Although the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and the leaders of al Qaeda are Saudis, why did Bush invade Iraq?

Are you insinuating that the 9-11 hijackers acted somewhat on the behalf of the Saudi or Yemeni governments, and that instead of Iraq, the US should have invaded and attacked its ally? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Those some elements within the Saudi royal family (which is quite large) are alleged to be sympathetic to the cause of Islamist terrorists, no evidence exists of the Saudi government, itself, giving aid and comfort to Al-Qaeda, which has been actively trying to destabilize the Kingdom for decades.

Your emphasis on the hijackers' nationality is rather silly in this instance. Had the terrorists actually have been Iraqi, would that, alone, been enough justification for you to invade a sovereign country and overthrow its government? Perhaps, then we should refrain from these illogical assumptions and focus solely on the motives of the terrorists themselves, not their nationality, ethnicity, nor their religious background for that matter.

Not sure if invading would have been a good idea. But we should consider carefully before arming them with ANOTHER 20 billion in weapons. There is plenty of proof per se re: SA supporting terrorists. Not only the 9/11 guys but look at data regarding suicide bombers, the majority are Saudi nationals ( that includes the ones in IRAQ too). Also, many of prisoners at Gitmo are from SA. In fact we just released some back to SA (about a month ago). This country is praised by Bush! Funny b/c women have very few rights. NO voting and NO driving! Talk about radical Islam...Wahhabism is just as dangerous. We(Pentagon) have even said that SA was meddling in Iraq. You think SA wants a Shiite majority next door? No, they don't. They would love to see Malaki gone. We should think long and hard before arming these guys any more than we already have. Today's helpers and allies could very well be tomorrows terrorists. Just look at what happened with (Reagan and Carter) and their support for the Afghan Mujhahideen. We loved, praised and armed them and that was fine as long as they were fighting the "evil empire" (Soviets)...until of course they turned their hatred on us.

First of all, just because the terrorists were Saudi doesn't mean we should invade that country. Think: If a bunch of American KKK members attacked Zimbabwe, would it make sense for Zimbabwe to attack the United States?

Secondly, for years before 9/11, much had been written about young, educated religious Saudi men and their dissatisfaction with their royal government, especially as it related to allowing the US to keep military bases on what they consider holy land. That's one of the main complaints the terrorists have with the US, in addition to our support for Israel.

We are now building military bases in Iraq, a country that most fundamentalist Muslims didn't care too much about in the first place. Figure it out.

Besides, as you should know and I have no idea why you do not, plans to invade Iraq were drawn up going back to just after Desert Storm. John Kerry wanted to invade in '97 or '98 but Clinton didn't want to bring the US into another war. Why don't you know this?????

How many different times and how many different ways can you ask the same question? The definition of stupid is to repeat the same thing and expect a different outcome. Here's a better question for you...If Saddam had nothing to hide, why didn't he cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors? If Saddam was so innocent, why did he continually violate the terms of the treaty from the first Gulf War? If the war in Iraq was so wrong, why did Hillary Cliton vote yes to the war powers act allowing us to go into Iraq in the first place? I know this will be difficult for you to accept, but GWB did not act unilaterally.

We invaded Afghanistan as a result of 9/11...why aren't you whining about that?

Your argument is partially correct, The real fight is with the Saudis, Until this is undertaken

we are going to be victimized. You can't just lay this miscue on Bush. Clinton, Bush, Bush Sr,

Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, Esienhower, Truman, FDR, Lets try the last 60 to 70

years, If your going to piss in someones ear, have a full bladder.

The Saudis were not testing WMD and murdering 500,000 people in the middle east in one day. The Saudis kicked out Bin Laden. Saddam was pure evil, and even paid the hijackers families 57k each after they attacked us on 9-11, so he had some involvement

We get a lot of money from Saudi Arabia. You dont bite the hand that feeds you lol. Iraq was a stupid decision based on bad intel. It wasn't investigated enough under the stupid administration, and we stayed there way to long. Meanwhile Bin Laden was like ok I didn't know it was going to be this easy and he slips out laughing at America. It was all one big cluster fu**.

People who keep saying "living in the past to much" need to wake up. The decision to go to Iraq effects our present and will shape our future. Do you think that war was free? Did all of the soliders wave there fee? lol

Saddam ignored the no fly zone many times.

WMD that were eventually shipped off to Syria.

Liberated Iraq.

Mission Accomplished, God Bless President Bush!

This question is about 7 years old, Bush is long gone, the Messiah is now in office, we are leaving Iraq and everyone loves us now. Go back to sleep.

I'd almost bet that you still consider Afghanistan a 'just' military exercise, though. Why Afghanistan? We should have invaded Saudi Arabia.