Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[Alpha1]

Before your helpers start blurring this debate ...lets see what your original post stated....

Originally Posted by maineman View Post
why then, six months BEFORE 9/11, did our secretary of state clearly and unambiguously state that Saddam was NOT a threat to either his neighbors or us? And your memory or Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a long one...it happened a decade before we invaded. In between that time, Islamic terrorists became a much greater and more important enemy for us than Saddam EVER was.

WE had gotten attacked. WE should have been fighting a war against our attackers. Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies. Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.

All of what you say above is your rightful opinion....

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense.

Then you go off to the left....this last statement is just plain wrong....

WE had gotten attacked.? No doubt....

We were fighting a war against our attackers, and had been for some time....

Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies?....OK....

Then you claim that in response to being attacked, we go after Saddam....?

We were already in Afghan. fighting AQ in response to 9/11...that was a done deal....

We've just been arguing for days about invading Iraq over WMD that didn't exist...which is the truth....
Now you want to claim we invaded because of 9/11.....

October 7, 2002....Bush set out the reasons for war .....
--------------------------
President George W. Bush delivers remarks on Iraq at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Monday night, Oct. 7, 2002.

"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions --
its history of aggression,
and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons,
and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.
It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
It is seeking nuclear weapons.
It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and
practices terror against its own people.

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. "
------------------------------------

Now Bush might have been all wrong, but nowhere does he blame Saddam for 9/11 or state that as a reason for attacking him....and what you or 50% or 60% or 70% of the people think is irrelevant....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

what????

I know that Saddam did not have diddly to do with 9/11. That is stated.

I KNOW that a majority of Americans were led to believe that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. That is documented.

I know that Bush misled Americans into thinking that Saddam and AQ were in cahoots. That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes from Team Bush...the Dark Lord Cheney in particular.

I know that the Bush administration convinced America that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and the implication was not at all subtle that they would end up in the hands of AQ. That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes.

A vast majority of Americans believed that the invasion of Iraq was a direct response to 9/11 in that we were going to get the guy who had planned it, and the guy who would be the arms supplier for the guys who DID it.

Can you understand the argument?

I have told no lie.

And I would not continue to question my manhood, if I were you, grampa.

There is absolutely NO evidence that Bush or anyone else EVER said Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. IN FACT he and others in his Administration, including the Vice President have said repeatedly FOR the record that Iraq and Saddam Hussein HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11.

If you can claim Bush lied because he stated Iraq had WMDs then we can sure as HELL claim your lying by claiming Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact we have absolute smoking gun evidence your lying, we have the President ON TAPE saying several times Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. We have the Vice President ON TAPE saying that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11.

You are a LIAR. Your claim that either of these men claimed Iraq was involved is a BALD FACED LIE. It is proven a lie by TAPED comments by BOTH men STATING for the RECORD Iraq and Saddam Hussein were NEVER linked to 9/11. Both men have stated there is NO EVIDENCE to show a link to Saddam Hussein or Iraq to 9/11.

There is NO EVIDENCE what so EVER that Bush EVER linked Iraq with the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. NONE, not a shred.

Linking Iraq with terror is another matter, that is a proven link. Claiming other wise is ANOTHER lie.

We have you on TWO LIES.

 

[maineman]

There is absolutely NO evidence that Bush or anyone else EVER said Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. IN FACT he and others in his Administration, including the Vice President have said repeatedly FOR the record that Iraq and Saddam Hussein HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11.

If you can claim Bush lied because he stated Iraq had WMDs then we can sure as HELL claim your lying by claiming Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact we have absolute smoking gun evidence your lying, we have the President ON TAPE saying several times Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. We have the Vice President ON TAPE saying that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11.

You are a LIAR. Your claim that either of these men claimed Iraq was involved is a BALD FACED LIE. It is proven a lie by TAPED comments by BOTH men STATING for the RECORD Iraq and Saddam Hussein were NEVER linked to 9/11. Both men have stated there is NO EVIDENCE to show a link to Saddam Hussein or Iraq to 9/11.

There is NO EVIDENCE what so EVER that Bush EVER linked Iraq with the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. NONE, not a shred.

Linking Iraq with terror is another matter, that is a proven link. Claiming other wise is ANOTHER lie.

We have you on TWO LIES.

Cheney's remarks about Atta and Saddam's boys clearly made the link and made it with respect to 9/11.

Saddam has no links to wahabbist terrorists...only arab/palestinian nationalist terrorists....they were not the guys who attacked us.

 

[rayboyusmc]

And your side bitches about Clinton parsing words. What total hippo critical bullshit.

If you don't realize that he used all his speaches to make US think Saddam attacked US you are pissing in the wing.

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago. This is the cowards way of getting the job done. He can always back out later.

Cheney, on the other hand has multiple times made the connection on national TV.





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. Right, this was never their intention.

What unadultarated crap.

 

[Alpha1]

Cheney's remarks about Atta and Saddam's boys clearly made the link and made it with respect to 9/11.

Saddam has no links to wahabbist terrorists...only arab/palestinian nationalist terrorists....they were not the guys who attacked us.

Cheney's remarks about Atta and Saddam's boys clearly made the link and made it with respect to 9/11.

Actually made this Atta connection twice...in Nov. and Dec. 2001, and that
Czechs intell, made that claim public.....but Cheney made NO 9/11 claims....lets make that clear first...
Of course Atta being one of the hijackers is a well known fact...
Is there a point here or is it just FYI?

 

[Alpha1]

Well, lets address your innuendo anyway.....

The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.

In the final analysis, the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement: "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (p. 229)

Our CIA and FBI investigated this report for Czech intell and conclude it be very unreliable and don't believe it .... but there remain 2 sides to the story and thus the 9/11 Commission statement.....

IMO, Cheney should have never made statements like this....statements that do not make clear that they were in no way reliable and proven.....

Until late 2004, many believed that Atta traveled to Prague for one day on May 30, 2000, doubts still linger.....so there is no closure on this issue...as noted by the Commission

 

[Alpha1]

And your side bitches about Clinton parsing words. What total hippo critical bullshit.

If you don't realize that he used all his speaches to make US think Saddam attacked US you are pissing in the wing.

So Rayboy......were YOU convinced that Saddam attacked the US on 9/11 or had a roll in it.....???

 

[maineman]

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney placed Atta in Prague meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in April of 2001. That is linking Saddam and 9/11 and saying otherwise is willful ignorance.

 

[maineman]

So Rayboy......were YOU convinced that Saddam attacked the US on 9/11 or had a roll in it.....???

who cares? several polls show that a majority of Americans were. As stupid as I think you are, I am well aware that there are people a lot more stupid than you are populating our great land.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

who cares? several polls show that a majority of Americans were. As stupid as I think you are, I am well aware that there are people a lot more stupid than you are populating our great land.

Pot meet kettle.......

 

[maineman]

Pot meet kettle.......

I am actually pretty smart. Wanna compare CV's?

 

[Alpha1]

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney placed Atta in Prague meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in April of 2001. That is linking Saddam and 9/11 and saying otherwise is willful ignorance.

You question was answered before you asked....Czech intell made claims they could not substantiate with proof..Cheney repeated them, and should not have, if he was aware our own CIA said it was unlikely to be true.....

But we can't ignore the fact that even years later,
the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement: "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (p. 229)

Unlike you...I don't come to conclusions that even experts can't arrive at....

January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani." Postwar debriefings of al-Ani indicate that he had never seen or heard of Atta until after September 11, 2001, when Atta's face appeared on the news.

I consider WHEN statements are made and WHEN they are deemed unreliable or untrue, which is sometimes years later....

While hyper guesses and bullshit is your medium...I go with the careful conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Alpha1]

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet released "the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue" in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2004, stating "Although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that such a meeting occurred."

So even in 2004 our own CIA was unsure of the claims....but naturally for your purpose, you NEED to bash Cheney with ........slime and innuendo..Its you mo

 

[Alpha1]

I am actually pretty smart. Wanna compare CV's?

Pretty? maybe......Smart? you haven't shown that side of your self yet...

 

[maineman]

You question was answered before you asked....Czech intell made claims they could not substantiate with proof..Cheney repeated them, and should not have, if he was aware our own CIA said it was unlikely to be true.....

But we can't ignore the fact that even years later,
the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement: "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (p. 229)

Unlike you...I don't come to conclusions that even experts can't arrive at....

