Powell: No connection between Iraq and 9/11

[dilloduck]

I don't disagree that Saddam may have had contacts with terrorists. But once again, if we are going to base our foreign policy on invading countries who have contacts with or have supported terrorists, why haven't we invaded Iran, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, the United States (oh wait, that's us and we have had contact with and have in fact supported terrorist groups including the Taliban because they were anticommunist).

Saddam and 9/11 have nothing to do with one another. It seems to be the prevailing opinion that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaida, and organization that considers Saddam an infidel.

acludem

Perhaps you misunderstand our foreign policy. Brush up on it !

 

[Avatar4321]

Do any of you lefties really realize what you are arguing? Al Queda is a world wide organization with agents all over the world including South Florida, yet some how Al Queda wasnt in Iraq. Its kinda ridiculous especially when the 911 report spells out the connection between Saddam and Al Queda Despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

 

[nakedemperor]

Do any of you lefties really realize what you are arguing? Al Queda is a world wide organization with agents all over the world including South Florida, yet some how Al Queda wasnt in Iraq. Its kinda ridiculous especially when the 911 report spells out the connection between Saddam and Al Queda Despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

The 9/11 report spells out CONTACT, not a COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP. al Qaeda had "contact" with the U.S. in the sense that they had operatives training and living here. al Qaeda isn't, however, "linked" to the United States. In order to make a plausible connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, you not only have to prove that they TALKED, but that they COOPERATED, and there is no evidence to support that statement.

 

[insein]

The 9/11 report spells out CONTACT, not a COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP. al Qaeda had "contact" with the U.S. in the sense that they had operatives training and living here. al Qaeda isn't, however, "linked" to the United States. In order to make a plausible connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, you not only have to prove that they TALKED, but that they COOPERATED, and there is no evidence to support that statement.

Did al queda members meet with our leading officials and discuss illicit deals? You analogy is assinine. You people can not be in charge of this country anymore. We've seen what happens with Bill Clinton's in charge. Terrorists grow in strength due to lack of response. Rouge regimes like N. Korea are handed nuclear secrets on the "word" that they wont make bombs with them. Trust in the enemy is deeper then the trust in Republicans.

When will you people WAKE UP from your fantasy world thats been painted for you by your leaders?

 

[insein]

Face the facts, there is NO evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Of course Sec. Powell is contradicting what VP Cheney said even as recent as Friday.

As for why we went into Iraq, clearly it wasn't WMD's or nuclear capability, Saddam had neither as the fact that we have found absolutely nothing proves. Iran and North Korea are far greater threats to our national security than Iraq ever was. Bush simply took the easy target.

acludem

WTF did i just post? Did i not just illustrate the many connections that Iraq and Al queda have had? Did i not just show that despite no direct collaboration on 9/11 (which Bush never said they had BTW), Iraq and Al Queda have had many connections of the course of the last 15 years that any normal thinking human being would be able to see and digest as deals? Are you so totally inept from your own thoughts that you have to continue to tow the party line to the end of time despite somewhere in your heart you know this rhetoric to be FALSE?

I find it ironic when a liberal tells me to face facts. Deeply ironic.

 

[UsaPride]

In order to make a plausible connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, you not only have to prove that they TALKED,

The 9/11 report spells out CONTACT

Okay, done.

but that they COOPERATED, and there is no evidence to support that statement.

Do you have evidence that they didn't cooperate?

Both Saddam and Bin Laden have threatened to kill all Westerners. How can they "talk" and people seem to think they would not help one another?
It doesn't even freakin' well matter now does it? We KNOW Bin Laden IS guilty of 9/11. Saddam is captured and being charged with a helluva lot of crimes he IS guilty of. What's the point of arguing anymore? Because the election? Bush said we should get Saddam. Kerry said we should get Saddam. Cheney said we should get Saddam. Edwards said we should get Saddam. Hell, Clinton said we should get Saddam. Saddam has been gotten. Bush didn't "trick" anyone into thinking Saddam needed to be taken care of. People with their heads OUT of the sand already knew this. Just the ones that don't like Bush seem to be hiding their heads again. Sad!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The 9/11 report is not an exhaustive study on all facts of world terrorism. It focuses on one event. The 9/11 attack. RE: that attack, Saddam's involvement was minimal. The document does not even purport to address other connections unrelated to 9/11.

There are connections between saddam and alquaeda, see insein's posts.

 

[dumphauler]

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.

Yes what do we do about Iran and all those other county's out there who won't do what we tell them to? how many of there people Is it accepible to kill to enforce our will? How many Iraqies dose it take to equil one american?

 

[nakedemperor]

Okay, done.

Do you have evidence that they didn't cooperate?

Both Saddam and Bin Laden have threatened to kill all Westerners. How can they "talk" and people seem to think they would not help one another?
It doesn't even freakin' well matter now does it? We KNOW Bin Laden IS guilty of 9/11. Saddam is captured and being charged with a helluva lot of crimes he IS guilty of. What's the point of arguing anymore? Because the election? Bush said we should get Saddam. Kerry said we should get Saddam. Cheney said we should get Saddam. Edwards said we should get Saddam. Hell, Clinton said we should get Saddam. Saddam has been gotten. Bush didn't "trick" anyone into thinking Saddam needed to be taken care of. People with their heads OUT of the sand already knew this. Just the ones that don't like Bush seem to be hiding their heads again. Sad!

What's sad is that people will allow themselves to be mislead as long as the end justifies the means. By the logic we were given, any number of other dictators would have been equally as worthy of invasion.

And I'm going to have to disagree with your simplistic argument of "the friend of my enemy is my friend". Its an overgeneralization that does not take into account the nuances of the situation. Saddam was a secular dictator, a power-hungry control freak. Giving WMDs to rogue terrorists would have been a significant loss of control-- once you give WMD to terrorists you lose the ability to tell them where and when to use them. Moreover, bin Laden was a sworn enemy of Saddam. He called him the "socialist infidel". A top lieutenant of Ansar al Islam, bin Laden's group in the North of Iraq (which people on this board think was in league with Saddam because they were also anti-Kurd) said in an interview on Iraq: Uncovered: "Truly Saddam is also the enemy".

I just don't buy that Saddam would have given WMD (that he didn't have, apparently) to al Qaeda. There is no evidence to suggest he did, logic to suggest he wouldn't have. Thus, I believe the justification for the war as sold to the American people dissipates.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Yes what do we do about Iran and all those other county's out there who won't do what we tell them to?

So in your opinion Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing?

 

[insein]

What's sad is that people will allow themselves to be mislead as long as the end justifies the means. By the logic we were given, any number of other dictators would have been equally as worthy of invasion.

And I'm going to have to disagree with your simplistic argument of "the friend of my enemy is my friend". Its an overgeneralization that does not take into account the nuances of the situation. Saddam was a secular dictator, a power-hungry control freak. Giving WMDs to rogue terrorists would have been a significant loss of control-- once you give WMD to terrorists you lose the ability to tell them where and when to use them. Moreover, bin Laden was a sworn enemy of Saddam. He called him the "socialist infidel". A top lieutenant of Ansar al Islam, bin Laden's group in the North of Iraq (which people on this board think was in league with Saddam because they were also anti-Kurd) said in an interview on Iraq: Uncovered: "Truly Saddam is also the enemy".

I just don't buy that Saddam would have given WMD (that he didn't have, apparently) to al Qaeda. There is no evidence to suggest he did, logic to suggest he wouldn't have. Thus, I believe the justification for the war as sold to the American people dissipates.

Liberals baffle logical minds. No wonder they chose Kerry as their Candidate. they don't think straight or pay attention for more than 2 seconds. Apparently your missing the whole point of my argument.

Saddam had ties to not only Al Queda but other terrorist organizations. The fact that he wouldnt have control of the situation if he handed weapons over to these people is PRECISELY the point.

So here's your argument to counter my evidence of links between Al Queda and Saddam.

"Because their is no official evidence proving that they did anything together despite loads of circumstancial evididence showing meetings and collaborations between the 2, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they didnt do anything together."

Tell me if i got that right?

 

[UsaPride]

What's sad is that people will allow themselves to be mislead as long as the end justifies the means.

Who's being mislead? Saddam had to go whether he was connected to Bin Laden or not!

And I'm going to have to disagree with your simplistic argument of "the friend of my enemy is my friend".

Disagree. I disagree with you thinking that because they have the same goal, that they wouldn't work together because they don't like one another. Who do they not like more? Who do they BOTH want to see dead?

Saddam was a secular dictator, a power-hungry control freak. Giving WMDs to rogue terrorists would have been a significant loss of control-- once you give WMD to terrorists you lose the ability to tell them where and when to use them.

I didn't say Saddam gave WMD's to terrorists, but I do believe he helped in some way.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

blah blah blah.

Questions for your naked highness:


Was Saddam in violation of UN resolutions?

What's the point of resolutions if there is no enforcement?

Did we not enforce the resolutions for the UN?

 

[nakedemperor]

Questions for your naked highness:


Was Saddam in violation of UN resolutions?

What's the point of resolutions if there is no enforcement?

Did we not enforce the resolutions for the UN?

All day long I have to deal with this misinterpretation.

Because I'm obviously a liberal you all take liberties with what you think I do and do not believe. Never, never, never have I said that Saddam didn't deserve to be removed from power. Never, never, never have I said that leaving Saddam in power was the better course of action.

I have repeatedly described my specific qualms with the war in Iraq, which people distort and misinterpret and respond with posts like the one I've quoted above. There is a very, very wide rift between why we were told we were going to war BEFORE that fact and AFTER the fact. Before we ever went to war, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and the President himself all uttered versions of this statement: "Let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over New York or Los Angeles". They also made statements such as: "You cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". Through the cacophony of finger-pointing and the tall tales of what might happen, the majority of Americans began to believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Saddam and bin Laden were working together, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The later statement is debatable with statements like "they're in Syria" or "they were GOING to have them". But the other two points were the direct result of (what I would argue) is a calculated assault on the truth: to make "indistinguishable" in the public eye Saddam and bin Laden. Well, it worked.

There, that's it. That being said, I think having Saddam removed was a good thing. I don't believe my initial point is incompatible with this statement: I do not believe that I can in good conscience overlook being thusly misled even though when the wool was pulled from over my eyes some good was visible.

So, JihadThis, the answers to your questions: Yes, nothing, yes. But your questions really had nothing to do with my initial argument.

 

[insein]

All day long I have to deal with this misinterpretation.

Because I'm obviously a liberal you all take liberties with what you think I do and do not believe. Never, never, never have I said that Saddam didn't deserve to be removed from power. Never, never, never have I said that leaving Saddam in power was the better course of action.

I have repeatedly described my specific qualms with the war in Iraq, which people distort and misinterpret and respond with posts like the one I've quoted above. There is a very, very wide rift between why we were told we were going to war BEFORE that fact and AFTER the fact. Before we ever went to war, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and the President himself all uttered versions of this statement: "Let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over New York or Los Angeles". They also made statements such as: "You cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". Through the cacophony of finger-pointing and the tall tales of what might happen, the majority of Americans began to believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Saddam and bin Laden were working together, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The later statement is debatable with statements like "they're in Syria" or "they were GOING to have them". But the other two points were the direct result of (what I would argue) is a calculated assault on the truth: to make "indistinguishable" in the public eye Saddam and bin Laden. Well, it worked.

There, that's it. That being said, I think having Saddam removed was a good thing. I don't believe my initial point is incompatible with this statement: I do not believe that I can in good conscience overlook being thusly misled even though when the wool was pulled from over my eyes some good was visible.

So, JihadThis, the answers to your questions: Yes, nothing, yes. But your questions really had nothing to do with my initial argument.

Since you obviously have ignored the links ive laid before you that paint a pretty clear picture that we werent Misled or misinterpretted the threat, it becomes clear you seem to want to ignore me through either fear of the truth or some unknown reasons.

 

[nakedemperor]

Since you obviously have ignored the links ive laid before you that paint a pretty clear picture that we werent Misled or misinterpretted the threat, it becomes clear you seem to want to ignore me through either fear of the truth or some unknown reasons.

Well, when I see polls from 2002 continuing through the present that report that people (the majority, back in '02) think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, I can't blame it on the liberal media, can I? I feel that this widespread misconception was a direct result of the White House's daily-expressed rhetoric on the subject. Where we disagree is whether or not this was intentional. I'll agree to disagree with you, and I won't accuse you of ignoring me or fearing the truth; we just have different interpretations.

 

[insein]

Well, when I see polls from 2002 continuing through the present that report that people (the majority, back in '02) think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, I can't blame it on the liberal media, can I? I feel that this widespread misconception was a direct result of the White House's daily-expressed rhetoric on the subject. Where we disagree is whether or not this was intentional. I'll agree to disagree with you, and I won't accuse you of ignoring me or fearing the truth; we just have different interpretations.

