The connection between 9/11 and Iraq

Ok, I have a question, I constantly hear people (from the left, and some centrists) talk about how Bush claims there was a connection between 9/11 and iraq. I watch the news quite a bit, and I never once saw Bush make this claim. The only thing he said is that Saddam was a threat, not that he was responsible in any remote way for 9/11. Can anyone provide me with an ACTUAL reliable source that Bush made this claim? I don't want any rhetoric here, and I'm not trying to stir up an argument.

 

Are you referring to the Colin Powell presentation at the UN?

I think that the Washington Post are right wingers? here is what they say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

A few quotes there are probably many more:

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

CLAIM: “You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02

CLAIM: “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

 

Have to say his administration certainly alluded to a connection between that Tragedy and Sadams mob and it worked very well. How many Americans would have been behind the invasion if he had gone on tv and said look this guy is a dictator who kills people and well we think he might have WOMD, ok we know he has nerve gas and might be working on nuclear!! Also folks lets not forget he has oil and wont take $$ for it.

Now me I wish they had taken him out 1st time round and I also believe that they should regognise a Kurdish State :hug:

De Orc :kewl:

 

I don't see how any of those insinuate that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11?

 

I usually prefer that people do reading on their own and draw their own conclusions.

http://www.google.com/search?source...06-05,GGLJ:en&q=Iraq Terrorist Training Camps

Note both new and old articles and information and keep in mind that the new documents being released are probably going to change the intelligence landscape. Maybe one way or maybe the other.

 

Wow Zany, you have one heck of a selective memory. I remember for months on end Bush saying nothing but that Saddam and 9/11 were linked. He said it directly. He implied it. He used innuendo. He produced faulty documents. He did everything he could to connect Saddam to 9/11. And somehow you're managed to forget all of that?! I really can't even grasp that kind of cognitive deniability.
Oh wait a minute, were you off planet at the time? That explains it. Sorry Zany. No insult intended. :thumb:

 

Bush spoke about how going into Iraq was a proactive measure to prevent more or worse terrrorist incidents like 911. He has been misquoted on this topic repeatly. Iraq had direct links to the first World Trade Bombing but that was more of an Egyptian/Palestine operation. It is hard not to find more then one arab nation not involved one way or another in any terrorist operation. As far as Iraq having training camps. Detailed maps taken off the internet of schools in the USA with plans of take over and murder have been found in Iraq. Southwest Florida Elementary Schools were amongst them and CounterTerrorist drills take place now, called lock downs-code red, with the local police force taking part. Even having an armed teacher training was once considered at planning meetings. These schools have an armed police office on duty and the teacher was thought as back up to slow down any attack in progress until the SWAT teams could arrive.

The biggest terrorist threats have been the Saudis, the Syrians, and the Iranians with their intelligence forces, proxy puppet fractions that they arm and support, and the money they have to buy people.

I saw no reason to have taken out Iraq alone. The plan should have been to follow up with Syria as well, set up puppet governments and then use the US military presence that would be based outside of population areas to get the oil rich gulf states in line and keep Iran at bay. It would have been a good plan for with that we would have removed the two most powerful arab armies in nations that actually do have an arab middleclass and it is from the middle class/merchant class that democracys can be slowly formed.

 

The Anglo-American attack on Iraq was not retribution for 911, it was a pre-emptive strike to preclude future terror attacks that might involve Saddam's WMDs. Saddam went to extreme lengths to make the rest of the world believe that he had nuclear capabilities. He indeed had chemical weapons, and had used them repeatedly on Iranians and Kurds. He was developing biological weapons. He undoubtedly would have enjoyed having nucear weapons.

Unlike his predecessors, George Bush is apparently not a counter-puncher.

Saddam told the World that he possesed WMDs and various foreign intelligence agencies believed him. Iraqi military leaders have indicated that Saddam moved his chemical weapons to Syria during the lengthy period of time that France, Russia, and Germany were stalling at the United Nations. I believe the informants because their stories because they are consistent with published American and British intelligence reports that were surfacing prior to the invasion. The U.N Oil-For-Food was a shameful scam which benefited Russia and France. The U.N. Security Council delayed action in Iraq until Saddam was able to move his WMDs.

I reiterate. G.W. Bush's attack on Iraq was a pre-emptive strike, not retribution for Iraq's direct involvement in the events of 9-11-01. This is an element of the the Bush Doctrine.

 

If that is true than why did Bush push Richard Clark to find an Iraq connection days after the 9-11 attack?

 

Hindsight is 20-20 I guess. How come a vast majority of Americans polled believed that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein...Oh yeah! Because that is how it was sold to the American public by the Bush administration. All you are reiterating is recent revisionist history; Nothing more.
The invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion long before 9/11 even happened and to believe otherwise is nothing more than goofy logic.

 

"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two".

This was taken from a BBC article. If you wish to read the entire article with Bush's actual quotes from state of the union speechs, etc.. just refer to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

 

Is that really an important hair to split at this point Andy. The implication of the connection coming directly from the White House is in itself powerful enough to make the country already frightened by the 9/11 attacks draw a conclusion that Bush certainly intended. It just seems pointless to try and pick nits at this point

 

Game-Set-Match. Another one for Andy.

 

Thanks 'Ol Silver and I like your signature.

 

Maybe he should read it.

 

Naughty! Naughty! Now play nice or I'll start a new game and hand out buzz saws!:whistle:

 

With your signature, maybe you shouldn't be casting the first stone and what is this about being slapped around?
Sorry to hear about it, if you need to "open up" I am sure a local priest could help.

 

It's just a line that Willy utters in an episode of the Simpsons that happens to be a double entendre. Think about it, you'll figure it out.

 

[QUOTE='Ol Silver]Game-Set-Match. Another one for Andy.[/QUOTE]Don't quit your day job!

 

The lord is my boss. I will never quit. I just hope that I'm never fired.