Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
vicman

Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11

Recommended Posts

Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11

1 hour, 50 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The president's comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.

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

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

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

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

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did anyone in the Bush Administration ever say Saddam Hussein had anything specifically to do with 9/11..

Point it out with a quote from a speech, interview, talk show, media, etc......

If you can not, I suggest you lower your anti-Bush blinders, understand the media, understand it is the election season, and get a grip....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by t0nythelover

that bastard, next thing hes gonna say there were never any weapons of mass destruction in iraq, and that we needed to take out saddam anyway for our own good.

one of Bush's arguments for the invasion was Al Qaeda connections....but not Iraqi assistance in 9/11 planning and execution.

the majority of Americans, however, have assumed that they mean the same thing.

in this case, the administration is not contradicting itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When u say al-queda connections, the majority of the country takes it as 9/11 connections. Yes of course you can pull a Bill-Clinton style "no sexual relations" perspective on it and say he never directly said it but the fact is most people took it as Saddam had involvement in 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam, and 9/11

Mona Charen (archive)

September 19, 2003 | Print | Send

National Public Radio and the major television networks can scarcely contain their excitement. In what they obviously regard as a huge concession, President Bush noted the other day that "No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the eleventh." Along with most of the Democratic candidates for president, many in the press have been arguing for months that the Bush administration misled the American people by implying a link that did not exist. Put that together with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, they say, and you’ve got a real indictment.

According to the Democrats’ bill of particulars, the Bush administration -- knowing full well that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 -- nonetheless encouraged Americans to believe he was in order to fulfill some Dr. Strangeloveish neocon battle plan for Iraq. The administration further lied when it offered the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for war. If what the Democrats say is true, we are dealing with one of the most dishonest and corrupt administrations in history.

But there are a few problems with their analysis. In the first place, no one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The president pinned blame for that attack firmly on Al Qaeda. But the president and his administration also clearly stated that the war on terror was not limited to Al Qaeda, that it was a global war that would be fought on many fronts. The Axis of Evil included (in addition to Iraq) North Korea and Iran, neither of whom bears direct responsibility for 9/11 either. And the administration has dispatched troops to the Philippines as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they’ve heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on?

Saddam the Baathist (Baathism is a kind of socialism) had in his later years seen how the wind was blowing in the Arab world and begun to adorn his terror state with certain Islamic trappings. Cozy relations with Islamic terrorists suited his purposes. They had the same enemies -- Israel and the United States. But, like other Arab leaders, Saddam was aware of the Islamist threat. While the Islamists were at war with the West, they were also casting covetous glances at the secular states in the Arab world. Saddam followed the Sun Tzu logic to keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

The failure to find WMDs by this point is certainly puzzling. But the Democrats and the press -- most egregiously the BBC -- have adopted an interpretation that is simply childish. In Britain and the United States, liberals are charging that the governments of Blair and Bush purposely lied. In Britain at least, Blair’s chief accuser at the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, has himself been revealed to be a liar. But do the U.S. accusers really believe that Bush made it all up? If that were true, why did all of the intelligence services in the world as well as the U.N. Security Council conclude that Iraq did have those weapons? If it were true, why didn’t Hussein invite the U.N. inspectors into Iraq and prove that he had no weapons? Why throw the inspectors out altogether in 1998? Why risk and lose his kingdom for weapons he never had? It doesn’t make sense.

But even if (and it’s a big if) the weapons are never found, are we to conclude that the Bush administration took the nation into an aggressive war for oil or glory or some other goal? The Saddam regime was one of the most ghastly and horrific on the planet. On those grounds alone, the world should be thanking us for being willing to risk the lives of our soldiers to free the country. The regime was also a friend to every enemy of peace in the world. If Saddam had remained in power, gained nuclear weapons, and lived to menace the entire region and the world, President Bush would be condemned by history for failing to act before it was too late. For showing fortitude and good sense, he is condemned only by the small-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by bigpoppanils

a waste of time and money

he may have lied to the american public.....but that isnt something new when it comes to politics.

and if clinton couldnt get impeached....bush never will

It sucks! :mad:

Get a blow job....what a bad man, impeach, etc.

Lie to the world, kill inocent people...dont worry about it.

What's wrong with this picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by xxgrooveericxx

It sucks! :mad:

Get a blow job....what a bad man, impeach, etc.

Lie to the world, kill inocent people...dont worry about it.

What's wrong with this picture?

The anti-Bush crowd needs to get over this "lying" campaign......

If not, then you also need to condemn the UN, the Clinton Adminstration, Weapons Inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and the intelligence services of France, Russia and Arab countries as well......

Once in a while, you need to lower your hate blinders and take a swig of common sense and reality...

And the innocent people you are talking about----are you referring to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam Hussein?.......or are you referring to the untold thousands upon thousands who were tortured by his regime........or are you referring to the untold thousands of innocent Iraqis who would have met the same fate has not the US and Britain taken action?

Just wondering if you can clarify, since you are so "concerned" about innocent Iraqi's.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

The anti-Bush crowd needs to get over this "lying" campaign......

If not, then you also need to condemn the UN, the Clinton Adminstration, Weapons Inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and the intelligence services of France, Russia and Arab countries as well......

Once in a while, you need to lower your hate blinders and take a swig of common sense and reality...

And the innocent people you are talking about----are you referring to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam Hussein?.......or are you referring to the untold thousands upon thousands who were tortured by his regime........or are you referring to the untold thousands of innocent Iraqis who would have met the same fate has not the US and Britain taken action?

Just wondering if you can clarify, since you are so "concerned" about innocent Iraqi's.....

:biggun::aright::beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding." - G. W. Bush

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/962627.asp?0sl=-13&cp1=1

"You can't distinguish between Al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3206-2002Sep25?language=printer

"Al-Qaida and the other global terror networks recognize that the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime is a defeat for them. They know that a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would be a further defeat for their ideology of terror.-George W. Bush

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6624208.htm

Here is something from an article (linked) written by Daniel Benjamin who served on the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999:

Iraq and Al Qaeda are not obvious allies. In fact, they are natural enemies.

http://www.meadev.nic.in/ind-ter/for-med/30Saddam.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by normalnoises

""Al-Qaida and the other global terror networks recognize that the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime is a defeat for them. They know that a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would be a further defeat for their ideology of terror.-George W. Bush

You really don't agree with this statement do you?

You can't be that simple minded to think this is a bullshit conflict for some oil right?

WOW guy, you really are fried..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×