Bush admits Iraq nothing to do with 9/11

#26
#26
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
 
#28
#28
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...

Yes we had the discussion and as I stated then, they did not connect Iraq to involvement in 9/11.

9/11 was one event. Al Quaeda pre-existed and will continue to exist for years. There is evidence that AQ and Iraq had connections but that is very different than saying Iraq/Saddam was involved in 9/11. As GAVol says, they were careful and made many statements saying they DID NOT think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

This is what's frustrating. I watched/listened to the pre-war build-up and never once did I feel that the admin was trying to say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Why others did, I cannot say. They believed what they want to believe. IMHO, a lot of it was 1) a failure to understand that terrorism involves more than 9/11 and AQ and 2) a strawman gotcha move to claim W lied about Saddam and 9/11.
 
#29
#29
During his mission accomplished speech, Bush said

"the use of force would be directed against "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." In his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln (5/1/03), Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq had "removed an ally of Al Qaeda."
Click to expand...
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
This is what's frustrating. I watched/listened to the pre-war build-up and never once did I feel that the admin was trying to say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Why others did, I cannot say. They believed what they want to believe. IMHO, a lot of it was 1) a failure to understand that terrorism involves more than 9/11 and AQ and 2) a strawman gotcha move to claim W lied about Saddam and 9/11.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
#32
#32
On NBC's meet the press, Cheney was asked if he was surprised that so many Americans connected Iraq to 9/11 and he said:
"No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.... You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW [biological weapons and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."
Click to expand...
 
#33
#33
OWB said:
During his mission accomplished speech, Bush said
Click to expand...
You can link Iraq to al Qaeda without stating that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, just as one can link Germany to Japan without stating that Germany was directly involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor...
 
#35
#35
OWB said:
An article on Cheney
Click to expand...


The article states frequently that the admin did not claim Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Even the 9/11 Commission report or the Pre-war Intelligence (I can't remember which) concluded connections between Iraq and AQ (not 9/11). The prevailing conclusion was that the connections were not operational - coordinating actions.

The article is from 2003. Since that time more evidence has emerged linking Saddam/Iraq and AQ in terms of training and assistance.

Connections to AQ and being involved in 9/11 are not the same thing.
 
#36
#36
This administration has made a living on misinformed people who can't think for themselves. (not referring to you all of course) I'll buy the argument that it's all on how you look at it, but you all know as well as I do that Bush and Cheney were trying to link Al Quaeda to Iraq to gain support for their little war. The fact that they were planning to go to Iraq before 9/11 speaks volumes.
 
#37
#37
I think it's funny that Bush came out and admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If he was in fact not ever trying to link the two, why couldn't he have said something clear cut like that from beginning? I think we know why.
 
#38
#38
At this point, if people think there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, I think it's their own fault.
 
#39
#39
OWB said:
I think it's funny that Bush came out and admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If he was in fact not ever trying to link the two, why couldn't he have said something clear cut like that from beginning? I think we know why.
Click to expand...

Here's an article based on the book "Connections..."

It's from the Weekly Standard so I'm sure it will be discounted but it's facts are as credible as the Fox News critique article.

The Connection

Page 2 has the most interesting comments which quote news organizations and Clinton administration officials regarding the connections between Iraq and AQ. These connections were essentially the "conventional wisdom" of the time. Rather than "operational" they suggest more of negotiated understandings between the two groups.
 
#40
#40
I have no problem with Bush and Cheney looking into a potential military strike against Iraq prior to 9/11. Unenforced treaties and sanctions make future treaties and sanctions meaningless.

Further, I have no problem with Bush and Cheney linking Iraq to al Qaeda, yet leaving the connection to 9/11 open to interpretation. That is called politics and both sides use the same tactic concerning various issues. This tactic works so well because most Americans have proven themselves to lazy to educate themselves on issues concerning politics and government, yet they still flock to the polls and vote. The only way politics will change for the better is if the American voting populus makes the effort to educate itself (highly doubtful) or the governors of America impose certain voter restrictions, ie you right to vote is based on some kind of merit.
 
#41
#41
In a letter to congress, Bush wrote "I have also determined that the use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the need to take action against persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11th 2001...
 
#42
#42
Your search - "I have also determined that the use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the need to take action against persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September" - did not match any documents.
Click to expand...
Actual quote and source please?
 
#44
#44
So, in context it looks like this:
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
Click to expand...

[/FONT]
 
#45
#45
Reading the letter in full, in context, makes the link between Iraq and 9/11 much less clear cut than was originally presumed by the first post.
 
#46
#46
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Is all that matters..
[/FONT]
 
#47
#47
therealUT said:
Reading the letter in full, in context, makes the link between Iraq and 9/11 much less clear cut than was originally presumed by the first post.
Click to expand...

Of course, political speak makes things appear that way when in fact, that's exactly what he was doing.
 
#48
#48
Agree to disagree, OWB. Even the part of the statement that you have placed in bold is very much masked. I believe it leaves open the possibility that Iraq might have aided the terrorist organization that committed the attacks on 9/11, but that is it.
 
#49
#49
The thing that gets me is that before we went to Iraq, there wasn't any solid proof linking Iraq to Al Quaeda, but now that our military has toppled Saddam, it's a breeding ground for Al Quaeda and every other muslim extremist group out there.

Don't you think we need more soldiers over there now therealUT?
 
#50
#50
OWB said:
The thing that gets me is that before we went to Iraq, there wasn't any solid proof linking Iraq to Al Quaeda, but now that our military has toppled Saddam, it's a breeding ground for Al Quaeda and every other muslim extremist group out there.

Don't you think we need more soldiers over there now therealUT?
Click to expand...
I actually think we need less soldiers and relaxed ROE.

If you have more soldiers patrolling an area where the ROE state that you cannot fire upon an enemy unless they fire on you first, then you are just asking to lose soldiers to sniper fire, because you are limited in your ability to prep certain areas, which seem as they would be a nice sniper nest from your map recon, with artillery.

As to your point about attracting al Qaeda, it is/was to be expected. There have been plenty of men in the middle east with the desire to kill Americans for at least 30 years now. Of course they are going to make the short trip from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. into Iraq. However, I disagree with the argument that our presence their creates more terrorists. I believe the terrorists have been in the MidEast, but were waiting for an event to act. Therefore, it seems as there are more terrorists, when our presence there is actually eliminating terrorists, as those with strong enough convictions to boldy attack CONUS are now concentrating their efforts at Iraq, and losing their lives doing so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top