What the 'president' Really Said on Iraq Involvement in 9/11

This is a useful reminder for anyone who is confused or frustrated by all the lies of Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld (and also Cheney, who has lost track of the game plan now, and clings tenaciously to the Iraq - 9/11 connection) - a reminder of what the statement actually was, in black and white, from the Whitehouse.

There is no doubt that Bush and his admin wilfully and deceptively engaged in the promotion of the argument that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11, in order to influence public opinion. It worked, at least on the stupidest Americans, based on the opinion polls concerning that linkage up to the past couple of months.

No matter what is manufactured to try to retract the Iraq - 9/11 statements by Bush and the others, this is what the Whitehouse officially said...



www.whitehouse.gov...

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate




March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither

(A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor

(B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH



[Edited on 21-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

MA,

personally I couldn't care what anyone said about 911,

the real reason the US went into Iraq was to save itself.

being someone living next door to them, I have no problem with that.

What comes across with that sort of statement is someone that doesn't care, you are correct.

Post hoc rationalizations about the value of a war, where hundreds of servicemen and women, and tens of thousands including civilians on the other side have been destroyed, when the whole thing was predicated on lies, do not wash with me at all.

Whether you are a neighbor, or a galaxy away, the consequences of complicity and corruption have a habit of catching up with you, and you will have a problem with that. Check you are in the right forum/place!

I don't understand.
The letter doesn't say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Enlighten me.

Uhh... Leveller, did you even read the post?

Read paragraph 2 in the letter, and if you still don't understand, someone will "enlighten" you (though I doubt that such a profound level of comprehension is necessary to piece it together).

The letter aside, anyone who keeps track of the news knows that the Bush Administration was after Iraq long ago, attempting to tie 9/11 to Saddam... You can't honestly say that they weren't. This letter is just a little more direct.

Oh, and "THENEO", you've got to be kidding. The US was acting in the interest of their own protection? Don't be so ignorant. There was neither a local, nor imminent, nor tangible threat to the United States from Iraq. It is even more apparent now that their so-called evidence of WMD and peripherally related items have now been seen for what they are: Baloney.

I would dare you to prove your statement, if you have the means.

I think the present administration, would have been better served, if it had presented the american public with the truth. Saddam has been flipping of the world, with his refusal to comply, with the very surrender agreement that ended the first gulf war. We spent a deacade there playing Tom, to his Jerry. The 7/11 attacks, gave Bush the one thing he needed, with the general public on board, and nationalistic fervor running high, he saw his chance and moved. I dont have any problem with Saddam out of the picture, in this case i think the end, justifies the means!

Originally posted by STROGI dont have any problem with Saddam out of the picture, in this case i think the end, justifies the means!

A miserably failing American economy, a divided American people, hundreds of American lives lost, thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, global anti-american sentiment, loss of millions of American jobs, loss of fresh water and power to the Iraqis, billions upon billions of wasted American tax dollars, national guard overseas with bare minimum military left in America for emergencies, long term commitment to American occupation in a soverign nation... yeah I'd say it was worth it to oust the Iraqi president

Ever heard of Rome? This country is going to see # hit the fan and it won't be too much longer.

A few questions, if you don't mind...

How can you blame the war with Iraq for our Enonomic situation? Even more ludicrous, the loss of jobs?! The defense spending in this nation to cover the replacement of spent ammunition, food stuffs and other material is UP 43% last quarter. I have to say that it takes EMPLOYEES to make all these things. I dare say that the unemployment picture would considerably WORSE than it is now were it not for the war. NOT that that justifies a war by any means, but YOU used it as a ploy against the war.

The economy was WRECKED by a very LARGE and COMPLEX series of events that happened in succession...

The DotBOMB bubble bursting was the impetus to the cataclysm that followed. The economy was in TOILET WAY BEFORE we went to Iraq to rid the world of Saddam Insane. The 9/11 attacks on our nation and the Enron scandal among others were the final nail in the coffin of the economy NOT the war.

Then there is the question of "Thousands of dead Iraqi civilinas"... From where has this number been promulgated?

Just wondering because I find it absoultely incredible that people hear crap like this espoused by, who knows who (usually a Bush Hater), and they imediately rush to beleive it usually because it fits their political beleifs regardless of the fact that it is false...

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 9-28-2003 by Springer]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Ummmmmmm...

I was just revisiting the Topic to see what the last several posters have said, and I noticed the above.

I don't recall there being two salutations when I pasted up this content from the Whitehouse - the letter was only addressed to the Speaker, it doesn't make any sense that it would be addressed to the President.

Also, I would have noticed if that smiley had gone in totally out of context as it has.

I can't recall even editing the post, at all.

What's going on? Has someone got into the first post somehow? I wonder what my edit was, if I made one!?

(Small doses of paranoia are self-entertaining sometimes).

MA....
Didn't BT post something like this yesterday?
And, I thought Jackazz Bush backed of this "claim" as of late.
Will have to search and see if that is true but for some odd reason I was thinking he did...I'm probably mistaken but will check.

regards
seekerof



[Edited on 28-9-2003 by Seekerof]

Seekerof

Yes BT reposted this yesterday, for his separate and distinct band of followers...

This thread is a week old.

Whether or not Bush has backed off the claim (which he has, and which has also been posted several times) the key issue here is that Bush lied to Congress and then lied to the whole American populace about the rationale for going to war based on the imminent threat of Iraq WMDs and their conection with terrorist cells responsible for 9/11. He cannot be absolved of that. He was the signatory to this in March.

I can agree with that somewhat MA, but is this contention also meaning that many doubt that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qa'ida or Bin Laden?

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Springer
A few questions, if you don't mind...

How can you blame the war with Iraq for our Enonomic situation? Even more ludicrous, the loss of jobs?! The defense spending in this nation to cover the replacement of spent ammunition, food stuffs and other material is UP 43% last quarter. I have to say that it takes EMPLOYEES to make all these things. I dare say that the unemployment picture would considerably WORSE than it is now were it not for the war. NOT that that justifies a war by any means, but YOU used it as a ploy against the war.

The economy was WRECKED by a very LARGE and COMPLEX series of events that happened in succession...

The DotBOMB bubble bursting was the impetus to the cataclysm that followed. The economy was in TOILET WAY BEFORE we went to Iraq to rid the world of Saddam Insane. The 9/11 attacks on our nation and the Enron scandal among others were the final nail in the coffin of the economy NOT the war.

Then there is the question of "Thousands of dead Iraqi civilinas"... From where has this number been promulgated?

Just wondering because I find it absoultely incredible that people hear crap like this espoused by, who knows who (usually a Bush Hater), and they imediately rush to beleive it usually because it fits their political beleifs regardless of the fact that it is false...

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 9-28-2003 by Springer]

Oh, I'm sure spending 87 billion dollars overseas is great for the American economy.

www.csmonitor.com...

Try doing some of your own research before attacking my claims as false.

www.iraqbodycount.net...

Minimum civilian casualties: 7352
Maximum civilian casualties: 9152

I didn't say that the war was the sole cause of the faltering US economy but it is definitely a contributing factor. Our money is going to IRAQ, it is not being spent on the deficit or other much-needed domestic causes.

To the extent that the underlings in the admin, Rumsfeld and Powell, were misquoting both the location and nature of WMDs, and the location and nature of terrorist cells, and misquoting these things with 100% certainty as to the faith in their intelligence (that is, under instruction to lie through their teeth), I think the material nature of connections between Saddam Hussein and anybody on the planet become less important than dealing with the fact that the Bush admin is prepared to lie and fabricate to unilaterally start a war in the Middle East.

And follow it up with the famous words "Bring 'Em On", of course.

Probably...

THAT's the part that gets me...

BUT, when I see people blaming ALL of America's ills on the war (ala, Sanders) it smacks of the "broad brush" tactic which doesn't fly...

The question of all history still stands unanswered... WHO SHOT JR?!

Watch Pacoima!

P...
m...

Masked I understand what you are saying but I agree who cares about any lie that the White House put out about 9/11 and Saddam or even about Chemical weapons. Saddam needed to be taken care of he wwas Hitler with a tan we waited to long for Hitler lets not do it with Saddam