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

[kaz]

Where did I lie. You were the one to first claim to understand why the war started. I see your chickening out on your claim now. Move along and let the adults debate.

It was the international financial community, which is controlled by the Jews. They did it to draw us into a war with Muslims in the middle east. Everyone knows that, I mean duh.

You know the Mossad was behind the attacks on the WTC on 9/11, don't you? There was not a single Jew killed, they were warned. The CIA helped them because W wanted an excuse to avenge his father.

You really aren't keeping up with the news. How do you not know this stuff?

So do you think the moon landing was actually faked and filmed in Hollywood?

 

[Lakhota]

The following link is a great timeline: It begins on 8/14/92 and ends on 3/20/03 when the war begins.

Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion.

AT A CONGRESSIONAL hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed "a very simple question" about the administration's manipulation of intelligence: "How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?"

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: "The vice president."

But the blame for Iraq does not end with Cheney, Bush, or Rumsfeld. Nor is it limited to the intelligence operatives who sat silent as the administration cherry-picked its case for war, or with those, like Colin Powell or Hans Blix, who, in the name of loyalty or statesmanship, did not give full throat to their misgivings. It is also shared by far too many in the Fourth Estate, most notably the New York Times' Judith Miller. But let us not forget that it lies, inescapably, with we the American people, who, in our fear and rage over the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, allowed ourselves to be suckered into the most audacious bait and switch of all time.

The first drafts of history are, by their nature, fragmentary. They arrive tragically late, and too often out of order. Back in 2006, we attempted to strip the history of the runup to the war to its bones, to reconstruct a skeleton that we thought might be key in resolving the open questions of the Bush era. As we prepare to leave Iraq, we present that timeline to you again. MotherJones.com offers a greatly expanded (if now technologically outdated) version of this timeline, one that is completely sourced to primary documents and initial news accounts. It was our hope to make this second draft of history as definitive as possible. So that we won't be fooled again.—THE EDITORS


Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq - Mother Jones

​

 

[kaz]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't get the connection between how we handled the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and how the same buildings were attacked a few years later by the same people?

OMG, you people are a riot. How clueless can you be?

You're not very bright. That's sad. You are extremely partisan. That's bad. You support Wabbit, that's insane.

Partisan? Yes, of course, all Republicans are against the Iraq invasion. You nailed me. LOL. and you say I'm not that bright? Classic. You're a hoot, my friend.

 

[Tuatara]

Exactly, the dem/lib position is that the ignorant asshole from texas was so smart and clever that he fooled all of the northeast intelligencia with his cowboy arrogance.

and dems wonder why we call them stupid.

Actually is was about betrayal. People trusted the President to be above reproach and honest with all matters regarding defense of the nation after 9/11. When he and his administration spokespeople continuously talked about WMD's and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda people believed the President. No one expected the administration would hustle and mislead the country on such an important and serious matter. People believed that everything the President and his administration said would be proven when the invasion of Iraq occurred. It wasn't and that is how the people learned they had been misled and lied to. The President told us that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda in a national address shortly after 9/11. That wasn't presented as a guess or maybe. It was presented to the world as a fact.
I keep asking the question of what did President Bush mean when he said Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. All I ever get for responses are deflections into the WMD debate. So how did Saddam give aid and protection to al Qaeda?

The UN believed that he did.

The UN was lied to. It is common knowledge that Colin Powell's speech was a lie.
Powell s Chief Of Staff Iraq Intel Was Outright Lies But Powell Didn t Knowingly Lie At UN The National Memo

So did most of the civilized world.

Most countries did not sign on with the coalition. Those that did, the majority of their population were against the war.

So did both Clintons, Kerry, Gore.

These guys were liars too. I have always criticized Clinton for his bombings of Iraq and his CIA spying within the UN inspections.

They all had access to the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

No they didn't. This has all been covered long ago.
Conservatives falsely claimed White House and Congress saw same intelligence on Iraqi threat Research Media Matters for America

Maybe they were all wrong, or maybe those WMDs were moved to Syria.

All speculation and zero evidence.

The truth may never be known. But partisan hacks will continue to pass out lies in hopes of gaining some political advantage.

A perfect description of those who still defend Bush and his lies.

 

[paulitician]

Because the plan to plunder Iraq was hatched long before 9/11. It was just a matter of convenience. Iraq was a disastrous blunder for average American Citizens. They paid for that blunder with their lives and their money. However, Iraq was not a failure for the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites. It was actually a wonderful success. They got exactly what they wanted. They seized control of Iraq's Banking System and are plundering its natural resources. And that's what it's all about for them.

