Powell: No connection between Iraq and 9/11

[rtwngAvngr]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Now, you could respond, "There's no EVIDENCE, but he definitely did!!"

Where are your liberal protestors? Your logic is extraordinarily convoluted, but none of your fellow conservatives will dare touch you because you are one of them. I, on the other hand, am daily subjected to misinterpretations and words being put into my mouth.

Ok, so the people who have the absolute, positive MOST to gain from a connection between Iraq and 9/11 say there's no evidence to support Baghdad's involvement in the attacks. I believe the president's assertion, and as much as he (and you) would like/benefit from a connection, THERE JUST ISN'T ONE.

They admit for those attacks there was no connection. We admit it. But there are connections in general between saddam and alquaeda verifiable through other means. This report did not address non 9/11 connections! How thick are you exactly?

 

[UsaPride]

I believe the president's assertion, and as much as he (and you) would like/benefit from a connection, THERE JUST ISN'T ONE.

How would I benefit from a connection? I believe there was. I don't speak for anybody else, only myself. I BELIEVE THERE WAS!! Not you, Bush, any conservative or sure as hell any liberal, will convince me otherwise! That's it!

 

[nakedemperor]

They admit for those attacks there was no connection. We admit it. But there are connections in general between saddam and alquaeda verifiable through other means. This report did not address non 9/11 connections! How thick are you exactly?

Wasn't talking about "connections" outside of 9/11, was addressing USAPRIDE's assertion that Saddam was behind 9/11 specifically. Insane, yet only I am calling her out on it.

And your "connections" were defined by the 9/11 report as "contacts" and not "collaborations". Please respond specifically to any of the extensive posts I've made previously if you want to contest my assertions, I really really don't want to have to make them all again =P

 

[Annie]

Wasn't talking about "connections" outside of 9/11, was addressing USAPRIDE's assertion that Saddam was behind 9/11 specifically. Insane, yet only I am calling her out on it.

And your "connections" were defined by the 9/11 report as "contacts" and not "collaborations". Please respond specifically to any of the extensive posts I've made previously if you want to contest my assertions, I really really don't want to have to make them all again =P

Excuse me, he can go back and look or not. Not your job to 'tell him what to do.' Don't like his comments, ignore button for him. I think he'll live.

 

[UsaPride]

Wasn't talking about "connections" outside of 9/11, was addressing USAPRIDE's assertion that Saddam was behind 9/11 specifically. Insane, yet only I am calling her out on it.

I never said Saddam was behind 9/11. I said I think he had something to do with it, helping out some way. Be it money, training camps, whatever, something! Call me out on what? You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove me right. I just have to stick with what I believe until I find out something that makes me think otherwise, you just stick to your, hell, whatever you're bitching about.

 

[wade]

Excuse me?

It is clear you really don't care if they were involved or not. Kill um anyway!

Wade.

 

[wade]

They admit for those attacks there was no connection. We admit it. But there are connections in general between saddam and alquaeda verifiable through other means. This report did not address non 9/11 connections! How thick are you exactly?

Well, by that logic we can show a connection between Al-Queda and the USA, since the USA supported the same people who formed Al-Queda in their war against the Soviets in Afganistan.

So I guess we should invade ourselves? :teeth:

Wade.

 

[wade]

Wasn't talking about "connections" outside of 9/11, was addressing USAPRIDE's assertion that Saddam was behind 9/11 specifically. Insane, yet only I am calling her out on it.

And your "connections" were defined by the 9/11 report as "contacts" and not "collaborations". Please respond specifically to any of the extensive posts I've made previously if you want to contest my assertions, I really really don't want to have to make them all again =P

Your wasting yoru breath NE. Pride hated Saddam and really doesn't care if there was a connection or not. The presumption there was is enough for her, don't confuse things with little old facts.

Wade.

 

[nakedemperor]

Excuse me, he can go back and look or not. Not your job to 'tell him what to do.' Don't like his comments, ignore button for him. I think he'll live.

I know he can go back and look or not. I didn't 'tell him what to do'. I asked politely if he wanted to refute previously made points to do so specifically so I can address them.

Excuse yourself. He contradicted previously made assertions without explaining how or why previously given information was false/questionable, etc. Instead of point, counterpoint, its essentially point, "no!". You don't have to be avenger's mommy. Even if it was instinctual.

And I even said please.

 

[nakedemperor]

I never said Saddam was behind 9/11. I said I think he had something to do with it, helping out some way. Be it money, training camps, whatever, something! Call me out on what? You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove me right. I just have to stick with what I believe until I find out something that makes me think otherwise, you just stick to your, hell, whatever you're bitching about.

The critical lack of evidence remains for Saddam "masterminding" 9/11 as for him "helping" to execute 9/11 attacks. Your evidence is based on "beliefs", and one doesn't start war because of ideologies. Well, maybe ONE guy does.

Does anyone else here think having a gut feeling about Saddam having "helped" in 9/11 is kind of absurd?

 

[nbdysfu]

Does anyone else here think having a gut feeling about Saddam having "helped" in 9/11 is kind of absurd?

Of course. I know in my heart Saddam was a good guy, who simply had an abusive childhood, so none of those other times where he was lying really meant anything.

 

[NightTrain]

"I don't believe that the end (Saddam out of power) justifies the means (misleading 270 million people to get behind it). However, I think the end (Saddam out of power) under straightforward means (as easy as 'we need to remove a ruthless dictator') would have been perfectly legitimate.

The count is closer to 300 million. And who misled the public? Do you really think that the liberation was based on WMDs? Do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Don't make me trot out statements citing humanitarian reasons prior to the liberation of Iraq. Your pals at MoveOn will GNASH their teeth, but the invasion wasn't based solely on WMDs. WMDs were only part of it.

You can argue with me that we were misled, but someone, anyone, please actually see my argument for what it is. Please stop reducing my arguments to "he OBVIOUSLY hates Bush" and "whining". I disagree with many of yours (arguments) but it seems arrogant and shortsighted to consistantly poo-poo someone's posts in this manner.

What we poo-poo are misled people such as yourself that come to us spouting the same old tired bullshit that we have already demonstrated countless times as false. Prior to your arrival, hundreds of uneducated liberals have rolled through here, guns blazing, claiming the same bullshit that you have. I'm starting to believe that there's a hotlink on MoveOn's webpage, because you all come here without any factual knowledge of historical facts and espouse the same beliefs.

And you all are defeated with facts and common sense, every time.

 

[UsaPride]

It is clear you really don't care if they were involved or not. Kill um anyway!

Wade.

What the hell are you talking about? Kill who? I never said to kill anyone! Who is "they"?

Your wasting yoru breath NE. Pride hated Saddam and really doesn't care if there was a connection or not. The presumption there was is enough for her, don't confuse things with little old facts.

Wade.

Where the hell have I said I "hated" Saddam? You have a problem with putting words into peoples mouths! And what does a connection have to do with anything? There was enough to take Saddam out before 9/11.
What is your problem?

 

[UsaPride]

The critical lack of evidence remains for Saddam "masterminding" 9/11 as for him "helping" to execute 9/11 attacks. Your evidence is based on "beliefs", and one doesn't start war because of ideologies. Well, maybe ONE guy does.

Does anyone else here think having a gut feeling about Saddam having "helped" in 9/11 is kind of absurd?

Let me tell you something, I didn't start this war! I can have my "beliefs", I can have my opinions, and I could give 2 shits if you, or anyone else, thinks it's absurd.
Do you think I feel the only reason Saddam should have been taking out was because my feelings about 9/11? If so, you're wrong! That's just what we were talking about. There were many reasons he needed to go and it didn't just start with 9/11. I was responding about my gut feeling to the post about the White House "misleading" us and I said that I felt he was involved BEFORE anyone said anything. You and Wade are taking this way to far!!

 

[UsaPride]

How do you know that it's hate that leads her to this belief? Truthfully speaking it really doesn't matter if the was any connection at all, there was plenty other facts to oust this dictator and the case for war more than legitimate! You all think it was strictly based on WMD's and it's not, so get you "little old fact's" in order before you go putting words in someone mouth!

Thanks Evil. Guess I should have finished reading the thread before responding, LOL!

 

[Avatar4321]

Let me tell you something, I didn't start this war! I can have my "beliefs", I can have my opinions, and I could give 2 shits if you, or anyone else, thinks it's absurd.
Do you think I feel the only reason Saddam should have been taking out was because my feelings about 9/11? If so, you're wrong! That's just what we were talking about. There were many reasons he needed to go and it didn't just start with 9/11. I was responding about my gut feeling to the post about the White House "misleading" us and I said that I felt he was involved BEFORE anyone said anything. You and Wade are taking this way to far!!

Bravo. Couldnt agree more. Saddam should have been taken out in 92. Thought so then, thought he should have atleast been taken out in 98. but he is finally taken out.

 

[nakedemperor]

The count is closer to 300 million. And who misled the public? Do you really think that the liberation was based on WMDs? Do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Don't make me trot out statements citing humanitarian reasons prior to the liberation of Iraq. Your pals at MoveOn will GNASH their teeth, but the invasion wasn't based solely on WMDs. WMDs were only part of it.



What we poo-poo are misled people such as yourself that come to us spouting the same old tired bullshit that we have already demonstrated countless times as false. Prior to your arrival, hundreds of uneducated liberals have rolled through here, guns blazing, claiming the same bullshit that you have. I'm starting to believe that there's a hotlink on MoveOn's webpage, because you all come here without any factual knowledge of historical facts and espouse the same beliefs.

And you all are defeated with facts and common sense, every time.

Do I really think that liberation was based on WMDs? Well, let me throw it to you this way: do you really think that the war initiative stood any chance in hell of being passed had it SOLELY been based on liberation? No, it really wouldn't have, and anyone with "common sense" and "factual knowledge of historical facts" (as reduntant and "uneducated" as that syntax sounds) would agree.

But would the war initiative have passed SOLELY passed on purported WMDs and terrorist connections? It most certainly would have. A country still realing from 9/11 and terrified of the oft-repeated and insanely irresponsible "let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over Los Angeles" (scare tactics MUCH?) was ready to jump on this bandwagon from the get-go.

So, common sense boy, the REASON for going to war was to prevent terrorists with no connection to Saddam from recieving WMD that didn't exist-- liberation of the Iraqis was not part of the justification but an excellent rhetorical device the administration could use as the Christian soldiers went marching off to war.

I am well-educated and have never, ever been to MoveOn.org. How many have you curious cats can say THAT? MoveOn and Michael Moore are these far-left institutions that conservatives are weirdly obsessed with...they're both bullshit, so JUST LET IT GO. If you ignore it, you'll not be fanning the flames. And if I tried to educate myself anymore my already astronomical school bills would cost more than the war in Iraq, so back it up, Maverick.

Now...let's not get TOO off-topic.. I want avenger to come back and play, but his post-and-run tactics leave me with little room to rebut.

 

[wade]

How do you know that it's hate that leads her to this belief? Truthfully speaking it really doesn't matter if the was any connection at all, there was plenty other facts to oust this dictator and the case for war more than legitimate! You all think it was strictly based on WMD's and it's not, so get you "little old fact's" in order before you go putting words in someone mouth!

That is bull shit. The case for war was founded on WMD's. Now that none have been found, Bush and his supporters are trying to revise history and say otherwise. I cannot believe you would even seriously deny that WMD's were the primary, in fact nearly the only, justification for this war.

Wade.

 

[jimnyc]

That is bull shit. The case for war was founded on WMD's. Now that none have been found, Bush and his supporters are trying to revise history and say otherwise. I cannot believe you would even seriously deny that WMD's were the primary, in fact nearly the only, justification for this war.

Wade.

No, what YOU just wrote was bullshit. There was ALWAYS a myriad of reasons for invading Iraq. From failed resolutions (which included an abundance of humanitarian aspects) to the games they played with weapons inspectors. Just about every speech I have ever heard (both Clinton and Bush administrations) always discussed WMD and humanitarian efforts alike. Have you ever read the resolutions that were in place since 1991? Are you aware of just how much is in there non-WMD related? If you have read these resolutions, and you still claim WMD were the primary and only reason for invasion, I politely suggest yuo enroll in some reading comprehension courses.

 

[nakedemperor]

No, what YOU just wrote was bullshit. There was ALWAYS a myriad of reasons for invading Iraq. From failed resolutions (which included an abundance of humanitarian aspects) to the games they played with weapons inspectors. Just about every speech I have ever heard (both Clinton and Bush administrations) always discussed WMD and humanitarian efforts alike. Have you ever read the resolutions that were in place since 1991? Are you aware of just how much is in there non-WMD related? If you have read these resolutions, and you still claim WMD were the primary and only reason for invasion, I politely suggest yuo enroll in some reading comprehension courses.

Wade, he's right, WMD weren't the ONLY reason, but like I said, it was 99.9% of why we went. Sure, humanitarian efforts are all well and good, but that's NOT why we're in Iraq right now. Like Jim said, there were myriad reasons (no preposition with myriad, by the bye) for going to war, but the driving force was far and away WMD and terrorism.

Of course rhetoric is going to include humanitarian references, but again, we didn't go to Iraq to free people, we didn't go to Afghanistan to free people, we went there to make the people of the U.S. safer, and IN DOING SO, peoples were liberated, but we didn't go there explicitly to free them.