Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
The White House

8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.


The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: dahunan
If I had to choose where the Islamic Radicals were and which Government supported and preached Death To America

A) Iraq
B) Iran

It would not have been very hard to pick Iran

with any luck, they'll be next :)

Jason

If you want to overturn the governemnt in Iran the best way would be to open up the country to outside money and thought. If you normalize relations anddon't give military aid to iran, the existing governemnt will be gone within 5 years. It will be exactly like how the soviet union fell. Gorbechav (sp?) opened up the government, and it could no longer survive. Invasion will only unifiy the people against us.
 

MidasKnight

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2004
3,288
0
76
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: GrGr
Are you seriously comparing Moore with Bush?

Seriously. One of them waged a fear-mongering campaign and managed to to pull the wool over the eyes of ~50% of the country to the advancement of his own greedy, self-serving agenda. The other one got elected...



LOL ! :thumbsup:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: dahunan
If I had to choose where the Islamic Radicals were and which Government supported and preached Death To America

A) Iraq
B) Iran

It would not have been very hard to pick Iran

with any luck, they'll be next :)

Jason

If you want to overturn the governemnt in Iran the best way would be to open up the country to outside money and thought. If you normalize relations anddon't give military aid to iran, the existing governemnt will be gone within 5 years. It will be exactly like how the soviet union fell. Gorbechav (sp?) opened up the government, and it could no longer survive. Invasion will only unifiy the people against us.
The USSR fell economically trying to compete as a superpower with the US. Iran would not be subject to that same fate because of their oil reserves, nor are they pretending to be any sort fo superpower on the world stage. Neither does Iran have the same sort of geographical/infrastructure isuues or the diverse culture of the USSR.

 

Sysbuilder05

Senior member
Nov 10, 2004
409
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...140133_bushiraq18.html

"WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans."


Article from a different story showing how the old CIA mis-information trick works everytime with clueless people....

"Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime."

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #
Beat me to it. I'm always amazed that, even though this letter from Bush, on the White House web site, clearly insinuates a connection between Iraq and 9/11, and even though this letter has been posted here a dozen times, there are still people who vehemently insist the Bush administration never suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11. Some even blame "stupid liberals" for inferring a connection (conveniently ignoring the fact that surveys show it's Bush's supporters who overwhelmingly believe the deception).

Let this one go, for crying out loud. Heck, Cheney still suggests a connection when the subject comes up.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

One more time for those who refuse to read...

Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.
Perfect! I owe you a :beer: Chicken, for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. Those "brainless" voted overwhelmingly for your feckless leader.

ROFL
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

One more time for those who refuse to read...

Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #

One more time for those who refuse to do their research:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The statement contained in the Presedential letter is nothing more than a copy of what's contained in the law passed by Congress, including many Democrats.

But I'm sure you knew that already. :roll:
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

One more time for those who refuse to read...

Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #

One more time for those who refuse to do their research:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The statement contained in the Presedential letter is nothing more than a copy of what's contained in the law passed by Congress, including many Democrats.

But I'm sure you knew that already. :roll:

If he didn't mean it why did he include it in his letter?

He's the president. He could have had his buddy Gonzalez take a break from his torture work to edit a simple letter, couldn't he?

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

One more time for those who refuse to read...

Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #

One more time for those who refuse to do their research:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The statement contained in the Presedential letter is nothing more than a copy of what's contained in the law passed by Congress, including many Democrats.

But I'm sure you knew that already. :roll:

If he didn't mean it why did he include it in his letter?

He's the president. He could have had his buddy Gonzalez take a break from his torture work to edit a simple letter, couldn't he?
WTF? Who said it's not meant to be there?

Read it closly, then explain how the word "including" is used in that context. Is the statement any sort of indictment claiming Saddam's complicity in 9/11? Of course not. This is nothing more than another stupid ploy claiming "OMG, he kind of mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same paragraph. The Jedi mind trickery again!"
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.
Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

One more time for those who refuse to read...

Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #

One more time for those who refuse to do their research:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The statement contained in the Presedential letter is nothing more than a copy of what's contained in the law passed by Congress, including many Democrats.

But I'm sure you knew that already. :roll:

If he didn't mean it why did he include it in his letter?

