Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
I never said that he made that claim.
|
This seems to indicate otherwise with regard to your claim that Bush linked 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's Iraq...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dculkin
The President continues to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
|
You'll notice that I quoted the entire sentence without editing. There was no editing of your previous comments either. I quoted them in full.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
Your "editing" of my comment reminds me of the tactic adopted by the administration on this issue. First, Bush or one of his people will link Iraq to 9/11. Usually, there is noone there to challenge the bogus claim, but when a reporter does call them on it, they say something like, "Nobody in this administration ever said Saddam ordered the attacks on 9/11."
Here are a couple of statements from W's press conference about a week ago:
"Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."
A literally true statement, but one that helps feed the still commonly-held misconception that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. A reporter called the President on that issue and he obfuscated:
"nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September 11 were ordered by Iraq."
There are other instances where administration officials mention 9/11 when talking about why we invaded Iraq. Maybe I will try to google some of those, although it's not that easy googling up specific little snippets.
Here's an old link to a BBC compilation of Bush statements implying a connection between Saddam and 9/11: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stmSo, are you saying that Saddam posed a threat to the United States in 2003? |
I came very close to including that BBC article in my previous post. It says nothing other than Iraq, and other terrorist sponsors besides Al Qaida, are a threat to this country and the western way of life.
In light of the translated documents released a year or so ago that links Al Qaida with Iraq in Indonesia, along with President Clinton's concern over WMDs in Iraq and the Clinton, Bush I and Bush II administrations concern over links between Al Qaida and Iraq plus the attempt to purchase uranium from Niger I cannot conclude that Iraq meant anything towards the US other than harm. This, among other reasons, plus the state sponsored terrorism in which Saddam's Iraq paricipated showed that it was a clear threat. Not to mention a strategically important piece of geopgraphy as well no doubt see shortly after Kofi Annan returns from Iran proclaiming "...peace in our time".
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "how do we win a war on 'terror'?". So far, we've gotten responses that the United States is responsible for all the events currently taking place - not a response to the original question and untrue as well.
The second round of responses blames the entire thing on the the Bush administration. This illustrates the dangers inherent in what I'll continue to refer to as BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome, for lack of a better term. Although it is very descriptive. Rather than focus on the folks we all agree want to kill us, the emphasis is on Bush. Bush is the first American president that acknowledged there was indeed a conflict between radical Islam and the Western way of life. Previous administrations ignored the issue which directly resulted in 9/11. Bush had no choice but to acknowledge the reality of the situation post 9/11. Yet rather than acknowledge the threat that exists to this country and others who are part of the free world, many choose to ridicule and forcefully ignore the writing on the wall. Still no response to the original question.
Fortuitously, the original question was restated in a negative. This allows for a somewhat easier dissection of the issue. The answers to that question are much more simple, accurate and to the point. Thanks, Bot.