Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush Lies: Saddam & 9/11: A Smoking Gun And A Warm Body
In an article titled, "Bush: No Saddam Links To 9/11" the Associate Press reported "President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans."
The article quotes President Bush "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks". Yet on the March 18, 2003, President Bush made the following statement in a letter to Congress,
(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.
The letter to Congress is reproduced in full below. The original document may be viewed by clicking here. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm (broken link)
This was a clear attempt to implicate Iraq with the attack on 9/11 and to successfully convince 70% of the American public that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 "attacks"
This copy/paste, OR the link does not show Bush tying Saddam to 9-11.
He made it quite clear, in several speeches, that if you harbor our enemies you are our enemy.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wants to know what people think is "the best (or worst) Republican political scandal of the decade?" Not mentioned? 1The Bush administration lying its way into a war of choice,2 listening in on the phone conversations of Americans, 3 torture, 4 Abu Ghraib, 5 putting an unqualified crony in charge of FEMA, the US Attorneys firing, outing a CIA operative to get back at her husband, etc.
1, yet to be shown
2, legally passed by a democratically controlled congress
3, should read, "torture called to an end", as it has been going on for decades
4, individuals, not republican
5, gets my vote
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The Bush administration did not "lie itself into war"! Can we please drop this ridiculous untruth? Did you forget 9/11? It is insulting (not to mention totally devoid of all feeling) to all those who lost loved ones in that attack (act of war) on U.S. soil to shrug it off so cavalierly.
.
It's insulting to those who lost loved ones to attempt using those losses as justification for invading/occupying Iraq, as if there was some relationship between the two.
This copy/paste, OR the link does not show Bush tying Saddam to 9-11.
He made it quite clear, in several speeches, that if you harbor our enemies you are our enemy.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Why did everybody, including myself and most likely you too, agree that we should invade Iraq and take Saddam out? Really now...we were all duped and at least some of us can admit it. Why did you think we needed to invade and occupy Iraq? We were told that there were WMD's and that Saddam had ties to the 9/11 treagedy. If this is not why you agreed that invading Iraq was the thing to do, then what was your reason? C'mon, I'd really like to know.
You and I have corresponded (in agreement) on many of the "global warming" threads and I quickly developed a great respect for the quality of your writings and your knowledge base.
Your post here in this thread makes you appear to be just another knee-jerk neo-con who must tow the party line. You....and all others here echoing this viewpoint continue to do damage to conservatism's future in the US by continued feeble attempts to cling to it. Change course or you are going to go down with a sinking ship.
The whole world, other than you last few die-hards, knows that Bush - guided by Wolfowitz and other PNAC adherents, used 911 to fabricate a case for invasion of Iraq. I'm not going to go through it all again. It has been done time and time again and you are too intelligent not to know that as well as I do.
Every time you die-hards do this, you fuel the fervor of your political opponents and force me to their side on this issue - because they are right! In doing so, you severely limit any chance that they will pay you any heed when you challenge their global warming nonsense because with this stance on Bush and Iraq you squander your credibility.
The future of conservatism in the US is shaky at best as long as so many of you continue to shoot yourselves in the foot. I wish all of you would give this some reflective thought and open your eyes a bit.
I remember the entire thing, I watched the presentation of evidence in its entirety on C-span. I also remember what was "said" and what was "claimed that was said" by the Bush administration during those times.
I also know what Clinton stated concerning the intel coming in during his office, what congress stated concerning the intel, what the UN stated concerning the intel and what the Bush administration stated about the intel. They were all in agreement that it was credible information and further they were all in agreement on taking action.
Don't confuse me with a partisan hack. I devote as much time fact searching issues like these as I do climate science. I don't "watch the news" just as I don't "read administrative fact sheets" to get my answers in climate science.
I read the bills passed, I watch C-span so I don't have to listen to idiot commentary. I watch statements made, cross reference their facts and compare them without partisan site analysis.
Compare the intel received with what the UN task forces uncovered, the military reports, and so on. Look closely. The intel was "off", but not wrong. The problem is, when these reports were coming in, the boob tube was raging with political agenda and so the "facts" were drowned out.
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Why did everybody, including myself and most likely you too, agree that we should invade Iraq and take Saddam out? Really now...we were all duped and at least some of us can admit it. Why did you think we needed to invade and occupy Iraq? We were told that there were WMD's and that Saddam had ties to the 9/11 treagedy. If this is not why you agreed that invading Iraq was the thing to do, then what was your reason? C'mon, I'd really like to know.
I was all for taking out Saddam because he was a slug and a scourge to the human race. That, and the knowledge that he had WMDs.(that was probably the biggest factor, given the recent trauma of a terrorist attack) We knew he had WMDs, because we sold them to him.
Though he didn't have any connection to 911, he was harboring terrorists as evident by the training camps found shortly after crossing over their border.
These are my personal thoughts.
The 45% and more that think the 2 things are linked are the ones that are often referred to as the sheeple
Bush called Iraq a hot bed of terra in so many words..you know..a spawning ground..one under every rock...and the old dude even said he had nothing against the iraqi people, but just loved bombing the hell out of them looking fer ol saddum....saddum the US buddy....shaking the hand of the evil donnie Rumsfeld...eagerly..mano mano
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wants to know what people think is "the best (or worst) Republican political scandal of the decade?" Not mentioned? The Bush administration lying its way into a war of choice, listening in on the phone conversations of Americans, torture, Abu Ghraib, putting an unqualified crony in charge of FEMA, the US Attorneys firing, outing a CIA operative to get back at her husband, etc.
For starters the question itself shows this is going to be all about bashing the republicans....otherwise the question would be, "What was the best (or worst) political scandal of the decade".
The reason those things weren't mentioned is because they're not scandals....they're accusations that democrats started making while campaigning for the 2004 elections. They've been used so much that some people in the public refer to them as proven facts. The reason they're not is because if any were, then they would have amounted to a bonafide scandal. If any of those things were legit republican scandals, they would have been sucessfully investigated and any hard evidence that proved it would have been brought to light.
They're all very controversial issues but, the reason they haven't been sucessfully investigated is because, there are more than just republicans that would end up getting caught in the headlights if they had been....and the democrats know that....that's why it's just been all talk and no actions about any real investigations. There may have been some investigations but, the democrats didn't follow through on any of them....they stopped short before they did.
For example, you mentioned torture.....all the finger pointing over waterboarding finally came to a screeching when Nancy Pelosi's name started getting associated with it. Then she announced that she was lied to and when pushed for more answers by the press about it, declared that she wasn't going to talk about it any more. Since then you don't hear about waterboarding any more.
Bush lied his arse off about the connection to Saddam, no doubt about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
What connection would that be? You have a link where Bush connected Saddam to 9/11?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feel The Love
That's all Cheney and Bush did, and then that's all sheep like you repeated leading up to the fiasco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
I ask for a link to Bush claiming Saddam took part in 9/11 and suddenly I'm a sheep?
Since "that's all Cheney and Bush did" you must have tons of video links of Bush stating that Saddam was connected to the planing, financing, training, logistics or execution of the attacks on 9/11.
I'm still waiting for those quotes from you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
