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

[there4eyeM]

There was an attempt to lead people to believe in a connection.

 

[kaz]

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.

No, I didn't use anyone else's opinion, I said what I remember and I asked what you remember. Look at the first post, dumb ass

 

[kaz]

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.

You made the mistake of responding to a guy with no balls, Muhammad.

I agree with what you said. yes, we wondered, but W didn't make that case and no one paying attention thought he did.

W did make the case that they were a threat to work together in the future

 

[kaz]

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.

I always enjoy posts by liberals telling me to do a google search to prove you right. What an idiot, thanks for that waste of time, dumb ass

 

[kaz]

I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11.

Of course you didn't. That's because people like you were in a coma until January 20, 2009.

Once again, your head is as empty as your dick. You got a point you can back up? Or is this like your Saturday nights?

 

[kaz]

I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11.

"It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he [hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April." - Dick Cheney, 12.9.2001

And that means Iraq is behind 9/11 how?

I agreed that W was trying to portray that there was a threat they could work together in the future.

However, you said you believed Hussein was behind 9/11, and entirely different thing.

Maybe you can ask your English teacher about past and future tenses and what they mean

 

[kaz]

Memory getting shaky?

12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq

Two sections from Rumsfeld's notes, dictated to Stephen Cambone. [Source: Defense Department]Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.”

9/11 Timeline

Bush Defends Assertions
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

None of that says Hussein was behind 9/11. The question is, how do you remember it? So if you believed when we invaded that Hussein was behind 9/11, go ahead and vote that

Even though the Administration was trying to convince America that Saddam was connected to 9/11, I knew it was a LIE, I never supported the war in Iraq, I never supported the Admin choosing to let Osama go by the wayside...I knew how important it would have been if Osama was caught, dead or alive, as EARLY as possible.....so to show the Jihadists, that "Allah" was on our (America's) side....and the one way we could have nipped the continued terrorism, was to show them their Earthly leader and hero(Osama) was wrong and done in....as I said, the earlier the better, as far as mind/war games.

Instead we were lead astray by our admin who from day 1 wanted to pin this on Saddam or figure out a way to get America to support an Iraqi War,

and this blunder of a war against Iraq will continue to hurt us for a century if not more....Thank you President Bush! (And Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and Feith and Rice and Bolton and Perle etc etc etc)

When did they try "to convince America that Saddam was connected to 9/11?" I opposed the war because I didn't think it was our job to police the Middle East. I supported Gulf War I and I learned my lesson. Unfortunately your party and the Republicans didn't. And yours decided to lie that you were lied to after that. This was a game changer for me. Had they convinced me that Iraq was behind 9/11, I would have supported the war to topple Hussein. Yet, I never heard them even make that case.

Maybe instead of stating they did as if it's established fact, you could explain what you are talking about. I'm obviously very politically aware, yet I never heard them make an actual case Hussein had anything to do with the actual 9/11 attack

 

[kaz]

Law breaking is not criminal activity?

Acting contrary to the Constitution and the interests of the US is not treason?

It's not enough to make it treason, no

 

[Faun]

I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11.

"It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he [hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April." - Dick Cheney, 12.9.2001

And that means Iraq is behind 9/11 how?

I agreed that W was trying to portray that there was a threat they could work together in the future.

However, you said you believed Hussein was behind 9/11, and entirely different thing.

Maybe you can ask your English teacher about past and future tenses and what they mean

That means the administration established a connection between Iraq and 9.11. And I need no help from an English teacher since I never said I believed Iraq was "behind" 9.11. YOU said I said that.

That would be you kazzing again.

 

[Faun]

Memory getting shaky?

12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq

Two sections from Rumsfeld's notes, dictated to Stephen Cambone. [Source: Defense Department]Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.”

9/11 Timeline

Bush Defends Assertions
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

None of that says Hussein was behind 9/11. The question is, how do you remember it? So if you believed when we invaded that Hussein was behind 9/11, go ahead and vote that

Even though the Administration was trying to convince America that Saddam was connected to 9/11, I knew it was a LIE, I never supported the war in Iraq, I never supported the Admin choosing to let Osama go by the wayside...I knew how important it would have been if Osama was caught, dead or alive, as EARLY as possible.....so to show the Jihadists, that "Allah" was on our (America's) side....and the one way we could have nipped the continued terrorism, was to show them their Earthly leader and hero(Osama) was wrong and done in....as I said, the earlier the better, as far as mind/war games.

Instead we were lead astray by our admin who from day 1 wanted to pin this on Saddam or figure out a way to get America to support an Iraqi War,

and this blunder of a war against Iraq will continue to hurt us for a century if not more....Thank you President Bush! (And Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and Feith and Rice and Bolton and Perle etc etc etc)

When did they try "to convince America that Saddam was connected to 9/11?" I opposed the war because I didn't think it was our job to police the Middle East. I supported Gulf War I and I learned my lesson. Unfortunately your party and the Republicans didn't. And yours decided to lie that you were lied to after that. This was a game changer for me. Had they convinced me that Iraq was behind 9/11, I would have supported the war to topple Hussein. Yet, I never heard them even make that case.

