• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks

danarhea said:
Mid September, right after the 911 attacks.
Click to expand...

He had always listed, throughout his campaign and since, the reasons why the nation might depart from this policy, reasons he had given as acceptable for running fiscal deficits: for war, recession, or emergency. As he said to me in mid-September, "Lucky me. I hit the trifecta."

If you read that and come away thinking that Bush was "gloating" to his budget director, I don't know what to tell you.
 
danarhea said:
Mid September, right after the 911 attacks.

"For War, recession, or emergency"
Click to expand...

Days after.....and has the time to be sarcastic against his nation in need.
 
goldendog said:
Days after.....and has the time to be sarcastic against his nation in need.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it took a lot of time and effort to recite that six word quip.

BUSH QUIPPED, AMERICA GOT GYPPED!
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Does that mean you have changed your position here?:)
Click to expand...

No not at all. My position there was to congratulate Cherokee on posting what he considered his source. It was the "citation" portion I was slapping his back over.

If you read the thread I didn't actually agree with him. He broke his style and actually posted source info. Albeit he was just attempting to bury you with text.

:happy:
 
danarhea said:
Rather than 911 getting in the way of Bush's plans, I believe it helped them greatly. In Cheney's paper, Restoring America's Defenses, he wrote that doing a makeover in the Middle East would be impossible without a new "Pearl Harbor". Bush also knew what 911 would mean for his Middle East plans, and remarked after the attacks "I just hit the trifecta".
Click to expand...

Project for a New American Century.

9/11 provided the catalyst and the neo-cons jumped at it. I think Bush's actual motivations for Iraq were slightly different than Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Rove's, and Rumsfelds though.

Bush was more idealistic if you ask me.
 
Lerxst said:
Project for a New American Century.

9/11 provided the catalyst and the neo-cons jumped at it. I think Bush's actual motivations for Iraq were slightly different than Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Rove's, and Rumsfelds though.

Bush was more idealistic if you ask me.
Click to expand...

They were all idealistic. The idea that anyone did this for money or oil is just idiotic and simplistic.

Whatever people might think of the end result, these people genuinely believed that our decision to invade Iraq would end up as a net positive for the US and the world.
 
Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 “turned out not to be true.” Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,” Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. “There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.” Citing 2002 Senate testimony by George Tenet, then the CIA director, he said, “We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”
Click to expand...

Pssh, i've been saying that for years that US and UK didn't give a **** about Iraqi freedom. They only made that bull**** up when they couldn't find the [non existent] WMD's.

You think the British or Americans would have supported it if they said we want to free Iraqis? Please. We could have spent our resources elsewhere, perhaps stopping genocides

Well, we're boned and have been drained of money. A rather fitting and amusing result of this war on terror.
 
RightinNYC said:
They were all idealistic. The idea that anyone did this for money or oil is just idiotic and simplistic.
Click to expand...
It was about oil, but not for personal gain from oil. It was about establishing a U.S. sphere of influence in the oil rich region. It was about American interests. Saddam was not an actual threat, but he was ripe for removal. And he was an asshole.

The difference in the ideals however is very important. Bush's ideals were much more simplistic relatively speaking than say Cheney's or Wolfowitz's.
Whatever people might think of the end result, these people genuinely believed that our decision to invade Iraq would end up as a net positive for the US
Click to expand...
I agree right here.
and the world.
Click to expand...
I disagree to some extent. The invasion of Iraq was not a about a net positive for Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc. It was a parochial move, for the furtherance of U.S. interests primarily.
 
sazerac said:
So when did Cheney ever say there was a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks?
Click to expand...

CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on*al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004

Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

The Raw Story | Cheney ties Iraq, al-Qaeda again after fielding question from his own official biographer

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a press conference during a surprise visit to Iraq, again stated that it was "pretty clear" there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda before Sep. 11.

Reminded of the release last week of an exhaustive Pentagon report which concluded that there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and the terror network, Cheney answered, "Well, it says no operational link. But there was, as I recall from looking at it, extensive links with Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was the organization headed by Zawahiri, and he merged EIJ with al-Qaeda when he became the deputy director of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's number two.
Click to expand...

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Cheney also cited reports of a meeting between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi in intelligence agent in Prague just months before the attacks, saying that U.S. intelligence has not yet been able confirm or discredit the information.

In perhaps his most startling remarks, the vice president became the first White House official to argue that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda's attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, telling Russert:

"We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."
Click to expand...

And finally :

Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked Cheney

[Cheney] described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Click to expand...

Dontch'all love teh powerz of teh Goggglez?
 
