Cheney: No Iraq Ties to 9/11

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.

42

Resolution 1441:

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism

I’ve obliged to post the relevant section referred to in Resolution 687:

Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism

Whether or not we should have gone to war over this and other grievances is a separate question. But enough with the preposterous revisionism.

43

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.[/quote]

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

44

[quote]valiance. wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm[/quote]

Disagree with most of your post.

It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.

Oh, al zarqawi.

JeffR

45

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
valiance. wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

Disagree with most of your post.

It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.

Oh, al zarqawi.

JeffR
[/quote]

What part exactly do you disagree with? You think the polling data from those years is off so I’m underestimating the number of Americans who would have supported the war? Or do you think Americans would have supported the war even had they known Saddam was not behind 9/11?

Hey I’d agree that “It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.” but you’ll have to elaborate on your point if you want to have a discussion. Similarly just dropping al zarqawi’s name will not be enough to convince or enlighten anyone. Isn’t it possible we know the same facts you do and have come to a different conclusion?

46

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

borrek,

I have a feeling you aren’t interested in an actual dialogue. What I can’t understand is why people on the left have so much faith in the main stream media.
[/quote]

You’re wrong about me not being interested in a dialogue. If I wanted to have a one way conversation, I’d go write on a bathroom wall or something. I was being genuine in stating that I had done my research, and not just from MSM sources. The thing is, I was not about to write an exposition on what I found and the conclusions I drew simply to have it met with the sound of crickets. I’ve been down that road on other threads and it was a waste of time because people were more interested in bickering.

You’re the one who has made the assumptions on my sources. I believe you’re the one with a misplaced faith.

[quote]
On the contrary…

If you are interested in an actual dialogue, you will re-read what I posted and answer each of those questions I posed.

Use your own sources. The problem with me doing your research, is that you will attack the sources. I want you to use your own sources.

If you take the time, I believe you will be surprised.

JeffR[/quote]

I didn’t ask you to do my research for me. As I explicitly stated, I did my own research. The implication you missed is that even after reading much more in depth about the topic, I still disagreed with you. Otherwise I would have said “I did my research, and you’re right”

Don’t patronize me. You don’t need to hold my hand, or lead me to your “truth holyland” where my liberal eyes will be opened. I have my own sources, I’m interested in seeing what yours are.

47

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.
[/quote]

Here is a question for you: If there was never any intention to draw a link from Iraq to 9/11, then why was there ever any mention of September 11, 2001 in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

One specific part stands out:
[Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue
to take all appropriate 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, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

This is more than an implied link.

[quote]
I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.[/quote]

Don’t be a dick all your life, it’ll get you nowhere.

48

[quote]borrek wrote:
Jeff R wrote:

borrek,

I have a feeling you aren’t interested in an actual dialogue. What I can’t understand is why people on the left have so much faith in the main stream media.

You’re wrong about me not being interested in a dialogue. If I wanted to have a one way conversation, I’d go write on a bathroom wall or something. I was being genuine in stating that I had done my research, and not just from MSM sources. The thing is, I was not about to write an exposition on what I found and the conclusions I drew simply to have it met with the sound of crickets. I’ve been down that road on other threads and it was a waste of time because people were more interested in bickering.

It really does make me shake my head that you and yours have so much faith in that flawed system.

Look at some of the posts on this thread. You and others of your ilk are making definitive statements based on the conclusions drawn by the MSM. You are acting as though those conclusions are facts.

You’re the one who has made the assumptions on my sources. I believe you’re the one with a misplaced faith.

On the contrary…

If you are interested in an actual dialogue, you will re-read what I posted and answer each of those questions I posed.

Use your own sources. The problem with me doing your research, is that you will attack the sources. I want you to use your own sources.

If you take the time, I believe you will be surprised.

JeffR

I didn’t ask you to do my research for me. As I explicitly stated, I did my own research. The implication you missed is that even after reading much more in depth about the topic, I still disagreed with you. Otherwise I would have said “I did my research, and you’re right”

Don’t patronize me. You don’t need to hold my hand, or lead me to your “truth holyland” where my liberal eyes will be opened. I have my own sources, I’m interested in seeing what yours are.[/quote]

Ok, borrek.

I’ll give you a chance.

Now, I have serious doubts you’ve ever heard the al zarqawi story in it’s entirety.

However, I’d love to be proven wrong.

From your sources, I’d like to hear what you know about him.

Then I’d like you to see if you can weave that knowledge into my original questions on this thread.

You and I are alike in one thing: we both don’t want to waste time. Both of us are leery of repeating the same old thing only to have someone throw up their hands and quit.

If you take the time to tell me what you know about al zarqawi, I’d be happy to flush out some parts I don’t think you’ve been exposed to.

If nothing else, I’ll bet you will be surprised at what isn’t being reported.

JeffR

P.S. What usually happens is that liberals won’t take the logical step in their mind: saddam was cuddling up to nasties including al qaeda, and was a threat.

P.P.S. I hope you are able to make that leap.

