Nothing

Nothing. It was something to distract us from 9/11 and all the other BS going on.

Now, that I ponder on it. Nothing?

According to the US government, Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism and supposedly had weapons of mass destruction that Osama bin Laden might get his hands on. Those weapons were never found, and I doubt Mr bin Laden would be interested in them anyway, as he only financed the 9/11 attacks, he didn't direct them.

Nothing. Any suggested link to Al Qaieda and Saddam was proven to be lies. Al Qaidea didnt show up in Iraq till after the war started. This war was solely over the large puddle of oil that Iraq is sitting on.

nothing, i think

Not a damn thing. Afganistan are the ones who attacked on 9/11. There's a war there too, just not as highly publicized. Bush used the excuse that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to jump start that war - but it has been long since proven that there were no such weapons there. Now we're fighting to turn them into a "democracy."

As everbody else said, Nothing. Do you remember the Oklahoma city bombing? Did you know when it happened the first thing the government said was that it was a terrorist attack, likely Al Queda? There have been a few things that the US government claimed that other countires or groups did that proved to be very bogus.

Nothing directly, the evidence linking the two was basically lies and self-deception. But in the larger picture of the "war on terror", the US, in no mood to be nuked, was removing a perceived threat. Was this justified?... Saddam did have gas weapons, and used them to murder Kurdish civilians of all ages. In the '80's, he had a nuclear program, which Israel bombed. Everybody thought that he still had one, including Bill Clinton, the UN, and France, and since he obstructed and expelled the inspectors, it was reasonable to think that he still had the program going. Saddam was a murdering borderline-psycho, and his sons were worse. The economic sanctions were porous, and Saddam's hijacking of the aid-for-oil clauses were resulting in thousands of Iraqi deaths, so he wasn't about to suddenly give in. So, given what we knew, did it have enough to do w/ terror to invade, or would it have been better to allow Iraq to obtain nukes in 10 or 20 years? I was stupid to think that the US would have enough institutional smarts to have done a good job at the occupation / pacification / rebuilding. The way it has turned out, with Rumsfeld's fantasy-land and Bush's idiocy at the helm, there's no question that in the short term we'd be better off not having invaded Iraq. In the long term... take your pick, probable nukes in the hands of possibly-containable psychos, or tens of thousands of new terrorists more committed than ever to the destruction of US interests. Just my 2 cents.

nothing. bush just used the fear from 911 as a catalyst to start a war his daddy didn't have time to finish.

Nothing. But 9/11 has a lot to do with the war in Iraq as it gave Bush the excuse he needed.

Not only did Iraq not have anything to do with 9/11, the invasion of Iraq has created a whole new generation of people who hate the USA. In Iraq, civilian deaths are estimated at anywhere between 60 to 70 thousand. Each of those people have family that may blame the USA for their loved ones death. Many will want to seek revenge, at the moment they can do this in Iraq because US troops are still there, however when those troops pull out they will no doubt seek their revenge elsewhere...

For Iraq to build Nuclear weapons would have taken decades, nuclear weapons require a high tech infrastructure that can't be re-build over night. The more immediate threat and reason for the War was Chemical and Biological weapons, which unfortunately for Bush and Blair turned out not to exist. The USA and to a lesser extent the Coalition of the willing has to take direct responsibility for every death in Iraq since the invasion. If the war had not of taken place, and if the US forces had not allowed the Country to disintegrate into chaos after Saddam's Army was defeated, people wouldn't be getting blown up everyday. You cannot compare Iraq to WWII. In WWII Germany and Japan were the invaders. Britain was defending herself and the USA was defending their interests in Europe, as well as defending against Japanese aggression.

Iran now has the power to mobilize terror killers in Lebanon and in Iraq and create mini-wars designed to wear down Israel and the USA. If America and Britain pull out of Iraq, Iran would then dominate the country and control Iraq's oil.

Nothing. The supposed ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda have never been proven, but rather, it's believed that they were enemies. Saddam was a socialist who despite his strong armed rule allowed religious freedoms and was far more socially liberal. Al Qaeda is a extremist group that believes in an Islamic state. An Islamic state was never Saddam's intention. By getting rid of Saddam, the US has created a political vacuum in Iraq for which there is likely no replacement. He ruled harshly with an iron fist which likely protected Iraq from the extremists, such as those in neighboring Iran.

Nothing!! -- There has never and at any point been any intelligence whatsoever supporting any links between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq -- The blatant attempt to use 9/11 as an excuse to prolong the war in Iraq and link the two, is just shameful Amazingly, when Ken Herman of Cox News, asked President George W. Bush what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush defiantly answered 'Nothing'

This is a good question...one that I have asked countless times and still don't understand. So if 9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq "war" why is it implyied that it did have something to do with it? What? was 9/11 just an excuse to scare and piss off enough people to justify blowing somebody up even though they had nothing to do with anything? WOW the morals are just overflowing in the USofA. Religious war for oil!

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer. Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. Its a War on Terrorists.

Nothing! President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of September 11, 2001 inspired his "freedom agenda" and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. "Nothing," president Bush answered. But we already knew that, but holy crap! Bush actually told the truth for once!

President Bush would have us believe that he is fighting a "war on terrorism" by invading Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 How stupid do you think we are? Gee Dubya!

The only reason GWB started the war on Iraq was because in his own words "Saddam threatened my dad's life".

well except for the fact the govnt imploded the twin towers to get semi-public support for the war on Iraq. Nothing

An excuse.

Nothing even Bush has admitted it, it is all about oil...and Bush is the bioggest loser to ever be a leader, even worse than Clinton..

Does it matter anymore? We're there, we're involved, and we have to stay until the job is done. If we don't, the mess we'll leave behind will spawn future attacks that will make 9/11 look like a folk dance.

the war was caused by the dumb fucking muslims in the whole middle east, thats why we are over there, to get back at them for killing all of those innocent people.

Bush.

I've been trying to get a straight answer to that question since we went in the first place.

http://www.rense.com/general29/bushsayssaddamtried.htm

because of the suspicion of nuclear weapons being constructed in the facility that the Russians are helping Iraq build

Assuming that we don't believe any of the conspiracy theories....was Bush just too stupid to not realize there was no link, was he duped by the puppet masters, was it just too good an opportunity to attack Iraq.... maybe all Arabs/Muslims look the same to us? So the answer to your question is nothing.

Nothing! The President needed someone tangible to hold responsible and so the Administration selected Iraq.

Nothing. They want to have control over an oil pipeline running underneath the Caspian Sea. That's why we're there. Sucks, huh.

911 is the number of troops killed by friendly fire in the first few minutes of the war

Outside of the current administration's imagination - nothing at all.

I think it is just that the fact that Saddam Hussein was a wanted war criminal and so after we removed him from power then the whole crisis on who would lead came into effect thus giving the government an excuse to stay.

Sadly, nothing at all.

Nada mucho. Pure lies orchestated by the international elite to produce the now famous "War on Terror". My 2 cents.

Absolutely nothing. The War on Iraq most likely had to do with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 with George W. H. Bush (Not George W. Bush who is his son) when he was in office. One of the few reasons of Saddam's invasion was due to territory disputes and since dictators aren't patient he invaded and unleashed nuclear and chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people and the U.N. revealed an ultimatum to Saddam stating that if he didn't pull him military out of Kuwait that a war will start. However the first Gulf war was unsuccessful and the U.S. pulled out but eleven years later George W. Bush (son of George W. H. Bush) claimed that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass destruction (or W.M.D.'s) and therefore issued a order to invade Iraq hence the War on Iraq had began or the second Gulf War. Do remember that George W.H. Bush is the father of the current president. 9/11 had to do with the Al-Qaeda which is associated with Afghanistan which is under control by Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden has no ties to Saddam Hussein other than the fact that they both hate each other due to the fact that Saddam tried to invade at some point in time. Osama got pissed because they didn't respect their magical land and hence Osama issued a vendetta against him. Again I say there are no ties between 9/11 and the Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein however was later captured and tried for War crimes and hanged in the city of Kadhimiya which they call camp justice.

thousands of innocent lives have been lost in both actions and have cost america hundreds of billions of dollars. in both cases, iraq and 911 (homeland security) our federal government has awarded tens of billions of dollars in non-compete contracts and tens of billions more to corporations part of what president eisenhower cautioned us over - the military - industrial complex. i wouldn't know where to begin if you asked me to speculate on the possibility of complicity or stupidity on the part of our leadership, there is just too much evidence leading in both directions.

Not one damn thing.

Both events are part of the agenda for the creation of the fantastic "war on terror". My 2 cents.

The Iraq war happen because the CIA found that Bin Laden was the reason for 9/11 and they wanted payback. Bin Laden was taking refuge in Iraq during 2003 and the CIA told the Iraq government that if they do not hand Bin Laden over then we will take him by force. When we invaded we knew the Iraq government would attack us so we made the first strike and destroyed there military. But by 2004 Bin Laden escaped and Iraq was left with out a government, which would have led to large amounts of terrorists being trained in Iraq. So then we changed the name to Iraq freedom and were trying to give Iraq a democratic government that likes the United States; and despite whether we should be there or not the war is now on a road to success. So the Iraq war was just a chain reaction that took us from 9/11 to now.

Nothing whatsoever. The Bush Administration had been working on plans to invade Iraq as soon as 10 days after his first inauguration. 9/11 was just the perfect pretense. A little spin, distortion, and media hocus-pocus was all that was needed to convince the general public that Saddam, someone who posed absolutely no threat to the US, was the real enemy, not the Saudis who hijacked commercial airliners and used them as weapons.

Well see, its like this. Over 3000 people were murdered that day. Ok, somebody has to be blamed for that. Someone or some group has to be held accountable for all those deaths. Everyone argues that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq, but the same people would also be extremely upset if the government were to say "sorry, we don't know who did it...so I guess all those people's death were just in vain and we'll just have to accept it." Listen, the way most courtroom dramas play out in a murder trial is that somebody has to pay for the crime. And yes there have been innocent people sent to prison because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since most Americans don't really know how to distinguish between different races in the middle east, they pretty much figure one Muslim faction is a good as another.

