PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11


BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 08:28 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.speech/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks.


He strongly defended the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, however, arguing that Hussein's previous support for known terrorists was a serious danger after 9/11.

Cheney, in an appearance at the National Press Club, also said he is intent on speaking out in defense of the Bush administration's national security record because "a clear understanding of policies that worked [in protecting the United States] is essential."

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department."

Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in open session -- that there was a relationship," Cheney said.

Hussein was captured by U.S. forces in Iraq in December 2003. In November 2006, the former Iraqi leader was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death. He was executed the following December.

Among other things Monday, Cheney also called the Guantanamo Bay (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/guantanamo_bay), Cuba, detention center a "good facility ... if you are going to be engaged in a world conflict, such as we are, in terms of global war on terrorism. You know, if you don't have a place where you can hold these people, the only other option is to kill them. And we don't operate that way." http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch what Cheney has to say about the detention facility » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Cheney%3A+No+link+between+Saddam+Hussein%2C+9%2F11+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=35391206&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2009%2FPOLITICS%2F06%2F01%2Fcheney.speech%2Findex.html&p#cnnSTCVideo)
He reiterated his call for President Obama to declassify documents detailing the results of "enhanced interrogations" of high-value detainees.
Since Obama has already released memos detailing the interrogation methods, Cheney said, it is important to share the results of those interrogations with the public as well.

"I would not ordinarily be leading the charge to declassify classified information, otherwise they wouldn't call me Darth Vader for nothing," Cheney said.

But "once the [Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/barack_obama)] administration released the legal memos that gave the opinions that were used to guide the interrogation program, they'd given away the store. ... I [therefore] thought it was important to have the results that were gained from that interrogation program front and center as well."

On May 14, the CIA rejected the former vice president's request to declassify the documents. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano, in a written statement, said the two documents are the subject of pending lawsuits and therefore cannot be declassified.

Cheney (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/dick_cheney) said Monday that the memos previously released also were the subject of ongoing lawsuits. He said Obama can release the additional documents with "the stroke of a pen."

On May 21, Cheney gave a full-throated defense of the Bush administration's enhanced interrogations of al Qaeda prisoners during an appearance at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
He has said that the interrogations saved the lives of "thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands." He called the techniques the Bush administration approved "legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do."

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:39 AM
In other words, he's remained consistent on this subject.

mlyonsd
06-02-2009, 08:51 AM
In other words, he's remained consistent on this subject.

That's the way I read it. Somebody will be along shortly to call us idiots though.

banyon
06-02-2009, 08:59 AM
Cheney sure seems nervous these days. I wonder why?

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:01 AM
That's the way I read it. Somebody will be along shortly to call us idiots though.

Uh oh. When my wife gets here, tell her I'm busy doing something productive. :)

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:01 AM
Cheney sure seems nervous these days. I wonder why?

What makes you say that?

banyon
06-02-2009, 09:05 AM
What makes you say that?

Well for starters, he just backtracked on a claim he'd been asserting forcefully in the face of near universal opposition for almost 7 years.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:07 AM
Well for starters, he just backtracked on a claim he'd been asserting forcefully in the face of near universal opposition for almost 7 years.

Are you talking about the thread title? If so, no he didn't.

banyon
06-02-2009, 09:08 AM
Are you talking about the thread title? If so, no he didn't.

What?

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:12 AM
Initially, he held out the possibility that there was a connection based on reports that Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in a European airport (Czech Republic iirc) prior to 9/11, but he never declared that a connection had been established. I don't remember if Cheney himself said so, but spokesmen for the Bush administration, and Bush himself, made it clear that they hadn't uncovered proof of a link between Saddam and the 9/11 plot fairly early on. Cheney never voiced any dissent about this.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:14 AM
What?

The key word in that quote is "confirm". They had evidence in the form of reports from a foreign intelligence agency that supported the theory for a while, but never any confirmation or anything solid enough to establish the connection to any degree of certainty. Cheney has been consistent. He never claimed that they had nailed down a link.

Is that all that made you think he was nervous?

jAZ
06-02-2009, 09:38 AM
"Initially", meaning during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

petegz28
06-02-2009, 09:41 AM
Saying Al Qaeda has a relationship with Sadaam is not the same as saying Sadaam was part of 9/11. The Bush Admin never said Sadaam had anything to do with the 9/11 operation.

JAz you know this and you're being a fucking tool.

petegz28
06-02-2009, 09:42 AM
Are you talking about the thread title? If so, no he didn't.

The Bush Admin never said Sadaam was part of 9/11. They did confirm there was a connection between Sadaam and Al Qaeda. The CIA said that. But 1 does not equate the other no matter how much the Left tried to make it.

Radar Chief
06-02-2009, 10:06 AM
Saying Al Qaeda has a relationship with Sadaam is not the same as saying Sadaam was part of 9/11. The Bush Admin never said Sadaam had anything to do with the 9/11 operation.

Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Radar Chief
06-02-2009, 10:07 AM
What?

Uh.

