- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
scottyz said:He did well with the urban myth about Saddam and Bin Laden planning 9/11 together.
Stinger said:Why do you make this claim when in fact they were clearly saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no evidence he did. Post the statement from the adminsitratin claiming otherwise.
Stinger said:As I said the administration never claimed there was a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attack, why do people keep trying to assert otherwise?
aps said:By constantly talking about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda
and reminding everyone of what happened on September 11th and how you could not distinguish between Saddam or Osama--people naturally associated the two.
You and I are smart enough to know otherwise--but the majority of Americans are uninformed when it comes to issues like this.
Those statements by the Bush administration were intentional, and rather pathetic.
For example:
Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?
PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.
Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html
Gawd, he is such an ass!
Stinger said:Which is NOT asserting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Just because you made it up in your own mind does not make it the reality. The fact is they were quite determined in NOT making such a connection and assigning it to them is a flat out lie.
Only those who were either too lazy to listen to what they were saying or to dumb to comprehend it or creating this issue for their own political gain.
As your cites showed they did NOT make that connection.
Oh well but does that excuse the Democrats and the liberal media for constantly making this false assertion?
It was a stupid question but typical of the brainlessness of a great many White House reporters, but he did responded and quite properly.
Why do you then use a juvenile invective against him for it?
aps said:I didn't make it up in my own mind. I was stunned when they polled people on election day and heard/read that something like 40% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9-11. Whatever gave them that idea? *sarcasm*
Date: March 2003
WASHINGTON - 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.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
Here's more: October 21, 2004
More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe claims which the president has not made, and which virtually no experts believe to be true:
41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508
Create the issue for their own political gain? LOL Okaaaaaaaaay. Most people are lazy and don't bother to verify information or delve into a political issue.
People can make inferrences. If you cannot see the inference that many people made regarding Saddam and al Qaeda, then that's your problem.
Oh sure: "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response--you know, since they had sooooooooo many connections that poor wittle Georgie couldn't distinguish between the two. :roll:
Because it makes me feel good--that's why. :lol: (Oh, and because it's true.)
aps said:I didn't make it up in my own mind. I was stunned when they polled people on election day and heard/read that something like 40% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9-11. Whatever gave them that idea? *sarcasm*
Create the issue for their own political gain? LOL Okaaaaaaaaay. Most people are lazy and don't bother to verify information or delve into a political issue.
People can make inferrences. If you cannot see the inference that many people made regarding Saddam and al Qaeda, then that's your problem.
Oh sure: "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response--you know, since they had sooooooooo many connections that poor wittle Georgie couldn't distinguish between the two.
Stinger said:Democrats and leftist media.
Sure and the Democrats know most people are too lazy to listen to what the administration says and so does CBS and NBC et al.
There was no inference, they were quite clear in saying there was no evidence Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, the only inferences were coming from those who wanted to say they did so they could make political hay out of it.
If you read what he says it is quite clear and quite correct. Trying to say one was more dangerous than the other is folly, he didn't distinguish between the to in that manner. If the reporter then took that to mean that Saddam was part of 9/11 he/she should be fired for misreprenting an important story.
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.
WASHINGTON – 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.
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, 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 one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .
So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.
Stinger said:Why do you make this claim when in fact they were clearly saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no evidence he did. Post the statement from the adminsitratin claiming otherwise.
libertarian_knight said:Also evidenced is that the administration, many pundits and regular people had associated the names together SO MANY TIMES, when trying to specifically talk of one, they would accidentally say the other, as is the names were synonymous.
And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam -- Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated. - President George W. Bush-December 19, 2005
BWG said:
danarhea said:Good post, which effectively debunks the Bushnevik apologists on this issue.
aps said:Insufficient responses to debunk my brilliance.:lol:
Happy New Year to you, Stinger. :2wave:
Stinger said:Where in your cite does anyone in the administration claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11? I have no time to read these random cites you post which do not rebut the fact that the administration DID NOT make such a claim. Did the leftist media confuse some into thing the adminsitration was making the claim, well you are a good example, but the fact remains they did not.
Ah change the subject now I see. Unable to post a cite from the adminsitration claiming Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 I see.Conflict said:Then why did we invade Iraq....
If there was no link between Al Quaeda and Iraq?
Bush proclaimed that Iraq posed some sort of imminent threat to us, did he not?
That was part of it. Again you really need to educate yourself on this matters which were full vetted in the arena of public discourse.What was the basis of this? Why are we in Iraq if they did not pose a terror related threat to us... under the veil of the war on terror.
The manifestation of Al-Quaeda in Iraq has only been present shortly after we forcefully occupied that land. You can't have it both ways.
Well you said it not me.I site my brain as source. Educate me. I must just be an idiot on this subject.
Well you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. You might want to read the Interim Report of the ISG by Dr. Kay and the The Duelfer report and the Senate hearings and the 9/11 commission. And you might want to ponder that if we wanted to set up a puppet democracy we would have done so by now and not be fooling around with open elections.Since there were no ties to Al-Quaeda nor terrorism we are just there to secure the oil fields and install a puppet democracy. That is the FACT of the matter... at least in my humble opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?