So when i hear people declaring the Iraq War a miserable failure, i do get mixed feelings about it. It was a miserable failure for average American Citizens and Iraqis. But it was a huge success for the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites.

 

[Tuatara]

Exactly, the dem/lib position is that the ignorant asshole from texas was so smart and clever that he fooled all of the northeast intelligencia with his cowboy arrogance.

and dems wonder why we call them stupid.

Actually is was about betrayal. People trusted the President to be above reproach and honest with all matters regarding defense of the nation after 9/11. When he and his administration spokespeople continuously talked about WMD's and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda people believed the President. No one expected the administration would hustle and mislead the country on such an important and serious matter. People believed that everything the President and his administration said would be proven when the invasion of Iraq occurred. It wasn't and that is how the people learned they had been misled and lied to. The President told us that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda in a national address shortly after 9/11. That wasn't presented as a guess or maybe. It was presented to the world as a fact.
I keep asking the question of what did President Bush mean when he said Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. All I ever get for responses are deflections into the WMD debate. So how did Saddam give aid and protection to al Qaeda?

You will not get an answer. These guys can't back up any of their assertions.

 

[paulitician]

History goes on repeating itself. They've tried the same thing in Syria. Their Assad Boogeyman had those Chemical Weapons and was a 'threat to the world.' But the People didn't buy it, and they didn't get their war in Syria. But then magically, along comes the ISIS Boogeyman. And of course they're 'worse than the Nazis', so something has to be done.

In the end, they got their war in Syria. Now it's on to seizing its Banking System and plundering its natural resources. Hopefully, one day the People will have enough of Permanent War. But sadly, i think that day's a long long way off.

 

[Lakhota]

Exactly, the dem/lib position is that the ignorant asshole from texas was so smart and clever that he fooled all of the northeast intelligencia with his cowboy arrogance.

and dems wonder why we call them stupid.

Actually is was about betrayal. People trusted the President to be above reproach and honest with all matters regarding defense of the nation after 9/11. When he and his administration spokespeople continuously talked about WMD's and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda people believed the President. No one expected the administration would hustle and mislead the country on such an important and serious matter. People believed that everything the President and his administration said would be proven when the invasion of Iraq occurred. It wasn't and that is how the people learned they had been misled and lied to. The President told us that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda in a national address shortly after 9/11. That wasn't presented as a guess or maybe. It was presented to the world as a fact.
I keep asking the question of what did President Bush mean when he said Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. All I ever get for responses are deflections into the WMD debate. So how did Saddam give aid and protection to al Qaeda?

Very well said, Camp. Thanks.

 

[paulitician]

Just remember Americans, there will always be a Boogeyman for you to fear & hate. It's how the Elites can continue on with this Permanent state of War. This endless War isn't gonna end till you demand it.

 

[kaz]

The following link is a great timeline: It begins on 8/14/92 and ends on 3/20/03 when the war begins.

Here's a great timeline as well. It's the occupant of the White House in Six Month intervals before 9/11.

Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Bush

And apparently according to you, W just completely fooled you. Damn you people are dumb, and that's according to you.

 

[paulitician]

The following link is a great timeline: It begins on 8/14/92 and ends on 3/20/03 when the war begins.

Here's a great timeline as well. It's the occupant of the White House in Six Month intervals before 9/11.

Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Bush

And apparently according to you, W just completely fooled you. Damn you people are dumb, and that's according to you.

It proves the plan to plunder Iraq was hatched long before 9/11. We're seeing the same scenario being played out in Syria and Ukraine right now. It's all about seizing control of their Banking Systems and plundering their natural resources. Only the Ruling-Class Elites benefit from Permanent War. Average People only suffer. Americans especially, need to wake up to that ugly reality.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, the dem/lib position is that the ignorant asshole from texas was so smart and clever that he fooled all of the northeast intelligencia with his cowboy arrogance.

and dems wonder why we call them stupid.

Actually is was about betrayal. People trusted the President to be above reproach and honest with all matters regarding defense of the nation after 9/11. When he and his administration spokespeople continuously talked about WMD's and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda people believed the President. No one expected the administration would hustle and mislead the country on such an important and serious matter. People believed that everything the President and his administration said would be proven when the invasion of Iraq occurred. It wasn't and that is how the people learned they had been misled and lied to. The President told us that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda in a national address shortly after 9/11. That wasn't presented as a guess or maybe. It was presented to the world as a fact.
I keep asking the question of what did President Bush mean when he said Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. All I ever get for responses are deflections into the WMD debate. So how did Saddam give aid and protection to al Qaeda?

