At the time we invaded Iraq, did you believe Hussein was behind 9/11?

[Pete7469]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

I do remember "right wing" sources with credibility similar to the daily kos claiming Saddam had helped fund the attacks. They didn't seem plausible.

However inside Iraq there were paintings where he was depicted as having been responsible for it.

He probably wished he didn't try and pretend to be responsible for it just before his neck snapped. The world is better off without him regardless.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The 9/11 Report itself didn't say Iraq was behind 9/11.

The majority of the Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and we couldn't invade THEM because they buy our Treasuries as part of the larger deal Nixon struck with them establishing the PetroDollar. But that's another story.

 

[Katzndogz]

No. No one had ever mentioned any connection. The connection came after the war started. It started with liberals claiming that Bush had made such a connection but he never did. No one did.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh, fuck no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

If you mean connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda, I agree. I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11. And it was obvious they had no direct connection to 9/11.

For me, it was the difference between supporting attacking Iraq and not supporting attacking Iraq. I would have supported toppling Hussein if I believe he was actually behind 9/11. But there was no serious case for that. I'd have opposed nation building, but I'd have supported toppling him. Just like in Afghanistan where the Taliban was directly behind the attack enabling Al Qaeda. I was for attacking them, but not nation building.

We should have not disbanded the military and cleaned out the Ba'athists in Iraq. The low to mid level government operatives knew how to keep the place going but we fired everyone and started over. That was foolish and forced us into nation building. We could have used the army that was established to ensure domestic security, weeded out the bad actors and saddam loyalists.

Afghanistan is a place that desperately needs nation building, but we have been almost "hands off" trying to prod people into governing themselves.

Of course there's no sense monday morning quarterbacking.

The moonbat messiah has allowed both efforts to be all for nothing.

 

[Muhammed]

I don't remember ever thinking Saddam was behind 9/11. As I remember, the connection to bin Laden was publicized very early.

The Bush fortune came from oil.

W invaded Iraq to prove to his daddy that he is the man daddy knows he's not. He decimated the country, murdered and maimed millions, ran the US into the poor house, left an enormous mess that caused a redoubling of terrorists al Qaeda, ISIL, and never even bothered to pretend he was going after long-time-family-friend Osama bin Laden.

That's the most delusional post I've read at USMB in quite a while.

It's obviously a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Pete7469]

] That's the most delusional post I've read at USMB in quite a while.

It's obviously a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It's best to ignore Luddy Neonazi.

Reading stupidity that intense can cause headaches.

 

[bendog]

No, but only because I'd come to dislike the bloody dwarf and never trusted him at all.

Boston.com News Nation Cheney link of Iraq 9 11 challenged

 

[NYcarbineer]

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

No, you said the thread was about whether the Bush administration made the case for Saddam being connected to 9/11 and you are using people's opinions of that to bolster your own argument that they didn't.

Here's an October 2002 poll:

"Two-thirds of those surveyed (66%) say they believe "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks."

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/most-americ...-pewcfr-poll---commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051

So contrary to whatever baseless claim you're trying to make, the public was by 2 to 1 of the opinion that Saddam and 9/11 were linked.

Therefore the question becomes, why did they feel that way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

GW Bush Oct. 2002:

"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. 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. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

Anyone who has not made themselves blind to it can see how that carefully crafted portion of Bush's speech links Saddam to 9/11,

even though slyly avoiding an outright claim of fact that Saddam was an accomplice.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

 

[Muhammed]

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

No, you said the thread was about whether the Bush administration made the case for Saddam being connected to 9/11 and you are using people's opinions of that to bolster your own argument that they didn't.

Here's an October 2002 poll:

"Two-thirds of those surveyed (66%) say they believe "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks."

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/most-americ...-pewcfr-poll---commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051

So contrary to whatever baseless claim you're trying to make, the public was by 2 to 1 of the opinion that Saddam and 9/11 were linked.

Therefore the question becomes, why did they feel that way.

Are you totally ignorant of the relevant history?

On 9/11/2001 the USA was currently at war with the ROI. And the hostilities had been escalating before then.

Of course many Americans would rightfully be highly suspicious that the ROI might be behind the attacks. The USA led coalition of UN member states was in a violent war against the ROI at the time .

Regardless of the fact that Bush didn't accuse the ROI in the first place, many people were highly suspicious that it was a retaliatory strike from Saddam Hussein, who had previously threatened to make our towers of steel burn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

No, you said the thread was about whether the Bush administration made the case for Saddam being connected to 9/11 and you are using people's opinions of that to bolster your own argument that they didn't.

Here's an October 2002 poll:

"Two-thirds of those surveyed (66%) say they believe "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks."

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/most-americ...-pewcfr-poll---commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051

So contrary to whatever baseless claim you're trying to make, the public was by 2 to 1 of the opinion that Saddam and 9/11 were linked.

