Did the Bush and Cheney ever claim there was a direct link from Iraq to 9-11?

[CommieCutter]

From my understanding they NEVER claimed there was a direct connection to 9-11 and Iraq, only that there was a relationship between Iraq and AlQaeda.

Could someone confirm or correct?

[CommieCutter]

Sorry I know Vanities are despised by some but there's a lot of smart people on here.

From my understanding they NEVER claimed there was a direct connection to 9-11 and Iraq, only that there was a relationship between Iraq and AlQaeda.

Could someone confirm or correct?

[BfloGuy]

Your are correct. They didn’t.

[CommieCutter]

Thanks.

[Warriormom]

you are correct. The Bush administration only claimed a relationship between Saddam and AlQaeda, not a link between Saddam and 9/11.

[Warriormom]

you are correct. The Bush administration only claimed a relationship between Saddam and AlQaeda, not a link between Saddam and 9/11.

[Mr. Peabody]

You’re right. And they said it over and over again.

It’s a lefty lie.

[dila813]

The concern was that Iraq was a potental source of WMD for terrorists in the future.

[ansel12]

Here is Al Gore in 1992 criticizing HW Bush for ignoring Iraq and it’s terrorist connections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

[muawiyah]

The Bush administration didn't use their strongest point ~ which is that the enemy forces wish to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate. That included most all of North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkish dominated areas in Central Asia, Turkey itself, the Balkans (including Greece), and probably even Kazan (a real serious part of Russia these days but Islamic irredentists always want it all back).

All you had to do is check out the boundaries of the Islamic Caliphate and you could readily see that there were elements within that former polity that we could not afford to fall into their hands ~ e.g. Iraq, the Levant, Morocco/Tunisia/Libya/Algeria/Egypt ~ and so forth.

Democrats don't believe the Islamic Caliphate ever existed or that if it did anyone would want it back.

Osama Bin Laden is just one of millions of Moslems who wish for the Caliphate to be re-established!

The Iraq war sought to re-set Iraq as a strong armed force with a healthy economy. The Afghanistan war sought to eliminate important AlQaida elements. The sponsored conflict in Pakistan has as its aim the protection of the Pak core areas to the South and along the Indus from AlQaida elements.

We give Egypt billions of bucks to go out and murder everyone who even so much as raises his head on this issue of the Islamic Caliphate. Even the Libyan dictator has been co-opted. A revived Caliphate would turn him and his cronies to dogfood in an instant.

The grand scheme of things is to keep the Islamic Caliphate dead and gone and out of everyone's hair.

[lacrew]

I’m going from memory here...but I think there was an attempt to poison the water in the UK, which originated from a town in northern Iraq...strike one.

I also believe that a high level Iraqi official was tracked visiting the Taliban, pre- 911...strike two.

Of course, there was the plan to kill Bush Sr....strike three.

Then there was the whole violating the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War, throwing out the inspectors (and Billy did nothing about it)...strike four.

I don’t remember hearing any positive connection being made from Bush/Cheney, as far as 911 is concerned. Saddam was a secular ruler, and he was only beginning to form coalitions with religious zealots.

I read a 600 page book, which I can’t remember the name of. It was written by an Israeli, who seemed to have alot of connections in the Israeli intelligence community. He described an alarming pre 911 development - Uda Hussein had befriended Assad’s son (Syria). They even began joint military operations in western Syria, which were mock attacks on Israel. Clinton did nothing, because of his desperate desire to ‘achieve mideast peace’. Also, the leadership of Israel was in the mood to make concessions to Arafat...thinking appeasement would help their situation. Anyway, when 911 happened, the joint operations stopped for almost a year, and then started up again. It was starting to take the angle that Saddam would go down in history as the great persian warrior who destroyed Israel...but, Egypt and even Jordan thought this would give Saddam too much ‘gravitas’ in the region...and they were considering their own attack. All the while, Iran too wanted to beat Saddam to the punch.

