Bush Administration is Correct Iraq and Al-Qaeda are connected - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-21-2004, 10:25 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Bush Administration is Correct Iraq and Al-Qaeda are connected

Now, in the other thread, as the liberal media would have us believe that there were no contacts at all. As one member for the 9/11 Comission said "The New York Times" only reported one side of what was found by the comission.

SADLY....I think I agree with this article on some levels. There are many people in the world including AL-Qaeda that are hoping this comission will derail the president.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...y.asp?aid=8027

Originally the comission was not supposed to be a political tool for people to destroy the administration. Especially since it is two administrations that apparently were unable to stop 9/11. It was also two administrations that believed they were working together.

[Q]''The President's correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam's intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that's what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.'' - Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, CNN’s June 17 “Inside Politics”[/Q]

As William Saffire points out they need to regain their non-partisan credibility:

[Q]What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.

[/Q]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/op...ner=ALTAVISTA1

As a citizen I am more concerned with the reason for the failures, so that changes can be made. In an election year however...it appears this is turning into Half -truth reporting, which some love because it reaffirms their half-assed positions. But the big picture is more than that.

Despite the efforts of the New York Times and Nancy Pelosi the ranking democrat on the comission had this to say.

[Q]''I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.'' - 9/11 Commission Democrat Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton[/Q]

and in the testimony to the 9/11 comission comes this gem from members of the Clinton Administration:

[Q]William Cohen, secretary of defense under Clinton, testified to this before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004. Cohen was asked about U.S. attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory on August 20, 1998. The strikes came 13 days after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa, killing some 257 people (including 12 Americans) and injuring more than 5,000. The Clinton administration and the intelligence community quickly determined that al Qaeda was behind the attacks and struck back at the facility in Sudan and at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Almost immediately, the decision to attack the plant outside Khartoum was controversial. [/B]The Clinton administration, in its efforts to justify the strikes, told reporters that the plant had strong links to Iraq's chemical weapons program. No fewer than six top Clinton administration officials--on the record--cited the Iraq connection to justify its strikes in response to the al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. embassies. [/B][/Q]

So before the 9/11 Comission the CLINTON administration officials reaffirmed that they believe there was a direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

My humble apologies to those who would believe that there is no CONNECTION between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There may very well be no conncetion between Iraq and 9/11....but the President has not lied to us. The media has.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/248eaurh.asp
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 10:29 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
[Q]"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush added. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."[/Q]

Well said President Bush....well Said.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 10:41 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Please don't let facts get in the way of adminstration bashing.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 10:53 AM   #4
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:13 PM
As i mentioned in another thread the Bush administration likes to reasaemble facts like Mr. Moore.
Both love to make the facts look like they would assist their claims and i'm sure both sides feel terribly sorry that the uneducated masses might make wrong assumtions because of the way the facts are presented.
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:00 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Klaus....I quoted Democrats from the Clinton years....LOL....sounds like more spin.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:21 PM   #6
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Even if Bush never actually said "I believe Iraq and 9/11 are connected" or something similar, that does not necessarily mean there was no attempt to link the two in the minds of the public. Reviewing the evidence, I find that it's not so much Bush, but Cheney who made more of the attempts to link the two in the consciousness. And we are all familiar with the polls stating that an astonishing percentage (anywhere between 44 and 69 percent) of Americans thought, in the months leading up to war, that Iraq was reponsible for 9/11--but that a few days after the attacks, less than three percent thought so.


To wit:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

A New York Times/CBS poll this week [week of March 14, 2003] shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:27 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Ahem

Did anybody see these little gem that may change the playing field come november?


Quote:
A senior officer in Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's security services was a member of the terrorist group that committed the September 11 attacks, a member of the commission investigating the suicide hijackings said yesterday.
Quote:
Lehman said the information, contained in "captured documents," was obtained after the commission report was written that stated there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

"Some of these documents indicate that (there was) at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," Lehman said.

"That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president (Dick Cheney (news - web sites)) was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have," said Lehman, a former Navy secretary.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ntelligence_dc

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4414-5078r.htm
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:31 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
So let me understand this.....You post an article from March 2003.

You clipped the beginning of the Paragraph where it says this

[Q]
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. [/Q]

Emphasizing that the President did not say Iraq and 9/11 were linked.

You also failed to point out that your article supports the Presidents contention that Iraq was directly involved with terrorists.

[Q]Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.

This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.

The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."

[/Q]


Good article. Maybe belongs in the other thread, this one is about terrorist links...the other about 9/11

The President has publicly said that Iraq is not involved.
The 9/11 Comission agrees with the administration that there was contact.