He's the president. He could have had his buddy Gonzalez take a break from his torture work to edit a simple letter, couldn't he?
WTF? Who said it's not meant to be there?

Read it closly, then explain how the word "including" is used in that context. Is the statement any sort of indictment claiming Saddam's complicity in 9/11? Of course not. This is nothing more than another stupid ploy claiming "OMG, he kind of mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same paragraph. The Jedi mind trickery again!"

You Bushies are fond of telling us he didn't actually say this, or he didn't actually say that. Or my favorite, you can't prove it in court.

Well, here are Bush's own words in black and white and you still refuse to admit he said exactly what he said.

(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.

No more excuses. His words in black and white from the White House web site. Period.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
One more time for those who refuse to read...

Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

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

# # #

One more time for those who refuse to do their research:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The statement contained in the Presedential letter is nothing more than a copy of what's contained in the law passed by Congress, including many Democrats.

But I'm sure you knew that already. :roll:
Sorry, nice try. Had Bush not wanted to tie Iraq to 9/11, all he had to do what put a period somewhere before "including". For example:
  • (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.
If we wanted to suggest Iraq was connected to terrorism in general (a stretch, but a kernel of truth)

-- or --
  • (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243.
If he really wanted to be honest. Of course, Congress wouldn't have approved had he told the truth, so he pulled out all the stops in smearing Iraq with disinformation. (Ask Kerry and McCain how that works.)

 

imported_brad

Member
Jan 6, 2005
172
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?

The WH hasnt directly stated they are linked, because they arent.

What they have done is use the terms 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq in close proximity of the same scentences over and over and over and over....leading us to believe that, but never really saying it. They've just brilliantly used phrasing and diction to mislead us. When directly asked, as mentioned before, they just fall back on all the 9/11 terrorism jargon to sidestep the question without saying NO. Richard Clarke said NO for them.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: GrGr
There is a legal term for that - Suggestio falsi

"More commonly an arguer will allow his hearers to draw their own conclusions from his statement. When a statement itself is absolutely true, but implies something false, or leads to a seemingly obvious conclusion which, however, is false, a form of the fallacy of accent is committed--suggestio falsi (false suggestion). For example, if a student should say, "My roommate didn't take any drugs today," he could be telling a literal truth, but he is insinuating that this fact is somehow remarkable, atypical, or unusual--which, his hearers will assume, must be why he stated it. In reality, the roommate may never take drugs, and the student has not stated that his roommate ever does. Yet we can scarcely escape the seemingly automatic conclusion that the roommate must be an addict or abuser. We constantly seek contexts, cause-and-effect relationships, and implications for the statements we read or hear, and this fact is sometimes exploited by those who wish to deceive or even lie by telling only the truth."

link

I appreciate you posting this, GrGr. I had never heard of this before.

Do you think, in the example you posted that the logical follow-up question is, "does your roomate ever take drugs?"

Maybe it's because I spend a significant chunk of time dealing with contracts, but I am forced to focus on what is written, and not what is "implied." As a result, I never understood the Saddam/Iraq/9/11 link people were alleging because it just wasn't there.

I guess it's a sad commentary on the media and public that we aren't reading what the president releases and asking the important questions... and demanding answers. Of course, I think half the country would rather hold it and later say, "but you said X" when it never happened.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BBond

(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.

No more excuses. His words in black and white from the White House web site. Period.

OK FLL's, why did we attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama Bin Laden, the real Ring Leader of 9-11???
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK FLL's, why did we attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama Bin Laden, the real Ring Leader of 9-11???

While we certainly need to crack down on Saudi Arabia, I think your question is irrelevant to this discussion.

While the Iraq war seems like a mistake, especially in hindsight, I also don't think Bush is the manipulative genius you make him out to be. There were certainly valid reasons to invade Iraq, but even I'm starting to doubt whether they outweight the associated costs.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK FLL's, why did we attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama Bin Laden, the real Ring Leader of 9-11???

While we certainly need to crack down on Saudi Arabia, I think your question is irrelevant to this discussion.

While the Iraq war seems like a mistake, especially in hindsight, I also don't think Bush is the manipulative genius you make him out to be. There were certainly valid reasons to invade Iraq, but even I'm starting to doubt whether they outweight the associated costs.

