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

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
After 9-11 we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We went to Afghanistan for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

And on that note there have been some rather interesting developments as well.

First, there's this

Literally, it is Osama bin-forgotten

Yes, we are talking about THAT Osama bin-Laden! The guy considered to be the head of the terrorist organization called "al-Qaeda" and whom the Bush administration decided, like a year ago, to completely forget about. This isn't, though heaven knows one wish it were, a joke or parody. George W. Bush has disbanded the CIA group whose job it was to track down, and either capture or kill Osama bin-Laden.


Now, perhaps the reason they're not even looking any more has something to do with this

FBI says no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn't Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of Sept. 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its bin Laden Web page, www.fbi.gov... that Osama bin Laden is wanted in connection with the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” bin Laden by saying, “In addition, bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

The Muckraker Report contacted the FBI headquarters on June 6 to learn why their bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Osama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden's Most Wanted Web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”


There are a whole lot of things about 9/11 and the 'official' story that STINK.

Not only was Saddam NOT involved with 9/11, but it looks like the FBI doesn't have any credible evidence that Osama was either.

.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

The FBI plays it smart: they know this administration and its neocon masters won't last and plan accordingly.

If, as some here seem to like to state that 70% of the American public believe Iraq had something to do with Sept. 11th , doesn't that imply that about 20% of Democrats believe that as well? That could make for some interesting November results, don't you think?

It seems to me that it is people against the Iraq war that are continually saying the that the administration has been telling people that Iraq was behind 9-11. I remember during the buildup to war with Iraq and don't recall people in the administration telling the public all the time that "Iraq planned 9-11, that's why we need to do something about Iraq".

Iraq under Saddam was never a stellar example of international behavior and had a laundry list of reasons why something needed to done with that regime in a post 9-11 world. By continuing to state the the administration was continually saying Iraq was behind 9-11, does not make that the truth, no matter how many times you try to do so. Iraq under Saddam was a supporter of Terrorism, did create and use chemical weapons and did attack two of it's neighbors, besides ruling his own people brutally and crushing opposition to his rule. Those were more than enough reasons to change the status quo in a post 9-11 world.

Originally posted by pavil
Iraq under Saddam was never a stellar example of international behavior and had a laundry list of reasons why something needed to done with that regime in a post 9-11 world. By continuing to state the the administration was continually saying Iraq was behind 9-11, does not make that the truth, no matter how many times you try to do so. Iraq under Saddam was a supporter of Terrorism, did create and use chemical weapons and did attack two of it's neighbors, besides ruling his own people brutally and crushing opposition to his rule. Those were more than enough reasons to change the status quo in a post 9-11 world.

While this is not a thread debating the merits of other excuses used to invade Iraq, I will quickly reply to your "laundry list" if I may.

With regards to those two neighbours who Iraq attacked. They include Iran, which the United States not only openly supported the attacking of, but funded and supplied with military intelligence and chemical and biological weapons. So to use it as an excuse for regime change would implicate the United States for the same action.

Also Saddam asked for President Bush's permission before invading Kuwait. The reply Saddam received is unclear but the response was either positive or ambiguous. Although I dont condone the invasion of Kuwait, I also do not condone the murderous sanctions that were levied against Iraq for over 10 years. Germany did not even face such barbarous retribution for instigating WW2.

So basically what I am saying is that the henious actions of Iraq are just as much the responsibility of the West as they are Saddams. Our countries supported and funded the agression against Iran. Our countries imposed a sanctions regime that resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Iraqi children. The death toll the West inflicted on Iraq, via sanctions, eclipses anything carried out by Saddam.

Regime change, table West?

Those who control the "Top Secrets" and high levels of secrecy can control and overrule any of the countries laws, directions, and commands by keeping their operations in secret from congress and the public.
The CIA and some people in the White House are the ones who knew about the plans to stage the 9-11 attack, not congress or lower level people in government like soldiers and security officers. Those lower level people in government just follow orders and rarely receive full explainations of what is really going on.