Powell admits "no direct connection" between Saddam and 9/11

[knowitall]

Russian and Chechen leaders are calling the battle from the booth. Makes it easy to put your own personal view or spin as to what and why things are happening. The battle is being played on the field and the rules are different. The players are the people and anything that moves is fair game. I have been in this "game" and I can tell you that logical, rational thinking is one of the first casualties. It is consumed by hate and revenge.

When one group of people forces their will on another group of people, it changes the way a person thinks.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
KG, this is what Cheney said last week:

"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

Though he didn't say it explicitly, he continues to imply that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq. He feels the need to continue to link the two in the minds of Americans, and that is exactly what he does implicitly.

Bush himself has shied away from these ongoing but dishonest implications, but Cheney motors on...

Personally, I just wish that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle would just get together and get the whole story straight. I don't even neccessarily care if that story is a lie anymore, I just want one cohesive story.

It's not even that I neccessarily object to the war. There's a growing number of "Liberal Hawks" and "Pro-war Left" out there who support this war just on the basis that Saddam Hussein was a murderous doltbag and deserved the boot. I can't say I disagree. My issue is with all the red tape surrounding it and some suspicious stuff leading up to it. Did we fight it to "liberate" Iraq I.E. Operation Iraqi Freedom? Did we fight it because Saddam had implications in 9/11 and was harboring terrorists? I.E. The War on Terror, Did we fight it because Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to our safety and we had to hit him before he hit us? I.E. Weapons of Mass Destruction? We got all three of these in a three pronged attack from the beginning.

Instead of one cohesive reason for war, it seemed like the administration was telling us "Here's a summary of various reasons why invading Iraq is probably a good idea" Alot of the wiritings about Iraq by some of the now infamous Neo-cons in the Bush administration make it seem like they were spoiling for a fight with Iraq for years.

The implication of Saddam and the 'War on Terror', that he was connected to Al-Qaeda and may have had implication in 9/11, dried up to be that Saddam had connections with some Palestenian suicide bombers and may have met with members of Al Qaeda but nothing concrete. The case that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he posed imminent danger to the United States, dried up to be no WMDs found yet and some evidence that he was retaining some of the intelligence and data about rhe creation of Chemical and Biological weapons they had before the sanctions were put on them so if they conceivably had the sanctions lifted they wouldn't have to start from scratch. Collectively it's all a bit dubious, but each 'case' doesen't stand up on it's individual merit alone, at least not as it relates to what the administration initially led us to believe leading up to the war.

I don't doubt that at least some of the intelligence regarding WMDs was honest. I don't doubt that Saddam wasn't squeaky clean as it regards to connections to terrorists. I just think that this is an administration with certain individuals that had wanted to invade Iraq for a long time, perhaps for perfectly legitimate reasons. Maybe they didn't think that an Invasion of Iraq for liberation purposes would sit well with an American people that preferred isolationism and was used to a policy of containment as supported by the secretary of state, and that elected a President that stated that he didn't want to focus on 'Nation Building.' I don't know. I just think certain elements of this administration were looking to invade Iraq long before 9/11 ever occured, and they tried to connect any information they had on Iraq, however sensational or dubious, to the tragedy of 9/11 and in doing so, compromised the trust of many Americans like myself. As Joe Lieberman said (paraphrasing) 'there was already good enough reason to invade Iraq. Some of the sensational claims they added on to strengthen their case for war were very reckless and could potentially compromise the trust of the public in the administration'

I don't object to the war, I just object to being misled.

[knowitall]

All fair questions Epitome. I don't think anyone in their right mind truly believes there is enough connection to tie Saddam with 9/11. Despite their efforts to deny it, it's impossible to mask their preoccupation with Iraq. That, coupled with the lack of targets remaining in Afghanistan and the dwindling hopes of capturing Bin Ladin, gives IMO an insight to their motive to invade. A terrible misjudgment.

[vinnieponte]

1,000 + innocent people and counting sent to their deaths for this, remmember that!