And he gets the blame for the 45% who believe that Saddam was involved.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:33 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,032
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Re: Bush Administration is Correct Iraq and Al-Qaeda are connected

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dreadsox
no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States.

Which, AFAIK, is the opposite of what lots of Americans believed and still believe - that Iraq is a revenge for 9/11.
Both Bush (later) and the comission (now) said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

We also know Iraq was a secular regime that had any kind of religious activity banned, and Bin Laden in particular hated Iraqui authorities for it and referred to them as infidels. Even if there were ties between them, that does not mean Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, which is what the comission is investigating.

However I definitely think Al Kaeda agents are in Iraq now.
U2girl is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:34 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:13 PM
I wasn't directly comenting the quotes.
I wanted to say - technically the administration dosn't lie they just love to put it in a context that the public gets it wrong.
Example: look how many people thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 directly after the attack and then a few weeks later after the administration loved to talk about Al-Quaida and 9/11 and then about Iraq and Terrorism.
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:36 PM   #11
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:13 PM
I said that I know Bush denied direct links between Iraq and 9/11. The fact that there are links between Iraq and al Qaeda doesn't let his adminstration off the hook for some of the attempts to link Iraq and 9/11 in people's minds.

Other polls put the figure closer to 60 or 70 percent. I posted that article because it was from right around the time the war started.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:40 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Look Saddam Husseins Iraq banning any religous activity that is a falsity. If you sit down and watch that torture video you will see mukhabarat agents slice the hands of prisoners and chant for god's graces. There were undeniable links between Saddam Hussein and islamic terrorism and the linkage between Al Qaeda is also a distinct possibility as some evidence is starting to point to. Remember that our intelligence on any meetings and connections is extremely patchy at best but from what we know and what we have seen it is highly possible that there was an established relationship.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:46 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Regardless, I started this thread, not to debate 9/11. There is already a thread for that. This administration has not said Iraq was involved. They have consistently said there were connections. The article you linked to even said OSAMA himself touted a connection.

Can't a thread be started without having to debate 9/11. The commission themsleves as I have quoted says there is NO DISAGREEMENT between the White House and the Comission on this issue. There are ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda as well as OTHER Terrorist organizations. The Commission does not have a mandate to investigate the other links. They are allowed access only to the relevant materials to 9/11.

If people choose to believe Saddam is Linked to 9/11 that is through their own fault and ignorance. They have not been listening at all to the fact that this administration said they would be going after states that sponsor terrorism. Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism. I care not that it was or was not al-qaeda because they have done what they said they would do. It is not the administrations fault if people do not listen.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:50 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
"For states that support terror, it is not enough that the consequences be
costly-they must be devastating"
-George w. Bush at a speech at The Citadel, Dec 11, 2001.

Now I ask you what does this mean??????? It is relevant. People have been saying that Iraq was about 9/11. That is wrong! If you think they were not involved in terrorism aside from Al-Qaeda you are wrong.

You may not agree with the action, but do not stoop the the media's level and ignore the facts of the situation. The press should look in the mirror and ask themselves why people think this. I have read so much on the topic it sickens me that they blame the President for other people's inability to listen and learn.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 12:50 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:13 AM
It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

It rings true for both sides, politics is a deliciously dirty game that has lives and security at stake, isnt it cool.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 01:09 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,032
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Dreadsox: I ask you why do a lot of Americans feel Saddam was connected with 9/11, then? Did the whole "axis" of evil thing not contribute to that - surely the administration must have led them to beLIEve that?

Second, if by "terorrism" you mean Palestinians, I disagree. (because, as IRA or Checnians, they fight for freedom and independence - plus they also attack military targets, not strictly civilians. With wrong means, maybe, but still.)

OK, I'm sure no one approves of suicide bombers - but then again, I also don't think that putting up curfues, destroying whole villages and blocks and building walls will help either. No extremism on ANY part will help.

I think Middle East FAIR peace is the key to strike a huge blow to terrorists (along with total and immediate intelligence exchange among countries, blocking bank accounts, diplomatic pressure from the international community and, effective on the long run, doing more about the masses of people living in poverty in developed world) and US should stop being so totally pro-Israel all the time and hear out Palestine too.
U2girl is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 01:40 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:13 PM
"For states that support terror, it is not enough that the consequences be
costly-they must be devastating"
-George w. Bush at a speech at The Citadel, Dec 11, 2001.

Ok the US supported terror in various countries - so what are GWBs devastating consequences?
Destroying the credibility of the USA?
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 02:43 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Dreadsox: I ask you why do a lot of Americans feel Saddam was connected with 9/11, then? Did the whole "axis" of evil thing not contribute to that - surely the administration must have led them to beLIEve that?

I beLIEve that the press is trying to paint the blame on Bush. I think it is wrong. I think people who educate themselves know better. I think the press instead of reporting news, is creating controversy where there is none. I think Melon is right, the avergage American has not bothered to concern themselves with the truth.

The axis of evil thing was a correct analysis of the countries mentioned. Never has anyone from the administration said that the Axis of Evil was responsible for 9/11.

Spin it anywayyou want, Iraq was part of the war on terror.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 03:04 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:13 PM
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest
in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And
this Congress and the America people must recognize another
threat. 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-Qaida.
Secretly, and without fingerprints, he
could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help
them develop their own."
- President Bush, State of the Union Speech, Jan. 28, 2003.


"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the
potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the
al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic
terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today
harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida
lieutenants. . But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels
of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this
corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven
in the region. We know members of both organizations met
repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior
levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service
tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence
official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi
intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw
al-Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us
that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998
bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also
impressed by al-Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in
October 2000.
"
- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Statement to the U.N.
Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.


"After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow
grave threats to go unopposed. We are now working to locate and
destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This is a historic
moment. Just over a month ago, not all that long ago, a cruel
dictator ruled a country, ruled Iraq by torture and fear. His
regime was allied with terrorists, and the regime was armed with
weapons of mass destruction.
Today, that regime is no more."
- President Bush, Speech to workers at Abrams tank plant in
Lima, Ohio, April 24, 2003.


"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began
on September the 11, 2001
- and still goes on. That terrible
morning, 19 evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology -
gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their
ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that
September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of
America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields,
terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy
this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world.
They have failed."
- President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln,
May 1, 2003.


"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still
goes on.
al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells
of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we
know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against
free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a
serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither
are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend
our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the
enemy down before he can strike. No act of terrorists will change
our purpose or weaken our resolve or alter their fate. Their
cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."
- President Bush, Weekly radio address, May 3, 2003.


"I think that if you ask, do we know that he had a role in 9-11
- No, we do not know that he had a role in 9-11. I think that
this is a test that sets the bar far too high. I don't think that
we want to try and make the case that he directed somehow the
9-11 events."

- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Interview with
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 8, 2003.


MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about
Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he
was involved in the September 11 attacks.
Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people
make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this
two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a
few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we
didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've
learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there
was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back
through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved
training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel
to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The
Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the
al-Qaida organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade
Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned
to Iraq after the attack of '93.
And we've learned subsequent to
that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence
files, that this individual probably also received financing from
the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the
original World Trade Center bombing in '93 ? We know, as I say,
that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive
support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to
9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out
there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker,
met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five
months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop
anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or
discrediting it. We just don't know.

- Vice President Dick Cheney, Interview with NBC's Tim
Russert, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003.


Bush Reports No Evidence of Hussein Tie to 9/11
By DAVID E. SANGER (New York Times)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - President Bush said today that he had
seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, as the White House tried to correct an
assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney left extremely murky
on Sunday.

Mr. Cheney, on "Meet the Press" on NBC-TV, was asked about
polls that showed that a majority of Americans believed that
Mr. Hussein had been involved in the attacks.

"I think it's not surprising that people make that
connection," said Mr. Cheney, who leads the hawkish wing of
the Bush administration. Asked whether the connection existed,
Mr. Cheney said, "We don't know."

He described Mr. Hussein's reported connections to Al Qaeda,
connections that American intelligence analysts say were not
very deep.

Mr. Bush, asked by a reporter today about that statement,
said, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
involved with September the 11th."
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 04:29 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,369
Local Time: 04:13 PM
For me this issue is-Bush had the intention, in my opinion, from the day he became President to get into Iraq and get rid of Saddam.

The tragedy of Sept 11th happened, and he had his justification. I'm not saying by any means that the goal of getting rid of Saddam was not a noble one. I just don't appreciate the use of Sept 11th in this way.

I don't believe for a second however that there aren't possible connections between Saddam/OBL/Iraq. Saddam is gone, but where is Bin Laden? There is constant "chatter" about possible Al Qaida attacks. The quote from Clinton that I posted in another thread re what he said to Bush about OBL and what Bush's reaction was brings it home for me. Also information (I haven't read the book, just from what I've read/seen in the news) in the Richard Clarke book. Who knows what could have been possible if 1/ 2 the time and resources spent on Iraq had been directed toward OBL/Al Qaida.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×