The Al Qaeda Exageration

[palerider]

"Nothing was suggested"? Then why did almost 70% of the public, before the Iraqi invasion, think Saddam was involved? I'll tell you why, Bush administration officials insinuated that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Because the media told you so. You can provide no quotes from the bush administration saying such a thing but yet, 70% of the people believe they said it. Someone told them that they said it? It wasn't me? Was it you? Well, of course it was you, and people like you because the bush hating side of the press told you they said it and you just gobbled it up and repeated it as often as you could.

AttaLook at these remarks by Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press." In three appearances dating back to December 2001, Cheney said there is information suggesting that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague months before the attack, a story that the FBI, the CIA and the Czech government all said was fictional (Atta was in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting). [/quote]

Documents were found by iraq's interem government that do place atta in a meeting with iraqi intelligence officials.

On another appearance, Tim Russert questioned him about the public's perception of a Saddam-al Qaeda link. Cheney's answer, "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." Russert asked directly if such a connection existed. Cheney said, "We don't know." Later, in the show Cheney called Iraq, "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault mow for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Wait a minute, I thought "the geographic base of the terrorists", was Afghanistan. Isn't that why we invaded?

No. Once again you haven't been paying attention. We went to afghanistan because the taliban were providing financial support to the terrorists who attacked us. One's geographical base isn't necessarily the same as the base of one's financial support.

Lies, insinuations, connections made with no supporting evidence, all meant to dupe the public into supporting the invasion. Count yourself among the duped.

Well, there was some duping going on. It was perpetrated by the press on those who were willing to believe whatever they are told so long as it is either bad about bush or bad about the US. And there were those who were duped. Unfortunately, they are so invested in seing the US defeated at this point, that they can't accept that they were duped and so continue the steady string of lies, insinuations, and corrections made with no supporting evidence all with the intent of insuring defeat for the US.

 

[palerider]

.....Especially when The Admin conveniently-forgot the lessons-of-the-Past.

Of course, none of the things he predicted way back then have happened, so what is your point? Iraq didn't fly apart and neighboring nations haven't laid claim to iraqi lands. If you are attempting to prove that things said a decade earlier don't necessarily apply to today, then you have succeeded.

 

[palerider]

No, a truly cowardly people would want to appease and accomodate the enemy at the expense of our principles and way of life. Standing up and directly confronting the threat is not the least bit cowardly.

True. If you want to see cowardly people, take a look at those who were doing business under the table with saddam in the oil for food program rather than assuring that he lived by the terms of his surrender. The war we are in today is the result of cowardly people attempting to appease and befriend saddam rather than behaving like world leadears and demanding that he live according to the aggreements he signed.

 

[gtanner79]

Not that I know everything, but I was pretty sure that Bush and Cheney had discussed a link with Al-Qaeda and Saddam/Iraq. Here's an article from CNN.com from 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/

It's interesting - it seems that the Iraq and Al-Qaeda link is there, but not specifically with Saddam. Interesting.

However, I do believe that this "Iraq War" has a sort of umbrella of causes/goals that have been pushed by the administration. First it was Saddam and the WMDs, as well as the theat of future terrorism, then it just seemed to be creating democracy in Iraq along with the bonus of trying to eliminate terrorist-friendly governments. If you ask me, I think the whole thing is a mess.

All that being said, I'm glad there's a debate going on. It stirs the intellect.