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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
And how much/what kind of tribute are they paying to their occupiers?




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

You have voted Regenmacher for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Thank you for doing that leg work for me Regenmacher. You clearly show the misimpression between Saddam and 9/11 that the Bush administration actively and covertly (through implication) concocted. Since I have been away for the weekend it was a delight to see that post had been replied to so well



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Just so you know, we did not GO into afhgansitan after 9/11.


Are you kidding me? I was sent to Afghanistan in 2001 after 911. That is where we first touched down. We did NOT go straight to Iraq. The invasion of Iraq started in 2003, not 2001.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Are you serious? You are, arent you?
How much of that money have those people seen?


A lot of the money is going to the Development Fund for Iraq.. They were giving money back to Iraq, but they found some of the money was getting into the wrong hands, and used against the US. So untill we set up their government and leave, we have to pick and choose how the money is used. Remember the United States took control of all of the Iraqi government’s bank accounts, including the income from oil sales. The United Nations approved the financial takeover. So, its not like Bush is trying to be sneaky about it.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
... People are so dumb.


Yep....i can see one person right now who obviously fits that description....


Originally posted by Vitchilo
They believe EVERYTHING little bush is saying without proofs..


President Bush never said Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, but it was said that Saddam did support terrorism, quite a few terrorist groups supported by Saddam have attacked and killed U.S. citizens including civilians.

The people who made those claims, that there was a conneciton between Saddam's regime and those terrorists involved in the planning of 9/11 were the authorities of Spain, the Czech Republic, and some others such as the Russian president/Russian intelligence agencies saying and giving proof to the U.S. that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks in U.S. soil...



Originally posted by Vitchilo
The medias should talk about the connections Al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA.... or Mujadeen-ISI-CIA-US department of education...


......................Yeah, yeah...those are the same connections which claim that Barney is the devil right?....

The CIA trained Afghan people to fight against the Communists, that is the extend of "any connection"....but some "smart people" want to claim this means that the CIA is behind the terrorists attacks on 9/11 and others?......


[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
How soon people keep forgetting that the following....


Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad

David Rose
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer


An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators.
Yusuf Galan, who was photographed being trained at a camp run by Osama bin Laden, is now in jail, awaiting trial in Madrid. The indictment against him, drawn up by investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, claims he was 'directly involved with the preparation and carrying out of the attacks ... by the suicide pilots on 11 September'.

Evidence of Galan's links with Iraqi government officials came to light only recently, as investigators pored through more than 40,000 pages of documents seized in raids at the homes of Galan and seven alleged co-conspirators. The Spanish authorities have supplied copies to lawyers in America, and this week the documents will form part of a dossier to be filed in a federal court in Washington, claiming damages of approximately $100 billion on behalf of more than 2,500 11 September victims.

The lawsuit lists Saddam's government in Iraq as one of its principal defendants, claiming it provided 'material support' to the al-Qaeda terrorists. Under US law, the victims' families do not have to prove active direction or involvement in the details of the 9/11 conspiracy by Iraq, only that Saddam's regime gave al-Qaeda more general assistance in the knowledge that it was planning to attack American targets.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

and again who could forget...


Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.

He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.

He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Again why some people want to dismiss these facts and others is astonishing...



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
How soon people keep forgetting that the following....

.....

Again why some people want to dismiss these facts and others is astonishing...


Shouldn't you be directing those comments to the President? He seems to think there was no link between Iraq and 911.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Shouldn't you be directing those comments to the President? He seems to think there was no link between Iraq and 911.


I was responding to the people claiming that it was the president who said this, when in fact it has been other countries who say there is such a connection, and they said obviously Saddam's regime was a threat to the U.S.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
oh, I see. I guess there were some statements made by others linking Iraq to 911 but I haven't seen anyone able to quote the President saying it. I know Condaleeza Rice did say it, there's a video clip included in Michael Moore's documentary.

Right now the President is stating there was no link, so I guess that's that.

edit/ remove quote

[edit on 8/27/2006 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Is our memory so lame that we should have to start digging up video clips of Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, cheney and Bush for proof of who said what???
As i recall, the gest, the reason we went into Iraq was to get the bad guys...who had the WMD's and it was all part of the response of 9/11.....

