Litkicks Message Board Archive

so which is it?

Posted to Poetry and Politics

Were Iraq and al Qaeda working together to attack the United States, or not? The 9/11 Commission basically says no, but the article's author says probably yes. Which is it? Who is the more credible (and less speculative)source of info?

(1) If the answer is 'no', then how is the Iraq invasion/occupation justified?

(2) If the answer is 'yes', then was the threat serious enough compared to others to warrant such a heavy-handed and costly solution?

This is what the voters should be thinking about. We were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And this group would like nothing better than to murder as many random American citizens as it possibly can. The 9/11 attacks mandated Bush's War on Terror, which began appropriately with attacking al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan and removing the terror-sponsoring Taliban regime. Fine.

Then, Bush appropriately applied pressure on Saddam to make him comply with weapons inspections again. It worked. So far, so good. But in spite of that success, Bush invaded Iraq anyway. Why? I personally think it had something to do with oil and corporate welfare and cronyism, but unlike quite a few on the "Left", I don't think that was the PRIMARY motivation. I think Bushco may have good intentions to some degree in all of this, but I question its judgment. bin Laden is the one who issued the fatwas. So why did we spend untold billions going after Saddam, while bin Laden remains at large? This is a basic reasonable and relevant question, and I think it has yet to be satisfactorily answered.

I would like to know more about Putin's warnings that Saddam was planning to attack the U.S. If true, this might impact my thinking on the issue, but I haven't been able to find anything to confirm these warnings. Do you have a source on this? What's peculiar about these warnings is that they're supposedly based on shared Russian intel. going clear back to just after 9/11. If this intel. was any good, why wasn't it presented in early '03 to build a much more credible case for war? This doesn't make much sense. Any thoughts?