Your interpretation is based on the fact that Saddam had no ties with Al queda despite the obvious evidence that i have laid out for you proving otherwise. Your interpretation of "polls" lacks key components such as the fact that many directly after 9/11 thought that it was Saddam Hussein that attacked us due to the 10 previous years under Bill Clinton and the First George Bush where we were led to believe that he was a bigger threat then then in 2003 when we actually attacked him.

You seem to blame the administration for misleading us yet you have no explanation for the fact that Saddam hussein has been made a threat of the US for the past 12 years by the media, by Clinton, by Democrats, by Republicans, by the world. All this long before Bush came into office.

So your interpretation is WRONG.

 

[nakedemperor]

Your interpretation is based on the fact that Saddam had no ties with Al queda despite the obvious evidence that i have laid out for you proving otherwise. Your interpretation of "polls" lacks key components such as the fact that many directly after 9/11 thought that it was Saddam Hussein that attacked us due to the 10 previous years under Bill Clinton and the First George Bush where we were led to believe that he was a bigger threat then then in 2003 when we actually attacked him.

You seem to blame the administration for misleading us yet you have no explanation for the fact that Saddam hussein has been made a threat of the US for the past 12 years by the media, by Clinton, by Democrats, by Republicans, by the world. All this long before Bush came into office.

So your interpretation is WRONG.

Your insistance in the fact that Saddam had "ties" to al Qaeda is semantically ambigous relative to the specificity of the language used defining Saddam and al Qaeda heretofor. What do you mean by "ties"? We've already established that we know Baghdad TALKED (you evidence, as well as mine, has proved this much) to al Qaeda a number of years ago, but the critical lack of evidence for collaboration is the crux of my argument.

And after September 11th, do you HONESTLY think that the administration had NOTHING to do with the VASTLY misinformed public? The people, all on their own thought, "We've been attacked by terrorists! It MUST have been Saddam!" Have you any information to back this absurd claim? Please. Give us some credit.

I believe you are probably wrong. But you could be right, I suppose.

 

[insein]

Your insistance in the fact that Saddam had "ties" to al Qaeda is semantically ambigous relative to the specificity of the language used defining Saddam and al Qaeda heretofor. What do you mean by "ties"? We've already established that we know Baghdad TALKED (you evidence, as well as mine, has proved this much) to al Qaeda a number of years ago, but the critical lack of evidence for collaboration is the crux of my argument.

And after September 11th, do you HONESTLY think that the administration had NOTHING to do with the VASTLY misinformed public? The people, all on their own thought, "We've been attacked by terrorists! It MUST have been Saddam!" Have you any information to back this absurd claim? Please. Give us some credit.

I believe you are probably wrong. But you could be right, I suppose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01


Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

So despite Bush insisting at the time that Saddam didnt have a direct connection to 9/11, people still insisted on believing "of their own free will" that Saddam had something to do with it. I don't pretend to know what people think but they obviously thought at the time that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. They obviously were wrong in the direct sense, but why would they have that mistake?

 

[nakedemperor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer



So despite Bush insisting at the time that Saddam didnt have a direct connection to 9/11, people still insisted on believing "of their own free will" that Saddam had something to do with it. I don't pretend to know what people think but they obviously thought at the time that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. They obviously were wrong in the direct sense, but why would they have that mistake?

You reinforce that fact THAT people still thought Saddam was behind 9/11 late in 2003, but you offer NO new evidence for WHY they did. I continue to assert that statements akin to "You cannot distinguish between Saddam and al Qaeda in the war on terror". This type of rhetoric was repeated OVER and OVER. The fact that there were contradictions in the rhetoric of Bush (who, as you stated, did famously say that there was no direct connection) only reinforces the evidence for Bush Administration statements as the key component in the general public's ignorance. For example:

"I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." -Cheney

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," -Bush

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming." -Cheney

Cheney, asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."

But let's look at a more moderate member of the administration and his comments on the subject:

"I have not seen a smoking gun, concrete evidence, of a pre-existing relationship."

Remember, this is a guy who is willing to take responsibility for his mistakes. In an appearance NBC-TV's ''Meet The Press," Powell said that he had relied on faulty intelligence when he told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq had biological weapons labs. ''It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Powell said.

Wow. Deliberately misleading. About WMDs? No way that information and ambigous statements about al Qaeda could have been deliberately misleading too! Say it ain't so, Colin!