This is pissing me off. After the VP debate, the major criticism of Cheney was that he directly linked 9/11 to Iraq. He did not. He linked Iraq to terrosim. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. So, yes there is a connection and no Saddam did not help the 9/11 bastards. I mean does nobody remember what the Bush doctrine is? We will prosecute this war on terrorism in every way we can agaisnt anyone or any nation who aids terrorists. This is the lesson of 9/11. We can not afford to wait around until we are attacked. What is frustrating as hell is that Kerry/Edwards says they will use pre-emption but then argue that Iraq did not attack us. Duh. That is why it is pe-emptive.
Here is the text that Liberlas use to prove that Cheney has linked 9/11 to Iraq:
But he did say in 2003 that if efforts to establish democracy in Iraq succeeded, "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." Sandiego Union-Tribune
Uh, are you daft? He links Iraq to terrorists not 9/11. By their logic, the war on terrorists is only a war agaisnt the 9/11 culprits...oh wait, they support a war against al-qaeda, no wait that does not work either since Iraq did have some sort of relationship to al-qaeda, but no, they claim to support the war on terror so what they hell are they on about?
P.S. I am little druink'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I should add that I was really only trying to talk about the debate. I do not argue that the administration has never made a link between 9/11 and Iraq. In 2002 Cheney did cite that meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Atta.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/
The issue re-emerged three days after the 9/11 attack when the CIA intelligence liaison was told by the BIS that the Hamburg "student" who had met with al-Ani on April 8 had been tentatively identified as the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Since al-Ani was an officer of Saddam Hussein's intelligence (and diplomatic) service, this identification raised the possibility that Saddam might have had a hand in the 9/11 attack. It could also be potentially embarrassing, as Kavan pointed out, "if American intelligence had failed before 9/11 to adequately appreciate the significance of the April meeting."
Of course, this is "intelligence" so it is not conclusive proof. Nevertheless, it is unfair to claim that there is NO evidence of a connection. Again, post 9/11 we have learned that we should take this kind of intelligence more seriously.
So, to be fair, Cheney was wrong to say what he said the way he said it. Technically it is right to say that he "lied". But, I think that when he said "I've not linked 9/11 to Iraq" he was talking about during the campaign. Remember when Kerry said he wage a more "sensitive war"? Well, people took that the wrong way too. He obviously meant sensitive towards our allies not the terrorists.
So, it is true to say that Bush/Cheney have not claimed that Saddam aided the 9/11 terrorists, but it is also true that there is _some_ link between them. This link is fairly direct but not enough to argue that we should attack Iraq specifically because he supported 9/11.
More importantly, what Cheney ha said is true: Iraq is the geographic center (he called it a base which is not the right word)of the terrorist world. The terrorist world which attacked us on 9/11.
bin Laden was told he would be welcome in Baghdad
http://www.sacunion.com/pages/columns/articles/309/
Post a Comment