I may be dead wrong. But i dont think so.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I'm sorry, I refuse to play the role of an airhead and degrade the topic to such a level of unconsciousness.


you'd rather play the role of propagandist, putting words that werent said in people's mouth, huh?



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


yup, that's what he said....he considered both terrorist activities. BUT, he did not say that saddam was responsible for 9/11. you guys are doing a fine job of spinning the conversation away from my original challenge: let's see a quote where he specifically labels saddam as responsible for 9/11.



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.


creating a sense. his opinion....again, nowhere does it say that bush blamed saddam.


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."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


kerry accused bush.....so where's his proof? where is the link? he was stretching the truth to win an election, and youre using his lies to try and back up your (or should i say subz's) claims. again, where does it say "bush blamed saddam for 9/11"?



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.


all of which is true. of course, iraq as a central front in the war on terror is partly our fault, no denying that, but again...where does is say "bush blames saddam"?


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.


i will agree that someone needs to look into why, according to this poll (the only one i've seen with these numbers by the by), soldiers believe saddam was responsible for 9/11. sounds like that's how there being trained, and that is irresponsible. but having said that, again, where does it say "bush blamed saddam"?


Originally posted by subz

Thank you for doing that leg work for me Regenmacher. You clearly show the misimpression between Saddam and 9/11 that the Bush administration actively and covertly (through implication) concocted. Since I have been away for the weekend it was a delight to see that post had been replied to so well


no, he spun your article for you. neither of you has yet to respond to my initial challenge:

show us a link to bush actually saying that saddam was responsible for 9/11.

if you cant do that, then your article is rubbish.....just another piece of propaganda for the anti-bush squad.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
you guys are doing a fine job of spinning the conversation away from my original challenge:


You're doing a good job and showing us you have no sense of reasoning and can't read. That and Iraq was under the control of Saddam, so wise up and quit trying to degrade this thread into a stupid semantical folly.

Let me remind you my original statement:

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


"I believe that Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now,"
Six days after the WTC attacks President Bush told his Cabinet.

Let's refresh your memory about the topic too:

Question: What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Question: The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing

You have failed to take Bush's advice and are now trying to distinguish. Bad doggy...

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

As noted before: You are free to make a mockery of human intelligence and play dumb with your myopic literal spin, but it doesn't mean I will play your fool's game or does it change the level of perception of what was implied and said.

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Bushco implies links between Iraq, al-Qaeda and 9/11
But it depends what the meaning of "is" is to some.


Bush administration quotes linking Iraq and al-Qaeda USA Today
2002

Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad."

Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

2003

Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

2004

Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda."


Bush does linkafication :

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.


Oh that rogue VP:

“if we’re successful in Iraq…we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographical base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” Dick Cheney


RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. Meet the Press


"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." NPR


Next week on Backpeddling Neanderthal News: Saddam not linked to Iraq, al-Qaeda not linked to 9/11, Bush not linked to his cabinet, headbone not linked to the neckbone, and nobody is linked to reality.



[edit on 27-8-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
no, he spun your article for you. neither of you has yet to respond to my initial challenge:

show us a link to bush actually saying that saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Two can play this game


Show me where I wrote Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I said he admitted there was no connection. I never directly said that Bush said anything contrary to his admission, but I implied it.

Funny how you are finely tuned enough to pick up my inferences, yet woefully incapable (or unwilling) to acknowledge those made by this President and his cronies.

Just look into the question that prompted Bush's "nothing" answer. He was asked why Iraq was invaded and the President proceeded to mention "3,000 dead" Americans. If he's mentioning 9/11 when asked why Iraq was invaded doesnt that mean that Bush is using 9/11 as a reason?

Also I feel no obligation what so ever to reply to any of your "challenges".

