Flashback: Biden 2002/2007 On Saddam: We Have To "Eliminate The Threat"
-
Footwedge
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htmGlory Days wrote:
Do you mean Saddam? and I am sorry, but the ball has been in your court since you start spouting off bullshit numbers, you know, rule #5.Footwedge wrote:
The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.Glory Days wrote:
man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?
Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.
I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.
Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?
As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.
I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.
I don't spit out bullshit numbers. They are what they are. -
Footwedge
From one googled link...there are many others....ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Post the links.Footwedge wrote: I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.
"WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-02.htm -
FootwedgeAnd this was written in 2004. The article claims that Cheney is STILL linking 9-11 with Iraq, inspite of the 9-11 report dismissing the bs. I will find more...
The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html -
FootwedgeAnd more from Cheney......
Dick Cheney
2002
"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
2003
"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) - BushOnIraq.com
"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization."
Now Bush was more of a cunning linguist...in that he was very careful in how he chose his words. but using Iraq, 9-11, and terrorist organizations in the same paragraph, was very slick indeed...
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293" -
Glory Days
it wasnt because Bush said that Saddam was behind 9/11. most americans then also thought Al-Qaeda was the only terrorist group in the world at the time also.Footwedge wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
I don't spit out bullshit numbers. They are what they are.
and where does it say Saddam was behind 9/11...oh wait, it doesnt. like i said, having ties to terrorism and being behind the 9/11 attacks are two different things.Footwedge wrote: From one googled link...there are many others....
"WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-02.htm
thats because Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. and like i said before, just because Saddam didnt directly support Al-Qaeda, doesnt mean he didnt support other terrorist organizations. not to mention, Bin Laden supported terrorist organizations in Iraq.Footwedge wrote: And this was written in 2004. The article claims that Cheney is STILL linking 9-11 with al Quada, inspite of the 9-11 report dismissing the bs. I will find more...
The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html -
Footwedge^^^Good job Glory...right on cue. I post the links and you cite somantics.
Deflect all you want. The fact is...70% of Americans believed that Al-quada was in cahoots with Saddam. Don't tell me there wasn't deliberate lying going on. They lied.
Dicussion/ -
FootwedgeFrom retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski. A conservative who was deeply imbedded with the manipulate factory known as the Office of Special Plans. A great read for those that want to know what actually went down...from 9-11 through operation Iraqi freedom....
"At the end of the summer of 2002, new space had been found upstairs on the fifth floor for an “expanded Iraq desk.” It would be called the Office of Special Plans. We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained, and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment. We were also told that one of the products of this office would be talking points that all desk officers would use verbatim in the preparation of their background documents.About that same time, my education on the history and generation of the neoconservative movement had completed its first stage. I now understood that neoconservatism was both unhistorical and based on the organizing construct of “permanent revolution.” I had studied the role played by hawkish former Sen. Scoop Jackson (D-Wash.) and the neoconservative drift of formerly traditional magazines like National Review and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. I had observed that many of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon not only had limited military experience, if any at all, but they also advocated theories of war that struck me as rejections of classical liberalism, natural law, and constitutional strictures. More than that, the pressure of the intelligence community to conform, the rejection of it when it failed to produce intelligence suitable for supporting the “Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States” agenda, and the amazing things I was hearing in both Bush and Cheney speeches told me that not only do neoconservatives hold a theory based on ideas not embraced by the American mainstream, but they also have a collective contempt for fact."
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/01/00019/ -
Footwedge
Fish...there were a bunch of sabre rattling quotes from Condi Rice. She was a major player in the marketing strategy of selling the Iraq war on bogus info....she of "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud"...when there was no evidence at all...that Saddam Hussein was developing nukes...fish82 wrote:
They made some loose (and brief) associations between Saddam and A-Q. They were dropped quickly when the evidence fell apart, i.e. the alleged Mohammed Atta meeting with the Iraqi operative.Footwedge wrote:
The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.Glory Days wrote:
man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?
Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.
I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.
Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?
As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.
I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.
Bush was clear on several occasions that there was no evidence tying him to 9/11. Here's one example.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4742.htm
There's a quote from Condi in there too...I certainly hope it's not the one you're referring to above. If so, I see why you're reluctant to post it.
"In the week after the September 11 attacks, then Secretary of State Colin Powell told Newsweek that Rice's view was to go after not just Al Qaeda but also the 'rogue' states suspected of harbouring weapons of mass destruction. [6]
On the CBS program, Face the Nation in March 2003, Rice claimed the links between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime were indisputable. "Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite disbursed and--and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, 'containment,' enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for blackmail or for worse."
Later that year, in September, Rice was still insisting that the links had existed despite the lack of evidence being found. "No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad," she claimed on NBC's Meet the Press program. [7]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice -
Glory Days
haha are you serious? semantics and deflection? not one of your sources backed up your claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. dont blame Bush for 680 people out of a country of over 300 million people(only 1,000 were polled) believing Saddam was behind 9/11, especially when you have provided zero proof Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
and all the information i have stated, like Bin Laden supporting terrorists groups in Iraq, has come from your links. -
ptown_trojans_1
Not to nit pick, but statistically, 1,000 random samples is considered an accurate representation of the whole. Notice, most opinion polls have a random sample of between 1,000-1,500.Glory Days wrote: haha are you serious? semantics and deflection? not one of your sources backed up your claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. dont blame Bush for 680 people out of a country of over 300 million people(only 1,000 were polled) believing Saddam was behind 9/11, especially when you have provided zero proof Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
and all the information i have stated, like Bin Laden supporting terrorists groups in Iraq, has come from your links.
Also, nit picking of the quotes used by footwedge, no where did they state that Iraq was directly behind 9/11. They did infer it by stating al Qaeda, which is disputed depending on the intelligent expert asked. But, most of the public probably saw the statements and did not separate the main al Qaeda and the one that was suspected in Iraq. -
FootwedgeGlory....keep in mind.....when Cheney and Bush made these statements, our intel agencies had already concluded that Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein pretty much hated each other.
Did the main stream media tell the American people that bin Ladin and Hussein were bitter enemies?
What do you think the vote would have been in the House and Senate, if Bush, Cheney, Feith, Wolfy, and Rummy had told the truth and cited that Saddam was "a really bad dude but he had nothing to do with 9-11"? Moreover, that the aluminum tubes could not be used as centerfuges for nuclear fuel....or that the Niger claim was a complete fabrication? Or that our own inspectors had found no proof of bio/chem labs?
Pretty much a a slam dunk...no war in Iraq.....because Bush's people would never have had the OK to do whatever they saw fit. -
Footwedge
You cannot be serious. You just can't be serious.Glory Days wrote: haha are you serious? semantics and deflection? not one of your sources backed up your claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. dont blame Bush for 680 people out of a country of over 300 million people(only 1,000 were polled) believing Saddam was behind 9/11, especially when you have provided zero proof Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
and all the information i have stated, like Bin Laden supporting terrorists groups in Iraq, has come from your links. -
fish82
Regardless, you stated earlier that the administration specifically claimed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. That's the point that I was addressing, since they clearly did no such thing.Footwedge wrote:
Fish...there were a bunch of sabre rattling quotes from Condi Rice. She was a major player in the marketing strategy of selling the Iraq war on bogus info....she of "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud"...when there was no evidence at all...that Saddam Hussein was developing nukes...fish82 wrote:
They made some loose (and brief) associations between Saddam and A-Q. They were dropped quickly when the evidence fell apart, i.e. the alleged Mohammed Atta meeting with the Iraqi operative.Footwedge wrote:
The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.Glory Days wrote:
man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?
Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.
I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.
Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?
As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.
I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.
Bush was clear on several occasions that there was no evidence tying him to 9/11. Here's one example.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4742.htm
There's a quote from Condi in there too...I certainly hope it's not the one you're referring to above. If so, I see why you're reluctant to post it.
"In the week after the September 11 attacks, then Secretary of State Colin Powell told Newsweek that Rice's view was to go after not just Al Qaeda but also the 'rogue' states suspected of harbouring weapons of mass destruction. [6]
On the CBS program, Face the Nation in March 2003, Rice claimed the links between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime were indisputable. "Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite disbursed and--and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, 'containment,' enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for blackmail or for worse."
