Bush Lied?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
It wasn’t the lying, it was the manipulation. Even if they had been corroborating with terrorists, Bush clearly made it look like Iraq was the DIRECT cause of 9/11, when they clearly were not.

Plenty of countries had greater ties to terrorists than Iraq, and yet we didn’t invade any of them.

I am not calling you a liar on this but…

When was this done? I recall the fear was that Saddam would give his nukes to Al-Qaeda like Khan (no relations) from Pakistan gave his knowlege of nukes to North Korea.

Maybe people ASSUMED that Iraq may have been involved, but I do not remember Bush or any of his inner circle ever making a direct connection between Saddam and 9-11. Al-Qaeda said they wanted a nuke and Saddam was just the guy to give it to them, I think was their argument.

Do you have any information linking Bush to Saddam and
9-11? If you do, I would like to read it.

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

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

story.cheney.jpg
Cheney said the press is “often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said.”

RELATED
�?� Bush : Al Qaeda, Iraq had ties
�?� 9/11 panel: U.S. was unprepared
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Dick Cheney
Iraq
Al Qaeda
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

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.”

[/quote]

Jesus Christ man, Iraq did have ties to AQ!!! Just because Saddam didn’t plan 9/11 doesn’t mean they didn’t have a relationship. AQ was asking Saddam to provide WMD’s! Saddam said so himself!!!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Jesus Christ man, Iraq did have ties to AQ!!! Just because Saddam didn’t plan 9/11 doesn’t mean they didn’t have a relationship. AQ was asking Saddam to provide WMD’s! Saddam said so himself!!![/quote]

You’ve missed the point entirely. You’re telling me they didn’t know people were assuming Iraq was behind 9/11 directly when we went to war? A truthful administration would have come out and say what they knew: AQ had much stronger ties to other nations, was funded to a much greater degree by other nations, and is populated to a much greater degree by people from other nations.

They didn’t lie outright, they lied by omission.

If any nation was “behind” AQ, it was Saudi Arabia, yet we didn’t invade them. They used the animosity towards the region to build support for the war, by not outright telling us that the Iraq situation was totally separate from 9/11 and terrorism. They called it a war on terror for gods sake, WTF did they think people were going to assume?

If you honestly believe, even for a minute, that they didn’t manipulate the public to some degree, you are quite foolish.

Are they the only American administration to do so? Of course not. Does the fact that we were manipulated make this war unjustified? No (even if I believe other factors do, this one in particular doesn’t make the war unjust). But we were still manipulated. It is what governments [usually] do, only this time it dealt with the subject of something very touchy, 9/11.

It would be as if the US went to war with Country X after the Iran Hostage Crisis and quietly claimed that Country X might have been funding or supporting Iran’s actions. Just because such a connection is true, doesn’t mean they are blatantly manipulating the public to support a war. Even if they outright claim that the war is about chemical weapons Country X may have, if they don’t misspell the assumption that the war was about the hostage situation, it is manipulation, pure and simple.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Jesus Christ man, Iraq did have ties to AQ!!! Just because Saddam didn’t plan 9/11 doesn’t mean they didn’t have a relationship. AQ was asking Saddam to provide WMD’s! Saddam said so himself!!!

You’ve missed the point entirely. You’re telling me they didn’t know people were assuming Iraq was behind 9/11 directly when we went to war? A truthful administration would have come out and say what they knew: AQ had much stronger ties to other nations, was funded to a much greater degree by other nations, and is populated to a much greater degree by people from other nations.

They didn’t lie outright, they lied by omission.

…[/quote]

BS. They made it perfectly clear. It was the MSM that screwed the pooch and continues to do so with their ridiculous coverage.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Jesus Christ man, Iraq did have ties to AQ!!! Just because Saddam didn’t plan 9/11 doesn’t mean they didn’t have a relationship. AQ was asking Saddam to provide WMD’s! Saddam said so himself!!!

You’ve missed the point entirely. You’re telling me they didn’t know people were assuming Iraq was behind 9/11 directly when we went to war? A truthful administration would have come out and say what they knew: AQ had much stronger ties to other nations, was funded to a much greater degree by other nations, and is populated to a much greater degree by people from other nations.

They didn’t lie outright, they lied by omission.

