9/11, Iraq, and Bush Admin Claims

Zyphlin · 03-11-08, 01:06 PM

Alright...another thread got me curious about this. For some time I have heard the claim that Bush and or his admin have said that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. However, I've never seen actual quoted accounts of this. I tried to do a little bit of research and found an interesting thing on FactCheck.org.

The closest things I can see that would give this idea are:

General statements by the Bush Administration that there has been a collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The 9/11 report tends to be one of the big authorities used to both prove this right, and wrong. Some on the report state that there has been no proof that Iraq and Al-Qaeda collaborated on any attacks against American Interests. However, others...such as democratic vice-chair Lee Hamilton...state that their findings don't conflict with the administratiosn statements, because the administration never stated there was collaboration on attacks gainst American interests, but only that there was some connection or ties between them, which intelligence suggested there were.

Another one possibly the cause for it is Bush's state of the union shortly before the war in iraq:

Quote:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

(Emphasis FactCheck)

Here again though, Bush does not state that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It states that Saddam has dealings with terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda, but anything beyond that is reading into his comments. One could poitn to the "Before September the 11th" line, but in the entire context of his speech it simply is indicating that after Sept 11th we now know we ARE vunerable to attack. I speak of context not only because of the initial part that doesn't state he was involved in 9/11....but also the last part. In the end, he gives a "What If" scenario in which Saddam does help, using the words "This time armed by Saddam" in regards to this "What If". If he's using the words THIS TIME, that must mean clearly that Saddam didn't have a hand in it LAST TIME.

Finally, there was a statement made by Cheney that I HAD heard before, and seemed to be a good damning piece agianst him. However, FactCheck had it in its full context which COMPLETELY changed its tone. The statement, taken alone from most sources is:

"now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11"

This seems to be that Cheney is saying that Iraq was the heart of the base for terrorists, espicially those that hit us on 9/11. However, when we look at it in context:

Quote:

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

It seems VERY clear to me here, that he's laying out the (in my mind flawed) Bush plan for the MIDDLE EAST. To secure a democratic central location within it to be used to fight the war on terror and perhaps spread democracy from within.

Now, in context of his entire statement, the "geographic base" that Cheney is speaking of that is the home of terrorists, espicially those on 9/11, is not "Iraq" but the MIDDLE EAST...with Iraq being at the heart of that geographic area, and thus a place to start the strategy.

Taken fully in context, this once again does not appear that the Bush Administration is saying that Iraq had any hand in 9/11.

The ONLY thing I could find that was somewhat true of the administration giving any credance to the thought that Iraq and 9/11 were directly tied in some way, was statements that Mohamed Atta had possibly had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer month before the attacks. However, the most the Administration has said is that the meeting COULD'VE taken place; and that it hasn't been proven, nor refuted.

Bush has stated a number of times since the beginning that countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists will be viewed as no different than the terrorist themselves. He did not say only terrorists that target the united states, or terrorists that have hit the united states, or terrorists directly involved in 9/11. There here been signs for years of Saddam and his regime funding or supporting terrorist actions within and abroad, and at the time intelligence (acknowledged by the 9/11 commission) that showed that there was at least some connections and ties to Saddam's regime and members of Al-Qaeda; though how those have stood the test of time, or how knowledgable Saddam himself was of it is debatable. However, while I may strongly disagree with Bush's strategy in the War on Terror, his entrence into Iraq was not alterior to the things he stated in regards to the War on Terror as well as, thanks to U.N. resolutions, the only Middle Eastern country that could likely have a decent attempt at a legitimate reason to attack could be made.

In the end however, I have been able to find no statements by Bush, or those high up in his administration, stating that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, assisted in pulling off 9/11, funded 9/11, or anything of the sort. The closest I have found is insinuating that Iraq could supply terrorist with things that could cause something akin to it; or that Iraq supports terrorists akin to those that did 9/11....but never a direct connection.

I would be HAPPY to be proven wrong, by anyone that can provide links and quotes. I'd love to see that this constant drum beat of "George Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11" actually has a factual foundation...and if it does please post it.

FactCheck

Reverend_Hellh0und · 03-11-08, 01:13 PM

There are none. The left's playbook is "Accusations=guilt"....

Zyphlin · 03-11-08, 01:39 PM

As I've now had to state in another thread...

It does appear that the Bush Administration WAS trying to paint a connection between Al-Qaeda and terrorists that did 9/11 and Iraq and any other nation sponsoring/supporting/harboring terrorists.

The connection being that Iraq and those sponsoring/supporting/harboring terrorists would be viewed no differently than Al-Qaeda/those that did 9/11 in this "WAR ON TERROR", as while they did not have a hand in it they have the capability to, and shown in the past to help those that would, do similar attacks.

This connection was essential, and had been laid out prior to even the afghanistan invasion, when he repeatedly stated that those that harbor or support terrorist would be viewed no differently. This connection is a valid one in the scope and realm of the War on Terror laid out by the Bush Administration.

That connection however is STRIKINGLY different then putting down a connection that Iraq had a hand or assisted with 9/11.

Lachean · 03-11-08, 01:50 PM

Does it have to be Bush? Or will someone from the Administration suffice? Like Cheney for example:

Reverend_Hellh0und · 03-11-08, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

Does it have to be Bush? Or will someone from the Administration suffice? Like Cheney for example:

Quote exactly what we are listening for.

Iriemon · 03-11-08, 01:58 PM

This topic is being addressed in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...rnment-11.html (Can we afford another year of right wing government?)

Zyphlin · 03-11-08, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

Does it have to be Bush? Or will someone from the Administration suffice? Like Cheney for example:

As a note, this was brought up above:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

The ONLY thing I could find that was somewhat true of the administration giving any credance to the thought that Iraq and 9/11 were directly tied in some way, was statements that Mohamed Atta had possibly had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer month before the attacks. However, the most the Administration has said is that the meeting COULD'VE taken place; and that it hasn't been proven, nor refuted.

That being said...I have a few issues with the above video.

First, yay for video editing. This is why YouTube is really an iffy source for things at any point that the video is obvious edited. There's absolutely NO context as to the line Cheney is saying in 2001, what was said before, what was said after, etc. As you can see in my first post with the part that I quoted from Cheney...out of context something he said looked damning, in context it made complete sense.

Now, with that said...

Having a bit of experience with the intelligence field there is no reason to believe that its not possible that at the time the intelligence was thought to be confirmed, while later information came about that contradicted that and caused it to once again be unconfirmed and thus still up in the air. This isn't all that uncommon. Without the full context of Cheney's statement that day, it'll be hard to go back and find out exactly what possibly led to that belief or to find out when and if that information had changed.

It also doesn't even give us enough context to know if he's saying he met with an intelligence officer to get help, to get funding, to be harbored, to get intelligence...if it was given, if a deal was made, etc.

Though that is the closest thing to actual evidence thus far, and I will have to try and look at getting an actual transcript or a full viewing of that Meet the Press to actually see context and not just a cropped out video selection chosen by a YouTuber who was specifically making a video with a point.

Zyphlin · 03-11-08, 01:59 PM

Its a bit off topic there, thus why I made my full post here before it started heating up in that one. I will try to poin tthat one in this direction

Zyphlin · 03-11-08, 02:07 PM

In regards to the Cheney quote that seems to be routinely taken out of context.

"heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists"

Now, I may be crazy hear...however generally when I hear "The heart" of something in regards to a geographical or a directional sense it tends to mean the middle. The "heartland" of America is the middle of it, the "heart" of the city is generally its central location. As well, stating "geographic" gives an impression of a land mass and not a specific country, thus the middle east.

If you'll note from the image:

Iraq sits within the "Heart" of the Middle East, a central point within the geographical region.

Do I know for sure that that was the context Cheney was using? No, I am not in his mind. However, reading that quote as a whole, and viewing it in the scope of the Bush Strategy of spreading democracy within the middle east, it seems that that is the likely indication of intent and context for those words when taken within context of the entire statement.

Zyphlin · 03-11-08, 02:36 PM

Also...here's something else.

Saying that we're in Iraq due to the events of 9/11, is a true statement (in theory, not going into the long drawn out process of debating if Georgie was just finishing daddies business and would've done so no matter what). If 9/11 did not happen, we would not start the War on Terror, and thus not go after countries that sponsored or harbored terrorists, nor need a central base in this fight, so would not have invaded Iraq.

In that way, the attacks on 9/11 did percipitate the Iraq War and we are there due to 9/11.

We are not there however due to their participation in 9/11