Powell admits "no direct connection" between Saddam and 9/11 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

sturm und drang · 09-12-2004, 07:00 PM

At least Gen. Powell has the decency to tell the American people the truth...

Sunday, September 12, 2004

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry accused the Bush administration Sunday of falsely linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, "in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war."

Kerry made his charge in a statement released after Secretary of State Colin Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he has seen nothing to link Saddam Hussein's regime with the 9/11 attacks.

"We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

Kerry said Powell "came clean with the American people about the lack of a connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks."

Not only that, Kerry said, Powell also contradicted comments Vice President Dick Cheney has made as recently as Friday.

At campaign stops Thursday and Friday, Cheney mentioned al Qaeda in discussing the Iraq war, but he did not link Iraq under Saddam to September 11.

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis."

"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."

In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

The independent, bipartisan panel that investigated the attacks released its final report July 22. The 9/11 commission found there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in the 1990s, but it said those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

In his statement Sunday, Kerry complained that Cheney "continues to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror.

"The president needs to answer the question: Who do you think is right? Vice President Cheney or Secretary Powell? And if it's Secretary Powell, will you direct your vice president to stop misleading the American people?"

The Kerry statement continued: "On an issue of such importance, where U.S. troops are bearing nearly 90 percent of the burden, and American taxpayers are paying $200 billion and counting, the administration has an especially solemn obligation to conduct itself in an honest and straightforward way.

"Unfortunately, in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war, this White House has repeatedly chosen to mislead the American people."

MavKikiNYC · 09-12-2004, 07:31 PM

We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 08:41 PM

Then why did Kerry vote for the Iraq war?

LRB · 09-12-2004, 09:15 PM

This story is 100% political spin and misdirection. Kerry is desperate because he can't defend his Vietnam record, he can't defend his protests of the Vietnam war, he can't defend his records as a Senator, and he has no solid position on any of the issues. All Kerry can do is spin, blow smoke, and try and misdirect the public's attention.

Epitome22 · 09-13-2004, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

Let's get off the disasterous Kerry campaign a moment and focus on the war and what Colin Powell said. I'm interested in what you think and want to discuss this intelligently and in a civil manner.

>We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

From my reading of this statement, it appears that Colin Powell now believes that there may have been a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in the past, but he doesen't think this was a strong enough connection to directly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the War on Terror. We'll get to the oppressive regime and WMDs later. A reasonable inference from this reading would be; that a reasoning for an invasion of Iraq as being part of a greater war on terror was not justifiable. What is your thought on this?

LRB · 09-13-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

Let's get off the disasterous Kerry campaign a moment and focus on the war and what Colin Powell said. I'm interested in what you think and want to discuss this intelligently and in a civil manner.

>We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

From my reading of this statement, it appears that Colin Powell now believes that there may have been a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in the past, but he doesen't think this was a strong enough connection to directly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the War on Terror. We'll get to the oppressive regime and WMDs later. A reasonable inference from this reading would be; that a reasoning for an invasion of Iraq as being part of a greater war on terror was not justifiable. What is your thought on this?

Wow talk about totally rewriting what Powell said. Instead of putting all kinds of unsaid meaning into what Powell said, why not just take him at his word: that he didn't see any direct connection. It is not reasonable to put your house of cards personal interpretation into what Powell said to mean that he thought that an invasion of Iraq was not justified. If that's what he intened to say, I'm sure that Powell would have stated it much clearer. You're reaching.

Epitome22 · 09-13-2004, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB

Quote:

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

Let's get off the disasterous Kerry campaign a moment and focus on the war and what Colin Powell said. I'm interested in what you think and want to discuss this intelligently and in a civil manner.

>We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

From my reading of this statement, it appears that Colin Powell now believes that there may have been a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in the past, but he doesen't think this was a strong enough connection to directly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the War on Terror. We'll get to the oppressive regime and WMDs later. A reasonable inference from this reading would be; that a reasoning for an invasion of Iraq as being part of a greater war on terror was not justifiable. What is your thought on this?

Wow talk about totally rewriting what Powell said. Instead of putting all kinds of unsaid meaning into what Powell said, why not just take him at his word: that he didn't see any direct connection. It is not reasonable to put your house of cards personal interpretation into what Powell said to mean that he thought that an invasion of Iraq was not justified. If that's what he intened to say, I'm sure that Powell would have stated it much clearer. You're reaching.

With due respect,I think it is you who are misreading what I say. I wasn't saying that Colin Powell thought an invasion of Iraq was not justified. For there is a trinity of supposed reasons for an invasion of Iraq, the initial one being the implication of Saddam in the tragedy of 9-11 and subsequently the war on terror. The other two being the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and an argument for toppling an evil ruler.

Now Colin Powell has stated that he believed Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction (pre-war) and whether or not Powell preferred a 'containment' policy for Iraq he certainly wouldn't deny that it was a murderous regime. But based on his comments, about there being no direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, would you or MavKikiNYC or anyone for that matter agree with an inference that if Colin Powell supported an invasion of Iraq, it wouldn't be or shouldn't have been based on Saddam's perceived implication in 9-11?

LRB · 09-13-2004, 02:06 AM

Quote:

With due respect,I think it is you who are misreading what I say. I wasn't saying that Colin Powell thought an invasion of Iraq was not justified. For there is a trinity of supposed reasons for an invasion of Iraq, the initial one being the implication of Saddam in the tragedy of 9-11 and subsequently the war on terror. The other two being the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and an argument for toppling an evil ruler.

Now Colin Powell has stated that he believed Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction (pre-war) and whether or not Powell preferred a 'containment' policy for Iraq he certainly wouldn't deny that it was a murderous regime. But based on his comments, about there being no direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, would you or MavKikiNYC or anyone for that matter agree with an inference that if Colin Powell supported an invasion of Iraq, it wouldn't be or shouldn't have been based on Saddam's perceived implication in 9-11?

The only justifiable links between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion are indirect links IMO. I feel that what Powell says is compatible with that opinion. Just because he says he knows of no direct links, does not rule out the possiblity that he knows of indirect links. But to say that there is a direct link between Iraq and 9/11 is not supported by the publicly available evidence IMO.

Chiwas · 09-12-2004, 10:05 PM

Don't forget that Osama had direct conections with many important persons in the past. It wasn't considered a fault in those times.

However, I missed the link between the priorities of these times. Was Iraq more dangerous than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Was Bin Laden hidden in Iraq? Were the forces in Afghanistan going to find him presumibly while Iraq was been invaded?

Are we after Osama yet?

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 10:26 PM

Yes they are still in Afghanistan huting Taliban and Alqeda in case you missed it.

Chiwas · 09-12-2004, 10:33 PM

What is the highest priority?

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 10:35 PM

Finding someone who may be dead I guess. That should stop all terroist acts.

Chiwas · 09-12-2004, 10:41 PM

Yeah, the war on Iraq will stop all terrorist attacks with a higher probability.

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 10:44 PM

With Saddam in power atleast Iraq would have had peace and tranquility.