doubleM23 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internatio...sfeld-Iraq.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Can you post the article. It is subscriber only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Can you post the article. It is subscriber only. YUP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internatio...sfeld-Iraq.html Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9 / 11 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 9:11 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. ``I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that,'' Rumsfeld said. He added: ``We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge.'' The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links. Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday, for example, 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 President 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 the 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.'' ``What we have said,'' she added, ``is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them, but most importantly that this is someone who, with his animus toward the United States, with his penchant for and capability to gain weapons of mass destruction, and his obvious willingness to use them, was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate.'' Cheney said he recalled being asked about an Iraq connection to 9-11 shortly after the attacks, and he recalled saying he knew of no evidence at that point. ``Subsequent to that, we have learned a couple of things,'' he said. ``We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on BW (biological warfare) and CW (chemical warfare) -- that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization.'' At his Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are making satisfactory progress in stabilizing the country. He said it was an ``open question'' whether the United States would get the 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops it seeks to create a third multinational division for security duty in Iraq. The Pentagon has been hopeful of getting at least that many additional troops from Turkey, Pakistan or other friendly countries to beef up security and possibly to allow some of the 130,000 U.S. troops there to go home next year. ``It would relieve some of the pressure on our forces,'' Rumsfeld said. ``Whether or not there will be a (United Nations) resolution and whether or not -- even if there were a resolution -- we would get that number of troops is an open question.'' Rice acknowledged that if commitments for more troops are gained, it ``could be months'' before they were in place. Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared with Rumsfeld, said there are more than 210,000 coalition forces in Iraq: 130,000 American troops, 24,000 British and other international troops, and 60,000 Iraqi police, border guards and civil defense forces Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Does someone have a link of the Bush Admin actually connecting Saddam to 9-11? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Does someone have a link of the Bush Admin actually connecting Saddam to 9-11? He said it in the state of the union address and the address to the nation declaring war...or at least that's what I thought he said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 They said that Al Qaeda worked with Saddam **HAHAHAHAHA** ::gains composure again:: Also, let's not forget the now de-bunked story that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in the Prague. This is stuff the Bushie administration has used as proof. Also in an ABC News story from Sept. 4, 2002 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/...ble520830.shtml They planned for an invasion of Iraq using 9/11 as the excuse to do it. Also, there is a book "Weapons of Mass Deception: Uses of Propaganda In Bush's War On Iraq" that discusses in great detail about Bush's linkages of 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Does someone have a link of the Bush Admin actually connecting Saddam to 9-11? have you actually listened to any Bush speech in which he says 9-11 and Iraq and Al queda and Hussein in the same sentence over and over and over? The text of the speech the night we went to war with Iraq - the state of the union (in which bush failed to mention bin laden at all) - Bush has over and over and over and over linked these things. No he never said "Iraq did 9-11." That is the art of cya in politics. But he has inferred, implied, and pushed his policies on that basis over and over. Check his speech texts. Same sentences he uses these words to create linkage in the minds of the American people for something that is not so to justify his policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 this is surprising to you doub because????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted September 18, 2003 Author Share Posted September 18, 2003 this is surprising to you doub because????? Because I thought that was our justification for ousting Saddam in the first place. My surprise isn't so much that George can't prove it; What hard evidence has he provided yet for the war in Iraq? None, by my count. What I'm really surprised is that someone high up in the office; let alone the Secretary of Defense, would say something that completely contradicts Bush and no one seems to care... How many brave men have died now for George's little vendetta against Saddam and approval rating ploy? Go America... Vote this dumbass out of office by a margin he can't steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 shocked and appalled, Iraq and a poor economy is slowly running down Bush. as a Republican, I am close to giving up on Bush. His strength was supposed to be foreign policy. Part of foreign policy involves diplomatic relations. This administration is not into negotiating. Though I was and still agree with going to war in Iraq, I don't think the administration has handled