Later that year, in September, Rice was still insisting that the links had existed despite the lack of evidence being found. "No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad," she claimed on NBC's Meet the Press program. [7]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice
AQ links or not, Iraq was a confirmed state sponsor of terrorist organizations and activities. -
Glory Days
I am serious.Footwedge wrote:
You cannot be serious. You just can't be serious.Glory Days wrote: haha are you serious? semantics and deflection? not one of your sources backed up your claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. dont blame Bush for 680 people out of a country of over 300 million people(only 1,000 were polled) believing Saddam was behind 9/11, especially when you have provided zero proof Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
and all the information i have stated, like Bin Laden supporting terrorists groups in Iraq, has come from your links.
You have still yet to show when the Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 and your own links have shown that Saddam had supported terrorism in the past. having links to terrorism and being involved in 9/11 are two different things(something many americans i guess cant differentiate between, just like many probably had thought Al-Qaeda was the only terrorist group in the world). -
Footwedgefish82 wrote:Footwedge wrote:
Fish...there were a bunch of sabre rattling quotes from Condi Rice. She was a major player in the marketing strategy of selling the Iraq war on bogus info....she of "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud"...when there was no evidence at all...that Saddam Hussein was developing nukes...fish82 wrote:
They made some loose (and brief) associations between Saddam and A-Q. They were dropped quickly when the evidence fell apart, i.e. the alleged Mohammed Atta meeting with the Iraqi operative.Footwedge wrote:
The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.Glory Days wrote:
man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?
Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.
I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.
Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?
As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.
I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.
Bush was clear on several occasions that there was no evidence tying him to 9/11. Here's one example.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4742.htm
There's a quote from Condi in there too...I certainly hope it's not the one you're referring to above. If so, I see why you're reluctant to post it.
"In the week after the September 11 attacks, then Secretary of State Colin Powell told Newsweek that Rice's view was to go after not just Al Qaeda but also the 'rogue' states suspected of harbouring weapons of mass destruction. [6]
On the CBS program, Face the Nation in March 2003, Rice claimed the links between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime were indisputable. "Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite disbursed and--and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, 'containment,' enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for blackmail or for worse."
Later that year, in September, Rice was still insisting that the links had existed despite the lack of evidence being found. "No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad," she claimed on NBC's Meet the Press program. [7]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice
Putting it in mathematical terms. If A=B, and B=C. Then troigonomnetry wise, algebraically wise, or even calculus equation wise...A=C. It's that simple.Regardless, you stated earlier that the administration specifically claimed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. That's the point that I was addressing, since they clearly did no such thing.
Cheney, Bush, Rice all said that....
A. Al Quada was responsible for 9-11
B. Al Quada had a close knit relationship with terrrorist organization INCLUDING AL QUADA, then
C. Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9-11. It's that simple.
It is a classic example that if A=B....and B=C. then A=-C. A third grader understands this.
As such, a full 70% of Americans, plus or minus 3 points according the sample size put it together from these simple mathemayics terms and summized that Saddam was behind ot least connected to 9-11. These people were lied to. Period. And this poll proves that they were lied to.
This quote could have and should have been explained in it's entirety. It wasn't, because by explaining the true intent of the statement, would not add to the agenda....the agenda of churning all the middle east little black Sambo's butter into "all Arabs/Persians belong to the same fraternity of terrorists, and as such, they all must be invaded, bombed, occupied and God what else next.AQ links or not, Iraq was a confirmed state sponsor of terrorist organizations and activities.
Saddam's sanction of terrorists dealt with Israel and not the US. And these terrorist organizations were not part of Al Quada, played zero role in the planning nor execution of 9-11, and never threatened US interests....unless you think Israel is a US interest. I don't.
