Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11, and most of the world knew this when we first discussed going in. Apparently, Paul Wolfowitz was persuaded that they were a threat, and he persuaded the President that they did have something to do with 9/11, but all credible sources agree that that was totally false. Those of you who have paid attention to the news will remember that after mentioning "9/11" in every speech having to do with Iraq, the administration then announced that they'd "never said that Iraq was behind 9/11." The charitable might conclude that they said this because they had no credible evidence to support the invasion, but still suspected Iraq.

However, since Paul Wolfowitz began discussing the invasion long before 9/11 even happened, it's a little ridiculous to claim that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11.

Instead of paying attention to those credible sources, to the American left, and to all the governments of the G-8 except Britain's, the administration took the odd (but understandable, given that egotistical and intellectually weak people view any opposing views as personal attacks) step of phonying up "evidence" in the form of a "secret meeting in Prague" between al Qaeda and the Iraqis. 60 Minutes debunked this administration line.

What this has accomplished is this: first, the administration felt for some reason that its lies sufficed to prepare us to invade, so it did, costing us 500 billion dollars and several thousand American lives. Second, by continuing to lie about it, implying it over and over while specifically saying "we never said" that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, the administration has convinced the American left and most of the rest of the world that, well: we're liars. Therefore, when God forbid we're actually threatened by someone in the way that they pretended Iraq threatened us, no-one will trust us. Or, when we go after a government with proven ties to Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists, like the Sudan, we'll have no support, and our troops will be exhausted. This administration's lies have convinced no-one except partisan cranks who can't be wrong, and they have damaged the United States for decades to come.

How about fining Bin Laden then? The invasion of Iraq was an incredible mistake that killed, yes, a few thousand young soldiers, but cost us billions and perhaps trillions of dollars. And it will accomplish nothing. Iraq will be a failed state for at least decades. THe middle class has fled, sectarian differences are bloody and centuries old, corruption is rampent and the occupation thoroughly hated.

The point to take from this is the war was not necessary. No matter what bs you float this was a war of vengence. It was not necessary. REally this was a lynch mob action, not done to free anyone, not to make us safer or even for cheap oil. It was a war of bloodlust and political gain. We are paying for that mistake and will for years to come.

Call George

Remember September Eleven

Call George our hero.

for HELP dial 9-11

But expect that the Ambulance will be OUTTA GAS and the Driver "Asleep at the Wheel". Just call

Nine One One!

The so-called republicans point to the fact that al-Qaeda hasn't struck within the U.S. since 9/11 as a measure of Bush-Cheney's "successes". (Never mind that the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history took place on Junior's watch, and that the same republicans would be screaming at the top of their lungs for impeachment had the attacks taken place under a President Clinton, a President Gore, or a President Kerry.)

Then, in the next breath, the same republicans will try to defend the failed Iraq War by claiming that "the world" is a better place without Saddam Hussein. (They used to claim that the Iraqis are better off since the U.S. invasion; now they no longer say this.)

What I want to know is, what is the proper measure of Bush-Cheney's "success"? Is it whether the U.S. is better off, or whether "the world" is better off? Because the U.S. is certainly much worse off as a result of the terrible costs of the Iraq War; while at the same time the failure to crush al-Qaeda in 2001-2002 has enabled it to strike many times elsewhere around the world since 9/11 -- in Bali, Madrid, and London, for example.

Barndog? Anyone?

Barndog's arguments in favor of the Iraq War -- namely, that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy -- might have made a compelling case for invading Iraq in 2003. Heck, his arguments might have even made a compelling case for breaking off the hunt for al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq in 2003. They were not, however, the arguments that were actually made.

The arguments made by Bush-Cheney for invading Iraq were: a) that Iraq had WMD -- and specific types, quantities, and locations were asserted -- and b) that Iraq was connected to al-Qaeda, and thus at least indirectly to 9/11. I remember Cheney on 'Meet the Press' the Sunday before the war alleging a "reconstituted nuclear weapon", while Junior invoked "9/11" a half a dozen times or more in his speech to the world on the eve of the war.

All of their arguments were lies. Every single claim -- from the however many liters of sarin, to 45-minute deliver systems, to uranium from Africa, to meetings in Prague, to mobile chemical weapons labs -- has been disproved; and it has since been shown that they knew or should have known at the time that the claims they made were untrue.

Meanwhile Osama bin-Forgotten, and al-Qaeda continues to threaten the West.

So remind me again, Barndog, why an international "law enforcement" approach to rounding up the criminals actually responsible for 9/11 would have been worse than the ongoing fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan and the failed hunt for al-Qaeda?

Well, I'm only three years younger, and I don't know about you, but I've lived overseas quite a bit. You put way too much emphasis on the whole "respect" thing. ... Now go to the countries of the former Iron Curtain and see how much anti-Americanism you find. They genuinely love us and respect us for our stand and sacrifice in freeing them from totalitarianism.

Well, you've got me there, Barndog ... I've spent my entire life in this country. I guess that's why I and 70% of my fellow Americans may have a little different perspective on things. We feel that America is on the wrong track, headed in the wrong direction. As for all those Iron Curtain countries that genuinely love us and respect us, why the hell aren't their troops fighting by our side in Iraq? I'm not stupid or naive enough to expect other countries to necessarily LIKE America (or Americans) but I am never going to stop wanting other countries to RESPECT us. Even grudging respect will do. It means that they know that we still stand for the things that our forefathers have fought and died for over the last 225 years. It also means that we can at least hope that they'll stand by our side if we need them. Instead, we've totally squandered the good will of virtually the entire world after the 9/11 attack by our pre-emptive attack on Iraq, our insistence on the right to hijack and torture suspected terrorists, our treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib and Guantanamo ... the list goes on and on. If Iron Curtain countries love us maybe it's because we're becoming more like them every day. If (or WHEN) we're attacked again I suspect most of the world will sit back and say "Good, they had it coming". That probably won't bother you in the slightest, Barndog, but it'll bother the hell out of me.

Um, yeah, and the tightened security we have instituted since then.

What tightened security would that be? Sorry, but I think securing our ports instead of trying to outsource them to the UAE, checking the CARGO being loaded onto airplanes instead of just the passengers, and securing our chemical plants and nuclear facilities would make our country a lot more secure than taking nail clippers away from people boarding an airplane, wiretapping American citizens without a warrant and keeping track of what books we check out of a library. I would venture to say that a majority of Americans are less safe and feel less safe now than they were before 9/11. I've lost count of the number of reasons George Bush has trotted out to justify our pre-emptive attack on Iraq as one reason after another has been exposed for the lie that it was. At the end of the day all George Bush has done is create even more reasons for millions of people to hate and fear America. I stand by my original argument, Bin Laden doesn't have to waste his time, money and resources planning another attack on America when we're doing a pretty damned good job of self-destructing all on our own (and bankrupting our economy in the process).

I don't know where you spent your time before you wandered into Salon, Barndog, but eventually you're bound to realize that you're not going to change any minds here. I think it's also pretty obvious that you're not here to listen to what we have to say. By all means continue to post -- that's certainly your right. As for me, I'm paying my Salon subscription fee to read the kind of thoughtful, well-researched posts that people like Tim Grieve put out here every day. The ability to post responses is a fairly new Salon feature that I thoroughly enjoy but I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to justify my thoughts, feeling and opinions to the Barndogs of the world especially when they seem intent on turning this forum into some kind of a pissing contest.