Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Well looking back on the 1990s it should have been considered our biggest threat.
And for the 2nd time Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

Just a start. You can get more info on Bush's Saddam infatuation in Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror or Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.

But you won't becuase you obviously didn't even read the Frontline links I posted.

you make this way too easy.

Directly from your first link.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.

But you won't becuase you obviously didn't even read the Frontline links I posted.

Apparently you dont either

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

 

[Genx87]

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

last time it was audio clips now it is links.

Why dont you show us your hand and Ill show you mine?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!Never forget 9/11! Never forget Saddam! Thousands died in 9/11! We must attack Saddam!

Oh Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: SuperTool
How about the millions of uninsured who die because they don't get treatment in time to save them?
If you could spend 200Billion to prevent 1 Million Americans from dying from disease or to prevent 1000 Americans from dying from Terrorism, how would you spend it?

Unfortunately, there's a complete discontinuity in your ideas. Money that doesn't get spent on Iraq will simply not get spent at all, it would simply come out of the deficit. You could argue that this would allow backing of a government healthcare bill, but I don't want government healthcare. I don't want it NOT due to financial reasons but because of the inherent problems with socialized medicine.

Originally posted by: SuperTool
obesity

OK, I'll call my boys at the Pentagon and have them draw up a battle plan against McDonalds.

So what is the answer to my quesiton, how would you spend the money IF you had that choice?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Same place we are now. The US would never acknowledge his cooperation. They would say he is lying about destroying those weapons, etc. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Anyways, US got what it wanted, now what? It's stuck in a quagmire with no honorable way out.

Wasnt just the United States.

Unless of course you consider kicking out the UN staff in 1998 cooperating. :disgust:

If i remember right clinton pulled out the UN staff so he could bomb them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

It clear evidence of brainwashing as evidenced by Genx87's spewage.

Mass hysteria would be spewage of incorrect false data, this is a total ignoring of facts.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, and all that got Iraqis was an invasion. So there goes that theory.

Now why did they get access?

Ever heard of the phrase "Too little, too late"?

stupid argument.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

Why would I require that? The link I provided has those already. Need a little help clicking on that link? Here you go:

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

Even for those who can't differentiate between "links with al Qaeda" and "involvement in 9/11" it was stated precisely by Bush that there's a difference between the two. If there's confusion in the mind of some the public it's certainly nothing to do with what Bush said as he stated otherwise. Maybe they should pay fvcking attention to what's being said?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

However he actively tryed to connect the two, and talked about iraq and "terrorists" working together and all that, which was a bunch of bs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

Why would I require that? The link I provided has those already. Need a little help clicking on that link? Here you go:

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

Even for those who can't differentiate between "links with al Qaeda" and "involvement in 9/11" it was stated precisely by Bush that there's a difference between the two. If there's confusion in the mind of some the public it's certainly nothing to do with what Bush said as he stated otherwise. Maybe they should pay fvcking attention to what's being said?

I agree. It was the publics fault that they let Bush trick them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

Why would I require that? The link I provided has those already. Need a little help clicking on that link? Here you go:

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

Even for those who can't differentiate between "links with al Qaeda" and "involvement in 9/11" it was stated precisely by Bush that there's a difference between the two. If there's confusion in the mind of some the public it's certainly nothing to do with what Bush said as he stated otherwise. Maybe they should pay fvcking attention to what's being said?

I agree. It was the publics fault that they let Bush trick them.

Individual responsibility is not one of your beliefs I guess?

I've seen a lot of ignorance of the facts in this thread from the RBHrs. Who should I blame for their ignorance? Juan Cole? Someone in the Democratic Underground? Chomsky? C'mon. There must be someone to blame for them believing wrongly. I mean, it can't actually be THEIR fault.

 

[BBond]

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says

He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "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 said.

Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?

What Bush and Cheney Said

Less open to interpretation is what Bush and Cheney said in the past. They both described a strong, dangerous connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

In his State of the Union address shortly before the war began, Bush said "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda," and suggested that Saddam might provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And earlier, Cheney described Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists" and "the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States." Cheney spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we?re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it?s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it?s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it?s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Just for starters. Google has plenty more where those came from. Now, if you want to defend "leaders" who try to play fast and loose with the truth to get their agenda through then, after their lies are exposed, play some school yard game trying to deny they meant to erroneously influence perception then by all means keep supporting Bush/Cheney.

I don't like "leaders" who influence public opinion with ambiguous statements they and their supporters then redefine after the facts become too plain for them to ignore any longer.

They are incompetent, unrepentent liars and the people who follow them are fools.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

Why would I require that? The link I provided has those already. Need a little help clicking on that link? Here you go:

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

Even for those who can't differentiate between "links with al Qaeda" and "involvement in 9/11" it was stated precisely by Bush that there's a difference between the two. If there's confusion in the mind of some the public it's certainly nothing to do with what Bush said as he stated otherwise. Maybe they should pay fvcking attention to what's being said?

I agree. It was the publics fault that they let Bush trick them.

Individual responsibility is not one of your beliefs I guess?

I've seen a lot of ignorance of the facts in this thread from the RBHrs. Who should I blame for their ignorance? Juan Cole? Someone in the Democratic Underground? Chomsky? C'mon. There must be someone to blame for them believing wrongly. I mean, it can't actually be THEIR fault.

No, I am not disagreeing. They bought the 9/11 thing. They bought that Saddam was training Al Queda when it was in the northern terrirories beyond Saddams control. They bought Powells UN speeches. They believed Rumsfeld when he said Saddam had WMDs and we knew what and where they are. They went along with the whole thing virtually without question. They let themselves get fooled. It is a commonly used advertising technique to make claims by association without ever saying there is cause and effect. People will fill in the blanks. That is the peoples fault for that.

I remember this fellow about 80 years old before the war looking at a picture of women in burkas and children holding guns. I recall him saying that Bush is right and we have to kill everyone there. Several people were listening to him and agreed. They must all die because of what Saddam did with 9/11. There are no innocent. All must die. I said that those children never killed anyone. They (collectively) looked at me askance, telling me that Bush proved that Saddam and these people are linked snd responsible. This was in liberal MA BTW. Funny, but they all had the same idea and credited Bush for it.

I blame them for that lack of judgement.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says

He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "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 said.

Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?

What Bush and Cheney Said

Less open to interpretation is what Bush and Cheney said in the past. They both described a strong, dangerous connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

In his State of the Union address shortly before the war began, Bush said "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda," and suggested that Saddam might provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And earlier, Cheney described Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists" and "the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States." Cheney spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we?re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it?s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it?s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it?s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Just for starters. Google has plenty more where those came from. Now, if you want to defend "leaders" who try to play fast and loose with the truth to get their agenda through then, after their lies are exposed, play some school yard game trying to deny they meant to erroneously influence perception then by all means keep supporting Bush/Cheney.

I don't like "leaders" who influence public opinion with ambiguous statements they and their supporters then redefine after the facts become too plain for them to ignore any longer.

They are incompetent, unrepentent liars and the people who follow them are fools.

Nothing you linked has a claim by the admin that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Try to wriggle and "interpret" all you want but you're simply wrong and the true facts are in plain view for all to see. Bush, Cheney, and Rice have all made specific statements claiming there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Merely mentioning the two together in the same paragraph does not make for a compelling case at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says

He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "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 said.

Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?

What Bush and Cheney Said

Less open to interpretation is what Bush and Cheney said in the past. They both described a strong, dangerous connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

In his State of the Union address shortly before the war began, Bush said "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda," and suggested that Saddam might provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And earlier, Cheney described Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists" and "the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States." Cheney spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we?re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it?s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it?s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it?s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Just for starters. Google has plenty more where those came from. Now, if you want to defend "leaders" who try to play fast and loose with the truth to get their agenda through then, after their lies are exposed, play some school yard game trying to deny they meant to erroneously influence perception then by all means keep supporting Bush/Cheney.

I don't like "leaders" who influence public opinion with ambiguous statements they and their supporters then redefine after the facts become too plain for them to ignore any longer.

They are incompetent, unrepentent liars and the people who follow them are fools.

Nothing you linked has a claim by the admin that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Try to wriggle and "interpret" all you want but you're simply wrong and the true facts are in plain view for all to see. Bush, Cheney, and Rice have all made specific statements claiming there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Merely mentioning the two together in the same paragraph does not make for a compelling case at all.

They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

 

[Genx87]

So what is the answer to my quesiton, how would you spend the money IF you had that choice?

Nice change of topic. Lose one argument and start a new one.

If we werent in a war and we had 100 billion a year free to spend. I would spend it on paying down the debt.

It clear evidence of brainwashing as evidenced by Genx87's spewage.

Mass hysteria would be spewage of incorrect false data, this is a total ignoring of facts.

Ahh yes but I see you didnt comeback with any proof of your previous claim.
btw how old are you again?

However he actively tryed to connect the two, and talked about iraq and "terrorists" working together and all that, which was a bunch of bs.

Only in your mind did he try to connect them. Just because you bought into the media's ignorance is no excuse for not doing your own research. Funny how the two conservatives in this thread have known since day one what the administrations stance is on 9-11 and Iraq. Yet the enlightened libs still cant figure it out.

Just for starters. Google has plenty more where those came from. Now, if you want to defend "leaders" who try to play fast and loose with the truth to get their agenda through then, after their lies are exposed, play some school yard game trying to deny they meant to erroneously influence perception then by all means keep supporting Bush/Cheney.

I don't like "leaders" who influence public opinion with ambiguous statements they and their supporters then redefine after the facts become too plain for them to ignore any longer.

They are incompetent, unrepentent liars and the people who follow them are fools.

You have to be kidding me. Your first link takes the VPs apparent lack of response on the question as him saying there is a tie? Talk about reading into something and putting words into somebody's mouth. Then your 2nd link backs up my claim.

Your third link takes the reading comprehension of a 4th grader to understand he is using Al-Quaeda as an example of the types of terrorists Saddam is harboring.

You are

A. Reading way too much into what is being said
B. Not reading what is being said correctly
C. Linking two things that are not being linked.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

It clear evidence of brainwashing as evidenced by Genx87's spewage.

Mass hysteria would be spewage of incorrect false data, this is a total ignoring of facts.

A. Reading way too much into what is being said
B. Not reading what is being said correctly
C. Linking two things that are not being linked.

People like above should not be allowed to vote and a whole host of other things.

I don't understand how they are able to live and survive with such a bass ackwards view of facts.

Does the Gas pedal say Brake and Brake pedal say Gas???

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

Why would I require that? The link I provided has those already. Need a little help clicking on that link? Here you go:

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

Even for those who can't differentiate between "links with al Qaeda" and "involvement in 9/11" it was stated precisely by Bush that there's a difference between the two. If there's confusion in the mind of some the public it's certainly nothing to do with what Bush said as he stated otherwise. Maybe they should pay fvcking attention to what's being said?

I agree. It was the publics fault that they let Bush trick them.

Individual responsibility is not one of your beliefs I guess?

I've seen a lot of ignorance of the facts in this thread from the RBHrs. Who should I blame for their ignorance? Juan Cole? Someone in the Democratic Underground? Chomsky? C'mon. There must be someone to blame for them believing wrongly. I mean, it can't actually be THEIR fault.

No, I am not disagreeing. They bought the 9/11 thing. They bought that Saddam was training Al Queda when it was in the northern terrirories beyond Saddams control. They bought Powells UN speeches. They believed Rumsfeld when he said Saddam had WMDs and we knew what and where they are. They went along with the whole thing virtually without question. They let themselves get fooled. It is a commonly used advertising technique to make claims by association without ever saying there is cause and effect. People will fill in the blanks. That is the peoples fault for that.

I remember this fellow about 80 years old before the war looking at a picture of women in burkas and children holding guns. I recall him saying that Bush is right and we have to kill everyone there. Several people were listening to him and agreed. They must all die because of what Saddam did with 9/11. There are no innocent. All must die. I said that those children never killed anyone. They (collectively) looked at me askance, telling me that Bush proved that Saddam and these people are linked snd responsible. This was in liberal MA BTW. Funny, but they all had the same idea and credited Bush for it.

I blame them for that lack of judgement.

I remember participating in a forum (not this one) where a bunch of lefties were claiming that Bush had no proof that OBL was involved in 9/11 and that we shouldn't be going into Afghanistan either. They also claimed we'd get our collective a55e5 handed to us because the Russians tried for years in Afghanistan without success and the US was going to fail as well.

You know what? People can be wrong.

 

[BBond]

Afghanistan is what it was before the U.S. invasion. Warlords run the vast majority of the country, poppy cultivation is at an all time high, and women are still treated as they were under the Taliban in most of the nation.

Missioned Accomplished.

Quick, give someone a medal. :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

You're attempting to turn this into a semantics game.

In case you hadn't noticed, politicians rarely speak in absolutes. The fact is, you can't prove Saddam had "absolutely" no connection to 9/11. He may have, directly or indirectly, and it just hasn't been uncovered yet or never will be. It would be stupid to claim he had "absolutely nothing to do with it."

The statements from the Bush admin were all they could say. There is no "proof" Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's all they could claim with any reasonable certainty.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Would you like links of quotes by Bush/Cheney stating that there were links to Iraq/Al Qaeda?

Why would I require that? The link I provided has those already. Need a little help clicking on that link? Here you go:

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

Even for those who can't differentiate between "links with al Qaeda" and "involvement in 9/11" it was stated precisely by Bush that there's a difference between the two. If there's confusion in the mind of some the public it's certainly nothing to do with what Bush said as he stated otherwise. Maybe they should pay fvcking attention to what's being said?

I agree. It was the publics fault that they let Bush trick them.

Individual responsibility is not one of your beliefs I guess?

I've seen a lot of ignorance of the facts in this thread from the RBHrs. Who should I blame for their ignorance? Juan Cole? Someone in the Democratic Underground? Chomsky? C'mon. There must be someone to blame for them believing wrongly. I mean, it can't actually be THEIR fault.

No, I am not disagreeing. They bought the 9/11 thing. They bought that Saddam was training Al Queda when it was in the northern terrirories beyond Saddams control. They bought Powells UN speeches. They believed Rumsfeld when he said Saddam had WMDs and we knew what and where they are. They went along with the whole thing virtually without question. They let themselves get fooled. It is a commonly used advertising technique to make claims by association without ever saying there is cause and effect. People will fill in the blanks. That is the peoples fault for that.

I remember this fellow about 80 years old before the war looking at a picture of women in burkas and children holding guns. I recall him saying that Bush is right and we have to kill everyone there. Several people were listening to him and agreed. They must all die because of what Saddam did with 9/11. There are no innocent. All must die. I said that those children never killed anyone. They (collectively) looked at me askance, telling me that Bush proved that Saddam and these people are linked snd responsible. This was in liberal MA BTW. Funny, but they all had the same idea and credited Bush for it.

I blame them for that lack of judgement.

I remember participating in a forum (not this one) where a bunch of lefties were claiming that Bush had no proof that OBL was involved in 9/11 and that we shouldn't be going into Afghanistan either. They also claimed we'd get our collective a55e5 handed to us because the Russians tried for years in Afghanistan without success and the US was going to fail as well.

You know what? People can be wrong.

Yes they can, but they should not persist in their ignorance.

Personally I think Bush handled everything well regarding terrorism up to and including the decision to invade Afghanistan.

Several things turned me away from him though. That was the purposeful linkage of Saddam to 9/11 with indirect means, the Patriot Act, and the Axis of Evil speech.

"Bring it on" was a perfect example of bravado at the expense of others. Many cheered to hear him say that if I recall.

At some point I decided that Bush was pursuing his personal agenda for whatever reason, and that any dissent was ignored. I have yet to see anything to change that belief. When the Army War College published a report critical of how the war was being waged, a representitive said that if it wasn't in line with Presidential policy it would not be on the short reading list. Isn't it troubling when informed opinions are dismissed without consideration? I find it so.

A President who wages war, knows the damage done, and has no doubts is not someone I want to see in power.

Much criticism has been directed at Tony Blair, but I will say one thing for him. Although he believes he did the right thing, he has doubts late at night. I like that quality in a leader. I don't see that in DC.

 

[Genx87]

People like above should not be allowed to vote and a whole host of other things.

I don't understand how they are able to live and survive with such a bass ackwards view of facts.

Does the Gas pedal say Brake and Brake pedal say Gas???

Still waiting on your "proof".

Unsurprisingly you fail to deliver and resort to personal attacks.
Maybe you can answer this one question for me.

What is your age?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

You're attempting to turn this into a semantics game.

In case you hadn't noticed, politicians rarely speak in absolutes. The fact is, you can't prove Saddam had "absolutely" no connection to 9/11. He may have, directly or indirectly, and it just hasn't been uncovered yet or never will be. It would be stupid to claim he had "absolutely nothing to do with it."

The statements from the Bush admin were all they could say. There is no "proof" Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's all they could claim with any reasonable certainty.

Yet how actively did they try to disuade the public from linkage between 9/11 and Saddam?

I know politics exaggerate, and that is a kindness. I don't limit that to Bush. Clinton was good at it too. One reason I have a general distrust of political animals.

Given that pols lie/exagerate/cover their ass, intent and results count. That is why I voted for the first Bush over Clinton, and why I voted for GWB the first time around over Gore. IMO Gore was tainted by association. I took a chance on GWB, but I am greatly disappointed.

You may not be, but that's America. We have the right to call any leader an ass.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
Afghanistan is what it was before the U.S. invasion. Warlords run the vast majority of the country, poppy cultivation is at an all time high, and women are still treated as they were under the Taliban in most of the nation.

Missioned Accomplished.

Quick, give someone a medal. :roll:

Oh yeah. It's all the same.

Well except for women being allowed to work now. And get an education. And they are not required to wear burqas anymore.

And the country is more politically united than it has been in decades.

The Taliban is limited to being a problem in a few places in the south. Other than that it's relatively (in comparison to its past) peaceful there.

And the people voted for their president for the first time ever.

Are there still problems? Of course. However, anyone claiming it's the same as it ever was is simply not facing up to the facts or has unrealistic expectations of what constitutes change.