[edit on 27/8/06 by subz]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
that's what i love about you rainmaker.....you have absolutely no idea how to debate a topic without getting your poor little feelings hurt and making it personal. what are you, five? or is that just your IQ.....cant come up with a decent response, so we'll attempt to degrade the person instead and use big words to show how smart we are. grow up.


subz: i understand what you are saying, but i still disagree. you were originally implying that bush made the literal connection between saddam and 9/11, which he never did. only after rainmaker ran to the rescue with his "implied connection" argument did you latch on to that idea.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
that's what i love about you rainmaker.....you have absolutely no idea how to debate a topic without getting your poor little feelings hurt and making it personal. what are you, five? or is that just your IQ.....cant come up with a decent response, so we'll attempt to degrade the person instead and use big words to show how smart we are. grow up. .


You have degraded yourself better than I could of imagined. Your display of sniveling insults is a good example of throwing a tantrum, so grab a mirror.

Backpedal: to retreat from or reverse one's previous stand on any matter; shift ground: to back-pedal after severe criticism.


Clueless People Love Bush
Studies show Bush supporters are misled on Bush policies and the news.

It seems the majority of Bush supporters, according to recent polls, still believe Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and even to 9/11, and that the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of you are asking how that could possibly be, since everybody knows ...

But everybody doesn't know. There it is. And if you are wondering why everybody doesn't know, you can either blame it on the media, always a shrewd move, or take notice that the administration is STILL spreading this same misinformation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
subz: i understand what you are saying, but i still disagree. you were originally implying that bush made the literal connection between saddam and 9/11, which he never did. only after rainmaker ran to the rescue with his "implied connection" argument did you latch on to that idea.

You are more than welcome to disagree as far as I am concerned. However I'm glad you've dropped the whole "unethical" and "twisting of the truth" angle since you have no evidence to support those claims.

I implied that Bush used the misimpression which equated 9/11 with the Iraq invasion to justify the invasion when the WMD issue evapourated. Please read my concluding article from the opening post, I made no claim or even inference that Bush said Iraq was connected to 9/11. Im yet to see you quote where I have done as well.


Originally posted by subz
There you have it, from the horses mouth so to speak. Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11. It's kind of hard to spin such a succinct answer. President Bush also finds himself at odds with members of the US intelligence community as well as members of the British parliament who cite an increase in terror attacks globally following the Iraq invasion.

The only thing I pull Bush up on is his claim that the Iraq war hasnt kicked "the hornets nest" and increased terror attacks because it clearly has. If you didnt read my paragraph properly and assumed I was talking about Bush finding himself at odds with those who say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then thats your problem.

You then reply to my post my asking me to show evidence of where Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Since I never said he had said that I dont know where you get off demanding that I do. If you are incapable of deriving the correct meaning of some ones writings, again, thats your problem.

Bush profited, so to speak, off American's misimpressions of the whole 9/11-Saddam connection. He used it to his advantage quite alot. Just because he didnt specifically foster that connection does not mean he did not capitalize on it because he did. The importance of his "nothing" reply, and the impetus for me posting this ATSNN submission, is that he acknowledged that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq which should now negate any further attempts to capitalize on those misimpressions.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   
nevermind....not worth lowering myself to regenmaker's level.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Hey there.

What I am about to say should be kept within the conversation of this forum.
If it was broadcasted on television, it could lead to a world war. So, if you talk about it, say that it is only your creative opinion. Thank you.

To explain 9-11 is to explain WHY we would want to change anything in Irag. The United States has a major debt problem. The reasons the U.S. Dollar is still of good value is because the oil in the middle east uses the U.S. Dollar as the trading currency and the United States Dollar is also still supported by other major trading countries who still keep the Dollar of value by trading with us. Saddam Hussain chose to switch his country's oil trading currency from the Dollar to the Euro in early 2001. The Euro was and still is of higher value so it would help the country of Iraq on an economical basis. But, the United States found that direction of the oil countries switching from the Dollar to the Euro to be a direction that would lower the value of the Dollar so much that it could no longer compete with the rising of the value of the Euro. So, the United States secret government which rules over the visible government chose to hoax a terrorist attack that would receive enough approval from the world to go to war in a small country, so then later with an approved agenda and momentum, actually attack a country(Iraq) just to change the oil currency of trade back to the Dollar and keep control over much of the oil trade policies. You see the real reason that we need oil trading for a while to go. We don't have to because the U.S. does have free energy.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
realanswers, that rationale has been discussed here before. Petrodollar warfare is a very plausible reason why Iraq was invaded. Although I would tend to see Saddam's switch to Euros as a response to the Bush administrations increased rhetoric and threats rather than the reason for the Bush administration's focus.

