WTF? Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks



This is unreal!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11" attacks.

The president's comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the September 11 attacks.

On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."


But wait, there's more...
at least, if/when he is wrong, he has the integrity to admit it and not just wait for the problem to dissipate. :cool:


Football season!
I complained awhile back that Bush was bringing up 9/11 in his speaches way too much. That he was playing on people's emotions. But you have to admit that either Bush or his speach writers put on a clinic in Psychology... They planted bugs in everyone's ears without really saying it was true... An example was the way he claimed the uranium findings in Iraq. He kept mentioning it, but never claimed it to be true. Same with 9/11. He almost always mentioned 9/11 with Saddam, without ever saying Saddam was involved. But when you hear something over and over again, people bring their own conclusions. This is why in a recent poll 70% of people felt saddam played a role in 9/11.

But this type of thing serves two purposes. One it plants a bug in people's ears, and two it gives him an open ended explanation for whatever may happen. With the uranium claim, had it been true he can point back and see "I told you guys about that awhile ago", otherwise he can do what he did and say "I didn't say he had it, read the transcript".

Same with 9/11 allegations. The bug is in people's ears, but also had they proven it true, they could point back and say "see, told you", or they can just look puzzeled and say "Look at the transcripts, I never mentioned there was a connection"

To me this is brilliant. As someone who has had a sudden interest in Psychology, I can give him:yay: :yay: on this one.
And the 70% who think saddam was involved can support this claim as well.


Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
What? Nobody ever said Saddam had knowledge of 9/11.
All that was ever said was that he had ties to Al-Quaeda, which is true.

You can bet though, that if he had had knowledge, he would have been behind it 100%.


Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Bush is retarded. There were Al Qaeda training camps right there under Saddam's nose. Are you trying to tell me he knew nothing about it? And are you trying to tell me he didn't fund them in some way?

I'm starting to wonder what the hell's wrong with this guy.

Wes Clark was on some show last night - what a flake. I was hoping maybe he could be my guy but he's a bigger idiot than Howard Dean, if that's possible.


All you have to say is "the media, the media, the media!" Sorry ST, but I think you're giving the administration far more credit than they are due. I don't see this as a brilliant attempt at manipulating public opinion... I see it as just telling the truth and having a lot of rapid dogs in the media trying to play things up to boost ratings.

Here's how it really works. Bush states, correctly, that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and we're going after terrorist groups and the states that sponsor them. The news folks, FNC included, go on the round up for anyone with a shred of credibility and a willingness to get their mug on TV, and it's off to the races. All the hosts ask the "newsmakers" if they think Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda, they all say yes (again... this is a given.) Then the next logical question goes like "So, do you think there's any chance that he knew about 9/11?", to which the newsmaker says "Well... it's certainly possible", or "that's something that can't be discounted," or something similar. Then the next host down the foodchain asks their newsmaker "You know, so and so on the Brand X news was quoted as saying he thinks Hussein might have been involved with the 9/11 attacks. What do you think?" The reporter in the food chain starts their story with "Today we're going to talk about Sadam Hussein's involvement in 9/11." And before you know it, the guesses have been repeated enough to become fact. Not because the administration designed them to, but because reporters want to report a story.

We've seen this with the Jessica Lynch story, the alledged FBI profiles of the Virginia Sniper, etc., etc., etc.


But wait, there's more...
reverse psychology? maybe they're trying to flush saddam out with an apologetic blanket party. :shrug:


Football season!
But don't we have a liberal media? Why would they want to support Bush with these allegations?

Nope. Sorry... Most people listen to the speeches he gives and draw their own conclusion.
And really Bru, do you really think I would give the Bush administration this much credit if it weren't deserving?
And contrary to Vrai's rant, Bush didn't say Iraq wasn't involved with al-qaeda, only they weren't involved with the 9/11 attacks... See, this kind of talk is even throwing off republicans a little.

Again. I don't like the notion of bush mentioning 9/11 whenever he talked about Iraq, but the tactic was extrememly useful and that I applaud. Your president did a GOOD thing, why try and throw it out the window?


Chairman of the Board
I never thought he had much to do with 9/11. But it doesn't matter. One thing I did NOT want, was a bloodthirsty lunatic with tons of oil, a huge disgruntled army threateing the Middle East and Israel and making WMD's to freely give to anyone who felt like it. We already know he was giving money to families that had suicide bombers. If he was willing to give money, why wouldn't he give weapons? With all of his bellowing, what would the world have been like if he had the capability to make nuclear weapons? Nerve gas? Smallpox or anthrax weapons?

Above all that - the world frequently wonders how we could just look the other way when Pol Pot was slaughtering his citizens (not long ago, before he died, he claimed that he was just "misunderstood"). When the slaughter went on in Rwanda, people asked, how can we let this happen? And in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, in Afghanistan (yeah, BEFORE we went after the Taliban). So we go and depose the biggest, worst one of them all - one who has used WMD's on his people (albeit, an ethnicity he didn't like) who has an axe to grind against everyone in the Middle East, who invaded Kuwait, threatened to invade Saudi, launched missiles at Israel (who wasn't even IN the war, last time), Who *had* a nuclear program before, when the Israelis blew it up, pre-emptively, and post Gulf War, inspectors claimed he was a short time away from re-building his nuclear capability - and I could JUST go on, and on - we take out the most dangerous despot currently in power - and **WE'RE THE BAD GUYS**?? What are people who think this, smokin'?

What's worse? Some of these folks, who are against the war, have the idiocy to say they're glad Saddam is out of power, he had to go, blah-blah-blah. Like there was ANY chance he'd be out of power *peacefully*. Yeah, we're glad the Iraqi people are free - that Saddam is gone - that a minimal amount of lives were lost - but you know, we just didn't do it for the right *reason*. What a load of crap. If the WMD report shows he was armed to the gills with WMD's, what will be the reason to be agains the war, then? That he didn't have the right delivery system? Just how stupid are these guys?