Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Finally, note what Bush said as he announced the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's from the whitehouse.gov site. Not one word about 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Just weapons of mass destruction, and a vague hint about support for terrorism.

As I remember there was an interview where ####### Cheney flat out linked Saddam's Iraq to Al-Qaeda.

Bush never directly said "I think Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were in cahoots to destroy the WTC", but he did give a number of speeches on the necessity of the Iraq war where he referenced the 9/11 attacks enough times to convey the impression that there was a link.

There was plenty of bait and switch going on during the build up for that war - and while many people have forgotten the verbatim of what was said by the administration, it doesn't surprise me that so many people have come away with this impression. The claims might have become slightly exaggerated over time - but it isn't inaccurate to suggest that Iraq was justified in the context of 9/11 (and certainly claims were made that Iraq posed a direct threat to the internal national security of the United States - essentially: "If you don't want another 9/11, then you need to support this...").

While some people hate the UN with every fibre of their being - it comes across as incredibly irresponsible that Bush was prepared to scorn the international community in pushing for this war in defiance of nearly all of its traditional partners. And there is little doubt that the administration severely bent international law (they certainly would have broken it if Tony Blair hadn't insisted that they go through the route of UN Resolutions justifying "consequences").

Of course we're talking about one of the most irresponsible US presidents in recent decades - the same man who almost caused a constitutional crisis over a headline news story in 2005...

Edited September 12, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[alienlovechild 75]

Finally, note what Bush said as he announced the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's from the whitehouse.gov site. Not one word about 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Just weapons of mass destruction, and a vague hint about support for terrorism.

You're too smart to post here. Most who post post info after the fact but it's far more revealing to know what was going on at the time.

Am I the only one who wouldn't be surprised if we managed to capture or kill Bin Ladin sometime in the next six weeks?

Haven't we heard that one during the 2004 election? Or the one about a terrorist attack before the election? Same old lame speculation that doesn't come true.

At least you got to vote. The ####### that went on in Ohio in 2004 was beyond belief. Expect it again this year.

We could be looking at yet another stolen election.

9/11 wouldn't be complete without more morons piling on their favorite conspiracies. Never question these outrageous allegations or you're part of the conspiracy, right? I take it you won't be voting this year because you know the election is sure to be rigged. Protest and tell your friends to skip the fraudulent election day. Which state will be blamed this year? In 2000, it was Florida in 2004, Ohio. My guess this year Virginia or North Carolina will be blamed if Obama loses. One things is for sure, if Obama wins we'll never heard talk about the "stolen election" 2008.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war, at least according to the Bush administration. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist, and wouldn't share power with Al-Qaeda. The Bush administration most definitely made it very clear, back in the day, that the one and only reason for going to war in Iraq was to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction -- not to get revenge on Al-Qaeda.

But there are people who claim that we've allowed Al-Qaeda to get into Iraq now, after the power vacuum left by the overthrow of Saddam. And on the face of it, it's not a completely unreasonable claim. Bush certainly has talked recently about "Al-Qaeda in Iraq".

I suspect the people going over to Iraq these days are no longer going over there to find and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. But they've got to be going over for some reason. Maybe pushing Al-qaeda back out is as good a reason as any. Could that be what Sarah is referring to?

You can't look for and destroy what was not there to begin with.

I don't think that even after 9-11 most people could tell the difference between terrorist allies of Iraq and Al Qaeda. Google and read the State of the Union Address, circa 2003.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

You can't look for and destroy what was not there to begin with.

how do you know it's not there unless you look?