Since Saddam planned to switch to Euro's in 2003, years after Bush Jnr had started his diplomatic and intelligence data charade pushing for war it can be assumed that the Euro switch was a symptom of the Bush administrations efforts, not the cause for war.

If you want my opinion of why Iraq was invaded, my answer is simple: geostrategic importance. Iraq has been viewed as the lynch-pin in controling Middle Eastern oil for nearly a century. It's right in the middle of the Saudi/Iraq/Iran oil region. It's the reason why Iraq was drawn up and created by the British following the end of WW1.

Iraq was deliberately drawn up to include three distinct ethnic groups which would forever lead to instability and make any Iraqi leader dependant on outside help to enforce Iraqi authourity. It was the British intention all along to have Iraq as a puppet state inwhich to control the Middle Eastern oil fields via British oil contracts.

The man who, in 1958, overthrew the British puppet regime in Iraq was Abdul Karim Qassim. He set up a government and proceeded to dismantle British control of Iraqi oil. Obviously this did not go down well with Britain (or the West) so after 10 years of this uncooperative government it was overthrown, with Western support, by the Ba'ath Party.

The Ba'ath Party was more amenable to Britain and the West and was backed militarily and financial by Britain, France and the United States from the early 80's to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

When Saddam fell out of favour with the West he was targeted for overthrow as all the other Iraqi leaders had been who defied the West. Iraq had been invaded before in 1941 by Britain for the very same reasons Saddam was in 2003. They were not conducive to Western demands.

[edit on 28/8/06 by subz]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Fascinating Subz, just fascinating stuff. What we're seeing played out today are more desperate moves of a desperate empire in decline.



Originally posted by realanswers

To explain 9-11 is to explain WHY we would want to change anything in Irag. The United States has a major debt problem. The reasons the U.S. Dollar is still of good value is because the oil in the middle east uses the U.S. Dollar as the trading currency and the United States Dollar is also still supported by other major trading countries who still keep the Dollar of value by trading with us. Saddam Hussain chose to switch his country's oil trading currency from the Dollar to the Euro in early 2001. The Euro was and still is of higher value so it would help the country of Iraq on an economical basis. But, the United States found that direction of the oil countries switching from the Dollar to the Euro to be a direction that would lower the value of the Dollar so much that it could no longer compete with the rising of the value of the Euro. So, the United States secret government which rules over the visible government chose to hoax a terrorist attack that would receive enough approval from the world to go to war in a small country, so then later with an approved agenda and momentum, actually attack a country(Iraq) just to change the oil currency of trade back to the Dollar and keep control over much of the oil trade policies. You see the real reason that we need oil trading for a while to go. We don't have to because the U.S. does have free energy.


Makes sense to me. Wouldn't put it past the CIA to have planted the idea into the bombers heads, maybe even facilitated in the planning. They're full of career Bonesmen, ya know. Kinda slick though, whatever makes them the most profits, eh?

You know Real, I was just about to bring it up in another thread about this fine mess Shrub has made of it. Those sterling principles of the capitalistic free market. Why can't Iran and Iraq compete freely with the world? I'm opposed to it on an environmental basis, China's gonna choke us to death but what's all that capacity got to say about Peak Oil?

RM's the guy who's been warning us of that for eons here now too. My eyes glaze over talking dollars and such.

But I'm with Jefferson on free markets, "Trade with all, ally with none." Here, a good article that shows what blueprint they use: The Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan Myth

Shrub is right. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because it was all about stealing money from taxpaying citizens. The same Funnel, Inc. that's been going at it since Cheney convened his Secret Energy Panel back in 2001--as if they'd never had meetings before. And they stole this from the Dems, eh? Rotten bastards all of them--tools of the MOTU.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by psyopswatcher]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join