Last edited:
goldendog said:
Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

By James Rowley and Jonathan D. Salant

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney disavowed intelligence he once cited to suggest that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 “turned out not to be true.” Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,” Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. “There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.” Citing 2002 Senate testimony by George Tenet, then the CIA director, he said, “We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

I'm telling you folks this guy is pathetic..now that investigations are progressing and information is coming out in reguards to the Bush Administrations apparent motivatons for torturing people Cheney comes out and makes this stunning admission..why now?
Click to expand...

Well they did have a relationship and Saddam was harboring known AQ operatives who had attacked the U.S. on her own soil in 1993 and at one point even offered OBL safe haven after 9-11.

Furthermore; I have only heard Cheney claim of a Saddam tie to 9-11 through the Atta-ISS Prague connection, and while it now seems likely to be a case of mistaken identity the Czchek authorities still stand by their story and Cheney was relaying the intelligence in good faith.
 
Lerxst said:
The problem here is that this "relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda" was absolutely debunked prior to the invasion and the Bush administration knew it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that relationship is still not debunked sir. I suggest looking into the the Pentagon review of the DOCEX release which demonstrates Saddam's sponsorship of terrorist attacks against the U.S. including known AQ affiliates not to mention that Saddam was harboring a member of AQ responsible for bombing the WTC in 1993 and Saddam's offer of safe haven to OBL after 9-11.
 
danarhea said:
The biggest lie is when no WMD's were discovered, and the Bush administration began telling everyone that the war was fought to free the Iraqi people.
Click to expand...

Go read the AUMF and stop talking out of your bun hole. Liberating the Iraqi people was always a central goal of OIF and has in fact been official U.S. policy since 1998.

Think about it. If Bush said "let's go to war to free the Iraqi people", would Americans have supported it? Of course not. The Bush administration needed to scare the bejesus out of people with false information, cherry picked from a mountain of data that showed otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's a load of crap all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community came to the same conclusion in the 2002 NIE that Saddam possessed and was continuing development on WMD. Nothing was cherry picked the evidence pointed in only one direction.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
With support that was garnered from manipulated intelligence.
Click to expand...

Um the that's another load of pure BS completely debunked by the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence which demonstrates that the Administration in no way interfered with the intelligence community and guess what? All 16 members of the intelligence community found in the 2002 NIE that Saddam possessed and was continuing development of WMD.

Furthermore; we now know from the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. (including AQ affiliates) right up until the fall of Baghdad.
 
danarhea said:
I didn't, although you certainly have. Here is a copy of the Iraq War Resolution.

1) In what are referred to as the whereas (in the first section), some have taken out of context the "whereas" that "Iraq repressed its population" as meaning to free the population, when in fact, it was put in there to reference Saddam's attacks on the population with chemical weapons. This is put into context in the very next "whereas":

2) The whereas section refers to connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda (false), members of al-Qaeda being in Iraq and being trained by Iraq (false), Saddam stockpiling WMD's (false), Iraq having an advanced nuclear weapons program (false), Iraq was a threat to the United States (false), through inference, that Iraq was involved in the planning of the 911 attacks (false), and was harboring those who committed the 911 attacks (false).

3) Some refer to this "whereas" as freeing the Iraqi people:

However, this again is in the context of overthrowing Saddam and replacing him for his violation of Security Council resolutions, not as a casus belli to invade iraq, as will be made clear in the actual authorization itself.

4) The "whereas" section is not the authorization. the authorization, which is in section 3, reads as follows:

Notice the context of defending the US against the threat posed by Iraq. And why is Iraq a threat to the United States? Because of their WMD's, of course. Also notice where it says enforce the Security Council Resolutions. These resolutions were for Iraq to get rid of it's WMD's, and not to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

5) Notice that, in the authorization itself, freeing the Iraqi people is not mentioned. Only parts 1 and 2 in section a, which is the authorization itself.

Now, instead of name calling and personal attacks (To wit - You lied when you said I did not read the resolution, made a misstatement when you said that what I said was not true, and added an ad hominem personal attack at the end to boot), you might go through the resolution yourself, and point out in the actual authorization section, which is the pertinent part of the resolution, where this is about freeing the Iraq people, instead of attacking Iraq over WMD's.

Ball is in your court now.
Click to expand...

I have never in my life seen such mental gymnastics the AUMF clearly shows that U.S. wished to overthrow the Iraqi regime and install a democratic system of governance. The "whereas" section are the reasons why the POTUS is being granted "authorization" to remove Saddam from power. One of those reasons was our wish to have a democratic Iraq.
 
buck said:
Looks like I win! :)
Click to expand...