Well, of all the players who wanted to destroy Israel, Iraq seemed the most dangerous. Bush knew he had poison gas. Bush knew he was certifiably crazy...enough to invade another country for no particular reason. Bush knew that he had sent an emissary to buy yellow cake in Africa (no matter what Joe Wilson says). Bush knew Iraq had been pursuing a nuke program (and kicked out the inspectors!!!). It seemed that Iraq was the most destabilizing force in the region...and Saddam’s aspirations to suddenly become a non-secular jihadi, coupled with the poison water attempt, and contact with the Taliban, made him target number one. I’m sure Bush also wanted to keep going with Iran and North Korea (remember the axis of evil), but he didn’t have the pretext of a cease fire violation.

There are some members of his staff who wrote in tell-all books that Bush immediately sought a link to Iraq, right after 911...trying to use it as a pretext to an invasion...but who knows if that’s true. But, as far as I know, Bush never connected that dot in public. Cheney came close, as he mentioned the Taliban connection in public.

[rebelskid]

as I understand it.. a flight simulater was stolen by iraq during the kuwait invasion. the simulater was listed as stolen and was never returned. the 9/11 thugs supposedly got training in iraq on this equipment. I’m not sure that this was ever “announced” by the gwb admin as a reason for going in... but hell if it’s true thats good enough for me.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

There are quotes from Bush stating that there is nothing to link Saddam (Iraq) to the 9/11 attacks.

Here's the first hit from a bing search, "President Bush rules out Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the US, but says al-Qaeda and Saddam are linked."

The left however claims that a great number of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in / responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

My experience here (FR) and listening to talk radio 24/7 tells me that few (if any) Americans on the right believe that Saddam or Iraq was involved in 9/11. Many of us believe that Saddam (Iraq) was likely involved in the OKC bombing but not 9/11.

So here is how the left feeeeeeeeeeeeels that Bush is lying that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

I recall -- but cannot locate -- comments from Ted Kennedy claiming that because Bush is not doing enough to refute the claim that Saddam was to blame for 9/11 he (Bush) is therefore lying that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I am not kidding.

[ansel12]

Here is 31 seconds from 1992 of Gore telling us that Iraq is terrorist central and that Saddam was on a crash program to develop WMDs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&NR=1

[Shqipo]

We wouldn't have fiddled around with the UN resolutions for a full year if there was a direct link. It would have been bombs away. They never stated such.

[KoRn]

I never heard them make any such link.

The entire 911/Iraq relationship is an urban legend and straw man created by the left.

The argument for Iraq was based on terrorists *like* those who attacked us on 911 getting their hands on weapons from Iraq.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Correct. Leftist are always doing this slight-of-hand technique to debating. If you say we need to stop illegal immigration the leftist will respond to you as if you said you’re trying to stop all forms of immigration (legal or illegal). Cheney probably said that there is a connection between Sadaam Hussein/Iraq and terrorism. Then the leftist takes that comment and says “Cheney says Iraq connected to terrorist attacks of 9/11”. Thats the game they play. They respond to what you didn’t say and then they try to redefine words (i.e., its not abortion, its choice; its not global warming , its climate change).

[quesera]

From my recollection they never did and were very careful not to make such claims.

[rintense]

No, the MSM fabricated the claim on their own interpretation of the ‘facts’.

[jwalsh07]

No, it was a lie promulgated by the left and widely dispersed by the Goebellsian media.

Bush went after Iraq for several reasons. Number one in my mind was Hussein giving sanctuary to the then world's worst terrorists including Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and Abu Zarqawi. The first two were directly responsible for the murder of Americans. With those nuts running around freely, Hussein's ability to produce WMD and Hussein's paying bounty for American and Israeli scalps Bush would have been negligent not to put that beast out of business.

George W. Bush did what he had to and in the end he id it well. No firefight goes according to plan and sure as hell no war does but overall Bush did a great job lancing the boil known as the Middle East evidenced by the fact that the WMD tyhat used to be in the hands of that nut from Libya is now in American hands. You think Khadafy is afraid of Obama and willing to give up what he has now acquired?

[SES1066]

This is a similar technique to the Gobble’s “Big Lie”, if you claim that something was said how can it be disproven? The left never will point to a specific, only generalities. For that matter, I can easily believe that many who believe this are ‘honest’ in their belief, to them it is as logical as Bush’43s Air National Guard records. In short “Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no only please.”