Bush admits Iraq nothing to do with 9/11

#3
#3
Uh No what GA Vol???, its a perfectly good question, and it was not fabricated, you heard the person ask him what Iraq had to with 9/11 and he said nothing. We know Jon Stewarts angle but that was a real question by a real reporter to which he give a real answer.
 
#4
#4
FenianVolunteer said:
Uh No what GA Vol???, its a perfectly good question, and it was not fabricated, you heard the person ask him what Iraq had to with 9/11 and he said nothing. We know Jon Stewarts angle but that was a real question by a real reporter to which he give a real answer.
Click to expand...
You should have watched the whole press conference, you might have learned something. Bush stated that Iraq was a threat and that after 9/11 America has to deal with threats before they fully materialize. Now, if you find fault with a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, than argue that, not this apparently new revelation...
 
#5
#5
Pre-emptive warfare.....chase the invisible mobile weapons labs, drones, and thousands of gallons of chemical weapons. Meanwhile NK and Iran stack their weapons to be 20 times greater than Saddam ever wished he could be. The funny thing about the whole Iran nuclear program is that the US started it in the 60's. We seemed to believe if we helped the Shah enough, Iran would stay calm and peaceful. We give him a reactor and the weapons grade uranium to boot. So technically, they did not even need to advance a program. They could have maintained the one we gave them and they still would have weapons grade uranium.
 
#6
#6
CSpindizzy said:
Pre-emptive warfare.....chase the invisible mobile weapons labs, drones, and thousands of gallons of chemical weapons. Meanwhile NK and Iran stack their weapons to be 20 times greater than Saddam ever wished he could be. The funny thing about the whole Iran nuclear program is that the US started it in the 60's. We seemed to believe if we helped the Shah enough, Iran would stay calm and peaceful. We give him a reactor and the weapons grade uranium to boot. So technically, they did not even need to advance a program. They could have maintained the one we gave them and they still would have weapons grade uranium.
Click to expand...
You are correct, they could have. However, after the fall of the Shah, they chose to basically destroy their military and the nuclear technology we had provided them. They did not begin restoring these programs until the Iran-Iraq War, most of what we had provided was now unsalvagable. The Soviets provided for their military throughout the 1980s in the war.
 
#7
#7
They kept it. It slid in maintenance but it was kept. Basically after being cut off from western schools, those in charge had little background on maintaining the reactors and advancing them....they were essentially stuck in Atomics 101 class.
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
They kept it. It slid in maintenance but it was kept. Basically after being cut off from western schools, those in charge had little background on maintaining the reactors and advancing them....they were essentially stuck in Atomics 101 class.
Click to expand...
I will give you that much. However, even had they kept it in pristine working order, the argument still does not hold water. The Shah was our ally. If there was a revolution in Israel tomorrow, and the new gov't bitterly hated the US, some would argue that we had supplied Israel's military and therefore we are at fault.
 
#10
#10
FenianVolunteer said:
Uh No what GA Vol
Click to expand...

Uh, no I don't want to get into the same predictable discussion. I respect your viewpoint, but I think it's fairly obvious where you are going with this and nothing said to the contrary is going to change your opinion.
 
#11
#11
I wonder how long before he's proven wrong in this thread, and just quits posting in it like he did in the 9-11 Conspiracy thread.

No one is going to "debate" with you if you run away like a girl when you are beat.
 
#12
#12
What does youtube and google have to say about this?

Impeach Bush!

P.S. I think Ferpersonvol is actually Hatvol....lol!
 
#13
#13
I love how the argument has changed from "W claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11" (which he never did) to "W says Iraq was not involved in 9/11" (which he has been saying all along).

Iraq has consistently been connected (by the administration) to the war on terror. The war on terror is larger than 9/11, UBL, Al-Quaeda, etc.

Iraq was about pre-emption and enforcement of UN sanctions.

John Stewart's and other's comments thinking W's statement about non-involvement in 9/11 just shows how much he and they don't understand the situation.
 