Nothing - zero - nada - zilch.

It depends on which political spin doctor you believe. Bush believed in George Tenet, a B. Clinton appointee that there was an air tight case to invade for WMDs. The majority of Congress and the Senate believed it too. But how did terrorism link to WMDs & Iraq..the jury is still out on that connoction but does it matter anymore. Our country is f*cked economically because of it.

The Bush Administration needed an incident in order to justify both the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq. Both wars were pre-planned before 911 happened. It was all part of their agenda. Bush and Cheney and their cronies engineered 911 in order to scare the public into supporting the military action abroad and a crackdown on civil liberties and an assualt on the constitution at home. Without the false flag attack of 911, the rest of their agenda would not have been possible.

We were attacked Saddam was attacking US plans & British planes after the towers went down we wanted Blood. Saddam was the only real enemy we had at the time and he did not obey the UN resoultino to give his data on WMD and so He violated the Cease fire and even threatened to Use WMD's against us. We took corrective action.

Not alot. It's more to do with the control of the Middle East and its petrol

was the easiest country to invade. sent a clear signal to other enemies who are bigger and badder

The attack of savages sworn to the oath of Bin laden, and the war just means more blood shed, we should all hope for the best for the families and troops. and we should also hope that the blood shed ends soon so we can get back to having peace in our lives, a wish to everyone indeed that is sane and all who are the good living Americans. B. Bin Laden L. Lasting with O. Overkilling and blood shed O. Over the desert D. Dunes of sand

I'll answer you with another question. Where should we have attacked?

Fact are facts.

Nadda. I hate it.

It was a 'pre-emptive strike' to hinder terrorist elements from establishing uncontested staging points. The then existing Iraqi government offered sanctuary. The bottom line: It was a judgment call. Good, bad or indifferent, the decision was made to “remove” (destroy) the sanctuary. It is not an unusual practice even within our own borders. On a much smaller scale; state, local and city governments often “raise” (destroy) crack houses with little or no regard to the actual ownership of the property primarily to rid the community of a group of undesirables.

It seemed like a good place to start!

pre emptive strike this guy was coming after us if we didn't take him out first

nothing, they are jst fighting the oil...i think if they wanna have a war, they should have it in afganistan where osama bin laden is hiding...not in iraq?

Iraq sent scuds into Israel. It took a major event to get the American people to approve of the U.S. To invade all the country's we've invaded under the pretense of terrorism. 911 was set to happen with a rep. president that's why the rep's had to rig the election in the great state of Israel (Florida)

good fucking question.

Absolutely freakin' nothing.

in the first year after the mission was pronounced accomplished, we had lost our 911th soldier. that's it. the rest is a combination of religious delusion and corporate gifting.

Not so much anything but after 9/11 the US was at War and Saddam and his nation violated the cease fire and we went in, likely it was about Bush's Dad. Hey never threaten the President you are never sure what will come of it.

Nothing. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The perpetrators were mostly Saudi Arabian. 9/11 was just an excuse for W to do what he always wanted to do anyway, and he jiggered the "intelligence" to support his plans.

I heard a lot of theories for soo long. All i can say is, hope that the American leader fix bush'a miss that he created, and get rid of the american baad image, it looks like most people in most coountries like Obama waaaaay more than bush would ever...anyway. Im just trying to connect the dots the reason, the science of the twin towers (the way its build, how hot the fires has to be, the chemicals and the proof etc)how did bush know right away who did it like 30min after the plane hits, bush past (looking up iraqi history also) etc. But all i can say, bush let this happen

NOTHING!! And it doesn't have anything to do with AL qaeda EITHER!

nothing they wanted the oil and they are using afganisthan to install the oil pipeline that way the u.s will run oil in the middle east. wake up america

THE TERRORIST THAT WERE A PART OF THE KILLIMGS ON 9/11/01 WENT TO NORTHERN IRAQ AND THE U.N. COALITION FORCES WENT AFTER THEM TO TRY AND CAPTURE THEM SO THEY WOULD'NT KILL THE INOCENT IN ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING IRAQI'S, NOW THEIR IN AFGANISTAN.

Nothing. It was for oil. That's not leftist rhetoric. That's "yes it was for oil and let's move on" rhetoric.

FOR THE 2ND. TIME== TERRORIST FROM 9/11/01 THAT ESCAPED TO NORTHERN IRAQ AND THE COALITION FORCES WENT AFTER THEM TO TRY AND CAPTURE THEM OR KILL THEM OFF TO STOP NEEDLESS BLOODSHED.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

9/11 is the totally unfounded excuse to invade iraq

It has to do with George Bush protecting his interest in purchasing oil from the Bin Laddins.

If you remember after 9/11 we couldn't really allow rogue nations rattle their sabers like in years past. That's how we got attacked. How soon we forget those scary unsettling times. Now we have a president that is letting rogue nations walk all over us again.

9/11 gave the 'coalition forces' an excuse to invade Iraq. That's it.

Absolutely nothing!

Nothing at all.

It's where they hide the secret planning papers to knock it down for the Bush admin