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

stevieray
06-02-2009, 10:07 AM
Why do we have to keep pointing this out?
...because the board teleprompter is stuck on rinse and repeat

HonestChieffan
06-02-2009, 10:09 AM
...because the board telepropmter is stuck on rinse and repeat

because the board telepropmter is stuck on rinse and repeat
because the board telepropmter is stuck on rinse and repeat
because the board telepropmter is stuck on rinse and repeat

petegz28
06-02-2009, 10:13 AM
Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Cause the Keith Olbmerman lead Left keeps telling the story wrong.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 10:18 AM
The Bush Admin never said Sadaam was part of 9/11. They did confirm there was a connection between Sadaam and Al Qaeda. The CIA said that. But 1 does not equate the other no matter how much the Left tried to make it.
Holy shit!

You might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if you (and all other war supporters) had made this point as loudly and as often as pro-war cheerleaders were in hijacking 9/11 and turning it into a war with Iraq.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 10:19 AM
Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Because you didn't bother to make this point when it really mattered.

Cannibal
06-02-2009, 10:26 AM
Cheney sure seems nervous these days. I wonder why?

He's trying to re-write the history books for himself and his puppet.

petegz28
06-02-2009, 10:28 AM
Holy shit!

You might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if you (and all other war supporters) had made this point as loudly and as often as pro-war cheerleaders were in hijacking 9/11 and turning it into a war with Iraq.


I tried. I was drowned out by the likes of you and Keith Olberman who kept lying and saying Bush was blaming Sadaam for 9/11.



Common sense was unable to penetrate the shell of total ignorance the left hid under during that time. Don't blame me for your own stupidity.

Cannibal
06-02-2009, 10:29 AM
Patteau should have been appointed by the Bush admin. to the new position Minister of Information (Czar of propaganda). I have seriously never seen anyone do a better job of spinning/misleading and covering up. He actually does a better job at it than anyone I've seen in the Bush admin.

petegz28
06-02-2009, 10:29 AM
Someone please provide a quote where Cheney or Bush said Sadaam was directly connected to 9/11.

orange
06-02-2009, 11:20 AM
"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004)

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

wild1
06-02-2009, 11:21 AM
Well, this tells us exactly what everyone knew and was saying all along, so why the news...?

orange
06-02-2009, 11:28 AM
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- 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.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying:

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda.

"The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said.

Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Radar Chief
06-02-2009, 11:43 AM
Because you didn't bother to make this point when it really mattered.

Liar.

Chiefnj2
06-02-2009, 12:03 PM
"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and 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 just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
_______
"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
_____
"For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
_________
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.

petegz28
06-02-2009, 12:07 PM
"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004)

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

That's all you got? You have yet to provide a quote linking Sadaam to 9/11 outside of Cheny himself saying it was a "possibility".



This is where the Left sounds like a bunch of uneducated idiots. Sorry...this is fail if it is all you have.

mikey23545
06-02-2009, 12:10 PM
Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Give up, RC...Look at the last few posts by the usual Lib-tards. LMAO

BigChiefFan
06-02-2009, 12:18 PM
We all know that Saddam pissed off OPEC so they took him out. Welcome to the NWO.

BucEyedPea
06-02-2009, 01:20 PM
Uh oh. When my wife gets here, tell her I'm busy doing something productive. :)

Why are you a Mr. Mom? :D:)

BigRedChief
06-02-2009, 04:17 PM
We all know that Saddam pissed off OPEC so they took him out. Welcome to the NWO.
uhhhh thats news to me.:hmmm:

SCChief
06-02-2009, 04:19 PM
uhhhh thats news to me.:hmmm:

Yeah. Don't you know? When you are NWO, you are NWO 4 Life.

ROFL

banyon
06-02-2009, 04:26 PM
"overwhelming evidence" = "no evidence"

I guess if you can reconcile that, there's really not ever going to be any cognitive dissonance, huh?

SBK
06-02-2009, 04:47 PM
"Initially", meaning during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

Either you can't read or you're retarded. LMAO

SBK
06-02-2009, 04:49 PM
This thread is comedy gold.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 05:13 PM
"Initially", meaning during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

Pay attention, jAZ. Cheney is still saying there were links between the Iraq regime and al Qaeda. He's still NOT saying that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 05:17 PM
Holy shit!

You might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if you (and all other war supporters) had made this point as loudly and as often as pro-war cheerleaders were in hijacking 9/11 and turning it into a war with Iraq.

The war was never conceived as a narrow war against al Qaeda designed to punish or apprehend those who had attacked us on 9/11. The war was always focused on preventing the next 9/11 which meant that it had to account for not only al Qaeda, but also other like-minded terrorist groups (anti-US, anti-US-interests) that might have been emboldened by 9/11 as well as the rogue nations that sponsored them. Iraq was in this mix from the beginning as were countries like Libya, Syria, Sudan, NK and Iran, among others.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 05:27 PM
"overwhelming evidence" = "no evidence"

I guess if you can reconcile that, there's really not ever going to be any cognitive dissonance, huh?

What does this post mean? Where do you come up with the theory that there was "no evidence"?

banyon
06-02-2009, 05:59 PM
What does this post mean? Where do you come up with the theory that there was "no evidence"?

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

Never seen any is the logical equivalent of have seen none.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 06:54 PM
Pay attention, jAZ. Cheney is still saying there were links between the Iraq regime and al Qaeda. He's still NOT saying that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.

They did an outstanding job of convincing the public that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 without claiming that Saddam was the 20th hijacker.

It was coincidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 06:55 PM
The war was never conceived as a narrow war against al Qaeda designed to punish or apprehend those who had attacked us on 9/11. The war was always focused on preventing the next 9/11 which meant that it had to account for not only al Qaeda, but also other like-minded terrorist groups (anti-US, anti-US-interests) that might have been emboldened by 9/11 as well as the rogue nations that sponsored them. Iraq was in this mix from the beginning as were countries like Libya, Syria, Sudan, NK and Iran, among others.

9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 06:55 PM
Never seen any is the logical equivalent of have seen none.

Cheney is lying.

mlyonsd
06-02-2009, 07:06 PM
They did an outstanding job of convincing the public that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 without claiming that Saddam was the 20th hijacker.

It was coincidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.


The myth Saddam was tied to 911 is something born by bloggers on the websites you frequent.

If not, it should be simple for you to come up with some direct quotes from the administration stating there was a connection.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 07:15 PM
The myth Saddam was tied to 911 is something born by bloggers on the websites you frequent.

If not, it should be simple for you to come up with some direct quotes from the administration stating there was a connection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/cheneytext_120901.html

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. ...

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?


CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

mlyonsd
06-02-2009, 07:35 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/cheneytext_120901.html
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. ...

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?


CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.


I had forgotten about that exchange between Russert and Cheney. I stand corrected.

It happened in Dec/2001 and Cheney was talking about a report from the Czech intelligience agency. The Czech's didn't publicly back away from their claim until Aug/2002.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:17 PM
Never seen any is the logical equivalent of have seen none.

OK, well then where did you see "overwhelming" with respect to Saddam and the 911 plot? I think this is what you saw:

Cheney: "no evidence" wrt Saddam and 9/11 plot

Cheney: "overwhelming evidence wrt Saddam and al qaeda

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:21 PM
They did an outstanding job of convincing the public that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 without claiming that Saddam was the 20th hijacker.

It was coincidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

There are a lot of dumb people in this country and a good number of them are journalists. Even in this thread we can see that some of the guys who are reasonably intelligent have trouble following basic logic when their political preconceptions get in the way.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:24 PM
9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq.

jAZ is lying.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 08:35 PM
There are a lot of dumb people in this country and a good number of them are journalists. Even in this thread we can see that some of the guys who are reasonably intelligent have trouble following basic logic when their political preconceptions get in the way.

It's not "dumb", it's calculated deception designed to exploit the fears of 9/11.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:36 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/cheneytext_120901.html

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. ...

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?


CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Cheney didn't say there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 plot here, he said that it was "pretty well confirmed" (note how much less certain that statement is than the common "we know" btw) that one piece of evidence that could have supported a connection was true. He didn't say they'd established a connection as you'd expect him to do as soon as he thought they had. Instead, he expressed some degree of confidence that a single piece of evidence had appeared in the equation. Russert didn't ask about proof, he asked if there was something greater than "no evidence". That's an incredibly low bar and at the time, Cheney thought he did have more than "no evidence". He clearly didn't say that he had sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion though or to establish proof. If he thought he had proof, he wouldn't have held back. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that Cheney suddenly decided to play coy here even though he thought he had a solid case linking Saddam to 9/11? That's preposterous.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 08:37 PM
OK, well then where did you see "overwhelming" with respect to Saddam and the 911 plot? I think this is what you saw:

Cheney: "no evidence" wrt Saddam and 9/11 plot

Cheney: "overwhelming evidence wrt Saddam and al qaeda

A distinction designed to sound like no difference until later when you need it.

stevieray
06-02-2009, 08:39 PM
jAZ is lying.


"two weeks"

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:45 PM
It's not "dumb", it's calculated deception designed to exploit the fears of 9/11.

Even if it were calculated deception, it wouldn't work on smart people. Some smart people did believe that Iraq might have been involved in 9/11, because everyone knew that Saddam wanted to get back at the US and because they knew that he was willing to use terrorists to pursue his policy goals. But smart people didn't think that Cheney had proof (or even that he claimed to have proof) of Saddam's involvement because they were smart enough to listen to what Cheney actually said.

What it really is though is Cheney being open and honest with the American people. Sharing with us some of the bits and pieces of intelligence that they had even though the intelligence picture was incomplete and subject to change as additional information was collected. Because of his willingness to share these pieces of information with the American people and because some of them ended up not panning out, he's now accused, mostly by morons, of lying to the American people.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 08:47 PM
A distinction designed to sound like no difference until later when you need it.

A distinction designed for accuracy. That makes it the opposite of a lie.

banyon
06-02-2009, 08:57 PM
OK, well then where did you see "overwhelming" with respect to Saddam and the 911 plot? I think this is what you saw:

Cheney: "no evidence" wrt Saddam and 9/11 plot

Cheney: "overwhelming evidence wrt Saddam and al qaeda

You didn't forget who was behind 9-11 did you?

jAZ
06-02-2009, 08:58 PM
Sharing with us some of the bits and pieces of intelligence that they had ...
... that were selected for presentation based on it's ability to sell a war and presented without any contraditory information or disputes that existed behind the scenes (disputes that ultimately proved correct).

It was selected for disclousre in order to obtain the results it did. A War supported by a majority of Americans because they felt there was a connection to 9/11.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 09:04 PM
You didn't forget who was behind 9-11 did you?

Saddam Hussein.

petegz28
06-02-2009, 09:04 PM
jAZ is lying.

This.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:09 PM
... that was selected for presentation not based on it's ability to sell a war and presented without any contraditory information or disputes that existed behind the scenes and that ultimately proved correct.

It was selected for disclousre in order to obtain the results it did. A War supported by a majority of Americans because they felt there was a connection to 9/11.

I don't know why a majority of Americans supported the war, but it's important that they did. We can see how much worse for the country it is when those who are more interested in politics than our country's well-being succeed in turning the people against an important war.

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:10 PM
You didn't forget who was behind 9-11 did you?

I've got a childhood friend who is in jail for writing bad checks. I have links to the man that go way back, but I didn't have anything to do with, nor any knowledge of, his illegal check writing activities.

banyon
06-02-2009, 09:12 PM
I've got a childhood friend who is in jail for writing bad checks. I have links to the man that go way back, but I didn't have anything to do with, nor any knowledge of, his illegal check writing activities.

I doubt the links are "overwhelming" and repeatedly stated in the context of a discussion about the people involved in his finances though are they?

Ultra Peanut
06-02-2009, 09:12 PM
So can we PLEASE just press the B button and rewind the last six years now, or

patteeu
06-02-2009, 09:19 PM
I doubt the links are "overwhelming" and repeatedly stated in the context of a discussion about the people involved in his finances though are they?

The links are certainly "overwhelming" but I doubt that people who talk about his check writing have much reason to talk about me.

However, Cheney had ample reason to describe how Saddam's regime related to the GWoT. Saddam would have been a potential target even without links to al Qaeda because of his links to other terrorists, his WMD ambitions, and his willingness to use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy, but the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that he had links to al Qaeda helped explain in an even more clear way why he was a focus of the GWoT.

banyon
06-02-2009, 09:25 PM
The links are certainly "overwhelming" but I doubt that people who talk about his check writing have much reason to talk about me.

However, Cheney had ample reason to describe how Saddam's regime related to the GWoT. Saddam would have been a potential target even without links to al Qaeda because of his links to other terrorists, his WMD ambitions, and his willingness to use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy, but the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that he had links to al Qaeda helped explain in an even more clear way why he was a focus of the GWoT.

Of course Cheney had ample reason to talk about him. They were obsessed with him from day 1 because of the hang ups they had from not "getting it done" the first time around, including Daddy Bush. Plus they fired at Daddy Bush and oh yeah, oil.

He of, course, made up the public reasons, which is what he revealed to us in his speech detailed in this thread.

jAZ
06-02-2009, 09:33 PM
I don't know why a majority of Americans supported the war, but it's important that they did. We can see how much worse for the country it is when those who are more interested in politics than our country's well-being succeed in turning the people against an important war.

If you were to stop trying to deflect the past manipulation of the Bush administration and just say "the end justified the means", I'd have a lot more respect for you than I do.

Pitt Gorilla
06-02-2009, 09:42 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/cheneytext_120901.html
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. ...

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?


CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. That pretty much doesn't count.

petegz28
06-02-2009, 09:44 PM
If you were to stop trying to deflect the past manipulation of the Bush administration and just say "the end justified the means", I'd have a lot more respect for you than I do.

Dude, get some self-respect and quit telling outright lies

jAZ
06-02-2009, 11:06 PM
Dude, get some self-respect and quit telling outright lies

It's all pretty well confirmed.

prhom
06-02-2009, 11:14 PM
What!?!?! There wasn't a link! I'm shocked and awed :( Wasn't this pretty much admitted years ago?

BigRedChief
06-03-2009, 07:33 AM
Just why did we go to war and get more americans killed than on 9/11 and another 10,000 injured?

Fight the non-exsistent Al-Quaeda in Iraq?
Find the non-exsistent WMD?

Just what was the reason? To get rid of a horrible dictator?

The fact that its even a discussion point is asine. You only go to war as an absolute final resort to resolve a threat to your national security.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 08:06 AM
Of course Cheney had ample reason to talk about him. They were obsessed with him from day 1 because of the hang ups they had from not "getting it done" the first time around, including Daddy Bush. Plus they fired at Daddy Bush and oh yeah, oil.

He of, course, made up the public reasons, which is what he revealed to us in his speech detailed in this thread.

