These are not even remotely similar to what we're talking about. If I say, "Iraq is developing WMD. al Queda has made contact with Iraq over the years. There is a danger that Iraq will give, or sell, WMD to al Queda." How do you get, "Iraq was involved in 9.11"? I didn't even mention 9.11.

Would it make a difference if I said, "Iraq is developing WMD. al Queda, the group that attacked us on 9.11, has made contact with Iraq over the years. There is a danger that Iraq will give, or sell, WMD to al Queda - the group that attacked us on 9.11"? Does that make a difference in the information I provided? It shouldn't.
Did I say that?! Good fucking God! I need to not only say what I want to say but I also have to clarify everything that I didn't say.

1) The Bush administration never said that Iraq was involved in 9.11. In fact, the Bush administration has clearly stated that there is no evidence to support an Iraq/9.11 connection.
2) The Bush administration never propagated the theory that Iraq was linked to 9.11, other than to say that al Queda had ties to Iraq. So, there are three degrees of separation there: 9.11 - al Queda - Iraq. Doesn't mean 9.11 - Iraq just as I don't know Kevin Bacon.
Yea, they even went so far as to fool the 9.11 Commission:

"To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy." - p.61

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections." - p.61

"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December." - p.66

"The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led [Richard] Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998." - p.128

There are many more references if you would like them. Including much of Richard Clarke's testimony (which you like to quote) that specifically undermines his own criticisms of Bush. There are also references to how Bush first investigated the possibility that Iraq was involved but dismissed that possibility when no evidence could be found.

The really interesting part is how many "news" organizations use this very same document to claim that Iraq and al Queda had no ties. They are part of perpetrating this rumour that Iraq had ties to 9.11. In one breath they say, "The 9.11 Report says there were no operational ties between Iraq and al Queda. See? The President lied when he said that Iraq had ties to al Queda." The first statement is true, the second is false based on a false premise. Had Bush said that Iraq was involved with 9.11 then the second statement would be true. But that's not what he said. A conclusion is drawn for the reader that has no basis in the premise and the rumour that Bush advanced this theory of an Iraqi/9.11 link lives on.
The government never told anyone that Iraq was involved in 9.11. No matter how many times you say it, until you find proof that it did, I'm not going to believe it. Others will, but that will be their problem.
Iraq was a threat to the US and we did have evidence. Iraq supported terrorism, had the ability and desire to produce WMD, did not prove she no longer had these weapons, and posed a risk that she would give or sell these weapons to terrorists.
No, I know where they got it. They heard terrorism, axis of evil, al Queda, and 9.11 all mentioned in the same 2 hour speech. They read the biased news reports that blur what was actually said and either accept the conclusions drawn for them by the reporter(s) or tenaciously hang onto their devotion to the President. Either way, they're both wrong because they're arguing a point that was never made.
It is if you want to pin the blame on Bush. Mentioning these things in the same speech is not drawing a link between them. As I said, he also mentioned Iran and N. Korea in the same speech but I don't hear anyone claiming that Bush convinced them Iran and N. Korea were responsible for 9.11.
That's funny. You want proof and I'm expected to give it. I want proof and you say it's not necessary to prove your point.
Yes, I do. Here's your proof:
2) Nearly every intelligence service in the world, including UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, believed that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

Now, in hindsight, we find that Iraq was just waiting to reconstitute its chemical and biological weapons programmes. Meaning that even if she didn't have them, she was going to produce them no matter what the UN said. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

3) Iraq had extensive ties to terrorism, including providing safe harbor for terrorist training camps. (ibid)

4) Given the veracity of all of the above, and the fact that Iraq, by her own admission, was an enemy of the US, it would be nearly criminal neglect for any leader to propose that Iraq was not a threat.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

I'll let you figure out who made these quotes.
No, they don't. But here you've once again said that the administration lied when it has not.
Only if you're not listening. Or if you're prepared to let others do your thinking for you.
Yes. It's how conspiracy theory gets its start. Somebody makes a claim, another makes a tenuous connection between that claim and something closely related, then someone else builds on that relationship, and another, and another, until the result is so far away from the original claim that the original claim is forgotten. Everyone spends their time arguing the false claim and the seemingly logical conclusions it leads to. What a collosal waste of time.
You give me no choice, Phunkie. You repeatedly put words in my mouth when it's in blue and white that that's not what I wrote. In context of the discussion we're having it's particularly frustrating. If you wish to assert that the important thing is not what people say but what we believe they say then there's nothing I can do. Rather than defend my point, I'm forced to correct your misinterpretations. That certainly does nothing to advance our discussion.
And there you go again. I'm the one being objective by actually evaluating what was said and not bringing my own personal views into the equation. You're being subjective by first filtering what was actually said through your own hatred for Bush. I can be critical of my government, and have been, when it warrants it. But I'm not going to criticize it for something it never did.
Why would the administration not look for links? Iraq was the only place where the US was involved in military operations and was a recognized sponsor of terrorism. Had Bush not looked for links we would be hearing cries of why Bush didn't explore every avenue. In fact, we've heard many argue that the US jumped too quickly to accuse al Queda. As the 9.11 Commission found, Iraq was off the table by 9.15 because no link could be found.
Can't you see what's going on here? Look at the title of that report, "Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged". Yet nowhere in that article is Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9.11. He doesn't deny that it was possible, but that's not a confirmation that Iraq was involved in the attack.

Read through the article and notice how seemlessly the reporter moves from talking about Iraq/al Queda and Iraq/9.11. The reporter gives all this information about discredited ties between Iraq and al Queda and then talks about Iraq/9.11. The reporter is making the connection. The administration is either denying it ("But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said."), or saying it doesn't know whether Atta met with Iraqi intelligence ("We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.") And even that has nothing to do with 9.11.
And this is borne out by the 9.11 Commission Report and the Iraqi Survey Group Report.
And here's the actual quote in context:
CHENEY: "...If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that."

When taken in context, it's clear that Cheney is saying the MidEast is a base for terrorism, not Iraq as the CNN reporter would like you to believe.

Now, who's responsible for the misconception (if there is one)? Cheney, for answering the question as he did? Or, the CNN reporter for taking the quote out of context? And yes, this is a good way to confuse the public.
Yes. There are links between Iraq and al Queda. What does this have to do with 9.11?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup