maximusveritas

So the President says "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...wh/bush_saddam

Now I don't want this thread to debate the President on this point. I'm sure some of you have your Rush Limbaugh satelite photos ready to go, but you can put them away.

What I'm concerned about is the fact that the President used the link between 9-11 and Saddam to justify the war in Iraq when he apparently had no evidence of this link.

The following is the President's statement of justification for the war, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, as required under the earlier Congressional resolution:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html

Even if you accept the first article of his letter, which is highly dubious in the absence of WMD, Bush's second article was and is based on no evidence at all.

Did the President lie to Congress? It's debatable. What's not debatable is that the President has misled this nation into an unjustified war that we and our children will be paying for for years to come.

inkriminator

I only hope that enough people remember what Bush has done and vote accordingly in the next election.

Arc101

Never, ever believe politicians. In England the majority of people did not believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and even Blair didn't try and say he had.
Although I'm glad Saddam is no longer in power, the way USA & UK have gone about removing him makes me scared about the future. I've just read on the BBC website that Saudi Arabia is trying to get hold of nukes now because they believe they need the protection. I wonder how many other countries are doing the same.

Peryn

How so?
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Well, he had ties with and supported an organization which we now believe to be the sole force behind that attack. the presidency never once came out saying "Saddam ordered teh attacks", or "Saddam did it". They said that saddam supported Al-Qaida, if i recall correctly, he even financed them with large hunks of money. While his hands may have been clean, having no idea what exactly would happen or when it would happen, i think it is clear that he does support and finance terrorist organizations.

How could this be a lie to congress? It is clear that Saddam, while not directly organizing or commanding the attack did "aid the terrorist attacks". Financing and providing for the organization responsible sure sound like he aided them with the supplies they needed.

As for the first part of that letter, it is absoluteyl true. Furthere diplomatic reliance on the UN wouldn't adequately protect the US from an imenant threat. It also wouldn't enforce the UN resolutions. How many had already be broken and ignored? 17 or something at last count. Maybe not that many but it was a lot.

Also the war wasn't soley about Saddam Hussein. He was an important figure and was a great person to focus our anger on, but the president made clear that Iraq as a country was responsible, not just their 1 leader. We all know that Saddam surrounded himself with people just as guilty as he. We know he had lackeys that were more personally involved with terrorist, getting them weapons and helping their causes. We also know that he had lackeys responsible for instituting his cruel and unusual punishment upon the citizens of Iraq. We went to war with the leadership, the government, and the military personell of iraq, not just saddam hussein.

smeesh

I really have never liked Bush for multiple reasons, but this really ticked me off. I have always been pretty pacifistic, so the war bummed me out overall, but to hear this was too much.

The big thing that bugs me is that the Saddam/911 connection was one of the oft' quoted reasons for going to war, and now that that is gone, it makes me even more upset.

I just wish we would take more time and try every non-violent approach before we take human lives, both Iraqi and American.

~smeesh

Mojo_PeiPei

Very good points Peryn, I don't think anyone will listen though... they all hate Bush way to much.

P.S. I know you peaceniks would think that violence is never an answer, but you guys have really failed to prove any working alternatives to the situation.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Superbelt

Saddam had no ties with al Qaeda. al Qaeda hates the Ba'ath party for establishing a secular government in a historically arab area. Saddam hates al Qaeda for trying to make Iraq a theocracy.

There was no link between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.

No money was changing hands, no moral support, no financial support, and no staging area support from the Ba'ath party.

Mojo_PeiPei

Saddam supported Ansar Al Islam (I think thats the name), the group up in Kurdistan, they had ties with Al Queda.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Superbelt

No he did not. They were in the Kurdish controled no fly zone. Saddam had no control, authority or influence up there. They were allied with the Kurds. And the Kurds were going to use them to help in their attacks on Iraq.

filtherton

Even though the administration didn't actually come out and say that Saddam was involved in 9/11, somehow the majority of the american public was under that impression he was. Even if the administration didn't directly state this fact, they certainly implied it. They also failed to set the record straight until after they had milked this misperception of all its sweet, deceitful honey, and we were already at war.

Not that i'm surprised. I'd sooner believe in santa clause than trust a sitting president.

j8ear

I recall or received no indication from the current administration that Saddam and 9-11 were related.

I do see (right now...today) the link between Iraq, terrorism, and additionally and specifically to Al-Qaeda.

