Why is Bush still trying to connect Iraq to 9-11?

Question

In his recent speech following his veto of the funding bill, Bush repeatedly referred to 9-11 and Al Qaeda. In fact, he said “Al Qaeda” 27 times. In spite of the overwhelming evidence from dozens of independent sources, proving beyond a doubt that Iraq had no role in 9-11, Bush continues with his fantasy. Furthermore, there is no proof whatsoever that the extreme Islamic fundamentalists causing havoc in Iraq are part of the Al Qaeda network, yet Bush continues to justify his unjust occupation of Iraq by trying to manipulate the facts. When will America wake up and smell the blood-for-oil war?

Answer 1

Bush's constant association of Iraq, 9/11 and Al Qaeda works to keep some Americans supporting the war in Iraq. The fact that some foreign Islamic extremists entered Iraq as a result of the invasion is a fine detail lost on them. The insurgents are fighting occupiers and the extremists who are causing havoc in Iraq have taken advantage of the chaos caused by the invasion.

Bush will continue to use that association as long as it works on some level. Many people realize that it is a deceptive, manipulative tactic but some don’t.

The control of the oil is the important factor. Iraq is exporting less oil than before the war and Saddam can no longer influence the oil market through his manipulative practices. The prices are high which is to the benefit of the oil companies. The control of Iraq’s vast oil resources enables them to control the price of oil and yet retain the reserves needed to keep them in business.

Answer 2

"Bush repeatedly referred to 9-11 and Al Qaeda. In fact, he said “Al Qaeda” 27 times"

Just because he said them 27 times does not mean that he is stating that Iraq had a role in 9/11. in general terms, what he is saying is that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq now and they have to be dealt with.

"Furthermore, there is no proof whatsoever that the extreme Islamic fundamentalists causing havoc in Iraq are part of the Al Qaeda network"

Al-Zarquari only named his organization "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden before we killed his sorry ***. Yeah, you're right. That's not proof.

"When will America wake up and smell the blood-for-oil war?"

When it is true. If we wanted to invade someone for oil, why not Mexico? They're a lot closer. Why not invade Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil. Why not invade Venezuela? We have enough disagreements with Chavez.

Maybe its not just about oil. Maybe its about something else.

Answer 3

First off, I don't believe Bush ever said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. This is a perpetual deception that is mentioned all the time.

When speaking on Iraq, of course, he mentions Al Qaeda. Whenter you want to accept it or not, they are among the Islamic terrorists currently fighting the Iraqi government.

Answer 4

Amazingly, in polls i read recently a sizable number of americans have bought the media propaganda and have somehow connected Iraq and 911 in their minds. This is not accidental of course. It's the same number of americans who believe that saddam had also something to do with 911. No wonder, because the initial reason (the WMDs) proved to be an utter lie. And we dont want the public remembering that, do we?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

Answer 5

He never stated that Iraq was connected to 9-11, he states that there was a terrorist threat from Iraq just as 9-11. This is not a war against the people responsible for 9-11, it is a war against terrorist, no matter where they are. If anyone is a threat to the USA, than they are terrorist. Iraq had made threats against us over and over again.

Answer 6

He doth protest too much. He is trying to cover up the fact the HE had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Answer 7

You think connecting the dots is easy Huh? Well, when I find the 10,, you'all be kissing my feet.

Answer 8

Bush and the right-wingers can ONLY win arguments and elections by lying, smearing, and cheating.

It is sad that 30% of Americans still refuse to wake up and see that Bush and the GOP are nothing but a bunch of arrogant liars and incompetent fools.

Answer 9

There is abundantly more evidence for Al Qaeda in Iraq than that we are in a "blood for oil" war.

In the 9/11 Commission report, page 58, Iraq is one of the known countries that Ben Ladin drew recruits from. On page 61, Ben Ladin's Iraqi interest took two directions:

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991."

and

"Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan,and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

and

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Sudanese leader] Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam."

and

"In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy."

On page 66 we find:

"In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."

In the same paragraph (on p. 66) that says the famous, "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" it also says, "According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."

As for Bush pushing it, consider p. 334 where Bush reportedly asked Clarke on September 12 (2001) to "See if Sad-dam did this." Actually, it was a reasonable question. Clarke sent a report and it was confirmed by another:

"Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda"

--The context was if there was a link of Iraq planning or participating, the contextual foregone conclusion is that the two had communications and mutual support (see above). The conclusion was that Iraq did not plan or participate in the attack--although the report makes abundantly clear that the Czech security service had told the CIA that Mohamad Atta had met with an Iraqi security agent and a diplomat. It was later refuted (and described in the report, chapter 7) but at 9/11 that wasn't the "fact" that the CIA possessed.

Page 335 gives another piece of context for the scrutiny of Iraq, a known supporter of terrorist activities, "Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks." They were keeping an eye on Iraq should Saddam become opportunistic. But note these statements:

"Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz—not Rumsfeld—argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked."

"Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.”"

"President Bush told BobWoodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan."

"President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq if Baghdad acted against U.S. interests,"

"Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq."

(p. 336) "citing Saddam’s praise for the attack,his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Cen-ter.73 The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef’s co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters,and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis’involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a “failure of imagination” and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities."

Also on p. 336, on September 20 (2001), Bush met with (English Prime Minister) Tony Blair and the report says, "When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem." General Tommy Franks had a similar attitude as Wolfowitz, contrary to Bush, "because he personally felt that Iraq and al Qaeda might be engaged in some form of collusion and because he worried that Saddam might take advantage of the attacks to move against his internal enemies in the northern or southern parts of Iraq". It also says, "Franks said that President Bush again turned down the request."

That is just one source that says your complaint is exaggerated and baseless.

Answer 10

Like most liberals you suffer from selective hearing.

Bush isn't saying that Iraq and 9/11 were connected. He's saying that Al Qaida is there now, which they are, and we have to fight them. From a military standpoint, it would only make sense for A Qaida to be in Iraq, so why you would argue with that point is beyond me.