Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

[Yurt]

Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists using hijacked airplanes as WMD on 9/11.

2004: CNN.com - Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link - Jun 15, 2004

2008: Bush Says Saddam Hussein Was Not Connected to 9/11

Bush denies linking Saddam and 9/11 - YouTube

And again your video does not prove your assertion.

nothing i have ever seen from this troll ever does

 

[Freewill]

Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists using hijacked airplanes as WMD on 9/11.

2004: CNN.com - Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link - Jun 15, 2004

2008: Bush Says Saddam Hussein Was Not Connected to 9/11

Bush denies linking Saddam and 9/11 - YouTube

In all these years you have not changed much. First you make a statement that is patently false in the OP. Then you post a video as proof which it does not. I assume you think people will just believe you. Which is really rich. Never the less you are just repeating lying talking points. I am not really calling you a liar because you believe the lies to be true, they are not.

The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It's always difficult to prove a negative, but that simply never happened.

Many people may believe this was the case because in "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression. Here's the quote as it appeared in the film:

"There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11"

Now here's the full quote:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."

Setting aside Moore's little deceit, there just aren't any quotations I've ever seen from anyone in the Bush administration saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. That's why, in a piece called "Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism," which incidentally was written about a week before the war began, I wrote this:

The Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11...

Furthermore, after the war had begun, in September of 2003, President Bush himself publicly & explicitly said:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.
John Hawkins: Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

 

[Freewill]

Oh wait, maybe we all need to apologize to you. It just occurred to me that maybe you believed that Saddam did have ties to 9/11 and when Bush said he didn't you thought Bush was lying......yeah that's it.

 

[Slyhunter]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

What 9/11 has taught us is we can't just sit on the sidelines doing nothing simply because we think it doesn't effect us because it's not in our borders. This is what Bush meant when he said that about Saddam. We need to learn the lessons 9/11 taught us and be proactive on Saddam not reactive. Don't blame him because liberals like you are too stupid to understand the point.

 

[Lakhota]

Many lies were told to justify the Iraq War. But none were as baseless and vital as this one. At the risk of joining the parade of idiots predicting “the judgement of history” on Iraq, I would anticipate the Saddam-Qaeda connection lie as the most important, far surpassing the more popularized WMD claims.

MORE: 9/11 and Iraq: The War's Greatest Lie

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Stop replying to this idiot..That's what he wants..Everyone knows that Shitting Bull is a liar.

 

[Slyhunter]

Many lies were told to justify the Iraq War. But none were as baseless and vital as this one. At the risk of joining the parade of idiots predicting “the judgement of history” on Iraq, I would anticipate the Saddam-Qaeda connection lie as the most important, far surpassing the more popularized WMD claims.

MORE: 9/11 and Iraq: The War's Greatest Lie

This lie was never uttered, it's a figment of your imagination.

 

[Lakhota]

For her part, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted a month ago that "No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11." Of course, Rice wasn't the only one in the Bush White House contending "there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime," as she insisted as late as September 2006. Echoing President Bush's farewell address in January, former press secretary Ari Fleischer made the Saddam - September 11 connection just the previous week.

MORE: Bush Team Still Peddling 9/11-Iraq Link Torture Failed To Produce

 

[Lakhota]

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.

MORE: Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link | McClatchy DC

 

[tinydancer]

Cheney was on Tim Russert and said no way no how Iraq was directly connected.

 

[tinydancer]

A follow up question from Tim Russert.

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors--have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.''

And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is. The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he 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.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

washingtonpost.com

 

[Peach]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

This thread isn't about NOW - it's about having factual history.

It was known, and remains a fact, Saddam was secular, a military dictator. Some of the "Iraqi" leaders before him were also. Also a fact, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany in WWI. After WWI, ruled by the Crown, then various kingdoms, and military leaders, until Saddam. Iraq itself was carved out by the British. Differing regions have long histories of dissimilar cultures, Now, a powder keg.

 

[Lakhota]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

This thread isn't about NOW - it's about having factual history.

It was known, and remains a fact, Saddam was secular, a military dictator. Some of the "Iraqi" leaders before him were also. Also a fact, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany in WWI. After WWI, ruled by the Crown, then various kingdoms, and military leaders, until Saddam. Iraq itself was carved out by the British. Differing regions have long histories of dissimilar cultures, Now, a powder keg.

So what? What right did Bush have to invade a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals have been lying for so long about Bush saying Hussein had something to do with 9/11 that they now really believe it. Or Hussein obama has screwed up so badly they cannot face it and must retreat into myth.

 

[Lakhota]

Please read S-L-O-W-L-Y

1. Airplanes were used on 9/11

2. None of the hijackers were from Iraq

3. No nuclear involved

4. No chemicals involved - other than jet fuel

5. No other WMD involved

6. So why invade Iraq?

 

[Slyhunter]

This thread isn't about NOW - it's about having factual history.

It was known, and remains a fact, Saddam was secular, a military dictator. Some of the "Iraqi" leaders before him were also. Also a fact, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany in WWI. After WWI, ruled by the Crown, then various kingdoms, and military leaders, until Saddam. Iraq itself was carved out by the British. Differing regions have long histories of dissimilar cultures, Now, a powder keg.

So what? What right did Bush have to invade a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

The lesson learned from 9/11 is that we can't just sit back and wait until were attacked to do something, we need to be proactive and stop such stuff prior to it being too late to stop the disastrous consequences.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrat desperation is palpable.

Why? Is it the magnitude of obama's failure?

 

[USNavyVet]

Please read S-L-O-W-L-Y

1. Airplanes were used on 9/11

2. None of the hijackers were from Iraq

3. No nuclear involved

4. No chemicals involved - other than jet fuel

5. No other WMD involved

6. So why invade Iraq?

So you took such a beating here that you decided to move the goalpost. Good job, Charlie Brown.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This thread isn't about NOW - it's about having factual history.

It was known, and remains a fact, Saddam was secular, a military dictator. Some of the "Iraqi" leaders before him were also. Also a fact, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany in WWI. After WWI, ruled by the Crown, then various kingdoms, and military leaders, until Saddam. Iraq itself was carved out by the British. Differing regions have long histories of dissimilar cultures, Now, a powder keg.

So what? What right did Bush have to invade a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Congress gave him that right. There was a vote and everything. Idiot.

 

[Mojo2]

lol

got your ass handed to you in the other thread so you start a new thread in the hopes people won't see your ass kicking

troll

btw.....YOU started the thread, it is up to YOU to provide links. you did not, because you are a liar.

I really don't mind being called a liar by someone who is too dumb to know such a basic fact.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YPJCPcYCupY]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld - THE ULTIMATE CLIP (Edited) - YouTube[/ame]

GWB didn't say there was a direct connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

Your contention is B.S.