Well looks like they are going to go after Iran's Oil now using the same Iraq teactic except concentrating strictly on Nuclear WMD.

If Bush take over Iraq within next 2 years there is still time to go after Saudi Arabia.

 

CQuinn

Golden Member
May 31, 2000
1,656
0
0

The WH hasnt directly stated they are linked, because they arent.

You attempt to refute the letter, but ignore a direct Presidential Address?

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

In political terms, that is a slam dunk of a direct statement.




 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: GrGr
There is a legal term for that - Suggestio falsi

"More commonly an arguer will allow his hearers to draw their own conclusions from his statement. When a statement itself is absolutely true, but implies something false, or leads to a seemingly obvious conclusion which, however, is false, a form of the fallacy of accent is committed--suggestio falsi (false suggestion). For example, if a student should say, "My roommate didn't take any drugs today," he could be telling a literal truth, but he is insinuating that this fact is somehow remarkable, atypical, or unusual--which, his hearers will assume, must be why he stated it. In reality, the roommate may never take drugs, and the student has not stated that his roommate ever does. Yet we can scarcely escape the seemingly automatic conclusion that the roommate must be an addict or abuser. We constantly seek contexts, cause-and-effect relationships, and implications for the statements we read or hear, and this fact is sometimes exploited by those who wish to deceive or even lie by telling only the truth."

link

I appreciate you posting this, GrGr. I had never heard of this before.

Do you think, in the example you posted that the logical follow-up question is, "does your roomate ever take drugs?"

Maybe it's because I spend a significant chunk of time dealing with contracts, but I am forced to focus on what is written, and not what is "implied." As a result, I never understood the Saddam/Iraq/9/11 link people were alleging because it just wasn't there.

I guess it's a sad commentary on the media and public that we aren't reading what the president releases and asking the important questions... and demanding answers. Of course, I think half the country would rather hold it and later say, "but you said X" when it never happened.

Yes a few specific questions should do the trick.

It is important that the media gets the opportunity to do it's job properly and that it takes that opportunity when it gets it. Just because Bush, or whomever, happens to be the President shouldn't stop journalists and others to question his actions.

 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: CQuinn
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

In political terms, that is a slam dunk of a direct statement.

Ummm... no, transitive property does not apply to associations. That's like saying someone has business with the french was also involved in the murder of greenpeace activists on the Rainbow Warrior.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: CQuinn
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

In political terms, that is a slam dunk of a direct statement.

Ummm... no, transitive property does not apply to associations. That's like saying someone has business with the french was also involved in the murder of greenpeace activists on the Rainbow Warrior.


Well according to Bush Saddam the Arab aided, trained and harbored Al Qa'ida (you know of 9/11 fame). Bush said:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

So the facts according to Bush:

FACT 1: There is no doubt Saddam has WMD's
FACT 2: Saddam has used WMD's in the past
FACT 3: Saddam has collaborated with Al Qa'ida.
FACT 4: The danger is clear, terrorists will nuke the US with the help of Iraq
CONCLUSION: The US must invade to remove this combined threat of Saddam's WMD's and terrorists.

However FACT 1 is a lie. FACT 2 was at least partially true, Saddam did use WMD in the war against Iran. FACT 3 is a lie. FACT 4 is a lie. Bush deliberately associated Saddam with current WMD's and with Al Qa'ida without any proof for either connection.

It isn't exactly as if Bush had said: "Saddam has 10 ICBM's armed with nuclear warheads at a location 40 km south of Baghdad aimed at the US and poised for immediate launch. Here are the satellite pics..."

Instead of true facts we get lots of rhetoric - suggestio falsi ("before it is too late to act...",), weasel words ("could") and suppressio veri (suppressing the truth) etc. "terrorists could bla bla bla kill bla bla bla the regime has already used WMD's bla bla bla did nothing to deserve or invite this threat bla bla bla operatives of Al Qaeda bla bla bla"


 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: GrGr
FACT 3: Saddam has collaborated with Al Qa'ida.

FACT 3 is a lie.

The Iraqi government and pats of Al Qaeda did have ties. The entire point of this thread was to show that bush never made the claim people on ATPN say he did.

I'm assuming that there is no more supporting evidence now that you are resorting to bush's claims that had nothing to do with a Saddam-9/11 link.