#14
#14
ok lets say for the moment that GWB didnt think Iraq had any involvement in 9/11....as well as Saddam Hussien. Then where are all the terrorists that did?...and why aren't we bombing them to the stone age? Why aren't US soldiers seeking and destroying those that were involved? With sattleites that can read your watch why can't we find Osama Bin Laden? If Iraq did'nt have anything to do with 9/11 why is it the US responsibility to establish democracy in Iraq?. If it is..wheres the line? Where do we find a point that its ok to leave Iraq and not be worried a 3rd party will come in and shatter what has been built? I tell you that GWB jumped SH and Iraq to avenge daddy's honor, and did little or nothing to avenge the Americans killed in the terrorist attack. I think GWB has done less than I have to defeat Bin Laden. You can called me un sophisticated and unread all you want, but the fact remains that bin laden is still at large, is still a threat so much it affects the economy and our way of life. I think its time for folks to call a spade a spade and say the man can't get the job done.
 
#15
#15
dan4vols said:
ok lets say for the moment that GWB didnt think Iraq had any involvement in 9/11....as well as Saddam Hussien. .
Click to expand...

This isn't a hypothetical! This is what he's been saying all along. If you saw the press conference he was referring to Saddam having an operational connection to 9/11.

This is what drives me nuts about this ongoing argument. This whole Iraq and 9/11 connection has been a strawman argument since day 1.
 
#16
#16
Very tactful....and respectful. Good to see one who is so respectful of others views and uses such mature language to describe it. Educated to say the least.
 
#17
#17
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

  • (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
This isn't a hypothetical! This is what he's been saying all along. If you saw the press conference he was referring to Saddam having an operational connection to 9/11.

This is what drives me nuts about this ongoing argument. This whole Iraq and 9/11 connection has been a strawman argument since day 1.
Click to expand...

no, there was a point when a good portion of the population believed that saddam hussein had something to do with 9/11, i mean there was some terrible country song written about the whole thing.
 
#19
#19
CSpindizzy said:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
  • (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush

Click to expand...

This document refers to countries giving aide to those who attached will also be sought. Either directly or indirectly.
 
#20
#20
emainvol said:
no, there was a point when a good portion of the population believed that saddam hussein had something to do with 9/11, i mean there was some terrible country song written about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Just because people believe it doesn't mean that it was true or claimed to be true.
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
Just because people believe it doesn't mean that it was true or claimed to be true.
Click to expand...

agreed, but i think the thing here is, he may not have claimed it, but he certainly didnt refute it for a long time. it was a good political move i guess
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
Maybe you should read some accounts of the soldiers that have actually fought and are still fighting OEF and then say we are doing nothing to avenge the 9/11 attacks. Until then, I will regard everything you say on the matter as chickenshit: small minded, ignoble, and takes the trivial seriously.
Click to expand...


Won't be long and you'll refer to him as a religious terrorist. this is typical of your responses to people that have differing, "less read," opinions than those you see of yourself. I would consider your rhetoric more obnoxious than well read. I think your Hatvols cousin. I have a very close family friend that just finished 24 months over there. Heard alot of his stories. Cap'n Dan here still has valid points reagardless of the positives happening in Iraq that those outside the service, and blanketed by the media will never realize.
 
#23
#23
GVF said:
Won't be long and you'll refer to him as a religious terrorist. this is typical of your responses to people that have differing, "less read," opinions than those you see of yourself. I would consider your rhetoric more obnoxious than well read. I think your Hatvols cousin. I have a very close family friend that just finished 24 months over there. Heard alot of his stories. Cap'n Dan here still has valid points reagardless of the positives happening in Iraq that those outside the service, and blanketed by the media will never realize.
Click to expand...
You do realize I am an infantry officer in the US Army, right?

When Dan4Vols stated that the US has done little to avenge the 9/11 attack he is speaking out of his fourth point of contact. We have done incredible things in Afghanistan, the reason that Afghanistan seems to be on the backburner, is because our military has been so incredibly successful in operating in Afghanistan. Most of the reasons for this success, IMO, is a result of a more rural society and therefore less stringent ROE. Greater success and ROEs that do not hamstring our joint forces, leads to less forces be necessary to complete the task at hand. So, I will again repeat, Dan4Vols post was...
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
I love how the argument has changed from "W claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11" (which he never did) to "W says Iraq was not involved in 9/11" (which he has been saying all along).
Click to expand...

Come on now, that's B.S. and you know it. Both Bush and Cheney tried to link Al quaeda to Iraq. We've already had this discussion.
 
#25
#25
OWB said:
Come on now, that's B.S. and you know it. Both Bush and Cheney tried to link Al quaeda to Iraq. We've already had this discussion.
Click to expand...

There was evidence of an Al Qaeda operative receiving medical treatment in Bagdhad, but I think they were always very careful not to link Iraq to 9/11.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top