BS. They made it perfectly clear. It was the MSM that screwed the pooch and continues to do so with their ridiculous coverage.[/quote]

As even this half-assed report says, they did not make it perfectly clear.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
BS. They made it perfectly clear. It was the MSM that screwed the pooch and continues to do so with their ridiculous coverage.[/quote]

Did you read ANYTHING Cheney said?

Showing an interview on TV is not “screwing the pooch”. Mr. Bush called it a war on terror, Mr. Cheney told us that the 9/11 commission was being irresponsible by telling us Iraq had an insignificant role. The Press Secretary never made a statement telling the uninformed masses that the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The President never once said “Iraq has little to do with 9/11.” The President has the Bully Pulpit, and he declined to use it. You’re telling me the news could REPRESS a major announcement by the President? That they’re somehow scripting Cheney’s answers? What, are they God now?

Once again, this is what I would expect out any government looking for support for a war. This manipulation just happens to be a bit more obvious than those of past governments during past wars.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Jesus Christ man, Iraq did have ties to AQ!!! Just because Saddam didn’t plan 9/11 doesn’t mean they didn’t have a relationship. AQ was asking Saddam to provide WMD’s! Saddam said so himself!!!

You’ve missed the point entirely. You’re telling me they didn’t know people were assuming Iraq was behind 9/11 directly when we went to war? A truthful administration would have come out and say what they knew: AQ had much stronger ties to other nations, was funded to a much greater degree by other nations, and is populated to a much greater degree by people from other nations.

They didn’t lie outright, they lied by omission.

BS. They made it perfectly clear. It was the MSM that screwed the pooch and continues to do so with their ridiculous coverage.

As even this half-assed report says, they did not make it perfectly clear.[/quote]

Yes, that halfassed report was a partisan hack job by a Democrat Congress. Big deal. Some of you clowns were in junior high during the run up to the war. Frankly your opinions don’t matter. Bush was crystal clear with his reasons for the war. He didn’t blame Saddam for 9/11. Only liars try to make that link.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
BS. They made it perfectly clear. It was the MSM that screwed the pooch and continues to do so with their ridiculous coverage.

Did you read ANYTHING Cheney said?..[/quote]

Yes. Cheney was correct. Saddam had links to AQ. AQ tried to get WMD’s from him. Saddam admitted this.

You guys live in a MSM world and take your opinions from what they want you to think.

I don’t know what else to say.

In September 2002 President Bush addressed the United Nations general assembly on Iraq. This speech was were he made his case to the world for dealing with Iraq. If you read the transcripts you will see that a lot of the things that Bush is accused of lying about were not mentioned in that speech.

Briefing Room | The White House

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We’ve accomplished much in the last year – in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do – in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war – the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place – in one regime – we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped – by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge – by his deceptions, and by his cruelties – Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities – which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime’s repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents – and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General’s high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for – more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations’ inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program – weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq’s serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq’s clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it’s been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We’ve tried sanctions. We’ve tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a – nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions – and that’s important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He’s fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced – the just demands of peace and security will be met – or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable – the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes. Cheney was correct. Saddam had links to AQ. AQ tried to get WMD’s from him. Saddam admitted this.

You guys live in a MSM world and take your opinions from what they want you to think.

I don’t know what else to say.[/quote]

He said it was irresponsible of them to say that Iraq had a less than significant role in 9/11. … Come on…

As well, it isn’t that Bush and Co SAID Iraq=9/11, it is that they NEVER ONCE said Iraq=/=9/11. He never once came out and said “THis war is not about terrorism.” How the fuck can you misinterpret calling this war a part of the “War on terror” when that is CLEARLY not the main motive (I’m going by their main motive of WMD’s that might be there).

“With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.”

Yeah… he totally dispelled the Iraq 9/11 connection right here.

He doesn’t say “Iraq had something to do with 9/11,” but he continually mentioned Iraq/Saddam in conjuction with 9/11 and terrorism without making it clear that they were not behind it.

You’d think that when polls showed 60 percent and greater believing Iraq was DIRECTLY behind the 9/11 attacks, the Administration or Congress would have released a press conference or something, anything to dispell such rumors. But they did not. Hence… manipulation.

My age is totally irrelevant to this argument. Please, point me to a speech, any speech, in which Bush/co denounces the Iraq behind 9/11 connection and I will retract my statements.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

They didn’t lie outright, they lied by omission.

[/quote]

This is such a BS argument. This means you can accuse him for lying about anything because somebody somewhere mis-interpreted something he said, which happens all the time.

