National 9/11 Commision declares....

[jameseb]

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

Bingo.

 

[renegade pariah]

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaeda operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

 

[mindfull]

Hold it ! In article IV section 4 of the us constitution, it says that

in cases of domestic violence, which 911 was, then the state legislature (or state governor if legislature not convened), must ask the us president for help !

 

[Starscream]

*keels over and dies of shock*

I may have spoken too soon though...

"If we‘re successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11

Cheney says Iraq was "Geographic Base" for Sept. 11 Attacks

 

[jameseb]

I may have spoken too soon though...

Cheney says Iraq was "Geographic Base" for Sept. 11 Attacks

Oh dear.... you should know better.... as mentioned even recently, I think its clear that the "geographical base" he was referring to was the ME. Regardless of what the article, supposedly from the Post, tries to put in his mouth, he did not say Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Let me repeat that.... he did not say Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

 

[Starscream]

Regardless of what the article, supposedly from the Post, tries to put in his mouth, he did not say Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Let me repeat that.... he did not say Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is, right?

Regardless of what the words the master politicians use, their implications are crystal clear. It is very ironic that for over a year some us have fighting the urban legend that Iraq was involved with 9/11 against people that were invoking the quotatations that you know tell us don't say what people thought they said.

The careful choice of words that can easily be manipulated to defend this administration upon any outcome just serves as further evidence of their deceit.

Give it time though, James. This admistration has said a mouthful when it comes to Iraq and 9/11. The "smoking gun" quotes will emerge, are you sure you want to take the charge of providing apolegetics for them all?

I abhored Clinton and his strongest followers for this kind of fancy-pants, lawyeresque maneurvering during the height of the Lewisnsky scandal. Now years later we find his strongest adversaries playing the same word games in defense of Bush.

Bleh.

 

[Starscream]

Bush's Letter to Congress ...

... 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.
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.

 

[jameseb]

Bush's Letter to Congress ...

You do realize that he said it was "consistent" with the actions the US and other countries were taking against threats to security, right? You mentioned "word games," but, my friend, I think you've got a full hand in this game.

 

[PrNcSsChRmNg91]

No, its not the same.... I'm asking for proof from those who say the administration linked 9/11 with Iraq. Please, let's get that straight. Again, honesty please.

Ok, I got ya now. I don't believe that Bush and Cheney ever said it but they did imply it. At least it gave me the impression that if Al Qaeda was connected with Hussein, then Hussein must've been connected with 9/11.

 

[InnerPhyre]

I don't mean this to be insulting, but if you honestly ever thought that Bush or Cheney said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, you haven't been paying attention. Terrorism doesn't always mean 9/11. We know Hussein sponsored terrorism, and at least had contact with Al-Qaeda. He gave thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian sucide bombers. By the way, in 2002, Hillary Clinton also said that Iraq and Al-Qaeda had been in talks to discuss working together. How quickly everyone forgets....but that's nothing I suppose to Tom Daschle, Madeline Albright, Al Gore, etc commenting on the threat of Saddam's WMD's in 1998 when we had a president with a D next to his name in the white house....

 

[Grizzly]

Do you know what I find amusing. If Bill Clinton would have been that deceptive in his "linking-nonlinking" of al-qaeda and saddam about 9/11, Republicans like Jameseb would be screaming at the tops of their lungs.


I thought Bush was all about bringing integrity into the Whitehouse. Intergrity is more than refraining from infidelity. It also includes honesty. Telling the whole truth.

So, I guess Bushes defense can be " Well, I gues it depends on what the definition of "linking" is..." how very Clintonian.

 

[burrow_owl]

but if you honestly ever thought that Bush or Cheney said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, you haven't been paying attention

- Most people don't pay attention

- Bush/Cheney exploited that.

 

[2001MustangGT]

The whole 9/11 link thing is silly. Bush and Cheney repeatedly claimed that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda performed the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the link is self evident. It goes like this:



Iraq---à Al Qaeda---à September 11, 2001. that is the chain that Bush has deliberately been trying to put the publics minds.



Now on Cnn.com, and on the front page of the Los Angeles Times today, There is an article that says “Despite Findings, Bush Sees Iraq Tie to Al Qaeda”.



The 9/11 commission found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush still insists there is a link. Bush thinks he knows better than the entire commission, which has been exhaustively researching this for God knows how long. Bush has tried to stop the 9/11 commission on many occasions. From limiting the time they have to report findings, to limiting the time he would testify for them, to refusing to swear an oath during testimony, etc…



Tryingto link the attacks themselves is a RED HERRING to the main issue here, and that issue is that Bush is trying to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 attacks go without saying if you make a link to Al Qaeda.



Basically imagine this: 9/11 is the child or product of Al Qaeda. So if you link ANYTHING to Al Qaeda, you are by default linking it to 9/11 as well. Why else would anyone link anything to Al Qaeda without implying that the 9/11 link is there?

 

[SuzQ]

The only thing Bush has always said is that anyone who "HARBORS" Al Quaeda is as guilty as Al Quaeda. No, he never flat out said Iraq had participated in the carrying out of 9/11, so the OP is accurate. Clinton also never linked the two the first time the Trade Center was attacked on his watch.

That's not to say that Iraq has NO CONNECTION to Al Quaeda. There's a difference, folks. Iraqis may have not flown the planes, but obviously there was some truth in the CIA's Intelligence Reports with the link. Think it's just Bush and Cheney who came to that conclusion from reading those reports????

Let me give you a DEMOCRAT'S statement:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ..."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Source? Her own website: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration is just paranoid about the link....LOL!

 

[jameseb]

 

[jameseb]

 

[2001MustangGT]

That's not to say that Iraq has NO CONNECTION to Al Quaeda. There's a difference, folks. Iraqis may have not flown the planes, but obviously there was some truth in the CIA's Intelligence Reports with the link. Think it's just Bush and Cheney who came to that conclusion from reading those reports????

Acutally, it IS to say that Iraq and Al Qaeda have no connection. Did you see my post just above yours about the articles on CNN and Los Angeles Times? (dont give me any grief about "liberal media bias" they are just reporting the well-reasearched findings of the 9/11 commission.)

Let me give you a DEMOCRAT'S statement:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ..."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Source? Her own website: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration is just paranoid about the link....LOL!

Im not concerned with Hillary's remarks. She is not president and she did not come up with the "lets invade Iraq" idea.

Furthermore, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 happened. Would he have talked about an Al Qaeda link before 9/11? NO, of course not. But once Al Qaeda became infamous, he simply thought it would be a good idea to use it for justification for invading Iraq. And here is the fundamental flaw:

Bush came to a conclusion in his head, then he looked around for selective evidence to support it. He took the steps backwards. You are supposed to come to a conclusion AFTER you gather evidence, not BEFORE.

The 9/11 commission, on the other hand, looked at all the evidence that exists, and came to a conclusion after they looked at evidence, not before. That conclusion is that Al Qaeda and Iraq are not linked.

And thats the bottom line.

 

[SuzQ]

Furthermore, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 happened. Would he have talked about an Al Qaeda link before 9/11? NO, of course not. And thats the bottom line.

Have you read of PUTIN'S statement in the news today? The Russian leader himself decided to come forward and say that THEY had intelligence that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks inside the U.S. (Hm, sounds very similar to what Al Quaeda is all about, dontcha think? But again, no similarites there, in your view?).

Putin has no reason to defend Bush's actions. And I suppose since Iraq wasn't threatening Russia - there was still no need to be involved in our war efforts - makes sense.

Check out the article(s) posted all over CF today.

 

[jameseb]

Have you read of PUTIN'S statement in the news today? The Russian leader himself decided to come forward and say that THEY had intelligence that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks inside the U.S. (Hm, sounds very similar to what Al Quaeda is all about, dontcha think? But again, no similarites there, in your view?).

Putin has no reason to defend Bush's actions. And I suppose since Iraq was threatening Russia - there was still no need to be involved.

Check out the article(s) posted all over CF today.

But that hasn't stopped people from already questioning Putin's sincerity (as if he was our ally against Iraq, pfft...)... IN FACT they also are now questioning why Bush wouldn't have used this in his defense before now (as if it was needed) so I'm really beginning to think its completely hopeless carrying on a meaningful debate with some of these people.

 

[2001MustangGT]

Have you read of PUTIN'S statement in the news today? The Russian leader himself decided to come forward and say that THEY had intelligence that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks inside the U.S. (Hm, sounds very similar to what Al Quaeda is all about, dontcha think? But again, no similarites there, in your view?).

Putin has no reason to defend Bush's actions. And I suppose since Iraq wasn't threatening Russia - there was still no need to be involved in our war efforts - makes sense.

Check out the article(s) posted all over CF today.

Since when does Al Qaeda have a monopoly on terrorism? Last time I checked, any old group of thugs could plan terror attacks. Iraq tried to assassinate Bush Sr. Was that Al Qaedas doing, or just Iraqs doing?

The IRA commits terrorist attacks. Are they committing those attacks with Al Qaedas help? Terror can occur independently of a terrorist group.

Your post has no relevance to this discussion, in that Iraq can totally plan and carry out terror attacks completely independent of Al Qaeda. In fact, Al Qaeda could be wiped off the face of the Earth from top to bottom and Iraq could STILL plan and carry out terror attacks.