Iraq & 9/11?

Question

Did anyone EVER think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? I constantly here that Republican tried to make this connection and that Dems wish people would understand this. I never thought that. Was never led to believe that. Were you?

Yes, but did YOU belive that. That is the question.

No there are not countless examples of this. I don't need to search the Web. I've watch and listened to these speeches/interviews already.

g: No I don't see how it's easy to make that connection. The terrorists poured into Iraq to fight the Americans. It was showed on the News all the time.

So Clark says the White House tried to blame it on Iraq. That was how they convinced the American People? By having him say that? I don't think so.

dstr, so you're saying CBS said there was no evidence of an Iraq connection to 9/11? How does that convince people (specifically YOU) whether Iraq & 9/11 were connected?

mrmsrich: You think I'm a liberal? Did you READ the question? LOL

Answer 1

THAT IS CLEARLY REVISIONIST HISTORY.

Answer 2

On many occasions the White House made these allegations...search the web...they are countless
Heres one example:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.

Answer 3

Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11. That's what is so confusing about the whole situation. Bush calls the Iraq War a
"war on terror" but Saddam was effectively neutralized on the
international scene ten years before that day. Meanwhile,little
effort was spent locating Bin Laden,who actually was responsible.
He's still at large today.
It amazes me that even now some people are still stupid enough
to buy Bush's crap-although their numbers are rapidly dwindling.

Answer 4

I've heard many regular people say it... and the war on terror started to get the people responsible for 9-11, but now we're fighting the war on terror in Iraq... see how it would be really easy to make that connection...

in many speeches, many key Republicans (like Giuliani at the Rep. convention in 04) don't actually say Iraq was involved in 9-11, but hint very strongly at it... talking about 9-11 and then talking about Iraq in the same sentence...

It's like putting out poison in a horse field and saying "I didn't make the horses eat it"... they just place the ideas out there very closely linked, without actually ever coming out and saying it...

but I'm sure it's just all coincidental... right?

Answer 5

Saddam was two busy building hide outs from the next U.S. invasion after W was elected to care anything about WMB's or terrorists. He was not a good man, but a smart one. Point being, why Iraq? Why not one of the other 100 dictator conuntries that are oppressing to the point of starvation. Because Bush has a Daddy complex and Saddam knew that. A shame, but a dictator was smarter than what abunch of non-thinking extremist repub's elected.

Answer 6

No one not even Bush ever said that. Saddam was supporting terrorists. Paying money to Palestinian families if their son or daughter became suicide bombers remember? And he was trying to build more weapons of mass destruction dispite what the liberal media tells you. Some were found Sarrin Gas artillery shells are WMDs and the IRaqi defense minister was in Nigeria and he wasn't buying onions. Also All 14 members of the UN security council voted in Favor of the invasion of Iraq and they all had the same intelligence. So why haven't you read any of the evidence oh yeah because you have more important things to do like pimp yuor MySPace page right?

Answer 7

Boosh and his administration continually imply that there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The fact of the matter is, there is a bigger connection with Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

There is a bigger connection between boosh's family and bin laden than there is with 9/11 and Iraq.

Answer 8

Innocent people were murdered and then it happened again. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I am a man that met god when he was three years old when his mother was taken to heaven and do not have the ability to beleive in god, so it is of little comfort but at least I know they went to heaven.
And hopefully some can be motivated to fight for social justice. As I desperately do.

Answer 9

Yes, the American public was led to believe that. If not, what was the justification for invading Iraq?

Answer 10

They never said that, they said that Saddam was likely to give terrorists weapons of mass destruction, which every nation on earth reported to the UN. Not a single nation stood with Iraq, not even syria and iran.

Answer 11

Unlike you some of us do research. So you listened to interviews of biased people with an agenda, that is the problem with liberals to begin with, you dont think for yourselves or do any research for yourselves. Read the following and find in the Senate's report or the interviews you listened to where there is evidence contrary to this. Bush saying there is no connection is not evidence he has gotten tired of the B.S. and is just taking responsibilty and Blame for everything at this point in his presidency it makes the B.S. go away quicker so he can go back to doing his job like he is supposed to be doing.

Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying."

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence