Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oh Jeez: Saddam Wasn't Involved With 9/11  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (10 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

From the horses mouth.


http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=57472§ion=NEWS&subsection=POSTWAR&year=2003&month=9&day=17


Rumsfeld doesn't see Saddam linked to 9-11
His comments appear to conflict with those made recently by Cheney, Rice.

By ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he has no reason to believe Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll showing nearly 70 percent of respondents believe the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said one of the reasons President George W. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

At his Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are making satisfactory progress.

He said it is an "open question" whether the United States would get the 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops it seeks to create a third multinational division for security duty in Iraq. The Pentagon has hoped to get at least that many from Turkey, Pakistan or other friendly countries to beef up security and possibly to allow some of the 130,000 U.S. troops there to go home next year.

"It would relieve some of the pressure on our forces," he said. "Whether or not there will be a (United Nations) resolution and whether or not - even if there were a resolution - we would get that number of troops is an open question."

Rice acknowledged that if such commitments are gained, it "could be months" before they were in place.

Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared with Rumsfeld, said more than 210,000 coalition forces are in Iraq: 130,000 Americans, 24,000 British and other international troops, and 60,000 Iraqi police, border guards and civil-defense forces.






17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

So, another brick in the wall that all that weren't willfully blind or incredibly frightened already knew. And yet, it's another seeming falsehood, after that fact that the Administration admits. Before the war, Bush did his damndest to link Saddam with Al Qaeda and 9/11. It was a lie then, and it's admitted as such now.

Of course, all our Bush kiss-ups on here will simply tell us that this was just a media darling, nothing else. Read up on it, folks. This is just another brick in the wall that leads me to believe that the Administration willfully misled the American people before the invasion of Iraq.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13151 posts, RR: 78
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

You tell a big enough lie often enough...
Helps too if you have an almost totally dumbed down televisual media, including some channels with an agenda.
"Hey, Saddam Bin-Laden must have been involved...he's a towelhead aint he?"

Who said this in Feb. 2001? It was televised;
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect of weapons of of mass destruction...he's unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"

Was it;
Chirac? - Non!
Putin? - Nyet!
The Dixie Chicks? - Hell no!
John Pilger? - No way mate!
Howard Dean? - Who?
Susan Sarandon? - Absolutely no!
Oscar Fischer? - Nein!

Ready? (Drum roll).......

It was;

The then new US Secretary Of State Colin Powell!



User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 1099 times:

No one ever said Saddam was directly involved in Sept. 11th. Anyone who thinks that the Bush Administration said that is either stupid, misinformed, or is deliberately twisting the facts.

What was said was that Saddam had ties to various terrorists groups which were connected to Al-Qaida. (Al-Qaida is/was a very large organization and has lots of "step-children" out there that aren't part of the direct organization but still receive support from it.) That put Saddam's Iraq on the same level as any other terrorist supporting state but does not mean he sat down with bin Laden and planned out the events of Sept. 11th.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 1076 times:

No one ever said Saddam was directly involved in Sept. 11th.

Don't insult our intelligence, B757300. Look at polls: the American people were told by Bush that Saddam had links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. And a majority of Americans, out of fear or ignorance, have believe it. And this, despite the fat that there's NO PROOF that Saddam ever had contacts with OBL.

Remember the story that the Administration floated that an Iraqi intelligence officer met Mohammad Atta in Prague, I beleve it was? Now, you tell me, Mr. Republican, why would they even float that story-that didn't turn to be true-unless he was trying to tie Saddam directly to 9/11.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Bush was doing. It does require you unpucker your lips and take your blinders off to see what the meaning really was behind these statements.

What was said was that Saddam had ties to various terrorists groups which were connected to Al-Qaida.

Again, don't act stupid-or is it an act? President Bush said that they knew of DIRECT ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Go back and find it. There's a BIG difference.

Once again, you remove yourself so much from reality that it's breathtaking-and all in the name of covering George W. Bush's ass. Either that, or you have a serious case of amnesia. Honestly, I'm pretty sure it's the former.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29786 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 1058 times:

When did GW accuse Saddam of direct ties?

I don't recall him saying that.

As far as Saddam supporting terrorism, wasn't he giving 20 grand in blood money to the family of palistinian homicide bombers? Are they not terrorists?

Now that he is gone, I don't think they are getting it anymore.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13151 posts, RR: 78
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months ago) and read 1038 times:

Oh come on!
They suggested, hinted, implied for months, it was a major embarrassment for Blair, who did not stoop that low.
His biggest problem politically was "what are you doing siding with Bush and his bozos"
The outrageous stuff that Bush and co came out with was constantly thrown in Blair's rather embarrassed face.
Rumsfeld even set up his own private team to 'prove' a link, after CIA, NSA, M16 and everyone else found none.



User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months ago) and read 1020 times:

When did GW accuse Saddam of direct ties?

On 09/10/02: "We know that Iraq and al-Qa'eda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."

Of course, if you think that this was a misquote, or a slip of the tongue, I'd be happy to dig up many more such statements; as well as his suggestion that Iraq would give them WMDs, that Iraq or a terrorist proxy would use WMDs against Israel or Kuwait, that Iraq was a direct threat to the west, or even the hint that Iraq had nuclear weapons in addition to biological and chemical.