Very well said, Camp. Thanks.

Well said? You mean like your lie in the thread title you won't fess up to or prove? Was it that well said?

I challenged your manhood, you replied you don't have any to challenge. It's in a jar on the mantle if you ever want it back. All you have to do is say you made it up, you should have done your research and it's yours. In the mean time, ping pong anyone?

 

[kaz]

The following link is a great timeline: It begins on 8/14/92 and ends on 3/20/03 when the war begins.

Here's a great timeline as well. It's the occupant of the White House in Six Month intervals before 9/11.

Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Bush

And apparently according to you, W just completely fooled you. Damn you people are dumb, and that's according to you.

It proves the plan to plunder Iraq was hatched long before 9/11. We're seeing the same scenario being played out in Syria and Ukraine right now. It's all about seizing control of their Banking Systems and plundering their natural resources. Only the Ruling-Class Elites benefit from Permanent War. Average People only suffer. Americans especially, need to wake up to that ugly reality.

Who plundered Iraq? No idea what you're talking about. We barely benefited if at all from their oil.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He didn't.

Why do you lie about Bush?

Oh, that's right - because you're a scumbag without a hint of integrity.

 

[paulitician]

The following link is a great timeline: It begins on 8/14/92 and ends on 3/20/03 when the war begins.

Here's a great timeline as well. It's the occupant of the White House in Six Month intervals before 9/11.

Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Bush

And apparently according to you, W just completely fooled you. Damn you people are dumb, and that's according to you.

It proves the plan to plunder Iraq was hatched long before 9/11. We're seeing the same scenario being played out in Syria and Ukraine right now. It's all about seizing control of their Banking Systems and plundering their natural resources. Only the Ruling-Class Elites benefit from Permanent War. Average People only suffer. Americans especially, need to wake up to that ugly reality.

Who plundered Iraq? No idea what you're talking about. We barely benefited if at all from their oil.

True, you the average Citizen haven't benefited at all. You never do in these Interventions/Wars. But many have gotten very rich off the Iraq War. And they continue to. The Elites now control Iraq's Banking System and are plundering its natural resources. And that was the plan all along. They're attempting to do the same thing in Syria and Ukraine right now. They recently accomplished that in Libya and Egypt. So you are right, you didn't benefit at all from the Iraq War. But others did.

 

[Tuatara]

Who plundered Iraq? No idea what you're talking about. We barely benefited if at all from their oil.

When you use the term 'we" are you talking about the average american citizen or these companies:

TRICARE
Blackwater
KBR
L3 Communications
Fluor
DynCorps
Washington Group International
International American Products


Follow the money

 

[Lakhota]

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

More: USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Gee, I wonder why so many Americans believed there was a link (connection) between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?

 

[Theowl32]

Lot's of reasons. He wanted revenge on the man who plotted to kill his daddy. He felt Saddam was an easy target to take down. But the number one reason....IMHO was

DICK Cheney convinced the recovering alcoholic that the invasion was necessary, while in actuality it was only necessary for Cheney to become unbelievably rich and to stuff the pockets of all his Halliburton friends and associates. Oh and OIL.

Yes! That post needs to go in the thread Stupid things Democrats Say. All the talking points.

LOL.

Halliburton.

The cliches.

Notice how they never bring up how Clinton awarded Halliburton no bid contracts in the 90s? As if any of them knew or cared about that.

Factcheck has disproved all of their lame claims of Haliburton.

Such losers.

Well, as long as you are cool with Factcheck......

factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/they-lied-they-died.pdf

sigh

Why do leftists demonize Halliburton? What proof exists of their claims of corruption? What exactly has Halliburton done to profit from American military casualties? Indeed, have they profited from military casualties? Is there a special relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton so that the company receives contracts without observing the normal bidding process?

It is certainly true that during a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contractsdoubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.

In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:


In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

http://www.factcheck.org/

 

[paulitician]

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

More: USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Gee, I wonder why so many Americans believed there was a link (connection) between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?

Government/Corporate Media Propaganda. It's very powerful.

 

[Theowl32]

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

If Democrats want to investigate a scandal involving Iraq they should devote their efforts to the UN "Oil-for-Food" program instead of Halliburton. However, they will not because Saddam Hussein is not a candidate in this presidential election.