Wait a Minute!!!Does or Doesn't Bush Believe In Iraq's Role in 9/11??

We are currently working in several countries. Perhaps you've heard of Yemen, Pakistan, Djibouti, Sudan, the Phillipines, Indonesia etc etc etc. I don't believe any of our anti-terrorist policies require full scale invasions. Here's a suggestion for you...maybe instead of asking a bunch of easily answered, stupid questions, you ought to go read a few newspapers.

Bush has made a concerted effort for the last two years to link Iraq with September 11th. His administration has encouraged Press speculation, by releasing selected information such as the terrorist training camp. He and his administration have encouraged this speculation, and have never made a peep to stop it.... Until this month, after the war is over. He has imprinted in the minds of most Americans, that Al Queda was behind 9/11. And then he made sure that everyone believed that Al Queda and Iraq were synonymous. So let's be honest here... As hard as it might be. This has been an orchestrated event, with deniability built in. I majored in Psychology, and believe me, I HATE this kind of crap.

from the March 14, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"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.

The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.

This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.

The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."

Future fallout
In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."

Antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg says it's important to understand why public opinion appears to be playing out differently in the US and Europe. In fact, both peoples express a desire to work through the UN. But the citizens get different messages from their leaders. "Americans have been told by their president [that Hussein is] a threat to security, and so they believe that," says Mr. Ellsberg. "It's rather amazing, in light of that, that so many Americans do want this to be authorized by the UN. After all, the president keeps saying we don't have to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves."

So why did the president say "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11"

You asked the above in response to a post about the ties Saddam had to terrorists and al Qaeda.

Once more: This past week the president said we don't have evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 in particular, but he DID say Saddam and al Qaeda were connected.

See?

So why did the president say "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11"

Why? Well, obviously to make the case that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 incident. (Smirk)

Bush should say, as Cheney has said, that we know Iraq helped finance the first twin tower bombing. Based on that, he should conitinue, it's likely he was indirectly linked to the second. It's called inference based on circumstantial evidence.

Yes, I forgot Barbara Olsen.

Thanks and God bless her.

You're not correct. All the evidence against O.J. was either circumstantial or based on probabilities; very much like the evidence against Hussein (e.g., he apparently helped support and even finance the first twin towers bombing).

Guess you haven't seen the numerous articles about how good the steel tariffs turned out to be for the US steel companies. They acknowledged it has helped them, rather than hurt them as originally anticipated.

Search on FR - you'll see the articles.

Cheney said we didn't know.Who's spinning?

Piffle

I remember that too -

I haven't been a freeper near as long as you, but I have looked at some older articles - not all of them pro-Bush

I beleive some ppl on here referred to him as the Shrub

No more...

Ok girls, if you say so.

Point well taken.

"Then what about the Saudis?"

Think long term; you seriously can't believe that the Bush Administration doesn't undersatnd this?

The attempted democratization of Iraq and Afghanistan first serves many purposes in this war; they are as follows:

- These countries are now more willing to fight terrorism today rather than harbor and support it as they have done in the past.
- It gives the US the a better foothold in the Middle East politically and militarily. Our military can now better defend against and launch campaigns and actions. Look at the states now sponsoring terror (Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia) they are becoming disconnected and isolated. Common sense states they are the biggest supporters of Terrorism world wide. However, common sense also dictates that attacking them directly, without a base of operations to launch from in the Middle East, would be incredibly difficult , more prone to failure, and cost many American lives. Now that we have strong footholds in the region, these campaigns would be less difficult and costly in lives, money, and time to accomplish. In addition, attacking two of the largest exporters of Oil in the world (Iran & Saudi Arabia) would cause massive economic problems world wide. It would be idiotic to attack them without having possible oil reserves at our disposal (possibly Iraq?), as well as, a means by which to launch these operations. It better serves our purposes to pressure these states politically & covertly before taking military action! Is it a coincidence that Syria seems to be on notice now that it is surrounded?
- In the long run, the stability of that region must be in place to settle the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. Flourishing democracies, not supporting terrorism, will only help in this cause.

Lastly, and most importantly, it puts Islamic Terrorists on the defensive. We are bring the battle to them. This is far better scenario than seeing them battle in our cities.

Wow... do you learn all that cynicism in robot school! LOL! I have to tell you, it's misplaced. You may like consistency... but the Saudi situation is not how you describe...

As a government and as government policy, the Saudis do not promote terrorism. While 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, they were not under the orders of the Saudi government to perform 9/11.

In fact, being Saudi is not the way you should define those 15. You need to define them as Wahabbists. It was 15 Wahabbists that attacked us on 9/11...

But, the Saudis do export Wahabbism, their particular brand of Islam. The Wahabbis do believe that their brand of Islam is the only true Islam... and Wahabbis do promote jihad.

The Saudi ruling family owe their position (and the founding of the kingdom) to the Wahabbists. They rule by consent of the Wahabbists. The continuing outflow of money to mosques and teaching societies has not abated since 9/11. The Saudi government uses Wahabbism as a strong counterpoint to Iran's Shi'aism. The Saudis are scared of Shi'aism. The Iranian government does directly sponsor terrorism. Funds it, supplies it, gives it intelligence, and manpower.

The root of Bin Ladin's terror lies in his Wahabbi root. Bin Ladin views the Saudi ruling family as corrupt, worldly, western, backslidden heretics, who hurt the cause of Wahabbi Islam. Al Queda is opposed to the Saudi ruling family. They want the ruling family gone... and an Islamic government set up much like Tehran.

Of course the Saudi government is terrified. They have created a monster (the root which spawned the terror) and now they have to pay the piper. They are playing a dangerous double game... more for self-survival than out-and-out terror sponsorship.

In all your complaints and criticism have you ever thought of the impact of attacking the Saudis now... right now?

Right now, America is dependent on Saudi oil, just as we are dependent on Saudi influence throughout the region. Because of their huge giving throughout the Arab/Muslim world... the Saudis do wield a great deal of power and authority.

And, I have read reports that 1/3 of our stock market is Saudi money. Saudi money is intertwined, interwoven throughout our econmy. If we declare war on the Saudis... and they withdraw their funds, not only from America but from Europe... think of the consequences.

But we don't need to do that. Right now, American foreign policy still effects the Saudis. Diplomatic pressure does work.

We cannot expect the Saudi government to cut itself off from its Wahabbis roots overnight. First of all, it is the religion of the Kingdom. Whereas America seems perfectly content to steadfastly march toward the destruction of its Christian roots, the Saudis aren't so willing.

We must also first find a way to counterbalance the harm any Saudi withdrawal from our economy and Europe's economy as well.

And, it is fair to say that the Saudis do not fund Al Queda. They pay them to stay away. They pay them to leave them alone. It is not funding. It is extortion. Yet, the end result is the same... Al Queda receives money from the Saudis.

However, War on Terrorism is disingenuous. War on what KIND of terrorism? Is he going after the IRA next? Or Robert Mugabe?

By this statement alone, I wonder how much you have paid attention in the last two years. Over and over again, the President has stated, terrorist organizations with a global reach, and the states the sponsor them.

So, let's recap... as a government, the Saudis do not sponsor terrorism. 15 of the 19 hi-jackers were Saudis. But, (and make sure you get this) it is not their Saudi nationality that is the defining thing... it is their Wahabbi root that is the defining thing. Wahabbism is the danger (as is all Islam).

The War on Terror is against terrorist organizations with a global reach... and the states the sponsor them. The Saudis do not sponsor them directly. Through Wahabbism, they do sponsor them indirectly. That is the difference between Tehran and the Saudis.

So, you can rant and rave about inconsitency... You can hammer this administration for not fighting the war the way you want it done... but the Saudis are having the pressure applied... (you can tell that by how unhappy they have been with the Bush Administration lately).

But to win the war on terror, we are going to have to address both the Wahabbi root and the Shi'a root.

Thanks for the in depth response... I will support the President but with a bit of skepticism.