Oh please, "the very constant and very consistent denial of this rumour by Bush". Yeah, the Bush administration have done absolutely their best from the beginning to separate the issues of Iraq/Saddam and 9/11. Sure. Do you really belive that Bush and/or anyone in his administration have done nothing to link Iraq/Saddam with 9/11?
If you truly believe they haven't I have underestimated you.

And why is a quote like "Saddam has had long established ties with al-Qaida'' not enough? Is it too subtle for you or the general public? 9/11 > al-Qa´eda > Iraq > Saddam; how much more would you need to make the connection between Iraq/Saddam and 9/11? Besides, I think we all know that people can be manipulated to believe things without someone spelling out the exact words. And just because you understand there may not be a link between Saddam and 9/11 doesn't tell nothing about the common public's capability to separate the issues. There must be some reason the public thinks Saddam is to blame for the 9/11 attack. Maybe they just all happened to decide that Saddam is the main culprit while examining some objective information. Right?

Btw, do you know how many times the words "terrorism"/"global terrorism"/"weapons of mass destruction" etc., "Osama Bin Laden" and "Saddam Hussein"were mentioned during the Republic Convention? One of the three options were not mentioned, can you guess which? You would probably guess that it would be Saddam who, as the Bush administration has (quietly) mentioned a few times, has had no ties to the 9/11 attack. But no, it was not Saddam. I'll give you another guess though.
Here's a pretty funny compilation of the convention that shows the main themes pretty well:
http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov
(Apparently the site has been too popular so the bandwidth is limited at the moment, but perhaps the video can be found elsewhere on the net. I could send it to you, but it's over 13Mb...)

Now here are a few of the (and these are only some of the first few that came up on Google) links you can read and decide for yourself if the Bush administration has perhaps done a little something to establish a link between Iraq/Saddam and 9/11:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm


"We don't know," Cheney said. "We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," Bush said.

------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/


Cheney, however, insisted the case was not closed into whether there was an Iraq connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. "We don't know."

The vice president noted a disputed report about an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence official and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in April 2001. "We've never been able to confirm or to knock it down," Cheney said.

The 9/11 commission, however, said in one of three reports issued this week that "based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Cheney responded that, for his part, the findings remained inconclusive. "It doesn't add anything from my perspective. I mean, I still am a skeptic."

Overall, the vice president defended the administration's view of Iraq's links to al-Qaida, saying the "the evidence is overwhelming" and citing the commission report's evidence of a meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi official in 1994 in Sudan, as well as the presence of terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

He said he disagreed with the commission's conclusion on whether there was a "general relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"I don't know what they know," Cheney said of the commission, adding however that he "probably" knows more about Saddam and al-Qaida than the panel.

But Cheney declined to disagree outright with the report's conclusion that no evidence exists to connect Saddam to Sept. 11 — saying instead that, "I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed. There has been enormous confusion."

“It’s not surprising people make that connection,” Cheney said at one point as polls showed most Americans believed Iraq was involved.

------------------

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH


"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks."

--------------------

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/172321.html


The president's remarks last year were in response to questions about a Cheney appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" three days earlier in which the vice president said "I don't know" when asked whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. However, the Kerry-Edwards campaign argued on Sunday that Cheney suggested such a link as recently as last week.

-------------------

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

-------------------

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now seriously, can anyone say with a straight face that they don't believe Bush and his administration did not try to link 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam together?

__________________

Way too serious for a Friday night!!!

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

I'm happy to be underestimated then. I noticed you haven't put together a quote where Bush claims Iraq helped with 9.11. See, in my world, I take people at what they actually say, not at what I think they say.
Because it's not the same thing. You obviously think it is the same thing so can you explain to me why? And, since it is the same thing in your eyes, Bush would be perfectly justified in attacking Iraq for 9.11.
Certainly, they can. And this seems to be a very touchy issue for you. Were you manipulated? How is that Bush's fault? Because you're gullible and believe that nuance is more important than the definite? Because you prefer the subtle over the overt? You jump to conclusions and that's Bush's fault. Yea, makes perfect sense.
Maybe they're all just stupid? Maybe they all prefer to be led rather than find out for themselves? Maybe they simply don't have time to research issues and prefer instead to use the conclusions that the press has jumped to? Whatever the reason, I don't know how you can blame Bush. Unless, of course, you always believe there must be someone else to blame. It could never be your fault, right?
Why is this important to your argument? Do you know how many times "personal responsibility" was mentioned at the democratic convention. I'll give you a hint, less than 1. What does that mean?
That's hilarious. You actually go through what must have been diligent research, come up with articles in which no quote from Bush or his admin indicates an Iraq/9.11 tie, in fact, many of the articles specifically point out that Bush has made no such claim, then claim that Bush did indeed make such a tie. You can keep bemoaning how you were snookered, but in the end I think you've got to wonder who's responsibility it really is for the conclusions you draw.

How come you're not making the same claim that Syria or Iran were involved in 9.11? Bush has said on countless occasions that both countries have ties to al Queda. What made Iraq so special?

BTW: I have a great bridge I want to sell. High income from the tolls and very busy. Know anyone who would like to buy? I'm selling cheap.

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

How do you know, O omnisentient one? (the words used was "linked with", not "helped with", btw.)

I have a question worthy of your abilities, actually. The meeting between an Iraqi official and one of the hijackers from the 9.11 attacks allegedly happened some time in April 2001 according to Czech intelligence (or in June 2000, according to other Czech intelligence). The Czech expelled the Iraqi diplomat later in April, probably for being a spy, but that the meeting was connected to this is not confirmed by the Czech. Also, the information about the meeting did not reach the US until after the events of 9.11, since the reason why the meeting could be relevant was that the name or the face of one of the hijackers matched(noone has yet made public enough information about the intelligence to clarify this, so this is an assumption from the media). At that time, the US denied that such a meeting could've happened, since Atta had - according to the CIA - never left the US. Since then, some Czech officials have noted that Atta might resemble another connection the Iraqi official often met with, even though the official stance from the Czech is that the meeting did happen. (or was it that the foreign minister claim it did, and the rest claim it didn't? I don't remember). Indifferent of this it seems, many members of the Bush administration(i.e. Wolfowitz, Cheney) claim that "if the meeting happened", then this shows that Iraq had ties to al- Quida at worst, or terrorist activities in general.

The question to you is: why is it important to say this in relation to the rationale for the war? Am I to understand that they are saying that /if/ there /might/ be a connection, then the war was perfectly justified due to the harbouring terrorists clause in the 2002 authorization? Is there another reason or justification? What do you think?

First sensible post of this thread :bow:

__________________

What the hell are you talking about? Why are you making a personal attack? Did I say I know everything? And, what do you mean by "the words used was [sic] "linked with", not "helped with"? Have you found a quote from the Bush admin that says, "Iraq was 'linked with' 9.11"?
Maybe this will be worthy of your cognitive abilities: Bush never said that Iraq was linked with, had helped with, had conspired with, had done anything in relation to 9.11.

Bush, his administration, the 9.11 Commission, and several intelligence services around the world have always contended that Iraq had ties to terrorism and specifically al Queda. Does that mean that Iraq bombed the USS Cole? No. Does that mean that Iraq helped bomb embassies in Africa? No. Does that mean Iraq funded Fariq Aidid in Somalia? No. Does that mean that Iraq is responsible for any terror attack on the US or her interests? No.

Are you pissed at Bush because you also believed in Santa Claus for the first ten years of your life?
When did I say that? The only reference I made to the war was when I commented that if you believe that "links to terrorism" is the same as "helped attack the US on 9.11" then you must also agree with the US taking action against Iraq. See, I don't believe they're the same thing. So I don't believe attacking Iraq because she helped attack the US on 9.11 is a valid reason - Iraq did not help attack the US on 9.11.
There were many reasons:
1) Iraq had not complied with the cease fire of 1991.
2) Iraq was believed to have chemical and biological weapons.
3) Iraq supported terrorism and the possibility that she would give or sell her chemical and biological weapons to terrorists was great.
4) Iraq was a threat to the US.

Gee, I hope I've enlightened you. :rolleyes:

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

i believe a strong factor was the economy. when bushs turn begann, there was a lot of trouble brewing, namely the dotcom bubble bursting and a cyclical downturn and the negative elliot wave theory outlook for the stock market and then happened 9/11 but with a tax cut and deficit spending bush managed to stimulate the economy enough to make this recession the shortest in history on the other hand you have kerry, who ran on the promise to raise taxes/repeal the tax cut. i would not vote for someone, who says he will increase taxes.
the fact that about the whole world had voiced its support for kerry probably did not do much net. as many as were wooed for kerry by that were brought to cast their ballot for bush just out of spite.
i think there is only a small number of voters, who base their vote exclusively on the abortion issue, but among them the pro-lifers are the majority. however, bush only wants to do something against partial birth abortion, which does not satisfy these voters, so they probably voted for peroutka. and didnt kerry say, he believes life beginns at conception?i never saw the run-up as close. when i checked the odds with my bookmaker, bush was allways the big favourite.i dont think that were lies, do you have any proof? there were lies about bushs time at the TANG, namely fake memos. then again, something that happened over 30a ago has little influence.either it is too modern with voting computers or it is third world style, what is it? i would think those "non-US observers" would reassure voters - especially voters, who cast a ballot against bush.the method in your country would actually worry me, as there is no paper trail, there can be no recount. we have 90million people in my country it works really easy, you show you passport at your precinct, they give you a paper ballot and you make an X in the box next to your candidates name and throw the thing into a box. so simple, no computer or scanner or lever or anything involved, but works like a charm.you think he made this up? one month before hundreds of people in madrid were killed by muslim terrorists kerry said the threat of terrorism was exagerated. it is not made up and it is not exaggerated.that is stupid, you just have to open more polling stations.that is right, bush or anyone in his government never said saddam had helped in 9/11.

however saddam is believed to have helped in the first attempt to destroy the WTC and kill everyone in it in the 90s. it was just not taken serious enough back then, because not enough people died.once again: the justification for the war was the invasion of kuwait.

Well, you have to remember a couple things:
1) This is the highest turnout we've had in over 30 years, and will probably be the highest for the next 30 years. Typical elections don't have near the wait.
2) Opening more polling places means buying more voting booths, paying more staff, rent, etc.
3) If it continues like this, people will realize that they can vote with absentee ballots in the comfort of their own homes.
4) So people have to wait. Big whoop. I'd say we have it pretty good when we only have to wait an hour or two to pick our leaders. It's a lot better than dying for it.

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

1) that was to be anticipated, still 60% is not that much.
2) if you do it the way i described there is little cost: paper ballots, pens and cardboard boxes. also you can hold it in places, where you pay no rent as they are owned by the public like police stations or public schools and use volunteers. if 100million people stand in line for an hour, that is one hour they cannot work, so it might cost the country less to pay for a few more polling stations than to have all these people not working for an hour :-)

And the next day, the black man promoted by democracy sallied out to declare that was not al qaeda but eta.
No surprise if he is leaving the government, he is useless by now. With that little credit left to cover manipulation, he has no longer a position in the government.

1)Cease fire signed to the democratic un. The democratic us like any other member have no legitimacy to deal a non respect of that issue without a mandate from the un.
2)In democracy, without firm evidences, no one is guilty and sentenced. Convictions, inferements,suppositions are not enough.
3)Probably a reference to the aid to palestinian families who had a member who died during a terrorist action.
4) Any human being is a threat in democracy. Any country is also a threat. Iraq was just another threat among many others. Probably not the more pressing.