The statement that Saddam harbored terrorists was another clever ruse, and exponentially escalated the war drum bangers in invading and destroying Iraq...a country that had no connections to Al Quada, (already stated by the NIE at that time)..... did not like Al Quada,(also clearly stated by the NIE at that time) had nothing to do with any American home land terrorism, (Ibid. NIE) and were absolutely no threat to the United States either here on the homeland or abroad. -
Footwedge
Just SMH. Read where A=B and B=C and as such A=C That is why 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was either directly behind 9-11, or at the very least, were complicit in these attacks.Glory Days wrote:
I am serious.Footwedge wrote:
You cannot be serious. You just can't be serious.Glory Days wrote: haha are you serious? semantics and deflection? not one of your sources backed up your claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. dont blame Bush for 680 people out of a country of over 300 million people(only 1,000 were polled) believing Saddam was behind 9/11, especially when you have provided zero proof Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
and all the information i have stated, like Bin Laden supporting terrorists groups in Iraq, has come from your links.
You have still yet to show when the Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 and your own links have shown that Saddam had supported terrorism in the past. having links to terrorism and being involved in 9/11 are two different things(something many americans i guess cant differentiate between, just like many probably had thought Al-Qaeda was the only terrorist group in the world).
I cited 20 to 30 quotes directly out of these peoples' mouths, if you still can't grasp what happened, then take a remedial class in second grade math or a 4th grade class in fundamental logic. JH Christ. -
fish82
Footwedge wrote:
I think you're trying way to hard to get the peg to fit the hole here. You make it sound like Bush (the fucking idiot, might I remind everyone) was playing these ultra-sophisticated Jedi mind tricks on the American public during the runup to the invasion. Sorry....not buying it.fish82 wrote:Footwedge wrote:
Fish...there were a bunch of sabre rattling quotes from Condi Rice. She was a major player in the marketing strategy of selling the Iraq war on bogus info....she of "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud"...when there was no evidence at all...that Saddam Hussein was developing nukes...fish82 wrote:
They made some loose (and brief) associations between Saddam and A-Q. They were dropped quickly when the evidence fell apart, i.e. the alleged Mohammed Atta meeting with the Iraqi operative.Footwedge wrote:
The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.Glory Days wrote:
man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?
Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.
I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.
Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?
As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.
I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.
Bush was clear on several occasions that there was no evidence tying him to 9/11. Here's one example.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4742.htm
There's a quote from Condi in there too...I certainly hope it's not the one you're referring to above. If so, I see why you're reluctant to post it.
"In the week after the September 11 attacks, then Secretary of State Colin Powell told Newsweek that Rice's view was to go after not just Al Qaeda but also the 'rogue' states suspected of harbouring weapons of mass destruction. [6]
On the CBS program, Face the Nation in March 2003, Rice claimed the links between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime were indisputable. "Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite disbursed and--and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, 'containment,' enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for blackmail or for worse."
Later that year, in September, Rice was still insisting that the links had existed despite the lack of evidence being found. "No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad," she claimed on NBC's Meet the Press program. [7]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice
Putting it in mathematical terms. If A=B, and B=C. Then troigonomnetry wise, algebraically wise, or even calculus equation wise...A=C. It's that simple.Regardless, you stated earlier that the administration specifically claimed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. That's the point that I was addressing, since they clearly did no such thing.
Cheney, Bush, Rice all said that....
A. Al Quada was responsible for 9-11
B. Al Quada had a close knit relationship with terrrorist organization INCLUDING AL QUADA, then
C. Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9-11. It's that simple.
It is a classic example that if A=B....and B=C. then A=-C. A third grader understands this.
As such, a full 70% of Americans, plus or minus 3 points according the sample size put it together from these simple mathemayics terms and summized that Saddam was behind ot least connected to 9-11. These people were lied to. Period. And this poll proves that they were lied to.
This quote could have and should have been explained in it's entirety. It wasn't, because by explaining the true intent of the statement, would not add to the agenda....the agenda of churning all the middle east little black Sambo's butter into "all Arabs/Persians belong to the same fraternity of terrorists, and as such, they all must be invaded, bombed, occupied and God what else next.AQ links or not, Iraq was a confirmed state sponsor of terrorist organizations and activities.
Saddam's sanction of terrorists dealt with Israel and not the US. And these terrorist organizations were not part of Al Quada, played zero role in the planning nor execution of 9-11, and never threatened US interests....unless you think Israel is a US interest. I don't.
