Manipulation for war?

[st8_o_mind]

5- Copyrighted Material -All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Proper format is to post the first few paragraphs and then link to the article for the rest. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

Well it seems you are right about the rules requiring links to all copyrighted material. I stand corrected. This is all very new to me. I will endeavor to comply with the rule in the future.

Ah, at last, something we can agree on!

:clap1:

 

[st8_o_mind]

I can see why you would delete this article. It blows up your claim that bush did not link Iraq and 9/11 to justify the war. It is pretty obvious. I did a google search of Bush AND 9/11 AND Saddam and got over 100,000 hits. I just posted some excerpts from the first 20. It seems painfully clear that I could post the next 99,980 and nothing would shake your belief that the President did not link Iraq to 9/11. Amazing. Or perhaps you are splitting a hair here. Is it your contention that bush simply misled Congress and the public about a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but did not EXPLICITLY lie about it?

For your consideration, an excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor, please note the link at the end.

March 14, 2003

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and IraqAmerican attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – 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.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

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

[jimnyc]

What part of my request did you not understand?

You claimed our government made a link between Iraq and 9/11 and that was one of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq. I asked you to backup this claim and you have failed miserably.

Is this the best you can do? An article that counts how many times he mentioned 9/11? LOL

9/11 was the trigger for the war on terrorism Of course it's going to get much attention in every aspect and reasoning for wanting to remove terrorists and terrorist regimes. Still though, there was no claim that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THEY GAVE AN IRAQ/911 CONNECTION AS A REASON FOR WAR?

Don't post opinions, no conspiracies, just give me the good 'ol facts. Show me where they specifically stated that as a reason. Either that, or you have lost all credibility.