Talk to anybody who does public speaking, and you will find that they quickly learn not to worry about all the mis-interpretations. Otherwise all you will be doing is trying to eliminate mis-interpretations.

Why should it be his job to correct people who didn’t actually listen to what he said?

From now on whenever you hear some mis-interpretation about exercise, steroids, ephadra, diet, protein and kidneys, or anything like this you are to stop and correct them. Not just look up and think they are foolish. No you are now supposed to stop what you are doing, and correct them every single time.

Otherwise you are lying by omission.

…I don’t have the Bully Pulpit. I don’t have access to statistics stating that over half of my constituency, people I am supposed to be responsible for, believes something that is downright false.

I am not the President.

If you LISTENED to what he said, he encouraged people to link Iraq and 9/11, by continually likning Iraq to terrorism without ever stating that Iraq was not behind 9/11.

Give me one good reason he had for not stating that.

I have one: To build support for a war he thought was just and the correct option.

Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

I googled Saddam Link to 9-11 and found a bunch of articles saying that Bush himself denied Iraq was behind 9-11, but they had links to Al-Qaeda.

Here is one such link:

Then again there is this article about terrorist training centers in Iraq:

https://www.e-thepeople.org/article/15886/view

Salman Pak has been named in a trillion-dollar lawsuit filed by families of Sept. 11 victims against Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In February, three Salman Pak defectors and two U.N. weapons inspectors, along with former CIA Director James Woolsey, were called to testify about the hijacking school.

Although the testimony has not been made public, Capt. Sabah Khodad, a former Iraqi intelligence officer who had worked at Salman Pak in 1994 and 1995, told the London Observer that when he saw the World Trade Center attack, he immediately thought, “This has been done by graduates of Salman Pak.”

Commenting on Salman Pak’s destruction, Maj. Robert Bevelaqua (Ret.) told Fox News Channel on Sunday: “That was a key site for us to go after because it blatantly shows the Iraqi regime embraces and teaches and indoctrinates their guys in terrorism. The fact that we had overhead imagery a year ago or so that showed a civilian airliner that they were using [to rehearse hijackings] really just kind of smacked of terrorism.”

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…I don’t have the Bully Pulpit. I don’t have access to statistics stating that over half of my constituency, people I am supposed to be responsible for, believes something that is downright false.

I am not the President.

If you LISTENED to what he said, he encouraged people to link Iraq and 9/11, by continually likning Iraq to terrorism without ever stating that Iraq was not behind 9/11.

Give me one good reason he had for not stating that.

I have one: To build support for a war he thought was just and the correct option.

Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.[/quote]

Unless he specifically stated that Iraq was involved in 911, your argument is full of crap. Saying Saddam was working with terrorist was the full truth.

All you are doing here is fishing.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes. Cheney was correct. Saddam had links to AQ. AQ tried to get WMD’s from him. Saddam admitted this.

You guys live in a MSM world and take your opinions from what they want you to think.

I don’t know what else to say.

He said it was irresponsible of them to say that Iraq had a less than significant role in 9/11. … Come on…

As well, it isn’t that Bush and Co SAID Iraq=9/11, it is that they NEVER ONCE said Iraq=/=9/11. He never once came out and said “THis war is not about terrorism.” How the fuck can you misinterpret calling this war a part of the “War on terror” when that is CLEARLY not the main motive (I’m going by their main motive of WMD’s that might be there).

“With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.” [/quote]

You are trying to read something into this that is not there. It is clear what he is saying there is that 9/11 was a wake up call which we could choose to ignore at our own peril.

[quote]
Yeah… he totally dispelled the Iraq 9/11 connection right here.

He doesn’t say “Iraq had something to do with 9/11,” but he continually mentioned Iraq/Saddam in conjuction with 9/11 and terrorism without making it clear that they were not behind it.

You’d think that when polls showed 60 percent and greater believing Iraq was DIRECTLY behind the 9/11 attacks, the Administration or Congress would have released a press conference or something, anything to dispell such rumors. But they did not. Hence… manipulation. [/quote]

Why would they do that? They didn’t have the evidence to dispel those rumours so it would have been political suicide. Also they (congress and the president)were trying to finally get something done about Saddam before he did do something worse than 9/11. Trying to undermine support wouldn’t make any sense. Besides trying to dispel rumours is a futile effort.

[quote]
My age is totally irrelevant to this argument. Please, point me to a speech, any speech, in which Bush/co denounces the Iraq behind 9/11 connection and I will retract my statements. [/quote]

Your age is not irrelevant if you are not aware of the history leading up to the invasion. If you were in Jr High when 9/11 happened you would have been in elementary school the embassies in Africa were bombed by Al Qaeda.

President Clinton did nothing in retaliation except fire a few cruise missiles into the desert. A more balless response he couldn’t have come up with. What Clinton showed to AlQaeda is that Americans are frightened little bitches who don’t have the balls to fight back in any way that would involve risk.

With Saddam, Clinton did nothing and just passed the problem on to Bush.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Unless he specifically stated that Iraq was involved in 911, your argument is full of crap. Saying Saddam was working with terrorist was the full truth.

All you are doing here is fishing.[/quote]

Lets pretend everyone thinks Joey hit Amy in the mouth. So, I, KNOWING Joey only told a rumor that made someone ELSE hit Amy in the mouth, go up and declare war on Joey and his gang of hooligans. Everyone thinks Joey hit Amy, and I do not deny this. I make multiple references to how this war will be against “face hitters” and how Joey had ties to the fist that hit Amy’s mouth.

How the hell am I not being manipulative?

Edit: Sifu, so now political suicide is a good reason to avoid informing the masses of the truth…? Sounds like manipulation to me… And they most certainly DID have evidence that the main backer behind AQ was NOT Iraq. It was Saudi Arabia. They had PLENTY of evidence of that.

They let people believe a lie to gain support for a war they believed was just. This is government business as usual.

Edit2: err… WTF does AQ have to do with invading Iraq?

Wait… back up for a sec… politicians lie?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Please, point me to a speech, any speech, in which Bush/co denounces the Iraq behind 9/11 connection and I will retract my statements. [/quote]

I have done so. Please google Bush, Saddam, 9-11 link and a lot will come up. They generally say Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, but he aided terrorists and the fear that he could have passed a nuke or nuclear material on to Saddam was real.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Lets pretend everyone thinks Joey hit Amy in the mouth. So, I, KNOWING Joey only told a rumor that made someone ELSE hit Amy in the mouth, go up and declare war on Joey and his gang of hooligans. Everyone thinks Joey hit Amy, and I do not deny this. I make multiple references to how this war will be against “face hitters” and how Joey had ties to the fist that hit Amy’s mouth.

How the hell am I not being manipulative? [/quote]

Actually your being quite manipulative with this very flawed analogy.

Joey may not have hit Amy in the mouth, but you are ignoring the fact that he did kick her in her leg. And he has also punched and kicked 5 other people.

Then suddenly people start saying you are only going after Joey because you want his lunch money. Then your brother tells you he is trying to buy a gun, and one of Joey’s friends tells you he has knives and brass knuckles.

You tell everyone about what you have heard, and give the facts. But the gossipy cheerleader, who never read the article in the school newspaper starts talking about the connections.

Your busy, but you mention it to the school reporter who puts it in the newspaper, right under the chess team results. Of course the cheerleader, who doesn’t even read the school newspaper, never even knows about the correction. So keeps spreading that rumor.

Then the principle comes out and gives everyone detention for taking us down this stupid off the wall analogy.

Anyway why do you think its ok to go after you, and not the stupid cheerleader?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes. Cheney was correct. Saddam had links to AQ. AQ tried to get WMD’s from him. Saddam admitted this.

You guys live in a MSM world and take your opinions from what they want you to think.

I don’t know what else to say.

He said it was irresponsible of them to say that Iraq had a less than significant role in 9/11. … Come on…

As well, it isn’t that Bush and Co SAID Iraq=9/11, it is that they NEVER ONCE said Iraq=/=9/11. He never once came out and said “THis war is not about terrorism.” How the fuck can you misinterpret calling this war a part of the “War on terror” when that is CLEARLY not the main motive (I’m going by their main motive of WMD’s that might be there).

“With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.”

Yeah… he totally dispelled the Iraq 9/11 connection right here.

… [/quote]

You REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

My age is totally irrelevant to this argument…[/quote]

BTW that wasn’t a specifc shot at you but at quite a few posters that frankly were not paying attention when these events actually occured and now are basing their opinions on selective reporting.

I read everything on this subject and debated it every day and a phony Saddam-9/11 link was never considered. Claiming Bush used it as justification for war is complete revisionism.