And mine was to prove that just because you say two things in one speech doesn't mean they're related. Your argument is this: Bush said the words "Iraq", "al Queda", and "9.11" in such close proximity that people interpret his meaning to be that Iraq helped (or was involved) in 9.11. Yet, as I've pointed out before, Bush has also said the words "Iran", "Syria", "N. Korea", "al Queda", and "9.11" in the same close proximity yet you don't claim that Bush is trying to get everyone to believe that either one of these countries was involved in 9.11.

Regardless, let's assume your argument is correct and Bush et. al. intentionally used "Iraq", "al Queda", and "9.11" in an effort to get people to believe Iraq helped al Queda pull off 9.11. First, I don't see how anyone with half a brain could interpret the quotes you have provided as "Iraq helped al Queda attack us on 9.11". Can you? Is that what you believed Bush was saying, that Iraq was involved?

Second, how can you blame Bush for another's inability to listen to what is being said? Especially when he's repeatedly denied any link between Iraq and 9.11?
I agree to all of this. Doesn't have anything to do with 9.11 though (other than 9.11 was a terrorist act).
Then why don't you believe that Bush was trying to make a link between Iran and 9.11?
Unbelievable. Really, I'm almost speechless. Bush said, and has always maintained, that the Iraq war would take a long time. Now, whenever anything good happens, and he trumpets it, you accuse him of claiming that everything's wine and roses. Unbelievable.
Let me take you through it slow. I said, "Bush never said Iraq was involved with 9.11." Then you said, "You really think it's impossible for Bush's administration to have linked Iraq to 9/11 without saying 'Iraq is linked to 9/11'?" Are you able to differentiate between the two statements? I'm willing to break down the sentences for you if you'd like.
"As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections."
Oh, I see. You want just one thing that points to a tie. Well, unfortunately, that seldom comes along in intelligence. Many different sources need to be collated into a final assessment. Should that be the case, or should only one piece of information be used to make decisions?
"Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq."
Okay, since this is the phrase that everyone wants to misinterpret in the 9.11 report, let's analyze this.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan..."
I interpret this as, "Iraq and al Qaeda continued to make contact after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan". Meaning that Iraq and al Qaeda were in contact before that since the word "also" was used.

"...but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." First, my interpretation above that Iraq and al Queda continued to meet, is given support by the assumption by the committee that these meetings did actually take place. The statement does not equivocate and the prior and following text does not imply that these meetings never took place (in fact, both assume the intelligence is correct). Secondly, it can not be proved that Iraq was involved in any terrorist acts committed by al Queda. Therefore, Iraq was not involved in 9.11.

No where in this statement do I get the impression that Iraq and al Queda would not talk to each other. In fact, I get the opposite impression - they would and have talked to each other. Nor do I get the impression that Iraq and al Queda would never have worked collaboratively. And that is what Bush et. al. have been positing from the start: the danger lies in regimes like Hussein's, with the ability and desire to strike at the US, will employ terrorists to strike at the US. Their position has never been, "Iraq helped al Queda with 9.11 and we must strike at Iraq for this act."
Whatever his intention was, I have an obligation to listen to what is said to me and what I read. Don't you? I interpret this as, "we're learning more about the connections between Iraq and al Queda". How you get "9.11" out of this I will never know.
I have actually changed my opinion of Mr. Clarke since he first hit the national scene. It's interesting that you like to quote primarily from his interview with CBS; the same news organization that has a problem vetting its sources; the same organization that is related to the company that published his book. Nevertheless, let's take some more statements from Mr. Clarke but use a more unbiased source - the 9.11 Report:
"Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi." - p.125

"[Clarke] wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.” Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight." - p.134
"Roger Cressey, Clarke’s deputy, recalls this exchange with the President and Clarke concerning Iraq shortly after 9/11, but did not believe the President’s manner was intimidating." - p.559
It's interesting that you would quote this, since Clarke's position is disproved in the same episode of 60 Minutes. Clarke asserts three times that the memo came back to him saying "Wrong answer... Do it again." Yet, later, Stahl produces the memo and says, "So he's [Stephen Hadley] not denying the President asked for another review, nor is he denying that Clarke wrote a memo stating once again that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. In fact the White House showed us the memo dated September 18th. As Clarke said, it was bounced back. The notation reads, 'Please update and resubmit,' and it was written by Steven Hadley."

Perhaps Mr. Clarke also has trouble reading more into what is not there?
If your interpretation of "imply" is using various words in the same speech or even paragraph then there's nothing I can say. Again, I ask why you don't believe Bush was making a connection between Iran and 9.11?
No one ever said that Iraq was a center of terrorist operations (before the war), nor that it gave "huge" support. Iraq did fund terrorists, did have terrorist training camps, did harbor terrorists and provide asylum, did maintain its ability to produce chemical and biological weapons, and did not like the US. As I've quoted so many times in the past, virtually everyone on the planet considered Iraq a threat before the US said we should do something about it.
According to Iraqi documents uncovered by the Iraq Survey Group (who also found starter colonies of biological weapons), Iraq clearly intented on restarting its weapons programmes after the international heat was off.
Well, unlike Europe, I'm not comfortable waiting until a couple million people die before I think others might find the means to carry out an attack.
No. Do I think it's my responsibility to understand what I read and what I hear? Yes. Is it anyone else's responsibility? I don't see how it can be since no one else can do my thinking for me.
Please. Iraq was mentioned all the time because we wanted them to abide by the UN resolutions, then we were going to attack them, then we attacked them. Iraq has been mentioned so much because we've been dicking around with them for the past 12 years.
Yea, okay.
This is what I don't get about Europe at all. What do you think the inspectors were supposed to do? What do you think their job was?
Great. Then give me a more unbiased report. Give me a report that has spent more time and investigated more sources.
I never said Iraq was the center of terrorist operations. How did I imply that? As for Iraq providing safe harbor for terrorist training camps (which is what I actually wrote), the term "ibid" means "the last quoted reference". In this case, the last quoted reference was http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ey_Findings.pdf . But you won't believe that report becuase it's from the CIA. So, here are some more (which you won't believe because they're not sufficiently critical of the US): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/khodada.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm
Yes. Let me make it clear for you: I believe that any government which has WMD, or the ability to make WMD, and hatred for the US is a threat.
Have you disproved any of my facts? Why do you continue to ignore the facts that are there?

*Edit - Also, I thought my government was spoonfeeding me crap about Iraq being involved in 9.11?
Iraq did, at one point, have WMD. When it no longer had WMD no one knows. Iraq did have connections to al Queda. And no one in the administration ever said Iraq attacked the US or had anything to do with 9.11.
What you fail to understand is that the US did not go after Iraq because of al Queda. I know you would like that to be the case because it would be an easy argument to shoot down. What you have to contend with is that the US went after Iraq because: she had not proved she no longer had WMD, she had ties to terrorism, her leadership despised the US, and she would not respond to diplomatic measures. Given all of this, she was a threat to the world and specifically the US. The US believed her to be a threat, and so did virtually every country in the world.
When has it been acknowledged that Iraq had no ties with al Queda? Are you getting confused again? Are you mixing up "Iraq had no ties with 9.11" and "Iraq had no ties with al Queda"?
Absolutely not. How much more specific can you get than, "there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks"? Do you just pick out certain words that you want or do you read entire articles?
Have you considered that, hmmm, maybe they don't know? Would you rather the leadership say one thing because it will avoid confusion and then come out later and say the opposite when they have more information?

Still, given that you're predisposed to look deeper into someone's words than is justified, I'm absolutely confused how you can't look at this reporter's article and not recognize the misdirection.
Yes?
Oh. So, it would need to be the day of, day before, year before, what? What time frame has to pass before you can say, "Ahhh, those guys aren't tied anymore"?
Well, I don't read it like that. Especially when Cheney specifically states he's not talking about the people who attacked us. It has always been the position of the administration that the ME is a breeding ground for terrorism and we need to fix it. Bush specifically stated that Afghanistan was not the only place and would not be the last.

As I said at the beginning of this whole thing, you claim that the Bush administration has implied a link between Iraq and 9.11. I have proved that the administration has categorically denied such a link. You place more credence in what was not said, I place more credence in what is said. That's your prerogative.

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