49

[quote]valiance. wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
valiance. wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

Disagree with most of your post.

It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.

Oh, al zarqawi.

JeffR

What part exactly do you disagree with? You think the polling data from those years is off so I’m underestimating the number of Americans who would have supported the war? Or do you think Americans would have supported the war even had they known Saddam was not behind 9/11?

Hey I’d agree that “It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.” but you’ll have to elaborate on your point if you want to have a discussion. Similarly just dropping al zarqawi’s name will not be enough to convince or enlighten anyone. Isn’t it possible we know the same facts you do and have come to a different conclusion?[/quote]

Hey, valiance. I appreciate your response. I’m going to be able to expand upon al zarqawi quite a bit in my discussion with borrek.

Oh, as an aside, I never thought saddam was behind 9/11. However, I believed that he was in league with our enemies including al qaeda.
I never doubted for a moment that saddam was happy about 9/11 nor that he was looking for a way to hurt the U.S. after his humiliation in 1991.

JeffR

50

valiance,

I do believe more Americans would have supported the Iraq War had they been fully informed. I blame the usual liberal suspects, but, I also blame W. for doing a poor job fighting the P.R. War.

JeffR

51

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Look I agree the guy is an evil scumbag, but I don’t ever remember being sold on Iraq war because they helped plan 9-11. Why is this even newsworthy?

V

The connection to 9-11 was a major talking point in the leadup to the war. Evidently you have a short memory.

False.

Good to see you haven’t changed.

Find me a single quote of George Bush saying that saddam was in on 9/11.

Oh, good luck.

You again? Really?

How’s your “powerlifting” going you slackjawed faggot?

Now, now, lil’ irish. I don’t think this is the place to project your fantasies.

Oh, one quote from W. would be enough.

Thanks.

Oh, the powerlifting is going well. P.R’s all over.

[/quote]

You’re right, Bush never said it verbatim. But Cheney and co., the media, the GOP, plenty of Dems, and right wing media pushed the Saddam-911 link all day and night. And it worked, all those polls, huge proportions of Americans were convinced that Saddam was in on it.

The problem is not that we went to war, its that the Bush Admin completely mislead the public about why we were going. Yellowcake, Atta, satellite photos of water wells claiming there was WMDS hidden under them, hundreds of tons of chem weapons, ect.

we knew he had chem weapons, wmds, we have the friggin receipts. But everyone was still 100% sure he was continuing to produce tons more. And we know how that panned out…

No doubt he needed to be out of Iraq, but he was a small fish and an easy target, Iraq was an idling nation and not much of a threat to the US, but if we had gone in saying he has to be brought to justice for his crimes in Iraq and gassing the Kurds, there would have been little vocal war opposition.

But hey imagine if the Bush admin had the balls to really go after America’s enemies in the Mid East and actually put down some people who are funding and carrying out actual global terrorism. Paki ISI, the Saudis, Iran, Syria. Iraq was the politically safe war (but they still blundered the whole way though it)and was the predictable choice, war planning started less than a week out of 9/11.

Wieners like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

52

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
valiance. wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

Disagree with most of your post.

It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.

Oh, al zarqawi.

JeffR
[/quote]

oh yea not at all, its not like OBL was funding the Kurdish insurrection in his north, or that the militant islamic movement was vocally opposed to Iraq and Saddam keeping it so secular. Or the fact that everyone in the Mid East hated him for turning on his own kind in Kuwait, a much more islamic hardcore and dogmatic country.

oh wait…

53

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Look I agree the guy is an evil scumbag, but I don’t ever remember being sold on Iraq war because they helped plan 9-11. Why is this even newsworthy?

V

The connection to 9-11 was a major talking point in the leadup to the war. Evidently you have a short memory.

False.

Good to see you haven’t changed.

Find me a single quote of George Bush saying that saddam was in on 9/11.

Oh, good luck.

You again? Really?

How’s your “powerlifting” going you slackjawed faggot?

Now, now, lil’ irish. I don’t think this is the place to project your fantasies.

Oh, one quote from W. would be enough.

Thanks.

Oh, the powerlifting is going well. P.R’s all over.

You’re right, Bush never said it verbatim. But Cheney and co., the media, the GOP, plenty of Dems, and right wing media pushed the Saddam-911 link all day and night. And it worked, all those polls, huge proportions of Americans were convinced that Saddam was in on it.

The problem is not that we went to war, its that the Bush Admin completely mislead the public about why we were going. Yellowcake, Atta, satellite photos of water wells claiming there was WMDS hidden under them, hundreds of tons of chem weapons, ect.

we knew he had chem weapons, wmds, we have the friggin receipts. But everyone was still 100% sure he was continuing to produce tons more. And we know how that panned out…

No doubt he needed to be out of Iraq, but he was a small fish and an easy target, Iraq was an idling nation and not much of a threat to the US, but if we had gone in saying he has to be brought to justice for his crimes in Iraq and gassing the Kurds, there would have been little vocal war opposition.