The statement that Saddam harbored terrorists was another clever ruse, and exponentially escalated the war drum bangers in invading and destroying Iraq...a country that had no connections to Al Quada, (already stated by the NIE at that time)..... did not like Al Quada,(also clearly stated by the NIE at that time) had nothing to do with any American home land terrorism, (Ibid. NIE) and were absolutely no threat to the United States either here on the homeland or abroad.
95% of the pitch for the war was WMD. You act like they ran around for 6 months making the primary case Saddam's direct involvement with 9/11, when we both know full well that's bullshit.
And FYI, we were going to war regardless of how many people thought Saddam was in on 9/11. So your throwing around the 70% figure is excellent theatrics, but is really completely irrelevant. -
jhay78
^^Thank you- I remember WMD's being the main topic of the invasion- remember, Saddam kicked out UN inspectors time after time, with no consequences. We went to war because both Dem's and Republicans agreed with the Prez that enough was enough. -
Strapping Young Lad
How convenient. Saddam not cooperating w/ inspections??? Who'd have ever guessed that?!??!?!
The perfect way to show the world that Saddam is indeed the evil person we all knew he was. What a convenient time to do it. We'll need oil to supply this war in Afgahnistan and wherever the hell else we go after that. We need oil to drive our SUV's. Most importantly, I think Saddam said some nasty things about my pops. And we got a saying down in Texas. Fool me once....
This is the perfect time to sink our hands in some Iraqi oil. The populace is mad as hell and scared too. They don't care who all we invade as long as we tell em there's weapons that will be used for another attack there's no way they won't support after what they just witnessed. We'll play on their fear like any good government...... -
Footwedge
The UN inspectors were thrown out in 1998, just prior to Clinton's air raids. Back in December of 2002, 4 months prior to "shock and awe". the inspectors were allowed back in with unfettered access to all nuclear, chemical, and biological perceived weapons sites. The inspectors found nothing and told Bush that they didnt have any WMD. Not a thimble full. And thes reports were released a full 3 weeks prior to invasion. Think about that the next time we drag home a dead veteran who thought he was fighting imiminent threats.jhay78 wrote: ^^Thank you- I remember WMD's being the main topic of the invasion- remember, Saddam kicked out UN inspectors time after time, with no consequences. We went to war because both Dem's and Republicans agreed with the Prez that enough was enough.
But the neocons would have none of that. They wanted was..killing, destruction...and nothing was going to stop them.
To Fish up above....yiou are missing the point...and a very big point at that.
You reference that we were going to war with Iraq anyway. You reference this from the Project of the New Century America passed in circa 1998...whereby the neocons wanted a regime change in Baghdad per force. The only problerm with this thinking...Americans, including Dick Cheney himself, did not see that the benefits outweighing the risks in doing so. The Congress would never have allowed a president to "regine change" without an unmistakable imminent threat from said country. We did not have any proof of an imminent threat. NONE.... . That is why the Office of Special Plans, the lie factory, was set in motion.
The lie factory's job was to muddy up the waters by connecting al Qaeda with Saddam, erroneously stating that centerfuges were purchased by Saddam fur enrichimg uraneum, and the bullshit that they were trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Sprinkle on a couple of snippets from 2 lying Iraqi defectors, ala Cueveball and Chelabi, and violla!!..... a gullible media, congress, and American people were born.
Let me close by reminding you...both Bush 41 and Dick Cheney made it very, very clear, invading Baghdad would have had horrible consequences and the risk./reward factor was stacked immensely against America regarding an invasion/ occupation. .....in Iraq. Funny how neoconservative war drum banger and author from the NYTimes conveniently kept these styatements fromn the main stream presses, eh? (Judith Miller)
Funny how Bush 41...and the "old" Dick Cheny gor it rght, and the neoconservatives all got it terribly wrong.