January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani." Postwar debriefings of al-Ani indicate that he had never seen or heard of Atta until after September 11, 2001, when Atta's face appeared on the news.

I consider WHEN statements are made and WHEN they are deemed unreliable or untrue, which is sometimes years later....

While hyper guesses and bullshit is your medium...I go with the careful conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report

the fact remains. Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11 before our invasion.

and the administration also said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.

Americans connected the two blatantly obvious dots.... which justified their support for Bush's urgent and precipitous actions.

 

[maineman]

Pretty? maybe......Smart? you haven't shown that side of your self yet...

I am fairly certain that many folks would disagree.

 

[Alpha1]

who cares? several polls show that a majority of Americans were. As stupid as I think you are, I am well aware that there are people a lot more stupid than you are populating our great land.

So .....WERE you one of them too.....I keep hearing about them and never in my life met one.....you tell me about 3 out of 4 were conned?....there must be at least a few one this board that can admit they were fooled, just to satisfy the myth , I don't expect the truth...

 

[maineman]

So .....WERE you one of them too.....I keep hearing about them and never in my life met one.....you tell me about 3 out of 4 were conned?....there must be at least a few one this board that can admit they were fooled, just to satisfy the myth , I don't expect the truth...

no...I was not one....but if you suggest that respected polling organizations just boldly make shit up out of whole cloth with no basis in reality, I think that you are just in denial.

And who in their right mind would admit to being conned if they didn't have to?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am actually pretty smart. Wanna compare CV's?

You have no idea about my or anyone else's "intelligence" here. What you do have is an attitude that anyone that does not lick your boots is stupid. Anyone that does not allow you to tell them what to think and how to respond is stupid. Your arrogant and a partisan hack.

My IQ has fluctuated from 137 to 126 over the years. Which may not make me a super brain but I am hardly ignorant or stupid. I joined the Marine Corps on an open contract and THEY sent me to Electronics School where I was 1st in my class and went on to Crypto school on an Army Base. The Marine Corps does not let dumb people represent them in other service schools, especially technical schools. I graduated 2nd in that School. Got beat out by a very good National Guard Sgt. Though he already knew the equipment before he ever came to the school.

Every professional school I attended in the Marine Corps I graduated first in my class. And I made GySgt before I was in 11 years.

When I went to College my grade point average was 3.73. That was in Accounting and years later I did the same with General courses. If I hadn't gotten to sick to continue I was working on a degree that would allow me to be a computer programmer. Hadn't decided if I would do a 4 year Business degree or a specialized Degree, both would have allowed my chosen path.

When I was in the National Guard before joining the Marine Corps my command put me up for Officer training with less than 3 months in the unit. I was rejected because the board wanted me to have at least 18 months in the Guard first. I was told to reapply once I had the 18 months. I joined the Marine Corps before that happened.

Even as a Cpl. I was always in charge of something, this in a field where SSgts were just techs a lot of times. As a Sgt I ran a section that a GySgt was supposed to run. Not because there were no GySgt's available, but because I was so good at it.

As a Sgt I was sent to be an Instructor at my former school ON AN Army Base. Normally only SSgt and above were assigned there and in fact I was the ONLY Sgt not already selected for SSgt there. At the end of 4 years the school wanted me to stay and I could have but chose to move to the Fleet. I was a SSgt by then. I served in 2nd Mar Div and 3rd Mar Div Hqs Bn Comm Co. I was a GySgt with in less than 2 years of leaving Instructor Duty.

I would bet dollars to dough nuts Alpha is no slouch either.

 

[Alpha1]

the fact remains. Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11 before our invasion.

and here we go round and round....Put into context.....the fact remains, Czech intell made claims they could not substantiate with proof..Cheney repeated them...a risky thing to do, if our own CIA wasn't convinced it was true....It didn't tie Iraq to 9/11, it tied one of the terrorists to Iraq intell....

and the administration also said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.

and we go again....the facts are that EVERYONE claimed Saddam had WMD...the words 'no doubt' is red herring your obsessed with....you hear Gore, Pelosi and others...."Saddam has WMD" ...the belief was almost universal. get over it already, its the truth....

Americans connected the two blatantly obvious dots.... which justified their support for Bush's urgent and precipitous actions.

Yep...and the vote was taken....and the resolution passed...and the war began.....time to get over that too....

----------