But hey imagine if the Bush admin had the balls to really go after America’s enemies in the Mid East and actually put down some people who are funding and carrying out actual global terrorism. Paki ISI, the Saudis, Iran, Syria. Iraq was the politically safe war (but they still blundered the whole way though it)and was the predictable choice, war planning started less than a week out of 9/11.

Wieners like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/[/quote]

Hey, pb,

Thanks for your response. Bush did indeed speak to saddam’s crimes against his own people. Please look up Bush’s speeches 2002/2003.

Then please think about yourself sitting in Bush’s chair circa 2002. Look who sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, you do know that the U.S. found plenty of undeclared weapons in Iraq. They found nascent weapons progams. They found a systematic pattern of concealment of said weapons.

If you really want some chilling information, google the saddam tapes.

It might give you some serious pause.

JeffR

54

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
valiance. wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraq war was never sold on the idea that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11 - this has been a canard from the Left since they contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It was sold on a number of assertions - over 20 in the resolution - and was crystallized in Resolution 1441 before the UN. Saddam was believed to be close to terrorist elements and had bad weapons unaccounted for. This was never a point of dispute until the revisionism of the Bush-hatred crowd.

I know, I know - book learnin’ is hard. Twould be a nicer world if one could just deliver up low-grade Tourette’s syndrome coupled with Bush’s name and that be sufficient - but history tells a different story, even if it doesn’t fit the prepackaged “narrative” of the airheaded, I-need-to-blame-a-boogeyman Left.

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

Disagree with most of your post.

It really isn’t a stretch to imagine saddam giving nasty weapons to bad people.

Oh, al zarqawi.

JeffR

oh yea not at all, its not like OBL was funding the Kurdish insurrection in his north, or that the militant islamic movement was vocally opposed to Iraq and Saddam keeping it so secular. Or the fact that everyone in the Mid East hated him for turning on his own kind in Kuwait, a much more islamic hardcore and dogmatic country.

oh wait…[/quote]

This particular “argument” is one of my least favorite liberal tag-lines. Let me ask you directly, would you bet the life of your family that saddam wouldn’t cooperate with persons of a different political/secular persuasion?

Have you ever heard the phrase, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

If you REALLY believe that saddam would allow ANYTHING to get in the way of his agenda, then I would ask that you google the 650,000 page report released by the CIA detailing all of his contacts.

I’ll bet you’ll be surprised.

JeffR

55

[quote]valiance. wrote:

I think you either overestimate the intelligence of the average American the war was being sold to or underestimate the mendacity of the Bush Administration. Perhaps you realized what the actual assertions were, but most did not. Bush NEVER said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he did insinuate it. Even if you believe his intentions were completely innocent, and that Americans were simply easily confused, it was his duty as President to clearly explain why we were going to war. Polls from before and after the war indicate Americans had no fuckin clue why we were in Iraq. I contend they would not have supported the invasion had they known the real reasons we were there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm[/quote]

Let’s unpack your post.

First, your article that Bush has “explicitly stated” that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks is dated September 18, 2003 - which directlt refutes Irish’s entire thread theme that finally, in 2009, Cheney comes clean…after all this time. Well, we know - thanks to you - that this was evident as early as Fall 2003, so there is no “finally”. Thanks for being a wet blanket on Irish’s lame thesis.

Second, I am reviewing the statements - and there isn’t a one that isn’t true. So?

And, enough with the “the American public is dumber than you think” foolishness. I read that line from someone on these forums all the time, and I must be frank - the typical person making the asserting isn’t exactly light years above the so-called “public” they are slandering.

56

[quote]borrek wrote:

Here is a question for you: If there was never any intention to draw a link from Iraq to 9/11, then why was there ever any mention of September 11, 2001 in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

One specific part stands out:
[Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue
to take all appropriate 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, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

This is more than an implied link.[/quote]

The resolution extends to authorize force against any nation that gave sanctuary to the organizations/proxies that led to 9/11 - and? That included Iraq, as well as numerous other places, as the roaches began to scatter when the light hit them. There was no question that Iraq would be such a place - and, in fact, was.

You desperately hunt for some unseemly insinuation - the authorization is as plain as day: Saddam’s regime was an unacceptable clearinghouse and potential arms supplier for exactly the kinds of terrorist elements that executed the 9/11 attacks. That is a fact - there is nothing to “imply”.

It isn’t complicated - which is why the authorization was bipartisan.

I pick and choose my moments, so I don’t tire out - it takes a lot of energy. The Left’s allergy to history needs to be remedied at every turn, and this preposterous mythology that Bush “used” the 9/11 attacks in bad faith to engineer a war in Iraq for other reasons - I forget what all is on the list anymore: to get oil prices high? To get oil at low prices? Who can keep up? - needs all the malediction I can muster.

57

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

Iraq was the politically safe war (but they still blundered the whole way though it)and was the predictable choice, war planning started less than a week out of 9/11.

[/quote]

Actually there is evidence it started BEFORE 9-11, now doesn’t that make some really tough questions pop into your head.

V