Therefore the question becomes, why did they feel that way.

Are you totally ignorant of the relevant history?

On 9/11/2001 the USA was currently at war with the ROI. And the hostilities had been escalating before then.

Of course many Americans would rightfully be highly suspicious that the ROI might be behind the attacks. The USA led coalition of UN member states was in a violent war against the ROI at the time .

Regardless of the fact that Bush didn't accuse the ROI in the first place, many people were highly suspicious that it was a retaliatory strike from Saddam Hussein, who had previously threatened to make our towers of steel burn.

Go argue with the author of this thread.

 

[Kondor3]

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

 

[Pete7469]

Are you totally ignorant of the relevant history?

On 9/11/2001 the USA was currently at war with the ROI. And the hostilities had been escalating before then.

Of course many Americans would rightfully be highly suspicious that the ROI might be behind the attacks. The USA led coalition of UN member states was in a violent war against the ROI at the time .

Regardless of the fact that Bush didn't accuse the ROI in the first place, many people were highly suspicious that it was a retaliatory strike from Saddam Hussein, who had previously threatened to make our towers of steel burn.

Of course NYCrackhead is totally ignorant of histoy right along with every other subject.

If Clinton had gone in and finished the job like Bush Sr should have and Bush Jr DID, rather than just bomb the place twice to deflect attention away from a scandal, bed wetters would have exhalted him as a great wartime president.

He could have lost 5 times as many troops, spent 10 times the money, and if the war was still going on the moonbats would insist it was Bush's fault for "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" and forcing their beloved moonbat messiah to "make the hard choices". When Bush left office, Iraq was pacified for the most part. Afghanistan was slowly developing, Kaddafi was compliant and jihadist assholes had no sanctuary.

Now jihadist assholes are running around loose all over the world, they've actually conquered territory, collapsed North Africa, and are on the verge of taking control of Iraq and Syria. They're selling oil on the global market for God's sake! They're selling human beings too for that matter.

Meanwhile the moonbat messiah is flying around the world pretending that the real threat is the weather, he has no strategy to defeat anyone besides republicrats, Afghanistan is a disaster that we're trying to figure out how to get out of, and the best the government can do is ban trans-fats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

So the polls that showed Americans believing the 9/11 - Iraq link were off by 60 to 70 points?

lol, insane.

 

[BlindBoo]

No. The reason we invaded was to liberate vast oil reserves to the worlds markets.

 

[SwimExpert]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

Sorry, then your memory is not very good. Do a google search, there is a plethora of information you can quickly turn up about the administration's allegations of links between Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, 9-11, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.

Even if you can't be bothered to do that, let's remember this:

-The 9-11 attacks were an act of terrorism.
-Bush "declared" a "War on Terrorism" (later known as the "War on Terror" as asinine as that phrase is).
-Bush invaded Afghanistan as part one of the War on Terrorism.
-Bush invaded Iraq as part two of the War on Terrorism.

Twenty different people could debate twenty different interpretations of all the who said whats, when who what said, semantic innuendo, and plausible deniability. But the fact that the administration relied on false beliefs to justify the invasion of Iraq cannot be disputed by any reasonably minded person. There was a clear pattern of accusation, implication, suggestion, and manipulation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Saddam backed terror with money, and, in the old Muslim tradition of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saddam did not directly participate in 9/11; he facilitated the conditions in which such crap occurs.

We should have taken him out with a drone, not a massive invasion, but nobody asked me.

Hussein rejected Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda hated him for it. Hussein had been hoping for a rekindling of good relations between Iraq and the USA. He thought of the US as prestigious, and felt that being in good standing with the US would increase the prestige of Iraq as well.

 

[SwimExpert]

No. No one had ever mentioned any connection. The connection came after the war started. It started with liberals claiming that Bush had made such a connection but he never did. No one did.

That is why Bush's pre-invasion address two days prior stated that the invasion was part of the War on Terrorism that began with the 9-11 invasions?

 

[Kondor3]

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

So the polls that showed Americans believing the 9/11 - Iraq link were off by 60 to 70 points?

lol, insane.

That's not what I said.

And not what one should infer.

You really need to stop putting words into peoples' mouths.

Especially when they lean more towards a trumped-up casus belli than trying to defend the indefensible.

Also, I was talking about the immediate run-up to the war, not public opinion polls after we were deep into the thing, after the propaganda machine had taken over.

And, I called it as I remembered it, rightly or wrongly.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong... not the end of the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

So the polls that showed Americans believing the 9/11 - Iraq link were off by 60 to 70 points?

lol, insane.

That's not what I said.

And not what one should infer.

You really need to stop putting words into peoples' mouths.

Especially when they lean more towards a trumped-up casus belli than trying to defend the indefensible.

You said nobody over the age of 5 was buying it. The polls said 2 out 3 Americans were buying it.