Powell: No connection between Iraq and 9/11

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by nakedemperor, Sep 12, 2004.

  1. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

    In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis."

    Ok, so he doesn't explicitly say that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but does anyone else think this kind of language could be confusing people in terms of the scope and magnitude of the "relationship" between al Qaeda and Iraq, even thought the 9/11 Commission stated explicitly that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Saddam?

    I think Powell has some balls for what he said the other day. He said "But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11." Ok, good. That's very good. But shouldn't Cheney qualify his statements? Its not a far stretch. When you say al Qaeda, people think 9/11 9/11 9/11. When you say Iraq had "relationship" with and "habored and provided safe haven for al Qaeda", don't you think there's room for misinterpretation that needs to be addressed to avoid confusion and heavy misunderstanding among the American people? I mean, as recently as June, Cheney said they "didn't know" whether there was a relationship between Saddam and 9/11. COME ON. That's irresponsible and underhanded. We also "didn't know" if Argentina had anything to do with 9/11, but its not mentioned because there is no credible evidence that they did. What Cheney should have said was "there is no evidence that leads us to believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11", not "we don't know", which implies "maybe".

    I got these quotes mostly from a CNN article... i'll edit and put the link up after I chow. Mmm.. forbidden donut..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    No. It isn't confusing at all. Only liberals don't understand how you can support a terrorist group and not a specific attack.
     
  3. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    My point was there's plenty of room for misinterpretation. The IMPLICATION of the statement that Cheney/Bush/Rice gave over and over in speeches about 9/11 that specifically cited a relationship LED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 (not Saddam and al Qaeda, but Saddam and 9/11). The majority of the country in the months following 9/11 thought there was a connection, even thought the administration never explicitly SAID Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but there were heavy implications. That's my point. In order to avoid misunderstandings (like those that have happened in the past on this same exact issue) you have to be CLEAR and NOT leave room for interpretation (unless your re-election depends on it, of course). Its not unheard of. Bush's people led South Carolinians to believe that McCain and sired and illegitimate black baby in 2000. Yes, they stooped that low, willfully.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    saddam is connected to alquada, alquada to 9/11, therefore saddam to 9/11. Anything saddam did for them freed up other resources for 9/11. So in a real way, he helped with 9/11. Support is support. Get a clue.

    You libs have lost your minds. You are no longer logical.
     
  5. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    I believe it only "confuses" those who are pre-disposed to that state of mind because they want to hear the administration make contradictory and hopefully false statements.

    This statement is "confusing" only if it is your purpose to be confused by it. Anybody else can understand it. After all, it is a simple declarative statement which can be easily comprehended by anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention.

    Apparently the Democrats need to be taught the difference between confusion and distortion. One is the accidental mistaking of one thing for another, the other is the favored tactic of the kerry election campaign.
     
  6. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Saddam never SUPPORTED al Qaeda, passively or not! 9/11 Commission said there was "NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP". That means no collaboration, last time I checked! You're basing "Saddam supported 9/11" on what? The fact that 9/11 Commission said there was "contact" between the two parties?
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yes he did.

    He's connected to nearly all terrorist groups. Get you head out of it.
     
  8. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    You're directly contradicting the exhaustive, extensive analysis and review of the 9/11 commission. Why am I the one with my head in it?
     
  9. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    the most important question here and now is:

    what do we do about iran? according to the 9/11 commission and other sources, they supported al-queda directly, and continue to, this as well as being the world's no.1 supporter of terrorist groups. and can we add they're very close to having nuclear weapons?

    we can argue over the past all we want (and i stupidly do more often than not) but right now we need to worry about the present and the future, which is figuring out what the hell to do with iran.
     
  10. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Agreed-- the point I was trying to make was about accountability though. I'm of the opinion that the administration willfully uses people's misinterpretation of what they are literally saying for political gain though, and therefore is unfit to continue in its executive role, come November. In that respect, it is about the future.
     

Share This Page