Today, <i>yet again</i>, it was made obvious that nobody takes this poor man seriously. He had to clarify that his administration had never made any <i>specific</i> claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Rather, they had cited "numerous contacts" between Saddam and 9/11.

To be so egregiously misquoted is annoying enough. But what must really get him down is that nobody ever asks him for <i>specific</i> statements in the first place! The nation seems to satisfy itself with vague mutterings that nobody can pin him down on and nobody seems to remeber correctly anyway. WMD stockpiles, nuclear materials bought in Africa, links to 9/11 -- on vital topic after topic it is revealed months after the fact that Bush was never asked to provide any concrete answer or explanation.

For someone who prides himself on his decisiveness, this must be really frustrating.

Even today, in reference to his citation of "numerous contacts", nobody thought to ask if he considers zero a number. ;)

He had to clarify that his administration had never made any <i>specific</i> claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Rather, they had cited "numerous contacts" between Saddam and 9/11.

First off, both Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton issued statements today about the media's erroneous reporting (including the NYT) of the contents of the 9-11 Commission's findings.

"What we have found is, Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, who is chairman.

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were "not that apparent to me."

Bush was correct today, and has been consistent in his past statements that neither he nor anyone else in his administration has ever said there was a link between Saddam and the 09/11 terrorist attacks. He's also been correct in his statements that there were links between Saddam and terrorists in general, and specifically al-Qaeda (more than zero!). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your last statement above was probably an innocent typo on your part, since the "numerous contacts" were referring to terrorists and not 9/11 as you wrote. ;)

First off, both Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton issued statements today about the media's erroneous reporting (including the NYT) of the contents of the 9-11 Commission's findings.

"What we have found is, Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, who is chairman.

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were "not that apparent to me."

Bush was correct today, and has been consistent in his past statements that neither he nor anyone else in his administration has ever said there was a link between Saddam and the 09/11 terrorist attacks. He's also been correct in his statements that there were links between Saddam and terrorists in general, and specifically al-Qaeda (more than zero!). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your last statement above was probably an innocent typo on your part, since the "numerous contacts" were referring to terrorists and not 9/11 as you wrote. ;)

Let's also remember what the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden had to say about Iraq and al Qaeda.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Ooops.

Today, <i>yet again</i>, it was made obvious that nobody takes this poor man seriously. He had to clarify that his administration had never made any <i>specific</i> claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Rather, they had cited "numerous contacts" between Saddam and 9/11.

To be so egregiously misquoted is annoying enough. But what must really get him down is that nobody ever asks him for <i>specific</i> statements in the first place! The nation seems to satisfy itself with vague mutterings that nobody can pin him down on and nobody seems to remeber correctly anyway. WMD stockpiles, nuclear materials bought in Africa, links to 9/11 -- on vital topic after topic it is revealed months after the fact that Bush was never asked to provide any concrete answer or explanation.

For someone who prides himself on his decisiveness, this must be really frustrating.

Even today, in reference to his citation of "numerous contacts", nobody thought to ask if he considers zero a number. ;)

The meaning of the word "is" is... or was that "was" ? Oh who cares... just wave the flag, put some bumper stickers on your car, and feel good about winning the hearts and minds and spreading democracy across the world. No one ever asks questions until election year ;)

Today, <i>yet again</i>, it was made obvious that nobody takes this poor man seriously. He had to clarify that his administration had never made any <i>specific</i> claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Rather, they had cited "numerous contacts" between Saddam and 9/11;)

*numerous contact-related activities.* There's a big difference, you liberals are so dense you just don't get it.

Well it's not as if they can just look at OBL or SH Verizon bill. I am not even sure how they can make the assertion that there was no cooperation. There was contact on quite a few occasions. SH top advisor met with top AQ operatives prior to 9/11. How do we know what was discussed?

Seems to me people erect statues and paint murals to memorialize their triumphs.

http://www.schnittshow.com/Images/IraqMural.jpg

This morning on NPR, Condoleeza Rice called Saddam Hussein "one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century"...

Gee, after Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, Amin, etc., he barely rates up there!

I can just imagine the conversation OBL had with Saddam: "Please, Osama, don't attack me and I won't attack you". Just like we used to do with Iraq...

This morning on NPR, Condoleeza Rice called Saddam Hussein "one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century"...

Gee, after Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, Amin, etc., he barely rates up there!

I can just imagine the conversation OBL had with Saddam: "Please, Osama, don't attack me and I won't attack you". Just like we used to do with Iraq...

The Washington post has an op-ed by Vaclav Havel today you might be interested in about your aforementioned KIM and North Korea. Or some of our cut and pasters?

that SH would have no interest whatsoever in hanging with OBL, helping OBL or harboring OBL. SH was interested in one thing only, running his country with minimal internal turbulence so he could live like an emperor and stash billions of dollars away for his personal use. He did want crazed religious fanatics in there stirring up trouble, which would inevitably destablize his relentlessly secular regime.

No, a correct analysis -- which requires that you ask the question: What does wily Saddam see as best for Saddam -- leads to the ineviable conclusion that SH would have kept OBL at more than arm's length, with a long stick, like a cobra in the garden.

The Washington post has an op-ed by Vaclav Havel today you might be interested in about your aforementioned KIM and North Korea. Or some of our cut and pasters?
Don't forget Augusto Pinochet who Reagan thought was swell.

Yeah, that's probably why he invaded Kwait and Iran. He was just trying to mind his own business. He also didn't harbor any ill will toward the US. He didn't see an opportunity to strike and damage the US by supporting the efforts of some other shadowy entity that would be tough to trace back to him. Nah, not even a remote posibility. I mean history doesn't show that some alliances are for convenience when the the enemy is common. US/USSR?

Yeah, that's probably why he invaded Kwait and Iran. He was just trying to mind his own business. He also didn't harbor any ill will toward the US. He didn't see an opportunity to strike and damage the US by supporting the efforts of some other shadowy entity that would be tough to trace back to him. Nah, not even a remote posibility. I mean history doesn't show that some alliances are for convenience when the the enemy is common. US/USSR?
agitating in the last 14 years, didn't he? What was I thinking? LOL!

He was cornered for the last 14 years. I can see a scenario where he thought he could take the heat off of himself by helping AQ. They would attract the attention of the west and there would be no real link back to him. This tactic could benefit him on both fronts - striking back at the US by creating terrorist havoc and drawing their attention from him so he could plot his next move. He may have even thought it would drain our resources and resolve. I guess it was a bad plan.

Bush was correct today, and has been consistent in his past statements that neither he nor anyone else in his administration has ever said there was a link between Saddam and the 09/11 terrorist attacks.

Really....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102608/

Whopper: George W. Bush
Oh, that letter to Congress linking Saddam and 9/11 ...
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, June 17, 2004, at 3:32 PM PT


This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
—President Bush, in an exchange with reporters, June 17, 2004



[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
—President Bush, in a letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003

He was cornered for the last 14 years. I can see a scenario where he thought he could take the heat off of himself by helping AQ. They would attract the attention of the west and there would be no real link back to him. This tactic could benefit him on both fronts - striking back at the US by creating terrorist havoc and drawing their attention from him so he could plot his next move. He may have even thought it would drain our resources and resolve. I guess it was a bad plan.

what do you mean, ":it was a bad plan"? you talk about it as if it was fact. if that's what you think, kindly provide us some proof that backs up this statement. otherwise, don't make claims like this. you're as bad as bush: throw out some unsubstantiated possibility, and then refer to it as if it's fact.

rummy had contacts woth saddam too. does that mean we were in league with him? oh, wait....... :( :o

http://www.schnittshow.com/Images/IraqMural.jpg

Proof enough for me!

Proof enough for me!

And once again, proof enough that you're a simpleton. :rolleyes:

And now we have this ...

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/26103.htm

Lehman said the documents showing the Saddam-bin Laden connection were not given to commissioners until after they had written their interim report, which was released Wednesday.

Lehman supported his comments in an interview he gave this morning. The 9/11 Report issued last week was an INTERIM report. In their haste to play the blame game (on Bush) and jump to conclusions, the NYT (and others on the Left) have conveniently overlooked all of the testimony. To continue to make the claim that there were zero connections between UBL/al Qaeda and Saddam/Iraq flies in the face of reality.

But that won't stop the unwarranted criticisms. Heck, it's been over a year since Bush gave his '03 SOTU Address and the Left is still claiming he said Iraq was an imminent threat!

HouseMoney -

The actual words "imminent threat" may not have been used by Bush, but can you tell me how this is NOT saying the same thing, AND equating Bin Laden with Saddam?:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. (Is this NOT stating an "imminent threat"?)

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. (Or this?)

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. 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 Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. (Or perhaps this?)

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. (Or this?)

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." (Or not even THIS?)

GWB, Jan. 30, 2003, SOTU Address.

Yeah, I guess he proved his case on the "connection" between UBL and SH, while not ever insinuating an "imminent threat". LMAO!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: