's evil but he's not as stupid as most people. He apparently knew how to play the liberals and anti-war freaks in America against our president just like OBL.

There is no clear evidence to support the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was directly or indirectly involve d in the terrorist attacks of September 11. Furthermore, the War in Iraq, at least as I see it, really has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism is not a warrant to go after any particular regime that doesn't like us. It is an international military and law enforcement effort to bring those who attacked us to justice and prevent future attacks. The bottom line is that Iraq had loose connections to terrorism, but clearly was not the biggest threat to our security and should nont have been considered priority one in the War on Terrorism. If anything, the War in Iraq has distracted us from our main goal, which is to stabilize Afghanistan and continue to eliminate the remaining links of Al Queda.

Huh? Anyone who still thinks that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 must not have much access to the outside world. Even Bush has admitted that there is no evidence to link Sadaam and 9/11.

There is absolutely no link between 9/11, Saddam, and Al Qaeda. Getting stuck in Iraq has decreased the chance to capture Osama bin Laden, the man who is really responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. George Bush, there is a difference between terrorism and an Islamic country. The War on Iraq is killing more Iraqis and American soldiers every day. Nice job, George.

when the war on terror began, our president told us that it may extend to many nations so this should not really be a surprise to anyone. with the fall of iraq, the terrorists have one less friendly government to support, fund, and hide them.

I'm sorry, but there's no real strong link between the war on terror and Saddam Hussein. While he was a really bad guy who committed many atrocities throughout his tenure, I don't see any real connection linking Saddam to organized plots to inflict harm on American civilians. Yeah, he may have thought about it sometimes and of course there's the infamous meeting between Mohammad Atta and an agent from Saddam's intelligence agency, but nothing really came of that. Frankly, there are way bigger fishes to fry in the immediate time. We've got to take this war on terror one day at a time. If we're going to beat back the terrorists, then we are going to need allies. So far we've managed to step on a lot of toes over going to war on questionable premises.

I'm getting a little tired of telling people this, but it cannot be said often enough: Iraq had NOTHING to do with September 11th. None of the terrorists were Iraqi, Osama and Saddam are ideological opposites and hate each other, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction never existed. Iraq has also never been proven to have supported terrorism against America. I am not defending Saddam Hussein, by the way. He is an incredibly evil man, but so were Augusto Pinochet, Manuel Noriega, Shah Reza Pahlavi, and President Suharto, tyrannical despots who were installed and supported by the American government.

This reason alone can not be justified. Bushes war against terrorism is only the fuel to habour even more terrorist groups. You blow up innocent people, you claim their land...they will fight back. From one monsters hands to another (saddam>bush ) [Im not saying Bush is anywhere as sadistic as Saddam...but I do believe he doesn't have his head screwed on right] Bush is sending threats left right and center. The rest of the world has had enough....This so called war is the root to future wars and future terrorist actions. There will be no positive resolution.

Well, I guess if our government was run by 12 year old boys with a "get-em-back-and-ask-questions-later" mentality, then this would be grounds enough to justify the deaths of so many Iraqis, Americans and Brits. But if the goal is simply to even the score (does this smack of urban gang reasoning to anyone but me?), then go after binLaden. Bush shouldn't pin his beef with Hussein on 9/11 and expect us to swallow it. Bush couldn't give us a solid connection between Iraq and 9/11, and he can't give us proof of WMD. Remember this when it's time to vote!!

Expansion's on terrorism is a good thing, probabaly the best of things but as much as i dont like that Moosekarloff, i have to admit that he has a point. If we're going to attack terrorism, lets hit it EXTREMLY hard at the source instead of jerking off the countries that harbor these terrorist pukes. But lets not go off on a whimsical vendetta and attack countries we only have a "spine tingle" about. I do agree tho that Saddam Hussein should have been thrown on his all powerfull ass YEARS ago and that he is FAR from innnocent in many aspects, but, saying he was DIRECTLY involved with 9-11 is a presumptuous statement to make and even the CIA is skeptical and dubious about his involvement. Saddam Has engaged in his own version of terror. Executing his own people, and killing MANY MANY thousands of Kurds. So even if he wasnt involved with 9-11, he is guilty of his OWN kind of terrorism. I'm sure he also gives stipends to terrorist organizations as wel, but thats only speculating. I am only too glad that this tyrant puke is out of power and i only hope things will correct themselves in Iraq. But hoping that will happen is only wishful thinking.

This is perhaps the worst justification among the many dumbass illogical reasons put up by the Douche Administration for engaging in this useless and unnecessary war. Retaliation is always a reckless motivation because it heightens the level of confrontation, establishing an upward spiral of strife, a very dangerous dynamic that can easily get out of control. Secondly, Iraqis were not involved in the 9/11 incident, rather, the Saudis, our so-called "allies," were responsible for this. However, you didn't see that idiot from Texas go after Saudi Arabia: instead, he was rubbing tushies with the Saudi Royal family at his dirt farm in Crawford instead. A false enemy was identified and the true enemy was wiping its butt with the President's bath towels. Furthermore, it was never established if there was any connection between Iraq and 9/11 at all. If anything, the ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism were scalene and negligible at best. Seems to me that going to war against a country for something it supposedly did with absolutely no hard proof of misconduct is about as reckless as you can get. But that's what we should expect from the Douche Administration, folks: a lot of irresponsible saber-rattling, the trashing of third world countries and the slaughter of innocent civilians for the weakest and most specious reasons imaginable. In this, Bush and his entire "brain trust" (that's a misnomer if I ever heard one) are nothing but a cadre of out-of-touch war criminals who should have their heads cut off.

well, uh, hell yes!

Absolutely right. those against the war claim that Saddam doesn't support terrorists. Well, they have found several terror training camps in Iraq, and even if they hadn't, Saddam HAS KILLED 50000+ KURDS AND IRAQI CITIZENS. That's not terrorism? How do you figure? do you consider Kurds and Iraquis second class humans? They deserve to be liberated from the terror within their own nation, don't they? Where are the peaceniks when it comes to Saddam's well-documented crimes against his own people? Well?

When the Reagan Administration sent a retaliatory strike against Libya (you'll remember that France wasn't on our side then either, by the way), it caused Qaddafi to sit down and shut up, and we had no more trouble out of him. I believe that forgiveness is for personal relationships. But the role of a government is to protect its people from aggressors. Retaliation is necessary on occasion, and helps prevent further assaults from people who don't like our country.

Like "zuchinibut", I think "retaliation" is a poor choice of words here and does not describe what many felt should be the reasoning behind this war. I hope that the reason for taking this gargantuan step really WAS to rid the world of a cruel despot as well as an attempt to prevent more atrocities to the Iraqis and the further spread of terrorism throughout the world. I can’t say I totally trust anything I hear in the news or the information coming out of Washington. I sure don’t put much stock in the ramblings of either the far right or the far left. However, I do hope that things will improve soon and I feel that whatever righteous or unrighteous motivations may have been behind the decision to involve our country in this march into the Middle East, the result has been that there is at least one less tyrant in the world. I have no trouble imagining that Saddam, if he had the means and the ability, would have used any and every kind of weapon available against the U.S. and many other parts of the world – if not directly, then through radicals like Ossama bin Laden. And I think he would have done it without blinking an eye or giving it a second thought. You only need to look at his record and make the simple determination – if he was willing to kill, torture and destroy his own, how much less regard would he have for the rest of the world?

As IF there was a link... This was, however, one of the most peddaled arguments for war prior to it (I think Bush was actually convinced we were buying it up). Ironically, after the war began, the U.S.government suddenly changed their minds. When confronted about the human rights violations it had been commiting over the past year with individuals suspected of having ties to AlQeada, vs. its demands that America's POW's were to be treated properly by Iraq, the U.S. government bluntly stated that 'the two were completely separate issues'.

Retaliation is weakness. Prevention of further attacks should be the goal, not vengeance.

There is no evidence that Iraq is in any way connected to Al-qaeda. This comes from the head of the CIA and every other world intelligence organization.

Extension for war on terrorism, yes. Retaliation for 9-11, we still dont know. He can be linked to 1993, I personally believe he had something to do with 9-11.