PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: SirMystiq on September 17, 2003, 07:10:50 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030918/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_saddam
Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11
59 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq (news - web sites).
AP Photo
Reuters
Slideshow: September 11
"There\'s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We\'ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
The president\'s comment was the administration\'s firmest assertion that there is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on Sunday clouded the issue by saying, "It\'s not surprising people make that connection" between Saddam and the attacks.
Cheney, on NBC\'s "Meet the Press," also repeated an allegation — doubted by many in the intelligence community — that Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before Sept. 11.
"We\'ve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said Sunday. However, other U.S. authorities have said information gathered on Atta\'s movement show he was on the U.S. East Coast when that meeting supposedly took place.
Critics of the Bush administration have pointed to statements like Cheney\'s as evidence that the administration was exaggerating al-Qaida\'s prewar links with Saddam to help justify the U.S.-led war against Iraq.
A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday, "I\'ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
The administration has argued that Saddam\'s government had close links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.
On Sunday, for example, Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
Bush himself has taken to referring to Iraq as the central front in the war against terror.
And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC\'s "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."
Cheney on Sunday was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.
"No, I think it\'s not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.
Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."
Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
"No, we\'ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He\'s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There\'s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Most of the administration\'s public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior bin Laden associate who officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq — an area outside Saddam\'s control before the war — and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year.
....What\'s next?
" We have no evidence that there has ever been any nuclear weapons"
-
what that beeping noice ?
*Beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep*
-
"no evidence" does not mean "not invloved"
-
Originally posted by ooseven
what that beeping noice ?
*Beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep*
Doing this while doing at 200km/h? You\'ll blow your gearbox, Mr Bush! :p
Shame on you Mr Bush, shame on you!
-
I didn\'t think there ever was suppose to be evidense of Saddma and 9-11 involvement. Just Al Queida ties which are rather obvious since we busted a training camp during the war.
-
First, of ALLLLLLLLLLLLL the reasons why we went into Iraq...9-11 connection was NOT one of them.
Al Queda connection, yes. But 9-11? Nope.
:rolleyes:
-
Most people connect Al-quaeda with 9-11. Did the government ever said that the information that Saddam was involved on 9-11 is false? No, and clearly alot of people thought that way.
-
Maybe people in your circles, but I don\'t think anyone really thought Saddam was directly related to 9-11.
-
Hey, if Bush is such a liar why didn\'t he just cover this up?
-
Because he\'s too stupid!
-
Did you have to put an exclamation point on that?
-
Originally posted by ooseven
what that beeping noice ?
*Beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep* Warning Bush administration reversing *beep*
That could possibly be the gayest thing I\'ve ever read...
And this comes to little to no surprise, and it\'s irrelevant because what was proven was that Hussein had a tyrannical rule over his people, and they lived under an unruly regime. The End.
-
uhmm..its called spin..which all politicians do.
We are arguing this elsewhere at the moment too.
While they never ever said anything about saddam being directly involved...how often was 9/11...bin laden and iraq said in the same breath?
It was never said, but implied as most of the american public are sheeps and are easily influenced by that type of spin doctoring.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
And this comes to little to no surprise, and it\'s irrelevant because what was proven was that Hussein had a tyrannical rule over his people, and they lived under an unruly regime. The End.
There are many other tyrannical rulers still in power that we don\'t give a damn about. The Iraq War 2 was not fought to rescue iraqis living under an "unruly regime." It was fought to make the middle east safe for transnational corporations.
I\'m so sick of people saying we did this for the Iraqi people. The Bush administration might mention that in passing only to put a friendly face on this endeavor. If we really cared about that, why aren\'t we doing something about Algeria, Burma, Indonesia, Colombia, and others? Many of these nations are ruled by dictatorial governments that WE support with arms sales and financial aid. We do it because it maintains a stable atmosphere for our corporations to exploit their labor and natural resources. It has nothing to do with giving a shit about anyone\'s human rights.
-
We didn\'t do it for the people yes. We did it for the WMD (which a lot of data IS finding out that there IS WMD. Whether there will EVER be enough to make the anti-war people happy is another matter). And the Al Queda connection.
[edit]But it IS in our best interest to improve the lives of Iraq AND bring democracy to them. If we succeed, this could be bad news for the other dicators in the area.
Now, the fact that some media types linked it to 9-11 does NOT make Bush the guilty party here. Yes, the people are stupid. But if the media fails to do their job to educate, you can\'t fully blame the President. Sure, you can accuse him for not being forceful to saying that Iraq wasn\'t linked to 9-11, but since he NEVER said that there was a connection, then Bush can NOT be faulted for it.
-
He never said it but it was definately implied. Its just political double speak. Anyone who says that Bush and his cronies should not be criticized because they never actually came out and said Saddam was involved with 9/11 is fooling themselves. If you come out and say that we have to attack someone before they attack us because they have WMD and because they have ties to Al-Quaeda you WANT people to make the logical jump to 9/11.
Originally posted by mm
"no evidence" does not mean "not invloved"
It doesn\'t mean involved either. Which is obviously the connection that they wanted everyone to make.
-
and it worked well