the situation cleanly in terms of PR. I am this (holding up fingers close together) to officially pledging my allegience to Wesley Clark. But not to worry, until november '04 I hope bush succeeds and turns this thing around as I expect all of us are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Because I thought that was our justification for ousting Saddam in the first place. My surprise isn't so much that George can't prove it; What hard evidence has he provided yet for the war in Iraq? None, by my count. What I'm really surprised is that someone high up in the office; let alone the Secretary of Defense, would say something that completely contradicts Bush and no one seems to care... How many brave men have died now for George's little vendetta against Saddam and approval rating ploy? Go America... Vote this dumbass out of office by a margin he can't steal. lil bush was just carrying out what big bush couldnt get passed to start in the first place... no surprise here.... of course they are gonna keep it on different levels.. lil bush gets confused easily and the less he knows the better........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 After Bush's terrible mismanagement of the economy, I can't see me voting for Bush again. His economic policy team has just been blatantly wrong, that's all there is too it. Mark my words, there will be 7+% inflation happening within 2 years. You heard it here first. If anyone wants the economics behind my theory let me know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 After Bush's terrible mismanagement of the economy, I can't see me voting for Bush again. His economic policy team has just been blatantly wrong, that's all there is too it. Mark my words, there will be 7+% inflation happening within 2 years. You heard it here first. If anyone wants the economics behind my theory let me know... *raises hand* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 After Bush's terrible mismanagement of the economy, I can't see me voting for Bush again. His economic policy team has just been blatantly wrong, that's all there is too it. Mark my words, there will be 7+% inflation happening within 2 years. You heard it here first. If anyone wants the economics behind my theory let me know... Wasn't the country heading for a recession before Bush took office? Isn't it out of one as we speak? Hasn't this little thing about the war on terrorism and 9-11 had any sort of impact on the economy and consumer confidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 OK for Bob, BJ, and anyone else interested. The problems are two fold IMO. First the tax cuts were stupid. You can't give money to the upper classes in a recesion, and expect it to flow through the economy, as it would while ideal conditions exsist. What happens is instead of being consumed, the money goes to making up for lost profits and wages. It is in effect wasted because it isn't going to new spending, it is being added to the bottom lines of companies to dress up bad profit numbers, and it is going to cover old debts that were started while people where making more money. Money used to cover debts actually has a negative affect on economy because that disappears from circulation. Now that the economic cycle has turned on its own, once wages start to recover growth will occur. But because tax rates were cut, not only is there growth, but there is more money out there because of the tax cuts. So instead of controlled growth, the money supply basically has had a multiplier of growth plus the extra of the tax cut. #2 is Key commodity prices. If you look at basically a cross section of prices you would find that many many prices instead of falling correspondingly with the economic downturn actually went up. For example take a look at the charts of gold, silver, gas prices, and cattle. All of these are at very high levels. Now once demand turns around as people get hired and companies expand, prices are going to keep going up, as all of this extra money (growth plus tax cut) starts to tear through the system. Plus as an added bonus, is all of this WTO talk. 21 nations organized in protest of the EU and US amoungst others subsidizing their farmers to the point of bankrupting the 3rd world farmer. The US alone gives out approx $6 billion a year to keep things like corn, wheat, beans, and cotton at historically low levels. Now these 21 nations are demanding that we drop our barriors, in order for them to drop their barriors in other markets. Estimates were that if dropped there would be about a 25% jump in most of these commodities as unprofitable farms went out of business, and were replaced by either forgein competition or just simply had that production disappear. Put these together and you have huge price increases in food, transporation, precious metals, and just about everything connected to these staples. The war on terrorism has been a huge problem, as have all of the other wars that we are now involved in. What they have done is cause deficit spending, which means the government is out borrowing $1/2 trillion making it much harder for anyone else to borrow money, which means the price of money (interest rates) goes up also. It also causes economice resources to get reallocated to much less profitable ventures (what is the economic return of a $1 million cruise missle exploding vs a million dollar expansion of a local factory) Consumer confidence actually remained incredibly strong after 9-11, actually confidence numbers broke when lay offs started en masse. And yes we were heading for recession way before 9-11. This was a result of the mismanagement of the bubble from the irrational stock markets of 99-00. Instead of just slowing down the economy they just burst the bubble. We were heading down hill anyway, but because of the disappearing resources, all of these cutbacks were multiplied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0...17_franken.html It's the Gospel of Supply Side Jesus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.