What he did not mention was how Saddam Hussein came to power; who left the tyrant unhindered for decades; or who supplied him with WMD ingredients.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29786 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months ago) and read 1014 times:

On 09/10/02: "We know that Iraq and al-Qa'eda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."

Actually that was proved and documentation for that found in Iraq, but neither Al-quida or Saddam trusted the other to unite.

But the link between Saddam and Palistinian terrorism is well proven and documented.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 997 times:

L-188, you're beginning to sound as shirll in your defense of Bush and his lies as B757300. There is a direct quote there, to show that Bush was lying to us. No one as ever shown ANY concrete proof of a direct tie between the two-BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE!

And are you telling me-now-that we went to war, in part, becuase of his ties with PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS-who have never really attacked Americans? And you expect me to do anything else but laugh in your face on that one?

The denial among our right-wing bretheren, all in the name of covering the ass of George W. Bush is astounding. You guys are living in such a dream world, that it's really quite tragic.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29786 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 952 times:

And are you telling me-now-that we went to war, in part, becuase of his ties with PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS-

No.

But I do think that there where many reasons, which while not on their whole may be enough to take him out, combined provided ample reason.

But I think for some people on this site, and in the media, and the public, There has to be a single reason why we went, and because of who is in office that reason, whatever they decide it is, will never be good enough.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 943 times:

But I do think that there where many reasons, which while not on their whole may be enough to take him out, combined provided ample reason.

Bullshit. There were no VALID reasons to invade a soverign nation and kick out their government, no matter how vile it was. That's not our business.

But while we're at it, let's look at some of the "reasons", L-188, shall we?

-WMD's. We all know that's turned out to be nothing.

-Reconstituted nuke program: Where?

-An imminent threat to the U.S. and Iraqi's Neighbors: How. Iraq couldn't have fought it's way out of a wet paper bag, for Christ sake. They were a threat to no one. They stopped being a threat after 1991.

-To free the Iraqi people: Sure, "freedom" to have no electricity and no running water in many parts of the country; "freedom" to have Al Qaeda introduced into Iraq, where they didn't exist before; "freedom" to have a foreign power occupying it, probably for years. Some freedom, L-188.

-Getting rid of Saddam; you mean, like we got "rid" of OBL?

Fact is, we were dead wrong in going into Iraq the way we did. Had we waited another year, lined the UN behind us, and either 1. proven that there were no weapons, or 2. Found them and, under 1441 having a legitimate right to strike, But Bush's arrogance, and this neocon mindset to distrust everyone in the world has made us seem like outlaws in many corners of the earth, and that's a tragedy.

Maybe you think it was a great thing, L-188, to go disrupt so many lives over there, but it's nothing but a friggin' human tragedy, and nothing else, and it was all hatched by this "moral" President of ours.


User currently offlineShamrock1Heavy From Ireland, joined Nov 2002, 250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 941 times:

PLUS - Osama and Hussien were not buddies, Saddam is a secular leader. Osama isa Fudamentalist. Do the math. Osama doesnt like Hussien ruling a muslim country.

-D



when in hell, we'll do shots at the bar
User currently offlineDahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 924 times:

You don't say. Whatever happened to the WMD's anyways? Wasn't that the reasoning behind going into Iraq, or were we really their to save them from a tyrant? I guess you just keep throwing stuff on the wall and see what sticks. This administration is completely incompetent, but as long as the sheeple don't cry foul, nothing will be done.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 923 times:

I personally don't remember Bush connecting the 9/11 attacks and Sadaam. I remember the administration trying to link Sadaam and Al-Qaeda, but not going out and saying they had a link with 9/11. Also, didnt they find Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq?


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 901 times:



DUH!




Up, up and away!
User currently offlineKrushny From Spain, joined Dec 2000, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 883 times:

Tbar220,
in Iraq there was a group linked to AlQaeda, but they had established in the Kurdish zone, out of the Saddam control !!!


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 869 times:

When did GW accuse Saddam of direct ties?

I don't recall him saying that.


Memory holes perhaps ?
Strange, it happens with many people nowadays.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bin Laden Says Moussaoui Not Involved With 9-11 posted Tue May 23 2006 23:15:36 by Bushpilot
18 Years Later - Case My Partner Was Involved With posted Sat Jun 10 2006 23:33:41 by AirCop
Gas Companies Not Involved With Middle East posted Sun Sep 18 2005 21:53:22 by Flyf15
Saddam Arms Troops With Chemical Weapons posted Tue Mar 18 2003 00:41:11 by B747forlife
Why Do Celebrities Get Involved With Politics? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 14:59:31 by Matt D
Involved With Aviation?let's See.. posted Sat Jun 23 2001 08:12:47 by L-1011Alpha
Oh No My PC Ins Infected With A Virus... :-( posted Mon Oct 17 2005 17:47:22 by Avianca
What Is Happening With Saddam Hussein? posted Sun Jul 31 2005 14:31:48 by Anxebla
Saddam Friendly With Guards. posted Mon Jun 20 2005 21:53:44 by Airlinelover
Saddam Replaced With.. A New Saddam? posted Mon Jul 19 2004 09:02:21 by CPH-R