INTRODUCTION I. Overview

At various times, the Bush administration has presented three basic reasons for invading Iraq: 1) the war on terrorism; 2) Saddam Hussein had to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction (WMD); and 3) the liberation of the Iraqi people. First we were told that Iraq needed to be invaded because of WMD, then when the U.N. inspectors did not find any such weapons, we were told that Iraq needed to be invaded because of its ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and when that evidence was shown to dubious at best, we were told right after the war began that the war was all about WMD. It was not until after the war started that we were told it was a war to liberate the Iraqi people.

This site focuses on the “war on terrorism” and the Iraq war. Some might say that if we had not invaded Iraq, we would be conceding to a future of terror. I am concerned about terrorism now and in the future, but invading Iraq did not remove and never could have removed that threat. Not all terrorists resided in Iraq prior to the war; therefore, the Iraq war never could alone solve the problem of terrorism. Still not convinced? Then consider the terrorist bombings that happened within months of the “end of major combat operations” in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Indonesia and the apparent survival of Al Qaeda. And lest we forget, the “war on terrorism” reason for going to war was based on Iraq’s alleged ties to Al Qaeda (as will be shown later).

It is my opinion that 1) there was no presentation of credible and convincing evidence of Iraq's terrorist connections prior to the war; 2) the post war evidence fails to show any meaningful connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and also debunks many of the pro-war arguments; and 3) Al Qaeda and terrorism have not been adversely affected by the war in Iraq, but rather the Iraq war has been detrimental to our efforts. Each of these points is discussed in its own Part.