Maybe instead of stating they did as if it's established fact, you could explain what you are talking about. I'm obviously very politically aware, yet I never heard them make an actual case Hussein had anything to do with the actual 9/11 attack

You've been shown when they tried to establish a connection. You can keep avoiding it, but that doesn't make it go away.

"It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he [hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April." - Dick Cheney, 12.9.2001​

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

This is really kinda sad. Most of us here know Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 - yet the rightwingers of us here did a great job of convincing all the brave men and women who went to fight in Iraq the exact opposite of that:


"While 85%(of soldiers in Iraq) said the U.S. mission is mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks'..."

85 percent of US troops think Saddam was involved with 9 11

 

[kaz]

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

This is really kinda sad. Most of us here know Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 - yet the rightwingers of us here did a great job of convincing all the brave men and women who went to fight in Iraq the exact opposite of that:


"While 85%(of soldiers in Iraq) said the U.S. mission is mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks'..."

85 percent of US troops think Saddam was involved with 9 11

Yet none of the rightwingers thought Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, didn't read the vote, did you, PooPoo?

 

[Darkwind]

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

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

WMD were the main reason. Without WMD, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to launch the invasion he salivated over.

WMD was the main focus of the LEFT....it was ONLY one item in a laundry list of items justifying the war...

Of all the items provided as justification, it was ONLY the WMD's that turned out to be wrong. Which is why the LEFT has staked their entire rewrite of history on it.

Well that doesn't pass the smile test ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." - Bush​

... g'head .... this is where you try to convince the audience that Bush didn't mean what I said.

and then goes on to list other reasons. In fact, there was a laundry list of reasons...

BTW.....The Bush administration never blamed Iraq for 9/11...

I understand it upsets your rewrite of history, but I don't really care.

 

[AntiParty]

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

The 9/11 claim came later.

At first it was one person (Oh my the information behind THAT ONE person) told Saddam had WMD's. Bush told Congress "INTELLIGENCE SAYS" Saddam has WMD's. Congress trusts President (paid for by Lockheed Martin).

Much MUCH later after no WMD's were found and Soldiers were extremely upset about false missions, we were fed the war was about 9/11, which happened after the paperwork for war.

(That one person, who works for the CIA, also stated Gadaffi was killing his people. There was also no proof of that even though we went to war with them and toppled their Government)

 

[Montrovant]

I have a pretty poor memory, but from what I recall, the belief that Iraq had WMDs was the main reason being portrayed for the war. I don't know if that was because it is what the administration was presenting or if it is what the media I saw/read at the time latched onto (or if I'm just remembering incorrectly). I have a vague recollection of possible ties to Al Quada being talked about, but WMDs always seemed to be the big issue.

 

[AntiParty]

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

 

[Faun]

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

In this speech, President Bush outlined ( I think it was 5 or 7 reasons for Iraq) many of the reasons for taking Iraq out. Of them all, only ONE was WMD. Of all those listed. it was ONLY the WMD that turned out to be wrong.

Or maybe it was 2003? For people who are honest with themselves, they'll go take a look. I personally don't care if they do or not.

WMD were the main reason. Without WMD, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to launch the invasion he salivated over.

WMD was the main focus of the LEFT....it was ONLY one item in a laundry list of items justifying the war...

Of all the items provided as justification, it was ONLY the WMD's that turned out to be wrong. Which is why the LEFT has staked their entire rewrite of history on it.

Well that doesn't pass the smile test ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." - Bush​

... g'head .... this is where you try to convince the audience that Bush didn't mean what I said.

and then goes on to list other reasons. In fact, there was a laundry list of reasons...

What part of, "the main reason," don't you understand?

BTW.....The Bush administration never blamed Iraq for 9/11...

I understand it upsets your rewrite of history, but I don't really care.

Imbecile... rewrite this...

"Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he [9.11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." ~ Dick Cheney, 12.9.2001​

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yet none of the rightwingers thought Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, didn't read the vote, did you, PooPoo?

I think your family friends and loved ones should be all placed in Iraq harms way to support whatever mindless reasons Dork 43 used to invade Iraq

 

[irosie91]

I never believed ---even for second---that saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11-01 nor did bush so claim. I never believed that Saddam had nukes---nor did bush so claim. I knew that saddam had nitrogen mustard gas and other chemicals useful in terrorism and would use them and I knew that saddam Hussein supported international terrorism and was a fiend that must be stopped. He was a Baathist pig----a very dangerous ideology. I knew him for the lump of filth that he was WAAAY back in the mid 60s when I was a teen I spoke to the pile of shit who was his right hand man in the USA-----ie his agent ----
That pile of shit founded the organization which is now CAIR uhm something like
M. MEHDI ---that dog died about 12 years
ago I wish someone had simply put a bullet in the head of saddam. Sticking around that pile of Shiite/sunni shit-----was not good for the USA

 

[there4eyeM]

Yet, the US, or at least certain agents associated with the government, aided and abetted Saddam.