Why do Americans link Saddam and 9/11?

[Sundog]

More than 60% of Americans think Saddam was involved in 9/11. The Bush administration flatly says he was not, and that they never said so.

So what's up here?

[Malachi151]

1,2, and 5 are all basically the same thing.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Malachi151
1,2, and 5 are all basically the same thing.

Ah, but no one said the test was fair. What's the BEST answer? Essay answers accepted.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Why do Americans link Saddam and 9/11?


because Saddam help fund the families of suicide bombers and groups interested in destroying the great satan (US) and Israel.

He was a source of power and wealth for fascism and terrorism in the area.

there are no direct links between him an Al-qaeda, but I dont see how it's impossible for him to have not encouraged terror members to continue with their missions in the US.

[Tony]

None of the above.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think it is a combination of factors and actully probably differs from American to American. I think the most common reason is that people like nice, easy answers and when Bush linked the two it gave them that simple answer so people latched onto it. I also think Bush linked the two as a cynical, manipulative ploy to gain support for the Iraq war. So I voted because Bush lied.

[glee]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Why do Americans link Saddam and 9/11?

because Saddam help fund the families of suicide bombers and groups interested in destroying the great satan (US) and Israel.


Which groups 'interested in destroying the US' has Saddam funded?
Do give cites of their statements.
What actions have they undertaken against the US?

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
He was a source of power and wealth for fascism and terrorism in the area.


This is an extremely vague statement. Please give cites.
(Do compare Saudi Arabia as well.)

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
there are no direct links between him an Al-qaeda, but I dont see how it's impossible for him to have not encouraged terror members to continue with their missions in the US.

Well there are no direct links between you and Al-Qaeda. Does that mean you were involved in 9/11?

[zakur]

Well, Bush has finally come clean:Bush: No proof Iraq tied to 9/11 (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1063836612213)

WASHINGTON—U.S. President George W. Bush conceded for the first time yesterday that the United States had no evidence indicating Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Bush made the comment in a brief encounter with reporters at the White House, an apparent bid to answer critics who have accused him of linking the Iraq war and the terrorist attacks to justify an ongoing occupation, which is responsible for mounting American deaths and draining an economy already mired in deficit.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.

But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden. Bush has let the perception that Saddam was somehow involved in the attacks fester for many months, most recently in his televised address to the nation on Sept. 7.

The result has been that seven in 10 Americans think Saddam was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings that killed approximately 3,000 people, a Washington Post poll released earlier this month found.Let's see if 7 in 10 Americans will now get a clue.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by zakur
Well, Bush has finally come clean:Let's see if 7 in 10 Americans will now get a clue.

"But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden."

[headscratcher4]

Vice President Chaney holding out the possibility of a direct link between Saddam and AlQeda, and the President denying it -- though softly.

When over 60% of American believe something that has no factual foundation -- other than political whisperings and media hystaria -- it is a wonder that American pundits have the balls to criticize Arab media, and large numbers in the Arab population -- who believe that the US and Isreal set up 9-11.

In both cases, the populations are being led astray, without facts, for political purposes. THis is Bush/Cheney's greatest diservice to the US population.

[glee]

1. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.

There you have it. No reason at all to invade Iraq. Ooops, too late.
No wait, there are weapons of mass destruction just waiting to be found...

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
"But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden."

What 'ties' does Bush mean? or is he just trying for the record number of sentences using both 'Saddam Hussein' and either '9/11' or 'Al-Qaeda'?

Remember:

2. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.


Bush has let the perception that Saddam was somehow involved in the attacks fester for many months, most recently in his televised address to the nation on Sept. 7.


Oh dear - after all:

3. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.


The result has been that seven in 10 Americans think Saddam was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings that killed approximately 3,000 people, a Washington Post poll released earlier this month found.


perhaps those 70% need to know that (you've guessed it)

4. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.

But will they listen? :hit:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


"But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden."

I saw this comment as well. My response? He has no doubt, but does he have evidence?

[shemp]

I'm surprised I have no votes yet, I get blamed for everything.

[Crossbow]

I was a bit stunned myself when I heard George W. actually say something positive about Saddam; so I decided to follow-up by looking at several of the official things that Bush actually has had to say about Saddam.

