I have a question!

[1stgradeteacher]

I watched the president's speech tonight about the war. It seemed to me that you have to buy into the idea that all the terrorists were hiding out in Iraq and were responsible for 911. I just don't get it. Was there proof that the 911 terrorists actually came from Iraq? Can someone help me out here?

[CagedTroll]

the silence is suddenly deafening...

[telos2000]

“The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001,” Bush said Tuesday night.

“Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war,” he continued. “Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them — to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.”



Your question is obviously your perception of what he said. Check out the underlined portion of the speech (better yet, read the transcript of the total speech.) No where did he state that all the terrorist came from Iraq.

[CagedTroll]

Telos, you just pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 till lately. And showed how Bush continues to connect (as in his speech last night) two things (the 9/11 attacks along with the insurgents in Iraq) that had NO RELATION prior to March 20, 2003.

[mayfly]

Seeing the horrible things Saddam did to his people in Iraq I can't believe that anyone was against getting him out of power. He was truly disgusting, a little Hitler, who hated the US. September 11th started our war against terror, so you are right, it was not specifically a war against Osama.

[telos2000]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

Telos, you just pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 till lately. And showed how Bush continues to connect (as in his speech last night) two things (the 9/11 attacks along with the insurgents in Iraq) that had NO RELATION prior to March 20, 2003.

Do you smoke?

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by telos2000

Do you smoke?

Almost two packs a day. That says what about what? That I get cranky???

In his speech last night, and in speeches prior to invading Iraq, the Bush administration continues to link Iraq with al-Queda. One of the claims before "Shock-and-Awe" and "Decapitations Strikes" was that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met with senior Iraqi intelligence officials in April 2001. That meeting never actually happened, and now Dick Cheney denies ever making such a claim in the first place.

Last night's speech implied the same thing, while disregarding how we wound up in Iraq in the first place.

[CagedTroll]

Back to Teacher's question---

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] "...We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either, that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70% of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

[bobbcat]

Originally Posted by 1stgradeteacher

I watched the president's speech tonight about the war. It seemed to me that you have to buy into the idea that all the terrorists were hiding out in Iraq and were responsible for 911. I just don't get it. Was there proof that the 911 terrorists actually came from Iraq? Can someone help me out here?

You might find some answers to your queries [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

You might find some answers to your queries [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

There's about 19 bullet points in the NRO article. I'm going to deal with them a few at a time, and in no particular order.

The first:
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

According to 9/11 Commission Report, Footnote 49 of Ch. 6:

Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)

The third bullet:
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Czechs did retract. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems " a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday.

Which undercuts NRO's point number two since, according to a 2001 report, Atta was supposed to be the [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now].

Another three points, BTW, reference President Clinton's administration. Why??? Did he get something right when he was in office? Is this an endorsement for Hillary in 2008?

[1stgradeteacher]

I missed a few minutes of the speech, but I was really waiting to hear something about the progress on capturing Osama Bin Laden and I didn't hear that mentioned.

[trust no one]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

There's about 19 bullet points in the NRO article. I'm going to deal with them a few at a time, and in no particular order.

The first:
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

According to 9/11 Commission Report, Footnote 49 of Ch. 6:

Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)

The third bullet:
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Czechs did retract. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] Which undercuts NRO's point number two since, according to a 2001 report, Atta was supposed to be the [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now].

Another three points, BTW, reference President Clinton's administration. Why??? Did he get something right when he was in office? Is this an endorsement for Hillary in 2008?

Thank you Troll. The misinformation you reference was posted earlier here on DOD as the excuses to go to war. When they were all debunked, the posts were removed. All the bad information you sourced came originally from Murdoch owned "The Weekly Standard" magazine, and were repeated on Murdoch owned Fox News.