I did see the Federal Government, all branches, all members, and all participants lie to the American public. I can not remember one that hasn't. I do not predict one will ever govern that won't.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Arc101

Saddam did not have any links with Al-Qaida for the simple reason they wanted him dead. To Al-Qaida Saddam was a bad Muslim and they wanted him out so they could form a proper muslim state.

Conclamo Ludus

So where's the evidence that they have no links, and the evidence that they did have links? Its funny how many experts on foreign intelligence there are in here. I don't know who to believe, nobody seems to back it up. I guess its believe whatever you want to. I'll sign up with the undecided.

I never for a minute thought the administration led me to believe that 9/11 had anything to do with it, other than that being an act of terror, and Saddam having cohorts that are into that type of thing. I still think Iraq will be better off after a while, but that's another one of those "choose your truth" type things. I haven't been to Baghdad and I don't plan on going for a decade or two, but I'm an optimist.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

JcL

I think the media blew the 9/11-Saddam connections out or proportion. From actual positions given by the administration, I personally do not recall this ever being more then speculative, and not the reason for war. It was the WMDs and imminient danger. The media however latched on to 9/11 connections I think more then was reasonable.

I had never been under the impression that 9/11 and Saddam had any connections. I know in a recent survey like 70% of Americans had thought that though - such a large misconception... would suggest to me that the media fed people this information over and over as opposed to Bush himself - because hearing Bush speak once or twice wouldn't engrain the issue in ones mind so much. I hope that makes some sense.

__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth then lies." - Nietzsche

oldman2003

This was on Reuters site yesterday:

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....fromEmail=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush distanced himself on Wednesday from comments by Vice President Dick Cheney that left the impression he saw a possible link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Democrats have accused the administration of creating a "false impression" at the heart of a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks.

A recent poll by the Washington Post said 69 percent of Americans believed there was a Saddam link to the Sept. 11 attacks although no evidence of such a link has surfaced.

Cheney, interviewed on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," left open the possibility of a Saddam link to the attacks.

Cheney said on Sunday "It's not surprising" the public would believe Saddam was involved in the attacks, blamed on the al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden, who has repeatedly praised the attacks.

"We don't know," Cheney said. "We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

Bush said Cheney was right about suspicions of an Iraq-al Qaeda link, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al Qaeda.

The United States believes Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad and helped orchestrate the assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," Bush said.

'CENTRAL FRONT' IN TERROR WAR

Despite distancing himself from part of what Cheney said, Bush frequently suggested in speeches in the run-up to war that there was a link between Iraq and the al Qaeda network.

In recent speeches, he has called Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror despite the failure to find conclusive evidence that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction.

At the White House on Wednesday, Bush held a National Security Council meeting with his top foreign policy and military advisers and discussed Iraq.

The United States is searching for a compromise with France and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council on a new U.N. resolution that would create a multinational force for Iraq and set up a pathway to Iraqi sovereignty.

Bush is to address the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23 but U.S. officials said this was not seen at the White House as a deadline for a new U.N. resolution.

France said on Tuesday it wanted fast international recognition of Iraqi sovereignty but accepted that it could take time before a full hand over of power from U.S. military forces was possible.

U.S. officials are rewriting the resolution in order to take account of the concerns of members of the U.N. Security Council.

"We're still talking about it," Bush said. "The key is to make sure that the political situation in Iraq evolves in a way that will lead to a free society.

"The Iraqis need to develop a constitution and then have free elections, and then we can deal with the sovereignty issue. And so therefore we're talking among ourselves."

Zeld2.0

Well I'd say that the administration did say Saddam or honestly Bush would not come out and say this and create the controversy in the first place.

I think people need to just face it - his intelligence system fucked up and his administration is now trying to cover up / fix what they said before. Their own members don't agree with each other, how do you expect them to have good reasons for war when that is happening.

maximusveritas

The same people who said Saddam was involved in 9-11 are now saying he was involved with Al-Qaeda. Why should I believe them now? In the words of a very wise man, "fool me once...shame on...shame on you....but fool me...you can't get fooled again"

Also, for those of you still saying the President never tied the war in Iraq to 9-11, read the letter I quoted in my original post. It's right there.
I do agree that the administration is not responsible for the fact that 70% believed Saddam was involved in 9-11. Still, they made no attempt to correct this misconception until now.

almostaugust

No Saddam link to 9/11. Afganistan is FUBARed. No weapons of mass destruction. No Osama. No Saddam. And the bodybags shipped home everyday.
For many people this doesnt mean anything. People will believe what they want to.

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'