« NARAL pulls Roberts ad | Main | Correlation vs. causation: Family dining edition »

August 12, 2005

Comments

there is no evidence of any link between Iraq and 9/11.
No, Iraq was not behind 9/11. That's neither the argument the Bush administration made, nor the argument they are making. Are you going to trot out that strawman every time they mention 9/11, or would you care to deal with the actual argument made.

I'm certain you know it, so I'm left to wonder why you continually pretend the administration is pretending Iraq was behind 9/11?

It doesn't matter much when 9/11 will stop bailing them out. It got Bush reƫlected, and that's all it needed to do.

Henke - a two-second Google search demonstrates that the administration constantly implied that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Here's just the first of many, many quotes:

Here's what Cheney said on Meet the Press (NBC) just a year ago (9/14/03):

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

You don't want to talk about that justification for invading Iraq? Let's talk about the half-dozen or so other ones that the neocons threw out:

Saddam Hussein had a nucular program: false.
Saddam Hussein had tanker trucks of sarin gas: false.
Saddam Hussein could launch a WMD attack against Britain or Israel on 45 minutes notice: false.
Saddam Hussein was a threat to America: false.
Saddam Hussein was a threat to America's allies: false.

The pro-democracy angle was only tacked on after all of the other justifications started ringing false.

There is, however, one crucial link between Iraq and 9/11 that Bush and his supporters can't seem to own up to: every solder in Iraq right now is one not tracking down the perpetrators of 9/11, namely Al Qaeda. Bush vowed to get Osama "dead or alive", and six months later, couldn't say the man's name while declaring Saddam to be the biggest threat against America. Not since Nero put down his fiddle has there been a bigger failure of leadership. After Pearl Harbor, did FDR demand we invade Mexico? No, we went after the people who attacked us, plain and simple. If only we had a leader today with the courage to do the same thing.

And, yes, AQ is in Iraq now. The moved in after Bush's invasion, because of Bush's invasion. So Bush has given our biggest enemy more territory in which to operate, and he's given moderate Muslims more reason to hate America.

So it's doubly disgusting that Bush keep trying to cash in on 9/11. Bad enough that he's using people's grief for political purposes. But to paint himself as the hero, when he sat and did nothing while the attacks took place (and one phone call to the Air Force could have saved every life lost in the Pentagon), and did as little as possible to get the people responsible? Disgusting doesn't begin to describe his actions.

If you guys do not think that the world is better without Sadam Hussein, you guys are insane.

I'm wondering if folks are planning to bring banners/signs to the walk.. I'm wondering what to say on mine :)

Maybe it's one of those things where they're running out of ways to commemorate 9/11. You know the first year it was the reading of the names, then the next year they had the survivor's kids read the names, then I don't know what they did last year but this year they're like, hell, we don't know what to do so let's throw a party. They should have saved that spotlight in New York for like the fourth or fifth anniversary instead of using it at the six month mark. The whole party idea has Rumsfeld's fingerprints all over it.

schroeder: "The pro-democracy angle was only tacked on after all of the other justifications started ringing false"

Apparently, you missed out on President Bush's "State of the Union" address in 2003, in what was considered the definitive laying out of the war in Iraq before the American people. In that speech he said:

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."

and:

"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom."

Note that that speech was made prior to the invasion of Iraq. Despite your assertion that democracy and freedom was added to the list of reasons for the war later, reality appears to indicate otherwise. One can criticize Bush and company for shifting emphasis from WMD to humanitarian reasons for the war only after the WMD were not found, but let's not get revisionist here and say that they added an entirely new reason, shall we?

"But to paint himself as the hero, when he sat and did nothing while the attacks took place (and one phone call to the Air Force could have saved every life lost in the Pentagon), and did as little as possible to get the people responsible? Disgusting doesn't begin to describe his actions."

Ahh...somebodie's been watching "Fahrenheit 9/11". I would like to see your evidence that one phone call by Bush could have saved the lives of those in the Pentagon. Or that Bush could have done anything in those 5 minutes of inactivity to stop the terrorist attacks?

"Saddam Hussein was a threat to America: false."

If you read the Duelfer Report, you would see that Saddam did not have any WMD that the Iraqi Survey Group could find, but he was very intent on acquiring them, and he was confident that the sanctions were going to be gone in a matter of time, at which time he would then start WMD production. That made him something of a threat. But as to the WMD question, many thought he possessed them and was a threat. Only through the nice cozy ability of hindsight can we say for certain Saddam did not possess any such weapons.

"And, yes, AQ is in Iraq now. The moved in after Bush's invasion, because of Bush's invasion. So Bush has given our biggest enemy more territory in which to operate, and he's given moderate Muslims more reason to hate America."

True, but he also removed some land from which AQ could effectively operate. You do remember Afganistan, don't you? Problems still remain there, of course, but let's not get overdramatic.


The comments to this entry are closed.