So, this morning I went to the Whitehouse web site and I read through some of the speeches George W. has given on the subject of terrorism, security, and Saddam, and sure enough, at no point does Bush come right out and say that Saddam was in on the 9/11 attacks.

However, Bush does go out of his way to show that there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda (as shown by the one al-Qaeda leader who was treated at a Baghdad hospital).
Bush does talk about how horrible the attacks were, then immediately goes into a statement about what an awful person Saddam is.
Then Bush goes on to talk about how hard the war on terrorism will be and the sacrifice that it will take, and by the way, did you know that Saddam has been trying to build a nuclear bomb for the last several years and that some of his own people say that he has large quantities of chemical and biological weapons right now?

So I would say that Bush and Co. have done quite a good job of linking Saddam with 9/11 without actually saying that there is a direct connection between the two.

[jan]

Originally posted by shemp
I'm surprised I have no votes yet, I get blamed for everything.

It is quite obvious that "Saddam" and "Bin Laden" are just Shemp's sockpuppets. And "Bush" too, of course.

[Tmy]

They didnt SAY it but they sure IMPLIED that there was a connection.

Remeber pre invasion tehy madea big deal about a supposed meeting tween an ALQudea terrorist and an Iraqi offical. Implies a tie!!!

Then GW would allways harp on Saddams financial support of terrorists... That ist true. He throws money at terrorists attacking Israel, but the implication is that he $upports terror against the US.

[CapelDodger]

I voted "other", but I blame shemp for not preventing it. My explanation: it'll be a cold day in Hell when somebody comes up with the real answer.

[DanishDynamite]

Tmy:Then GW would allways harp on Saddams financial support of terrorists... That ist true. He throws money at terrorists attacking Israel, but the implication is that he $upports terror against the US. But isn't Israel a state of the US? :)

The support by the US of Israel is afterall automatic. In which case Saddam's support of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is obviously the same as supporting terrorism against the US.

[Tricky]

Bush has met with Arafat, right? And Arafat is a terrorist, right? So that means Bush is collaborating with and giving emotional support to Palestine terrorists, right? And the whole terrorist network works together, right? So Bush has been supporting Al Qaeda! Let's take him out!

[Ladewig]

Bush has met with Arafat, right? And Arafat is a terrorist, right? So that means Bush is collaborating with and giving emotional support to Palestine terrorists, right? And the whole terrorist network works together, right? So Bush has been supporting Al Qaeda! Let's take him out!

Oh, it's much worse than that. All of the hijackers lived in the U.S. before September 11th.

[DavidJames]

"Oh, it's much worse than that. All of the hijackers lived in the U.S. before September 11th."

Yes, I believe they drove on PUBLIC roads as well, indicating that U.S. taxpayer money was spent in support of the terrorists. They received additional state support through drivers licenses and private and business support through renting apartments and cars. I'm so ashamed.

[peptoabysmal]

I voted that it's the liberal's fault, because they misled the nation by overemphasizing the al-Queda connection and the WMD issue, thereby negating several other key issues such as Saddam's war criminal status and failure to comply with UN resolutions.

In case you're interested here's a link to the complaint document whereby Saddam, the nation of Iraq and others are being sued for their role in 9/11 (or 11/9 if you prefer).

complaint doc. (http://cryptome.org/oneill-v-iraq.htm)

And here's how it turned out:

Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm?csp=14)


The ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer marked the first time that a court had pinned some blame for the attacks on Iraq.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I voted that it's the liberal's fault, because they misled the nation by overemphasizing the al-Queda connection and the WMD issue...
That was the liberals doing that? Funny, it sure sounded like the Bush administration. I don't think I heard a single liberal claim that there were no WMDs before the war, but rather that we should let the UN continue their investigations. Liberals may have pointed out the fact (which should have been obvious) that Iraq had little or no involvement with Al Qaeda which (in spite of the judicial ruling you cite) is still apparently true. In the lead-up to the war, Bush did not claim Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, but neither did he discourage that very common assumption. To come out six months after the war and admit it is not very timely. He was counting on jingoism and hysteria to provide him support for the war, and he counted correctly.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
... thereby negating several other key issues such as Saddam's war criminal status and failure to comply with UN resolutions.
Yes, Saddam did some terrible things. Funny we didn't seem to notice (or care, at any rate) until fourteen years later. The US routinely fails to comply with UN resolutions. We've covered this ground before.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
In case you're interested here's a link to the complaint document whereby Saddam, the nation of Iraq and others are being sued for their role in 9/11 (or 11/9 if you prefer).