Iraq was a problem for the US from day 1 of the Bush administration as it had been a problem for the US throughout the 90's. Neither Bush nor Cheney were in the federal government when the US policy of regime change was adopted. None of that is in dispute. Nor does it make Cheney a liar. Again, he's been consistent all along and this latest speech continues that steady trend.

But if by "made up" you mean the public reasons were false, you're wrong. I'm not even sure what "public reasons" you're talking about. Iraq was a terrorist-sponsoring, WMD-coveting, rogue regime of the type that the Bush administration set out to discourage in an effort to prevent future attacks against the US. It also happened to be both a relatively soft target (compared to Iran or North Korea) and a target that had a history of open aggression and belligerent defiance against us. It was also situated in a sweet geographical location, between two other rogue nations (Iran and Syria) and in the heart of the middle east swamp from which radical jihadists are spawned. It was a natural place to make an example. They could have selected any of a number of other terrorist-sponsoring, rogue nations to use as an example, but Iraq made the most sense.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 08:08 AM
If you were to stop trying to deflect the past manipulation of the Bush administration and just say "the end justified the means", I'd have a lot more respect for you than I do.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but IMO both the ends and the means were justified in our campaign against Iraq.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 08:10 AM
What!?!?! There wasn't a link! I'm shocked and awed :( Wasn't this pretty much admitted years ago?

I don't know if I'd use the word "admitted", but yes, every time the Bush administration spoke on the subject of whether or not Saddam was responsible for 9/11, the Bush administration made it clear that they did not have proof of such a connection.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 08:18 AM
Just why did we go to war and get more americans killed than on 9/11 and another 10,000 injured?

Fight the non-exsistent Al-Quaeda in Iraq?
Find the non-exsistent WMD?

Just what was the reason? To get rid of a horrible dictator?

The fact that its even a discussion point is asine. You only go to war as an absolute final resort to resolve a threat to your national security.

The reason was so that additional 9/11's didn't happen. How many lives were saved by this? We'll never know, but a nuclear terrorist attack on a US city could easily kill tens of thousands. Doing too little would have invited more attacks. Even if those attacks would have been conventional or WMD-lite (e.g. chemical, dirty nuke, etc.), the damage caused to our economic system and our way of life (in terms of civil liberties and openness) could have been far greater than the death toll.

banyon
06-03-2009, 09:05 AM
Iraq was a problem for the US from day 1 of the Bush administration as it had been a problem for the US throughout the 90's. Neither Bush nor Cheney were in the federal government when the US policy of regime change was adopted. None of that is in dispute. Nor does it make Cheney a liar. Again, he's been consistent all along and this latest speech continues that steady trend.

But if by "made up" you mean the public reasons were false, you're wrong. I'm not even sure what "public reasons" you're talking about. Iraq was a terrorist-sponsoring, WMD-coveting, rogue regime of the type that the Bush administration set out to discourage in an effort to prevent future attacks against the US. It also happened to be both a relatively soft target (compared to Iran or North Korea) and a target that had a history of open aggression and belligerent defiance against us. It was also situated in a sweet geographical location, between two other rogue nations (Iran and Syria) and in the heart of the middle east swamp from which radical jihadists are spawned. It was a natural place to make an example. They could have selected any of a number of other terrorist-sponsoring, rogue nations to use as an example, but Iraq made the most sense.

That was not even remotely the argument or idea presented to the American people. Your attempt to revise it though, given that it's all widely available and documented though does have its comedic value, though, I will admit that.

BigRedChief
06-03-2009, 09:13 AM
The reason was so that additional 9/11's didn't happen. How many lives were saved by this? We'll never know, but a nuclear terrorist attack on a US city could easily kill tens of thousands. Doing too little would have invited more attacks. Even if those attacks would have been conventional or WMD-lite (e.g. chemical, dirty nuke, etc.), the damage caused to our economic system and our way of life (in terms of civil liberties and openness) could have been far greater than the death toll.
Sound reason to go to war. Agreed. But the only problem is that doesn't apply here. Where was this immediate threat to us? The threat of a WMD attack? there were still options other than war to deal with a despot.

North Korea and the mullahs in Iran are much more likely to launch or help those who would launch a WMD against us than Iraq ever was so we should invade them tommorrow?

BigChiefFan
06-03-2009, 12:18 PM
The argument is lame as Hell, Pat. If they didn't make a correlation between 9-11 and Iraq, than why are we there?

mlyonsd
06-03-2009, 12:55 PM
Yes, the Democrats too were making the connection between Iraq and AQ, even after it was disproven......


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" align=center dwcopytype="CopyTableCell"><TBODY><TR align=left><TD>Published on Monday, September 13, 2004 by CommonDreams.org <!-- #EndEditable -->


</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD><!-- #BeginEditable "Header" -->House Republicans and Democrats Unite in Linking Iraq with 9/11<!-- #EndEditable -->


</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD><!-- #BeginEditable "author" -->by Stephen Zunes <!-- #EndEditable -->


</TD></TR><TR><TD height=10></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD><!-- #BeginEditable "Body" -->
On the eve of the third anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. House of Representatives – by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 406-16 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll431.xml) – passed a resolution linking Iraq to the Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This comes despite conclusions reached by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the consensus of independent strategic analysis familiar with the region that no such links ever existed.

The resolution contains appropriate and predictable language paying tribute to the rescue workers and victims’ families. It also notes actions taken by the U.S. government in response to the attacks, such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, improvements in intelligence procedures, enhanced coordination between government agencies, and hardening cockpit doors on commercial aircraft.

Actions by American allies were noted as well, such as their arrest of key Al-Qaeda operatives in Europe and elsewhere.

However, the resolution also contains language designed, despite the lack of any credible evidence, to associate the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda = Taliban = Iraq

For example, the resolution states that “since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

First of all, there appears to be a calculated ambiguity in the language of that clause through the use of the word “since,” which can mean both “from the time when” as well as “because.”

Secondly, these two military operations were very different:

While there was no evidence that the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was directly involved in international terrorism, they undeniably provided the most important base of operations for the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, which shared their extremist Wahhabi-influenced brand of Islamist ideology. In return, Al-Qaeda provided direct support for the Taliban by contributing fighters to the Afghan government in the face of military challenges by rebels of the Northern Alliance. Despite concerns over the large numbers of civilians killed as a result of the U.S. bombing and missile attacks and other aspects of U.S. military operations, much of the international community supported the legitimacy of the war effort.

By contrast, despite extraordinary efforts by the U.S. government to find some kind of association between the Islamist Al-Qaeda and the secular Baathists then in power in Iraq, no such links have been found. Relatively few countries have supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq outside of poor debtor nations which received enormous pressure from the United States to do so.

Allegations of Iraqi support of other anti-American terrorist groups appear to be groundless as well. Despite backing Abu Nidal and other secular terrorist groups in the 1980s, Iraqi support for international terrorism declined markedly in subsequent years; the last act of anti-American terrorism the U.S. government formally tied to Iraq was back in early1993. The State Department’s annual study Patterns of Global Terrorism did not list any acts of international terrorism linked directly to the government of Iraq in subsequent years. The most evidence of indirect Iraqi involvement in terrorism the Bush Administration has been able to come up with was Iraqi financial support of the tiny pro-Saddam Palestinian group known as the Arab Liberation Front, which passed on funds to families of Palestinians who died in the struggle against Israel, including some families of suicide bombers. Such Iraqi support was significantly less than the support many of these same families have received from Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-backed Arab monarchies. In fact, Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups have received extensive direct support from these countries as well, but apparently not from Iraq.

The resolution goes on to note that “United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself.” While this statement is in itself true, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these members of the former Iraqi regime had anything to do with 9/11. As a result, it appears that the House decided to include this clause as an attempt to associate Saddam Hussein’s regime, in the eyes of the American people, with the attacks.

The Saddam – al-Zarqawi – bin LadenConnection

The single most misleading clause in the House resolution claims that “the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies.” This charge was originally raised by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech before the United Nations and has long since been discredited.

While the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers were indeed located inside Iraq’s borders prior to the U.S. invasion, they were not based in Baghdad, but in the far north of the country inside the Kurdish safe havens the United Nations had established in 1991, well beyond the control of the Saddam’s government.

Indeed, the only evidence the Bush Administration has been able to put forward linking the al-Zarqawi terror network to the Iraqi capital was a brief stay that al-Zarqawi had in a Baghdad hospital at the end of 2001, apparently having been smuggled by supporters into the country from Iran and smuggled out days later.

Charges by Powell and other administration officials that al-Zarqawi was affiliated with Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden also appears to have little merit. Indeed, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that the two see each other as rivals.

This apparently fictional al-Zarqawi connection alleged by Congress is significant in that it was a key component of one of the justifications put forward by the Bush Adminstration for invading Iraq in the weeks leading up to the start of the war in March 2003. For if al-Zarqawi was closely aligned with Al-Qaeda, and if Saddam Hussein was allowing the al-Zarqawi terror network to use Baghdad as a base of operations, and if Saddam was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, therefore Saddam could pass these weapons on to al-Zarqawi, who would then pass them on to Al-Qaeda, which in turn could then use them on the United States. Therefore, according to this argument, the United States had to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam’s government in order to protect our nation from a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack.

It appears, then, that the House of Representatives decided to include the long-since disproven claim that “the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies” in order to justify the bipartisan vote in October 2002 authorizing the invasion.

(Ironically, since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the al-Zarqawi terror network has established extensive cells in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, which they were unable to do during Saddam’s regime. They are believed to be responsible for many of the most devastating car bombings and other acts of terrorism which have killed hundreds of civilians and wreaked havoc on Iraq since the U.S. takeover of that country during the spring of 2003.)

Bipartisan Efforts to Hide the Truth

This is not the first time that Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives have teamed up to present the invasion of Iraq as a justifiable response to 9/11.

Just days after President Bush forced United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq and commenced the U.S. invasion, the House voted 392-11 to express their “unequivocal support and appreciation” to President Bush for leading the nation to war against Iraq “as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism.”

Some Democrats have defended that March 2003 vote on the grounds that House members were simply fooled by President Bush and others who insisted Iraq had a close connection with Al-Qaeda.

