At the time we invaded Iraq, did you believe Hussein was behind 9/11?

[kaz]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

 

[Seawytch]

Memory getting shaky?

12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq

Two sections from Rumsfeld's notes, dictated to Stephen Cambone. [Source: Defense Department]Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.”

9/11 Timeline

Bush Defends Assertions
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

 

[NYcarbineer]

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

 

[kaz]

Memory getting shaky?

12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq

Two sections from Rumsfeld's notes, dictated to Stephen Cambone. [Source: Defense Department]Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.”

9/11 Timeline

Bush Defends Assertions
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

None of that says Hussein was behind 9/11. The question is, how do you remember it? So if you believed when we invaded that Hussein was behind 9/11, go ahead and vote that

 

[kaz]

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

I realize you're a collectivist, but the thread is about what you thought when we invaded. Do you ever think thoughts yourself or do you just think thoughts that others tell you?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

 

[Roadrunner]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

Saddam backed terror with money, and, in the old Muslim tradition of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Saddam did not directly participate in 9/11; he facilitated the conditions in which such crap occurs.

We should have taken him out with a drone, not a massive invasion, but nobody asked me.

 

[kaz]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

If you mean connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda, I agree. I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11. And it was obvious they had no direct connection to 9/11.

For me, it was the difference between supporting attacking Iraq and not supporting attacking Iraq. I would have supported toppling Hussein if I believe he was actually behind 9/11. But there was no serious case for that. I'd have opposed nation building, but I'd have supported toppling him. Just like in Afghanistan where the Taliban was directly behind the attack enabling Al Qaeda. I was for attacking them, but not nation building.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

If you mean connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda, I agree. I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11. And it was obvious they had no direct connection to 9/11.

At that point a connection to Al Qaeda was a connection to 911. And the insinuations weren't accidental. They were systematic. But when you followed up on their insinuations, it was consistently weak tea.

 

[Skylar]

"The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out"

Dick Cheney
December 9th, 2001

And trying to directly tie Saddam to attacks on the WTC:

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

Dick Cheney
December 9th, 2001

Which even Cheney eventually admitted was a heaping load of horseshit. And the Presidents PDB had already shredded weeks earlier.

 

[Muhammed]

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

Before you bother to point it out, yes this poll was taken after the war had commenced.

The war commenced a decade before GWB was the president.

 

[Muhammed]

"The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out"

Dick Cheney
December 9th, 2001

And trying to directly tie Saddam to attacks on the WTC:

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

Dick Cheney
December 9th, 2001

Which even Cheney eventually admitted was a heaping load of horseshit. And the Presidents PDB had already shredded weeks earlier.

You're simply lying.

 

[kaz]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

If you mean connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda, I agree. I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11. And it was obvious they had no direct connection to 9/11.

At that point a connection to Al Qaeda was a connection to 911. And the insinuations weren't accidental. They were systematic. But when you followed up on their insinuations, it was consistently weak tea.

That's ridiculous. So anyone who had any connection to the Japanese before December 7, 1941 was behind Pearl Harbor?

 

[Wyatt earp]

W laid out a broad case for the invasion, Democrats boiled it down to "stockpiles" in history. But I don't remember W or his homeys claiming Iraq was behind 9/11 and I clearly remember the attack and aftermath. What about you?

This thread is not about whether you supported the war, it's about W's justification for doing it and the ensuing national discussion about why we were doing it.

Also, this thread is not about whether you believe the case made was sincere or if there were ulterior motives. It's about the case that was made, period

No we all know Iraq was not behind 9/11/2001 we attacked Afghanistan quick, the Iraq war started in 2003 after approval from congress and the UN.

 

[kaz]

"The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out"

Dick Cheney
December 9th, 2001

And trying to directly tie Saddam to attacks on the WTC:

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

Dick Cheney
December 9th, 2001

Which even Cheney eventually admitted was a heaping load of horseshit. And the Presidents PDB had already shredded weeks earlier.

He clearly was establishing a threat, but "met with" isn't even a claim that Hussein participated in the attack. How does that even make sense with what happened? What help could Iraq have even provided in terms of the people who carried out the attack and how they did it?

Also, I thought stockpiles was THE reason for the attack, now suddenly it's one of the reasons? LOL, can't even keep your lies straight. No one at the time who paid attention thought Hussein was involved in 9/11

 

[Muhammed]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

Bullshit. The Democratic party simply lied by creating that ridiculous strawman to beat down in order to convince useful idiots like you to vote for them.

That's the reality of the matter.

 

[deltex1]

Saddam was a pain in our ass. We were in a state of war with Iraq and we needed to finish what we started. We are trying to remove Assad. We helped remove Libya's leader...Egypt 's leader...why all the whining about Saddam?

 

[kaz]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

If you mean connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda, I agree. I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11. And it was obvious they had no direct connection to 9/11.

At that point a connection to Al Qaeda was a connection to 911. And the insinuations weren't accidental. They were systematic. But when you followed up on their insinuations, it was consistently weak tea.

So here's another contradiction in your lies. Connecting Hussein to 9/11 by making it up would have been 100 times easier than convincing the Democrats who where on the Senate Intelligence committee, UN, Russians, French and Germans who all had better Iraq intelligence than us that Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs. All you gotta do with Hussein is fabricate a meeting between a few people who said Hussein provided logistical support.

Yet ... according to you ... W wasn't willing to fabricate a guppy, he decided to fabricate a whale? That's the problem when you lie like you do, you endlessly get your feet tripped up in them

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't remember ever thinking Saddam was behind 9/11. As I remember, the connection to bin Laden was publicized very early.

The Bush fortune came from oil.

W invaded Iraq to prove to his daddy that he is the man daddy knows he's not. He decimated the country, murdered and maimed millions, ran the US into the poor house, left an enormous mess that caused a redoubling of terrorists al Qaeda, ISIL, and never even bothered to pretend he was going after long-time-family-friend Osama bin Laden.

 

[bodecea]

Oh, **** no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

Bullshit. The Democratic party simply lied by creating that ridiculous strawman to beat down in order to convince useful idiots like you to vote for them.

That's the reality of the matter.

Now that's some serious irony there....talk about a GOP useful idiot.