It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Bush Admits Iraq Had "Nothing" To Do With 9/11

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Well done subz.


Thank you. ...Another "Way Above" for you.


Ed to add: Sorry. ...Actually, I don't remember voting for anyone this month. Haven't been around much...

Thanks sofi
It's the thought that counts

I remember you WATS'd me for my piece showing Israel's Lebanese conflict was pre-planned and staged to gauge, for the Bush administration's benefit, how effective an attack on Iran would be.




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
So harbouring terrorist is a valid excuse for regime change? Great, where do I sign up to overthrow the Bush regime? The United States has harboured terrorists for decades.


You should read a bit closer next time…or at least keep an oriented perspective concerning the context of one's statements and/or replies to questions.

See…it starts here:

Originally posted by missed_gear
In this period of time it would not be a far stretch for people to associate the belief.


The statement to which I was replying was concerning a previous poll.

Specifically a poll where individuals associated Bin Laden with Saddam and how this mindset was being formed or could have been formed in the public’s thinking at the time…really nothing more.

I fail to see where any of the remainder of your post is relevant to any of my comments about my reply to the question originally posed.


mg



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
You should read a bit closer next time…or at least keep an oriented perspective concerning the context of one's statements and/or replies to questions.

Read what more closely? You were outlining reasons why people believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. You mentioned that Saddam was harbouring terrorists and I rhetorically asked whether that is a reason for regime change. Then I proceeded to explain how the United States also harbours terrorists and refuses extradition requests for them.

I never commented on the validity of your evidence showing the rhetoric connecting Saddam and al-Qaeda as being pre-Bush II. Infact I didnt call into question anything you wrote, if you read close enough.


Originally posted by missed_gear
I fail to see where any of the remainder of your post is relevant to any of my comments about my reply to the question originally posed.

If you noticed, I did not quote your entire post. That is because I was focusing on one aspect of the evidence provided and asking a seperate question based on the evidence you provided. It's not me that's missed the context of some ones post.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If you noticed, I did not quote your entire post. That is because I was focusing on one aspect of the evidence provided and asking a seperate question based on the evidence you provided. It's not me that's missed the context of some ones post.


Of course I noticed therein instigating my initial reply to you specifically…in fact you completely missed the context of the original post and the premise thereof; and appear to still miss the context, through admittedly ‘cherry picking’ information and removing this information from the context to make a completely unrelated point and inventing an argument by selective observation.

The posts you have made thus far do not address the issue I was addressing, if they do point them out. Ergo, where is your counter to my initial point in full context?

Moving-on…


Originally posted by subz
You mentioned that Saddam was harbouring terrorists and I rhetorically asked whether that is a reason for regime change.


Rhetorical?…more likely leaning heavily toward the elements of anthypophora…

Here you go…

Address the entirety of my original post and tie in the question posed, or not at all.

The points were not made in the details but rather in the hinting toward a conceptualization and understanding a probable mindset which may have very well existed (with good reason) in a period where the eschatology of publicly voiced opinions surrounding events and persons was/is a major factor in mass opinions all aiding in the formulation of the afore mentioned group-thought presented in the poll as cited.


mg



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
It is pretty plain (at least for me) to see what subz is getting at in his story title. President Bush and his administration, for the last four years, have allowed (maybe even encouraged) the existence of the misconception, as evidenced in the polls cited, that Saddam was part of 9/11. It has been a convenient tool for them in maintaining support for the WOT and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Finally, under direct questioning, the President has publicly said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I think that its worthy of note and consideration. Definitely a step in the right direction.

At least he didn't try to lie about it, or give us some mumbo-jumbo about how we can't separate Saddam and 9/11.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I'm wondering what is to be gained from playing semantical games and acting dumb on this thread? Being a nitpicking nabob in order to satiate the ego is still not classified as a virtue, no matter how long one can spin it around in their neural synapses. I think we can do better to embrace macro thinking and not act as if we have the comprehension of a Neanderthal, cause we don't agree on specific verbatim.

Bush now will have us believe he's a saint, while Cheney is a loose cannon.


RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

whitehouse.gov


Bush is backpeddling. It doesn't take rocket science to know what he and his cabinet were implying before.

Thanks Subz, you laid it out like concrete.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Oh please, you must be joking.


nope. serious question....still waiting for a serious answer.


All we heard in the drum beat to invasion was speech after speech where Saddam and 9/11 were equated. Bush told us Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda and that he does not want the next 9/11 to be in the form of a mushroom cloud over NYC. Saddam - 9/11, Saddam - 9/11, Saddam - 9/11, Saddam - 9/11, Saddam - 9/11, that is all we heard and the very reason why over half of Americans thought he had a direct hand in the attacks.


wonderful..."we heard." for the third time, maybe you have some direct quotes to back that up? maybe something like bush saying "saddam was responsible for 9/11"? didnt think so.


I've heard many a time from the usual strident Bush supporters on this very website how Saddam was involved with 9/11.


as have i. however, misguided supporters do not put words in the presidents mouth.


As to "unethical"? Not by a long shot.


we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Bush is backpeddling. It doesn't take rocket science to know what he and his cabinet were implying before.


backpeddling from what? his original statements made five years ago that saddam was not involved in 9/11, but was involved in general support of terrorism? again, this article has been spun worse than oreilly could ever dream of doing.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
backpeddling from what? his original statements made five years ago that saddam was not involved in 9/11, but was involved in general support of terrorism? again, this article has been spun worse than oreilly could ever dream of doing.


I suppose you're going to have me believe that Bush just made this "no links speech" for kicks and grins too? I'm sorry, I refuse to play the role of an airhead and degrade the topic to such a level of unconsciousness.


"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,"
President Bush-September 25, 2002

Backpeddling is what it is, and those who now choose to play glib doesn't diminish the overall perception at the time. Same goes for those now pretending Cheney is a rogue VP. More like a change of plans is in the works in order to blame someone else.


The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq -CSMonitor 2003
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Kerry challenges Bush on Iraq-9/11 connection -CNN 2004
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry accused the Bush administration Sunday of falsely linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, "in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war."

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


President's Radio Address -whitehouse.gov June 18, 2005
We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Bush's letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -whitehouse.gov
"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 [The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] 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 persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Now that it's zero percent, wonder what the troops will say?


The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”. Zogby

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 25-8-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
How does this stop the war in Iraq? It doesn't, you people need to get over it.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   



Also not that we went there to get an oil pipeline to go thru there and Iraq to get a good source of oil.

Gotta credible link? Thought not.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I wasn't going to say this earlier, but, oil had something to do with it to. Bush wants the oil money to go to the people of Iraq. Since Saddam was being selfish, and keeping most profits to himself.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

[edit on 26-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
What you dont know is that Bush is faulty. He isnt human, his creator, a mad scientist, forgot to tune up his mechanical brain, and therefore, created somewhat of a psychopathic liar.....

Now, the remote wiring isnt helping either.... I wonder when they'll take him in for repair...if he's repairable at all.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The thing is still to this day a large precentage of Americans think (if that is the correct word for what sheep do) that Iraq and Saddam Hussien had a hand in 9/11. Recent polls show this clearly. And why is that? Because of the constant lumping of the two together during the entire drumbeat leading up to war. A year of so ago Cheney was still doing it and Bush actually corrected him by asserting then that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 so this is not new. But it was asserted and implied constantly in the months between Sept.02 and Mar. 03... and is Bush an his people weren't doing it, the right wing blahblahblahers were doing it non stop and the dittoheads quietly chewed their cuds nodding their empty little heads in agreement . We were implied and lied our way into an unnnecssary and unprovked war squandering the global goodwill and sympthy we got after 9/11 and the sheep never looked up. Now we are viewed with more hostility and amonosity than we ever have been before and viewed by many in the world, not as a force for good but as a danger and a threat. Is it true? Who knows. The American people, no, our government and the corportations for which it stands, undoubtly.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I think the MEDIA lumped Saddam/Iraq and 911 together. Most Americans are too busy working their butts off to live, since everything is so expensive (at least in California). People hardly have time to keep up with current affairs. So they glance at the news channels for a bit, and get confused. The MEDIA is horrible.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Most Americans are too busy working their butts off to live, since everything is so expensive (at least in California). People hardly have time to keep up with current affairs...


And there you have this administration's political strategy...

Say or imply an untruth often enough, and you'll convince enough of the populous that what you do is in their best interest.



Originally posted by LAES YVAN
The MEDIA is horrible.


I find it funny that you blame the tool, while giving the wielder a pass.




[edit on 26-8-2006 by loam]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I wasn't going to say this earlier, but, oil had something to do with it to. Bush wants the oil money to go to the people of Iraq. Since Saddam was being selfish, and keeping most profits to himself.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

[edit on 26-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]


Just so you know, we did not GO into afhgansitan after 9/11. We sent a small group of people, outsourced the rest of the work in Tora Bora to guirilla fighters who allowed Ladden to escape into Pakastan, all while the real US buildup was forming and exercising their motives on iraq.

You do have it true about the war and oil, but it wasn't for Iraqi civilian interest, it was the american contractors whom benifited. Remember this, "This is the same man who tried to kill my daddy."

AAC



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
of doublespeak. Or is it dubyaspeak?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

o.p. by notbuynit
Gotta credible link? Thought not.


Depending on what you consider credible, whether due to high journalistic standards or just to protect your point of view, here's a link on the Afghan Pipeline angle.



According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

link



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Who wants to tell Baker Company they made this fancy pic on a premis their fearless leader is now disavowing?

This was in an email a few years back, I don't have the date but it came along with the following caption:


DO NOT DELETE-PLEASE PASS ON-Message from Iraq

The proud warriors of Baker Company wanted to do something to pay tribute To our fallen comrades. So since we are part of the only Marine Infantry Battalion left in Iraq the one way that we could think of doing that is By taking a picture of Baker Company saying the way we feel. It would be awesome if you could find a way to share this with our fellow countrymen. I was wondering if there was any way to get this into your papers to let the world know that "WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN" and are proud to serve our country." Semper Fi
1stSgt Dave Jobe

The attached photo was forwarded from one of the last U.S. Marine companies in Iraq. They would like to have it passed to as many people as possible, to let the folks back home know that they remember why they're there and that they remember those who've been lost.






Now, who told them why they were there?

(has this ever been debunked?)

[edit on 26-8-2006 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I wasn't going to say this earlier, but, oil had something to do with it to. Bush wants the oil money to go to the people of Iraq. Since Saddam was being selfish, and keeping most profits to himself.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

[edit on 26-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]
Are you serious? You are, arent you?
How much of that money have those people seen?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join