complaint doc. (http://cryptome.org/oneill-v-iraq.htm)

And here's how it turned out:

Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm?csp=14)


This has a lot more to do with getting money than with establishing blame. In fact the judge himself said:
The testimony, Baer wrote, "barely" established a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq but offered enough proof to persuade a "reasonable jury."
And anyway, I hardly think a ruling by a single judge which would provide access to funds for 9-11 victims is the sort of thing that clearly establishes a link. Judges are humans and have lots of strange reasons for the things they do. Look at Roy Moore.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

That was the liberals doing that? Funny, it sure sounded like the Bush administration. I don't think I heard a single liberal claim that there were no WMDs before the war, but rather that we should let the UN continue their investigations. Liberals may have pointed out the fact (which should have been obvious) that Iraq had little or no involvement with Al Qaeda which (in spite of the judicial ruling you cite) is still apparently true. In the lead-up to the war, Bush did not claim Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, but neither did he discourage that very common assumption. To come out six months after the war and admit it is not very timely. He was counting on jingoism and hysteria to provide him support for the war, and he counted correctly.


OK, this was tongue-in-cheek, gimme a break :p


Yes, Saddam did some terrible things. Funny we didn't seem to notice (or care, at any rate) until fourteen years later. The US routinely fails to comply with UN resolutions. We've covered this ground before.

Saddam also failed to comply with the terms of surrender to the US that he agreed to. That alone is justification to remove him from power.
I haven't covered this ground before, which resolutions does the US not comply with, since it has legal veto power to block any resolution that it doesn't like?


And anyway, I hardly think a ruling by a single judge which would provide access to funds for 9-11 victims is the sort of thing that clearly establishes a link. Judges are humans and have lots of strange reasons for the things they do. Look at Roy Moore.
Or Judge Roy Bean :D

Then again, it's not like there was no proof whatsoever, was it?

[schplurg]

"Why do Americans link Saddam and 9/11?"

Many (too many) Americans believe whatever it was that the guy/gal on the most recent TV broadcast just told them. Of course I'm not one of them (it's everyone else I tell ya!!!).

[uruk]

Why do Americans link saddam and 9/11?

Because the masses are trained to believe whatever the
the cathode ray box tells us to believe.

Combine that with a short memory and history books that have been gutted by special interest groups.

The middle east has always been a cluster f**k for us.

One minute we are friends with one counrty, supplying them with
"weapons of mass destruction" next were bombing them a new
poop chute looking for those very same weapons.

Remember the Iran, Iraq war? Wasn't he our buddy then?
what happened to the relationship? What about the Soviet/
Afganistann war? When did al-queda move in?

Where did it go wrong? What happened to the love?
Is it too late to work it out baby?, that other counrty meant nothing to me, It was strictly for the ideology baby. You know I don't just don't love you for your oil? Come on, take daddy Warbucks back. I didn't mean to bomb you like that, But you had it comin' baby. I saw you talkin' to that other guy, you know the one. The guy with the beard makin' "movies" in those caves.
But I forgive you, Can't you forgive me? Oh yea, sorry about your kids.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shemp
I'm surprised I have no votes yet, I get blamed for everything.

I am going to have to buy that book about chess players, I knew there was something strange about them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by uruk
Why do Americans link saddam and 9/11?

Because the masses are trained to believe whatever the
the cathode ray box tells us to believe.

Combine that with a short memory and history books that have been gutted by special interest groups.

The middle east has always been a cluster f**k for us.

One minute we are friends with one counrty, supplying them with
"weapons of mass destruction" next were bombing them a new
poop chute looking for those very same weapons.


Reminds me a lot of '1984'.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I was a bit stunned myself when I heard George W. actually say something positive about Saddam; so I decided to follow-up by looking at several of the official things that Bush actually has had to say about Saddam.

So, this morning I went to the Whitehouse web site and I read through some of the speeches George W. has given on the subject of terrorism, security, and Saddam, and sure enough, at no point does Bush come right out and say that Saddam was in on the 9/11 attacks.

However, Bush does go out of his way to show that there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda (as shown by the one al-Qaeda leader who was treated at a Baghdad hospital).
Bush does talk about how horrible the attacks were, then immediately goes into a statement about what an awful person Saddam is.
Then Bush goes on to talk about how hard the war on terrorism will be and the sacrifice that it will take, and by the way, did you know that Saddam has been trying to build a nuclear bomb for the last several years and that some of his own people say that he has large quantities of chemical and biological weapons right now?

So I would say that Bush and Co. have done quite a good job of linking Saddam with 9/11 without actually saying that there is a direct connection between the two.

Link, you scum! :mad: (I hate navigating whitehouse.org)

[uruk]

Reminds me a lot of '1984'.

Ahmen brother! Just listen to any politician or corporate representative for double speak.

Proof for the need of rational, critical thinking to be spread to the masses.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Conspiracy Theories (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html)

Claims of what is contained in the Congressional Report (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html)


According to the report one of the FBI's best sources in San Diego suggested that Omar Al-Bayoumi (http://news.indiainfo.com/2002/11/23/23fbi.html) , a Saudi government employee (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030806/2003080617.html) based there, helped and assisted two of the hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Al-Hasmi. They were among the first of the 19 hijackers to enter the U.S.

interesting reading regarding alleged links going back two decades between high level Saudi government employees and Bin-Laden

Conspiracy, failure, or indifference? (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/intelligence.html)

[TillEulenspiegel]

I am weary of trying to convince people who enjoy grabing thier own ankles of the stupidity of thier position, the rest of the self convinced are just garden verity fools.

I will instead quote another
Robert Hinlein : " 90% of everything is crap."
If that is true then a corollary is >95% of all humans are stupid.

To gain a better more satirical grasp of the relevence of the impact and understanding of the great unwashed, read the following:

The Marching Morons by CM Kornbluth
AND
The Big Space F**k by Kurt Vonnegut
These are less SF stories then they are accusitory tracts of the human animal for great quantities of dumbness.
Bleh


<span style="background: blue; color: white"> Edited to insert asterisks -- Pyrrho</span>

[NullPointerException]

I had read an intel report stating that an Iraqi diplomat lead 2 of the Sept. 11 hijackers through customs in the stop prior to the US.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Really, an intelligence report? From what branch of government? How did you come by this information? Are You a governmrnt employee ( may I ask). Can You quote it ( if that is allowed).

[Chaos]

NullPointerException

Yeah, please provide some proof.

TillEulenspiegel

I think it was Sturgeon´s Law: "80 percent of everything is crap."

[TillEulenspiegel]

You are correct sir =)

[NullPointerException]

I'm not sure where I read it, wasn't important to me at the time. Given my consumption habits I wouldn't be surprised if it was CNN... although it could have been Fox News as I watch that occasionally. It isn't classified to my knowledge. I will look around for it and get back to you.

[NullPointerException]

I may be mistaken in the nationality of the diplomat, he was middle eastern but I'm not sure if it was Saudi, Iraqi, or other. It may well be classified or censored at this point in time for all I know.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Darn thats too bad , I would have loved to have read it. I didn't know CNN and Fox news had written reports available, how do I sign up?

Ya that whole middle eastern ethnographic thing is a hard nut to crack was it a friendly or a " not so friendiy" ? = )

[Troll]

I'm severely going to enjoy posting this:D

It's because of Clinton. No, seriously, it's really because of Clinton. He appointed U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/11/911.lawsuit.iraq/)

Hey, I just didn't want to see people disappointed by not seeing anything blaming the previous administration.:p

[Soapy Sam]

Going back to the 60% of Americans mentioned at the start of the thread- I wonder if this is the same 60% who believe they have been abducted by aliens? Also, how does this 60% map onto the 89% of Americans who only use 10% of their brain?And is the 10% an average figure?

Or to put it another way...could all these figures be complete hooey, generated by a sub editor on "The National Enquirer?"