As always. if you need references to either Bush 41 or the "old" Cheney denouncing military action in Iraq, just ask. I've got the specific quotes saved on the old hard drive. -
Glory Days
pretty self explanatory...and hell, slick willy didnt even have an office of special plans to come up with those lies! and if you give me 4 years to hide something in a country like Iraq, no one will find it.THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp -
Glory Days
please do, its how this forum works.Footwedge wrote:
As always. if you need references to either Bush 41 or the "old" Cheney denouncing military action in Iraq, just ask. I've got the specific quotes saved on the old hard drive. -
ptown_trojans_1
Add the references.Footwedge wrote:
The UN inspectors were thrown out in 1998, just prior to Clinton's air raids. Back in December of 2002, 4 months prior to "shock and awe". the inspectors were allowed back in with unfettered access to all nuclear, chemical, and biological perceived weapons sites. The inspectors found nothing and told Bush that they didnt have any WMD. Not a thimble full. And thes reports were released a full 3 weeks prior to invasion. Think about that the next time we drag home a dead veteran who thought he was fighting imiminent threats.jhay78 wrote: ^^Thank you- I remember WMD's being the main topic of the invasion- remember, Saddam kicked out UN inspectors time after time, with no consequences. We went to war because both Dem's and Republicans agreed with the Prez that enough was enough.
But the neocons would have none of that. They wanted was..killing, destruction...and nothing was going to stop them.
To Fish up above....yiou are missing the point...and a very big point at that.
You reference that we were going to war with Iraq anyway. You reference this from the Project of the New Century America passed in circa 1998...whereby the neocons wanted a regime change in Baghdad per force. The only problerm with this thinking...Americans, including Dick Cheney himself, did not see that the benefits outweighing the risks in doing so. The Congress would never have allowed a president to "regine change" without an unmistakable imminent threat from said country. We did not have any proof of an imminent threat. NONE.... . That is why the Office of Special Plans, the lie factory, was set in motion.
The lie factory's job was to muddy up the waters by connecting al Qaeda with Saddam, erroneously stating that centerfuges were purchased by Saddam fur enrichimg uraneum, and the bullshit that they were trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Sprinkle on a couple of snippets from 2 lying Iraqi defectors, ala Cueveball and Chelabi, and violla!!..... a gullible media, congress, and American people were born.
Let me close by reminding you...both Bush 41 and Dick Cheney made it very, very clear, invading Baghdad would have had horrible consequences and the risk./reward factor was stacked immensely against America regarding an invasion/ occupation. .....in Iraq. Funny how neoconservative war drum banger and author from the NYTimes conveniently kept these styatements fromn the main stream presses, eh? (Judith Miller)
Funny how Bush 41...and the "old" Dick Cheny gor it rght, and the neoconservatives all got it terribly wrong.
As always. if you need references to either Bush 41 or the "old" Cheney denouncing military action in Iraq, just ask. I've got the specific quotes saved on the old hard drive. -
dwccrew
Wait, you don't really believe (now at this point in time after all we know) that there was ever WMD's in Iraq at the time of invasion, do you?Glory Days wrote:
pretty self explanatory...and hell, slick willy didnt even have an office of special plans to come up with those lies! and if you give me 4 years to hide something in a country like Iraq, no one will find it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp
Give me 7 years to find WMD in a country like Iraq and you'll find them. We supposedly had satellite images of these "WMD's" yet we now can't find them? Something doesn't add up. -
Glory Days
you cant deny he didnt have them at one point, he actually used them. where did they go? Iran, Hamas, Syria, thousands of feet deep under the open desert? the point is, we didnt know. we couldnt take his word for it and its not like the inspectors looked anywhere but military facilities probably. and if we didnt think he had them at the time of the invasion, why did our forces spend most of the time in MOPP gear on the march up to baghdad? we had already invaded, why continue the show and hindering our forces if it was just all lies anyway?dwccrew wrote:
Wait, you don't really believe (now at this point in time after all we know) that there was ever WMD's in Iraq at the time of invasion, do you?Glory Days wrote:
pretty self explanatory...and hell, slick willy didnt even have an office of special plans to come up with those lies! and if you give me 4 years to hide something in a country like Iraq, no one will find it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp
Give me 7 years to find WMD in a country like Iraq and you'll find them. We supposedly had satellite images of these "WMD's" yet we now can't find them? Something doesn't add up.