On a purely superficial level that ignores the actual fundamental reasons sure. But that's like winning the mini stuff animal at the carnival, the kind you need 256 to trade in for the giant stuffed panda.

BTW, The Iraq war resolution voted on and passed by congress and the quote you provided of Wolfowitz didn't list the reasons for war in order of importance.
Click to expand...

The point is that the administration didn't really give a **** about the Iraqi people.

The whole invasion was for land to build military bases. Everything else was a cover for that.
 
goldendog said:
Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

By James Rowley and Jonathan D. Salant

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney disavowed intelligence he once cited to suggest that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 “turned out not to be true.” Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,” Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. “There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.” Citing 2002 Senate testimony by George Tenet, then the CIA director, he said, “We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

I'm telling you folks this guy is pathetic..now that investigations are progressing and information is coming out in reguards to the Bush Administrations apparent motivatons for torturing people Cheney comes out and makes this stunning admission..why now?
Click to expand...

Cheney is trying to distance himself from the administration and its decisions. He will fail.
 
hazlnut said:
So, post links to your 'facts' and we'll see what's what.

Careful review of the facts often reveals the truth.;)

Don't forget to include the state of the union prior to the invasion and the speech Bush gave to the nation on the eve of the invasion. Because that's when he told Americans the reasons we were going to war.

Yes, as the war dragged on, these reasons seemed to magically change in speeches and statements from the WH. Go back an count the times WMD's were mentioned and you'll have a pretty accurate understanding of what we were told.

Remember the Orwell book Animal Farm when the pigs kept changing the rules as they went along.
Click to expand...

Wiki typically isn't the best source, but all of these reasons are provided in the text of the resolution.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution]Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Click to expand...
 
Laila said:
Pssh, i've been saying that for years that US and UK didn't give a **** about Iraqi freedom. They only made that bull**** up when they couldn't find the [non existent] WMD's.
Click to expand...

Look at some of Bush's earliest speeches on the issue. You'll find that the fomentation of democracy and civil rights in Iraq are high on the list of priorities.

Lerxst said:
It was about oil, but not for personal gain from oil. It was about establishing a U.S. sphere of influence in the oil rich region. It was about American interests.
Click to expand...

Of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, there was also a genuine belief in the Democratic Peace Principle and the domino effect such an action would have in the region. They legitimately believed (and may well still believe) that 25 years from now, the region will be far more stable than it would have been otherwise, thus meaning a better situation for us. They may be right.
 
Cheney says that they found links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I'm sure there were links. But did Cheney ever say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Over and over in interviews he explains that they have no proof of that. He said it right after 9/1. He said it in Sept. of 2002. He said it in 2004.....

There were lots of mainstream news articles in the late 90s about Saddam offering safe haven to Osama Bin Laden. That's a pretty good reason why people would think there was a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. There was a news story about Saddam's newspaper seemingly knowing in advance about the attacks. There was an early photo of American soldiers holding up a large poster of Saddam gloating about the attacks. Iraq was the only country not to offer and condolences to the victims of 9/11.

I still say people are desperate to offer some sort of explanation for the mass sedition that went on throughout Bush's terms. If I had lied about our president in a time of war and then couldn't prove it I'd be pretty freaked out too.
 
I don't get it, whoever said Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I thought it was about not complying with UN resolutions.
 
American said:
I don't get it, whoever said Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I thought it was about not complying with UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

I would say the bar kept getting raised.

And nobody seems remembers the oil for food scandal that made dealing with the UN so impossible. We were supposed to abide by those thieves?
 
Agent Ferris said:
Um the that's another load of pure BS completely debunked by the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence which demonstrates that the Administration in no way interfered with the intelligence community and guess what? All 16 members of the intelligence community found in the 2002 NIE that Saddam possessed and was continuing development of WMD.

Furthermore; we now know from the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. (including AQ affiliates) right up until the fall of Baghdad.
Click to expand...

I'll be back to put you in the right frame of mind later today. You're not going to like what you see.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Sorry but that relationship is still not debunked sir. I suggest looking into the the Pentagon review of the DOCEX release which demonstrates Saddam's sponsorship of terrorist attacks against the U.S. including known AQ affiliates not to mention that Saddam was harboring a member of AQ responsible for bombing the WTC in 1993 and Saddam's offer of safe haven to OBL after 9-11.
Click to expand...

Yes it was debunked. Wish I had more time right now, like I said, later I'll post up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom