Bush invokes 9/11 in Iraq war

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, June 29, 2005 | By Joseph Curl

[ravingnutter]

"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."

Source

[Peach]

I did send it to the WH once and feel silly for doing so now.

My parent's have a neighbor whose son just went to work for Rove and I'm going to ask for his e-mail or work address and send it along.

[ravingnutter]

It has been proven that Iraq was not behind these attacks.

Did you see post #28? And just where are YOUR sources that they were not behind it?

[joesbucks]

The words used imply, but do not state. That is troubling coming from an administration supposedly banking on being straight forward and straight shooting with no mincing of words.

It's sort of fun watching those on this forum debate back and forth the ties vs the non-ties "facts". And clearly, you ask the average person on the street who watched that presentation and they will say that the President said Iraq was involved in 9/11. I asked a few this am and that is the response I got. So the words are painting a mental picture without stating it.

[joesbucks]

Peach: In my opinion, the admin wants it both ways. They want to paint the mental picture of Iraq involvement without stating implicity the Iraq involvement. That strategy is curious. They want to maintain deniability. There must be a reason for that.

No you were not silly to write the WH. It probably ended up in the White House post office several miles away from the White House and ultimately in the "circular file". But you still participated.

There are many instances where this administration has painted the mental picture without actually stating the picture they want the public to paint as being fact. That is troubling.

[Peach]

I agree and I don't understand it at all. I wish we had the answer.

I don't know if I mentioned it to you, but my parents have a neighbor whose son just went to work for Rove.

I think I'll send him a letter and the list and my reasons why I think it's important. It won't result in anything, probably, but my frustration level requires that I try.

[chgomac]

"Did you get your crystal ball off the Internet?"

No, I don't have a crystal ball. I do however, believe that fighting terrorists in Iraq makes sense.

[chgomac]

Thank you from me too.
chgomac

[Peach]

You're so welcome, chgomac.

[chgomac]

you are so articulate and I appreciate the great research on this subject...my feelings since 1998 were just a mother's intuition that one day we were going to be in another shooting war over Iraq-probably/possibly because Saddam finally shot one of the planes down or used his WMDs or started pushing into Kuwait again. I thought it was inevitable.

[Peach]

You have great intuition, chgomac. It was inevitable, although I didn't see it at the time.

[chgomac]

I didn't make the connection to Mecca until after 9/11.

To Muslims, having us near that holy site may have been as unbearable as having a foriegn military base in Vatican City would be to Catholics.

I think there may be much more Arab support for us re Iraq than is being reported.

[Peach]

Good analogy. Just yesterday, I got in my e-mail an article about how more and more moderate Muslims are speaking out against the jihadists; I guess a couple of books have been written recently by moderate Muslims as well. I'm so glad and it will go far in regaining trust, if the article was accurate.

[iconoclast]

I do however, believe that fighting terrorists in Iraq makes sense.

Really?

Instead of rooting out the King Bee in Pakistan?

Before we historically and preemptively invaded Iraq we could have counted the active Jihadists there on one hand.

[chgomac]

I've got to get ahold of this whatever it is "...for a New America" or "...a New Century" because I'm guessing it lays out the overall strategy for freeing Iraq. Aside from removing one of the most brutal dictators....

I've read that some of it had to do with it's central location in the hot bed Middle East; the fact that Iraq had cities-the brick & mortar bit; the fact that Iraq already had a base of several relegions so no one coalecing point; the fact that there are oil reserves; the fact that there was a large educated population there & abroad who would support the effort.

I'm not a professional soldier or strategist, but I give credit to those who are. Because of 9/11, we already had a large army in Afghanistan(which from history & current reports, is a horrible place to fight) and we knew we were going to have to make a stand somewhere to fight & the terrorists would be drawn to that place....to me, Iraq makes sense. It gives our side more advantages than anyplace else in the area.

[bray]

A poll is only as good as the sample, as we found out with the exit polls. It all depends on the mix.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[cambridge]

Saddam and Bin Laden were the Stalin / Trotsky of terrorism. It doesn't matter if they eventually fell out, they bred the filth together and take responsibility [or 'credit', as they'd see it] for all its actions.