Did the Bush Administration and friends try to imply a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?

Question

Some neo-cons are attempting to re-write history now that the truth is unavoidable and say they didn't.

Let's see what President Bush had to say about it in his letter to congress on 3/21/03, and I quote:

"The use of armed forces against Iraq 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 person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

That letter is public record and anyone can fact-check me at will and that is just one example. We all know how many times Kriston and Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney came on TV implying a connection between Iraq and 9/11. At least those of us without selective memory do.

Any questions?

Answer 1

wtf beeotch

Answer 2

It doesn't say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That's YOUR interpretation, but your interpretation doesn't sound quite right, and it has never been the Republican interpretation.

I've never heard of the connection between Iraq and 9/11. There's plenty of evidence that Iraq had a relationship with Al Qaeda, so much that even when President, Clinton made note of it, but you cannot convince me that your interpretation is correct.

Because in the 6 months prior to that letter, in all his speeches and press releases on the subject, he never said this, even when thanking Congress for authorizing use of force in October 2002.

So your 'proof' is an interpretation of one sentence in one letter, against 6 months of saying otherwise. Piffle.

Sorry, I ain't buying what you're selling.

Answer 3

No, certainly they did not make a connection between Sadam and 9/11. What they did replaced into make a connection between Sadam and Al Quada and it replaced into defined that a number of Sadam's human beings met with a number of Bin encumbered's human beings. i think of they have been to blame of letting the misunderstanding that Sadam had something to do with 9/11 proceed and weren't finished of existence in dispelling that false impression simply by fact it served their objective. yet i don't think of they each tried to link the two. What I did hear them say replaced into that 9/11 replaced the way we would desire to attend to threats. The 9/11 value is in simple terms too intense to pay, we will not wait until we are digging 1000's of human beings out of rubble formerly we act. as a result, the risk that Sadam presented had to be nipped off on the bud, so you might chat. replaced into he incorrect, perhaps, yet we will under no circumstances understand that for specific. If he replaced into authentic and did not act, and one in all those nerve gasoline warheads we recovered over in Iraq went off in Downtown Chicago, and we wound up burying a pair hundred thousand human beings. i think of we could be after Georges head for a thoroughly distinctive reason.

Answer 4

Do liberals make any connection between Pearl Harbor and Hitler?

The enemy is the same enemy. In a fight against radical Islamic ideology, Iraq is as good a place to wage the war as any. Saddam held off Iran and Syria, and Hezbollah, but tyrannized his own people.

Now that Saddam is gone, someone needs to protect Iraq against Iran and Hezbollah, long enough for Iraq to become stablilized enough to protect herself.

Answer 5

If it where only true that they did any of those things .
The government is as responsible here as Iraq is . We trained Bin laden armed Iraq and now have declared a war to secure oil reserves .

Answer 6

Yes they did say there was a connection. Most of the Americans, excluding me, believed the lies of the dictator bush. Thats why most Americans supported the war. Bush is an evil liar and the Americans who believed him, most of them were either very stupid or plain racist against muslims. It is sad but it is the truth.

Answer 7

You have a crazy way of interpreting things, he was speaking of international terrorism of which Iraq was part of.

Answer 8

It wasn't implied...it was unequivocally stated.

And they have it. The smoking gun. The evidence. The potential weapon of mass destruction they have been looking for as their pretext of invading Iraq. There's just one problem - it's in North Korea.

Answer 9

It's called the NIE report.

Answer 10

Yes, just one question. Why do you libs selectively believe only certain parts of what Bush says?

Answer 11

Only about a thousand times, other than that, I can't think of any examples.