9/11 Panel Find No Link With Iraq

[lynx]

I saw part of a documentary last night called "Warship at War", about the USS Abraham Lincoln preparing for and taking part in Gulf War 2.

The overriding motivation of the crew seemed to be "Ok, Iraq, now you are going to get payback for 9/11". Occasionally Iraq was replaced by Saddam.

I wonder how they will be feeling, knowing they attacked a country and killed tens of thousands for something in which they had no part.

[hobbes]

Bin Laden and Hussein were labeled as terrorists by Bush.

Now, Bin Laden (the Cobra) had already biten us and we went to Afghanistan to attempt to kill him.

Bush says, "Hey, let us learn a lesson. Kill the poisonous snake before he bites". Just because Saddam (the western diamondback rattlesnake) is in no way related to the Cobra and has not yet bitten us, they are both still threats.

So attempting to learn from the Cobra, we identify and remove the Rattler.

Whether the rattler had fangs or not is a matter of debate.

My point is that Iraq not being involved in 9/11 is a triviality. Saddam was labeled as a threat to our country and he was removed. Bush used the 9/11 event as his excuse for getting rid of Saddam, but in no way needed to rely on a link to Bin Laden to carry out his plan.

Biggles asked if the findings of the 9/11 hearing will effect the November election. I am merely pointing out why I think it won't.

[BigBank_Hank]

The entire 9/11 commission was a waste of time and money. It was just partisan bickering from both sides that each other was wrong.

Look at what they released today; on 9/11 we weren’t prepared to shoot down an aircraft that had been hijacked. No kidding. We pretty much figured out everything the day’s following the attacks.

We didn’t need a commission to tell us that we screwed up. We had intelligence failures, we didn’t have plans in place in case something like this happened and so on, nothing new.

[Skweeky]

Hobbes,

On your arguments....


I fail to see one nation on the planet that is not a security threat to the US of A.


A country that was virtually a 3rd world country, after nearly 20 years of warfair...and over the last 12 years had most of its Military and Civilian infrastructure destroyed was a threat, they were anti-american. Even though most of the world laughed at the idea and were proven correct.

There are a lot of anti-american countries.... all now security risks that must be taken out by your argument.

There are anti-american sentiments in every nation that is an ally...and Bush says that "If you aint for us, your against us"...so as these "anti-americans" arent being rounded up, they too are security risks by your argument.


And there are many elements in the US that are wholley against all this crap, so i guess you'll be getting ready to round them all up now...



Tell me..... where does it stop?

[hobbes]

I think you may have missed the point of the thread.

My stance on the war and whether it was justified or not, has been discussed elsewhere.

Look it the wording I used:

Whether the rattler had fangs or not is a matter of debate.

Bush used the 9/11 event as his excuse for getting rid of Saddam.

I am arguing not for myself, but trying to figure out the pulse of my country, how they will react to the 9/11 report. I never thought there were links.


Biggles asked if the the conclusion of the 9/11 committee that no links between Iraq and Al Queda existed will have an effect on the upcoming election.

I am merely stating that to Americans, a link to Al Queda was not the pivot point needed to justify our actions.

BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD, not the other way around. You sound a bit angry and unlike yourself.


Skweeky, I think you will find this link relevant in regard to where it would stop.

[vidcc]

in answer to the original question, no it won't have any effect on the elections, or at least very little.
Voters have mostly made up their minds. Those that oppose bush will see this as vindication of what they have been saying in regards to connections. Those that support bush will brush it aside and suggest that Iraq was for other reasons and this element of report is irrelivent and indeed the commision is.
Either way minds are pretty much made up.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

An interesting analogy.

Some time ago in India, there was a programme to remove cobras from paddy fields, as they were dangerous. The crop yield plummeted as rats ate the rice. Very soon afterwards cobras were re-introduced to the paddy fields.

Whilst I understand the argument that it is important to move against those that will attack you - it is generally accepted that it is best to move against those who pose a genuine threat. I could not see this in Iraq and consider the diplomatic and political initiatives were performing well in that circumstance. Nothing that has happened since has done much to convince me otherwise.

Regarding the impact on the elections, I happily accept your analysis. I do not know enough about US politics to gainsay in the matter. However, it does appear to be causing Tony Blair difficulties.

[lynx]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 June 2004 - 19:29
BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD.

I've heard this comment a few times recently, usually from people who know better.

Frankly, it is absolute bullshit.

Most of the world DIDN'T believe he had WMD, that's why there was no backing for the proposed UN resolution.

[Rat Faced]

They were asking questions of americans on the report in the Radio news while i was driving earlier...

Now remember, that this was radio, and they like their ratings...but the jist they tried to get across was...

The Rednecks didnt believe the report, and still think that Iraq was involved directly with 9/11... I say Rednecks, as i didnt hear varying accents, and thats what they sounded like, so i do not want to generalise "americans"...if that makes sense :s




BTW...

It was me posted earlier Hobbes, i didnt realise i was in on Skweekies account, and i didnt mean to sound angry..

Iknow your stance etc... i was merely pointing out the flaw to the argument

BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD, not the other way around.

Crap, the ones that went in with you didnt believe it, never mind the majority of the world that condemned it.

Oh wait...I remember those millions upon millions of people Demonstrating worldwide in favour....NOT

[j2k4]

Getting back on topic:

The question was whether the 9/11 Commission's report failing to find a link between Saddam and the events of 9/11 would sway the American voters in November.

Read carefully, please:

It was never the contention of the Bush administration that Saddam was responsible, even in part, for 9/11; rather, that he had connections with Al Qaeda.

The Commission's determinations (Commission member Jim Thompson reiterated this today) in no way indicate a conclusion that such a link did not exist; they didn't address the question, as it was not in their purview-they were merely charged with determining whether a link existed between Saddam and 9/11.

Thompson today stated that Bush and Cheney might very well have strong evidence of such a link, but that such evidence was not germane to the duties of the 9/11 Commission.

There is no reason, then, to assume all this would have any effect whatsoever on the Presidential election.

Given this circumstance, it could be concluded that, by ignorantly and innocently discussing this non-issue, the members of this board are attempting to interfere in the internal politics of the United States.

EDIT: BTW-Thompson further noted that such evidence as Bush may have was not plumbed by the commission, as, again, it was not their purview; they had no entree to even question whether such evidence exists.