Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11

minibush1

Member
Sep 14, 2003
119
0
0
Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11
ROBERT BURNS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Cheney said he recalled being asked about an Iraq connection to 9/11 shortly after the attacks, and he recalled saying he knew of no evidence at that point.

"Subsequent to that, we have learned a couple of things," he said. "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on BW (biological warfare) and CW (chemical warfare) - that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization."

At his Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are making satisfactory progress in stabilizing the country.

He said it was an "open question" whether the United States would get the 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops it seeks to create a third multinational division for security duty in Iraq. The Pentagon has been hopeful of getting at least that many additional troops from Turkey, Pakistan or other friendly countries to beef up security and possibly to allow some of the 130,000 U.S. troops there to go home next year.

"It would relieve some of the pressure on our forces," Rumsfeld said. "Whether or not there will be a (United Nations) resolution and whether or not - even if there were a resolution - we would get that number of troops is an open question."

Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared with Rumsfeld, said there are more than 210,000 coalition forces in Iraq: 130,000 American troops, 24,000 British and other international troops, and 60,000 Iraqi police, border guards and civil defense forces.

 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Funny. The way Bush's Regime conducted itself and spouted off at the mouth, since September 12, 2001, they immediately pointed the finger right at, and up into, Saddam's ass. That's why 70% of polled Americans believe that Saddam is linked to 9/11.

It was like their life's goal & press campaign that blasting Saddam and Iraq was the cure to all evil, and the essential centerpiece to have someone's head on a platter for 9/11.

The Regime now only disuades this link by a couple of after thoughts in the press.

How fvckin' convenient.
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Another example of how conservatives love to exacerbate national hysteria about terrorism and use it for war mongering; only to later on be pinned down by the truth.

I love how the facts get buried until after we've succeeded in pissing off the world with our arogant and unilateral actions...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Hmmmmm, I wonder how the American public came to associate 9.11 with Iraq? How could they possibly connect the dots like that all by themselves?
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmmm, I wonder how the American public came to associate 9.11 with Iraq? How could they possibly connect the dots like that all by themselves?

i blame country music.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq ? even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

I wonder why someone called future President Clark?
But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange: . . . read it yourself

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

One more for the slow ones in the crowd
On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld, and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with President Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a "gut feeling" Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there was a debate "about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter-terrorist strategy."

"On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when," Wolfowitz said during the May 9 Interview with Vanity Fair's Sam Tannenhaus, a transcript of which is posted on the Department of Defense website and is archived on Scoop. "There seemed to be a kind of agreement that, yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first."
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmmm, I wonder how the American public came to associate 9.11 with Iraq? How could they possibly connect the dots like that all by themselves?
Maybe through subtle little hints like this:
("Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate," linked directly from whitehouse.gov.)

Presidential Letter

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

Yes, I posted this before. It still astounds me that some people deny Bush & Co. tried to link the invasion to 9/11. (Hey tcsenter, is it "due time" yet? Crickets, etc.)
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmmm, I wonder how the American public came to associate 9.11 with Iraq? How could they possibly connect the dots like that all by themselves?

i blame country music.

HAHAHAHAH so true. and the rest of the idiots who are at the for-front of white america ie. pat robertson, etc.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmmm, I wonder how the American public came to associate 9.11 with Iraq? How could they possibly connect the dots like that all by themselves?

i blame country music.

:D
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
I hope everyone reviews BaliBabyDoc's post that he took the time to put together. This is exactly why I, and I'm sure many others informed of such information, have been bitterly against the Bush Regime's aggression against Iraq - because it was a patched-together farce. We saw this coming all along, yet all the apologists and nationalists around the country were blinded to it; they wanted someone's head on a platter NOW and the Regime was telling everyone that Saddams was the one who belonged there.

There have been signs all along the road for the past 2 years of this fairy tale. For all that's happened, George W. Bush and his cohorts in this crime should be behind bars for what they've done, the country they've raped, the economy they've ignored and have caused and bottomless debt hole, and all the civilian and american troop deaths they've caused. This is unforgiveable and criminal.
 

minibush1

Member
Sep 14, 2003
119
0
0
Rice U.S. never said Saddam was behind 9/11
REUTERS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 ? U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday the Bush administration had never accused Saddam Hussein of directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Her statement, in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's ''Nightline,'' came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Democrats have accused the administration of creating a ''false impression'' at the heart of a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks.
''We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11,'' Rice said when asked about the public perception of a link.
''What we have said is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them (and) was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate.''
Defending Saddam's ouster, she said he represented a threat in ''a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.''
A Washington Post poll this month found 69 percent of Americans believed Saddam was personally involved in the attacks, despite the lack of significant evidence.
As they campaigned for support to oust Saddam, Bush and aides accused the former Iraqi president of being linked to al Qaeda, often in ways that recalled the suicide hijackings that killed about 3,000 people.
''You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,'' Bush said in September 2002.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in congressional testimony, ''There have been a number of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda over the years. We know Saddam has ordered acts of terror himself.''
Richard Perle, an influential Pentagon adviser before the war, said in a New York Times opinion article in December 2001 that evidence was ''convincing'' that an Iraqi intelligence agent had met with Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.
The CIA has failed to verify the report, attributed to Czech officials, of a meeting. Vice President Dick Cheney, interviewed on Sunday by NBC's ''Meet the Press,'' said it was not possible to confirm or discredit the report, and he left open the possibility of a Saddam link to the attacks.
Cheney said, ''It's not surprising'' the public would believe Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
''We don't know,'' he said. ''We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s.''
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
hmm didnt Cheney say just a few days ago that Saddam aided and supported the wtc attacks?
 

calbear2000

Golden Member
Oct 17, 2001
1,027
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmmm, I wonder how the American public came to associate 9.11 with Iraq? How could they possibly connect the dots like that all by themselves?
Maybe through subtle little hints like this:
("Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate," linked directly from whitehouse.gov.)

Presidential Letter

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

Yes, I posted this before. It still astounds me that some people deny Bush & Co. tried to link the invasion to 9/11. (Hey tcsenter, is it "due time" yet? Crickets, etc.)

Depends on what your definition of "is" is
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Originally posted by: Czar
hmm didnt Cheney say just a few days ago that Saddam aided and supported the wtc attacks?

on meet the press all he said was that there was no link between saddam and 9/11

it was like a fleeting afterthought, bothersome for him to mention. lol
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Thanks Don, now that you've helped mislead people into thinking there was a connection so you can go to war in Iraq you can tell us now it was all a mistake. Wonderful.

So what reason do the people who continue to support the war have anymore? WMDs - debunked, 9/11 links - debunked. As far as I am aware, those were the only ones presented in the various speeches leading to the war. Oh wait, there was the ruthless dictator. Can't argue with that, Saddam was a prick. But aside from the fact the Gulf War was our punishment his atrocities in the 80's, do you honestly believe Congress and the majority of US citizens would have still supported the war?

Bush to Congress: "Iraq poses no imminent threat, there's no way they can restart their nuclear weapons program at this time and there's no evidence to sugegst they're getting materials to do so, and to top it all off, they have no links to 9/11. Therefore I believe there's no option but to invade!"

 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
I agree. I want to know why soooo many people wanted to go to war with Iraq and oust Saddam. What has he done to us lately? The whole war was predicated on lies and deception. WHERE ARE THE WMD? HUH? I thought so. Bring our troops back home and stop occupying Iraq.


Edit: Give Saddam a chance.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I agree. I want to know why soooo many people wanted to go to war with Iraq and oust Saddam. What has he done to us lately? The whole war was predicated on lies and deception. WHERE ARE THE WMD? HUH? I thought so. Bring our troops back home and stop occupying Iraq.


Edit: Give Saddam a chance.

I wasn't expecting an argument from you, so no surprise here.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I agree. I want to know why soooo many people wanted to go to war with Iraq and oust Saddam. What has he done to us lately? The whole war was predicated on lies and deception. WHERE ARE THE WMD? HUH? I thought so. Bring our troops back home and stop occupying Iraq.


Edit: Give Saddam a chance.

I wasn't expecting an argument from you, so no surprise here.

I'm with you, buddy. I am sick of being lied to, too.

 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
YEAH! Let's hold a burning-at-the-stake for Bush's Regime in Salem, Massachussetts!
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Sure Rumsfeld and Rice didn't say Iraq was linked to 911. They just instructed their media machine to dope American into thinking that.

Just like they saying they didn't mislead American on Niger Uranium claim, it was British Intelligence.

Word didn't came out of their mouth doesn't mean they were not responsible.