However, the fact that Congress would pass another resolution by a similarly one-sided margin long after U.S. military and intelligence officials had gone through many thousands of captured Iraqi documents and had interviewed hundreds of former Iraqi officials and still failed to find any credible evidence of any such ties appears to indicate that there indeed remains a calculated bipartisan attempt to mislead the American people.

Such dishonest rhetoric from the Bush Administration has become all too common in the three years since the 9/11 attacks. Why, then, would the Democrats also want to perpetuate such myths that are essentially designed to grant legitimacy to President Bush’s illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq?

Perhaps, in some cases, they were too busy or too lazy to bother reading the resolution, and just assumed it was a tribute to the 9/11 victims. Perhaps some of them were afraid that the Republicans would accuse them in the fall campaign of “voting against a resolution honoring the brave firefighters” if they did otherwise, and this was just another case of the Democrats wimping out.

However, the real answer may lie in the fact that while a majority of Americans now believe that the United States should have never invaded Iraq, the Democratic leadership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives firmly supported the U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country. More importantly this presidential election year, Democratic nominee John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards both voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to launch the war at any time and under any circumstances of his own choosing, a decision that they both defend to this day. As a result, if the American public can be convinced that Iraq somehow had something to do with the 9/11 tragedy, more voters might be willing to see these two Democratic senators not as irresponsible militarists who helped drag the United States into an illegal, unnecessary and bloody counter-insurgency war, but as bold leaders who acted decisively to defend America from future terrorist attacks.

In short, it appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any qualms about taking advantage of the anniversary of one of the greatest disasters ever inflicted upon our soil in order to justify the ongoing violence inflicted upon the people of Iraq and upon American soldiers forced to fight there. That these two parties are the only realistic choices we have on a national level this election year is not just a tragedy for the people of Iraq, but a sad testament to the state of American democracy. Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus www.fpif.org (http://www.fpif.org/) and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003.) He serves as a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0913-14.htm


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Here's the resolution that contains the language:


Whereas to date United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself;

Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies; and

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c10813jMJS::

Of which, 406 congressmen, including 187 democrats, of which Pelosi was one, voted for it.

If you're going to blame Cheney for making false claims you're intellectually dishonest if you don't blame some if not most democrats.

BigRedChief
06-03-2009, 01:01 PM
The argument is lame as Hell, Pat. If they didn't make a correlation between 9-11 and Iraq, than why are we there?
heres one answer
The reason was so that additional 9/11's didn't happen. How many lives were saved by this? We'll never know, but a nuclear terrorist attack on a US city could easily kill tens of thousands. Doing too little would have invited more attacks. Even if those attacks would have been conventional or WMD-lite (e.g. chemical, dirty nuke, etc.), the damage caused to our economic system and our way of life (in terms of civil liberties and openness) could have been far greater than the death toll.

orange
06-03-2009, 01:09 PM
If you're going to blame Cheney for making false claims you're intellectually dishonest if you don't blame some if not most democrats.


Have any Democrats not backed off those claims? Lieberman probably. Anyone else?

Are you accepting that Cheney made (insinuated, if you insist) the false claims that Saddam supported al Qaeda and was an accessory in 911?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure some Democratic politicians have been punished by voters for their going along on Iraq. Hillary is not in the White House as one obvious example - and the aforementioned Lieberman is no longer technically a Democrat after losing the Primary.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 04:33 PM
That was not even remotely the argument or idea presented to the American people. Your attempt to revise it though, given that it's all widely available and documented though does have its comedic value, though, I will admit that.

It's the argument presented to the American people from the beginning:

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

...

We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack.

...

George W. Bush - 9/20/2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/)

patteeu
06-03-2009, 04:41 PM
Sound reason to go to war. Agreed. But the only problem is that doesn't apply here. Where was this immediate threat to us? The threat of a WMD attack? there were still options other than war to deal with a despot.

North Korea and the mullahs in Iran are much more likely to launch or help those who would launch a WMD against us than Iraq ever was so we should invade them tommorrow?

There are always "other options", but all too often, as was the case in the Iraq situation, those options are unlikely to succeed. We'd tried for a decade to deal with Saddam and we were failing. He was attacking us on a daily basis in the no-fly zones and he was gradually slipping out of the sanctions regime that sought to isolate him. Throughout the period between the first and second wars with Iraq, he continued to act out via terrorist proxy.

North Korea is another failure of "other options" first attempted during the Clinton administration and then under Bush. Now NK has nukes, thanks to our patience with "other options".

Iran is being dealt with via "other options" as well and they will soon have nukes if we stay that particular course.

Let's face it, "other options" don't often work. OTOH, Saddam will never get nukes.

banyon
06-03-2009, 05:39 PM
It's the argument presented to the American people from the beginning:

Nice try, but as you know the case wasn't made to go to war on 9/20/01, it was made in the run up to the iraq War including a media blitz in late 02 and the presentations to the UN, as well as the congressional debate on the terrible "last resort" resolution that Bush/Cheney used as the first resort.

patteeu
06-03-2009, 05:47 PM
Nice try, but as you know the case wasn't made to go to war on 9/20/01, it was made in the run up to the iraq War including a media blitz in late 02 and the presentations to the UN, as well as the congressional debate on the terrible "last resort" resolution that Bush/Cheney used as the first resort.

I didn't have time to go through some of his later speeches yet, but I'll return to this as soon as I can.

The war started shortly after Bush's speech in Sept 2001. The Iraq battle was an integral part of the larger GWoT as referenced by

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.

The Afghanistan portion of the GWoT was the instant retaliation. Try reading some of the things the Bush administration said with the hindsight glasses (that are so useful to those who oppose the war in the WMD context) but this time use them to look for language that supports the war premise that I've stated in this thread (i.e. that our response was larger than al Qaeda proper or rogue nations that harbored bin Laden's group and that it was intended to prevent the next 9/11, which could have come from hezbollah or some other terrorist organization just as easily as from al Qaeda, instead of merely track down the specific culprits behind that attack).

mlyonsd
06-03-2009, 06:09 PM
Are you accepting that Cheney made (insinuated, if you insist) the false claims that Saddam supported al Qaeda and was an accessory in 911?



I did already in this thread.

orange
06-03-2009, 06:26 PM
I did already in this thread.

Well, good then. Sorry I missed it, but I commend you now.

mlyonsd
06-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Have any Democrats not backed off those claims? Lieberman probably. Anyone else?



Uh, are you missing that Cheney himself backed off those claims?

You seem to want to play the 'Cheney lied about the Iraq/AQ connection' game to get us into the war, but don't find it dishonest to give democrats a pass for doing the same thing a year later, even after the 911 commission said the connection was overstated?

You can justify thinking that the Iraq/AQ connection was all a Cheney/Bush thing? Really?

Pelosi signed the resolution and now she's Speaker. I fail to see how she paid a price for being wrong.

orange
06-03-2009, 06:35 PM
Uh, are you missing that Cheney himself backed off those claims?

You seem to want to play the 'Cheney lied about the Iraq/AQ connection' game to get us into the war, but don't find it dishonest to give democrats a pass for doing the same thing a year later, even after the 911 commission said the connection was overstated?

You can justify thinking that the Iraq/AQ connection was all a Cheney/Bush thing? Really?

Pelosi signed the resolution and now she's Speaker. I fail to see how she paid a price for being wrong.

I'm pointing out that the interview in the thread is a reversal by Cheney - unlike what many are arguing here.

As for "giving Democrats a pass," you'll have to talk to someone who is. I neither absolve them nor blame them. Congress was not leading the charge - nor should they. I was a Clinton supporter in the primaries, and even backed McCain in the general - you could look up my posts if you're actually interested, but I doubt that - just take my word.

I hold the administration responsible for its own mistatements, overhyped "evidence," and bullheaded rush to war with Iraq. Mainly I blame them for not giving Afghanistan the attention it was due. And REALLY bungling Iraq once they put us there.

mlyonsd
06-03-2009, 06:41 PM
I'm pointing out that the interview in the thread is a reversal by Cheney - unlike what many are arguing here.

As for "giving Democrats a pass," you'll have to talk to someone who is. I neither absolve them nor blame them. Congress was not leading the charge - nor should they. I was a Clinton supporter in the primaries, and even backed McCain in the general - you could look up my posts if you're actually interested, but I doubt that - just take my word.

I hold the administration responsible for its own mistatements, overhyped "evidence," and bullheaded rush to war with Iraq. Mainly I blame them for not giving Afghanistan the attention it was due. And REALLY bungling Iraq once they put us there.

Fair enough.

My beef is with those in this thread that want to blame the previous administration for tricking the public into believing there was an Iraq/AQ connection when it's evident democrats had a hand in it as well.

patteeu
06-05-2009, 08:37 AM
In President Bush's SoTU speech on Jan 29, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/), he laid out the case for war against Iraq. He described "the gravest danger facing America and the world" as "outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." He didn't say that the gravest danger was al Qaida and any state that sponsored them.

In that speech, he didn't say anything about Saddam being linked to 9/11. In fact, in the prelude to his comments on Iraq, he talked about a couple of other WMD-seeking, outlaw regimes (Iran and North Korea) and not even the most daft Bush-critic has ever claimed that the Bush administration tried to link those two countries to 9/11.

And while it's clear in hindsight that some of the intelligence on Iraq WMD was flawed, the central thesis of that part of the case against Iraq was that:

(a) Iraq had failed in it's responsibility to show the world that they had disarmed

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

and (b) that it would be irresponsible to wait for the threat to become imminent or for Iraq to become as big a threat as North Korea before taking action.

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq.

...

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

George W. Bush may not have been the most gifted orator to ever stand at the Presidential podium, but he's not speaking a foreign language. He's clearly describing threats that go way beyond the card-carrying membership of the terrorist organization that carried out the plot on 9/11 and the nations that gave them specific support. He's speaking of prospective threats to our future well-being not just about punishing those who were responsible for past transgressions.