Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"George Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:09 AM
Original message
"George Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11."
Help me refute this, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. He said recently he was "very careful not to say that"
The scripts were carefully constructed to link the two in people's minds without actually saying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Like the knife in "Psycho"
You never really see it pierce the skin, but you see all the blood go down the drain...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Nice post...
So true, and spot on!

You'd win a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni for that post--if DU did that sort of thing.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chat_noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Bush: American Psycho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. They still do - all the time. That is why Americans STILL think Saddam ha
had something to do with it. Just listen. It is "said" without actually being said all of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Although he never mentions one without the other
I don't believe he explicity made the connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Here's an article on his linking of Saddam and 9/11...

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection ," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. You should check out what they
haven't been saying for the last two years regarding "stay the course"!

Jon Stewart exposes their little Orwellian bullshit!

"Watch Jon Stewart tear down Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman’s attempt to sell America on the outright lie that GOP’ers aren’t for “staying the course” in Iraq – rather, they’re out to “adapt and win.”
Stewart: Yeah, what a--hole said “stay the course”?


http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060815_stewart_mocks_rnc_chairs_adapt_and_win_makeover/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KKKarl is an idiot Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Can't find anything on that. Looks like he had us all going
Hope the repubs ask the question: Why did we go to war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. an old DU thread on the subject
here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1801539

check all the responses in the thread for additional examples ...


from bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech:

The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists AND THEIR ALLIES believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.<skip>

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed AN ALLY OF AL-QAIDA, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. They have claimed links between AQ and
Saddam.

They have not claimed Iraq so much as knew about the plans for 9/11.

The diffence isn't all that subtle, it doesn't even rank as a 'nuance'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. i think the quote above does link the two
They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists AND THEIR ALLIES believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve ...

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed AN ALLY OF AL-QAIDA

look at the bolded parts ... in the first sentence, "they" later becomes the "terrorists and THEIR ALLIES" ... and in the 3rd sentence, bush identifies Iraq as an ally of Al-Qaida ... what he said back in the first sentence, was that THEY imagined 9/11 would be the "beginning of the end of America" and that THEY were "seeking to turn our cities into killing fields" ...

the linkage seems clear to me ... bush said that 9/11 was planned by terrorists and their allies and that one of the allies was Iraq under Saddam ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. Used to be you could go to whitehouse.gov
and do a search on Saddam 9/11 and find a ton of speeches wherein the two were entertwined... must have been scrubbed... I'm not finding them now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
10. Funny how many people THOUGHT that's what he said, huh.
George W. Bush* is a lying scumbag slimeball opportunistic son of a bitch. But what makes me even madder is the right-wing shitheads who insist that supporting that POS is the "patriotic" thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bullshit. Read this, make up your own mind what he said:
Bush on February 8, 2003:

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases."

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/27/wallace-never-linked/

(BTW, there is video of Bush saying it)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
32. This connecting intent of this statement pretty much nails it.
Thanks, jobycom, for posting this. :thumbsup:

Although * does not actually say "Saddam and al Qaeda are directly connected," he makes ***every*** possible implication, right up to the brink of saying it.

* merely substitutes the word "Iraq" for "Saddam." Can there be any doubt whatsoever as to the elements this statement was specifically attempting to connect?

I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
13. "Dick Cheney is transvestite pedophile and serial killer"
Help me refute this, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
15. There is a film called "why we fight", a documentary. It has footage of
Bush saying both "Sadam linked to al queda" and "we never said there was a link."
rented it from netflix, great film by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tives12 Donating Member (223 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. That movie looks amazing
It's on my list of films to watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
16. Never the less, we are supposedly occupying Iraq for it.
Whether he said it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. He only did everything he could to imply it, without "technically
having said it.

You can find many transcripts of speeches where he repeatedly says "Saddam" and "9/11" in the same sentence, and was obviously trying to associate the two in people's minds.

He "never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11" in the same way that Clinton "never had sex with that woman".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. Yeah, 50% of the population just came up with that all on their own
Strange how so many people believe the two are linked, seeing as how Bush never, e-e-e-e-ever said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Hell, even a sizable segment of our soldiers in Iraq think they're there because they're avenging 9/11. Can't imagine why they'd get that impression, being the smartest, best equipped, best trained fightin' force ever seen on the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
22. He did in the first debate - and Kerry called him on it
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 11:08 AM by karynnj
LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?


BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever have to use troops.

But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must -- as a last resort.

I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye.

And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have said, "Let the inspectors work, or let's, you know, hope to talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work," he would have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There's just no doubt in my mind we would rue the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power.

So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force.

But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way.

Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs.

Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it.

So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.

If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, "What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?" we'd be in a stronger place today.


LEHRER: Thirty seconds.

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.

KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
23. Try this link..lots of Bush lies archived...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Thanks, DUers!
You guys are better than google! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
24. Oh, like he never said that Saddam has been funding terrorism
for decades?

That one always comes up when a rightie is trying to claim that SH was tied to al Qaeda ...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. If I say "red, white, and blue," what do you think of?
I didn't say what you're thinking of. I said "red, white, and blue." If you accuse me of saying something else, I'll deny it. I never said it. All I did was name three colors. Now, maybe I knew what you would think of...

But I didn't say it.

That's what Bush did. He never actually said that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But he did say that Saddam's government had ties to al Queda. And of course, al Queda was involved in 9/11.

It's not much of a cognitive leap for someone to assume that, therefore, Saddam was involved in 9/11. Bush knew that, but he was careful not to say it; he relied on the majority of his listeners to create the lie for themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapere aude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. You could make a career out of refuting right wing propaganda.
I don't see any use in telling a wingnut the truth when they are not willing to accept it. People will go to their graves believing that no matter what you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
28. A dog would not normally get hungry if you ring a bell.
But if you ring the bell every time just before you feed him, they would call you Pavlov, or in politics they would call you Bush the deceiver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
29. Bush's speech from October 7, 2002
If you can get through the lies, notice how the two subjects are intertwined ("Red" for reference to Saddam (although most of this speech refers to Saddam--I've highlighted a choice few statements); "Green" for reference to 9/11).

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.


We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability

-- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.


Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm

. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons.
While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone
-- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.


Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon
.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.


The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger

. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly.
Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities

.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

This is how the Bushistas were able to link the two together...

I posted the entire speech since it's on the White House website and I own the White House website (as do we all!}


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
30. I don't know that he ever did say it.
He certainly implied it, but I've never seen anyplace where he said that word for word. Cheney did though. And, then after it was too obvious a lie to say anymore, both Cheney and Bush denied he ever did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
31. I don't believe he ever did. He put the idea in peoples minds by inuendo.
One sentence would be about 9/11, terrorists and the very next sentence would be about Iraq and Saddam. Because He and many in his admin. did the same thing, people ASSUmeD they were linked.

I know, several times recently, he was asked directly "DId Saddam have anything to do with 9/11 and he said NO!

Cheney came the closest in his statements about Al Qaieda training in Iraq, but even HE denied a connection to 9/11 when directly confronted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cell Whitman Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
33. Bush used his lying operatives to do it for him, he NEVER
tried to stop it until asked outright and then it was too late. He gave carefully worded speeches using the two in the same sentences or closely related. He has MOST definitely tied the war in Iraq to beating terrorism, i.e. beat the bastards who got us 911.

any jack ass knows the republicans work off the same sheet music,...

he could have forcefully stopped the lie anytime he wished but it did not suit his purpose. That in itself was deceptive. If not him all the republicans who talked for him could have...there is a reason so many thought Saddam served the Hijackers breakfast on 911.

here watch O'Riely INTENTIONALLY Lie for him.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/19/1410214&mode=thread&tid=25

ask the man who lost his son on 911 who he thought we were going to fight in Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm

this is just cult bullshit. Plausible deniability. They are still doing it. When Rumsfled was asked about Santorum's mind control statement that we found WMD he hummed and hawwed...if your friend is going to act like Iraq wasn't sold as stopping people who hit us on 911/al Qeda, he is just a foot soldier for the cult.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredScuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
34. Turn it around
"If I accept your premise that George Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, then....WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING IN IRAQ?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. "turn it around"!!
If I accept your premise that George Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, then....WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING IN IRAQ?


I've tried this one. Boy, it annoys them when you change the subject!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Very good point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC