« New Democratic Party Website | Main | Focus Group Phrases »


June 29, 2005

Iraq Caused 9/11

-- by Dave Johnson

The Wingnutosphere is going all out to reinforce Bush's claim that Iraq was behind 9/11. Some examples:

It’s All About 9/11: The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. ... It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. ... That is why we are in Iraq. ... Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations.

Captain's Quarters

The dominant theme today will be the complaints that Bush exploited 9/11 -- complaints that will once again reveal how critics can't remember what 9/11 actually meant.
Right Wing News
...the Coalition is helping to avoid future 9/11's in America and Europe by bleeding Al-Qaeda dry in Iraq and we're encouraging a wave of freedom that will in time sweep across the Middle-East and help drain the swamp that radical Islam thrives in.
Powerline,
Pelosi's claim that there is "no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is mind-numbingly obtuse. Let's itemize just the huge, obvious connections: ...
SoCalPundit,
It seems President Bush’s mentioning of Iraq in the same sentence as the attacks of 9/11 has set off a bit of a fire storm among the leftist elite in America. So often I hear even centrist individuals and media folk state that there is no evidence that Iraq was in any way involved in the attacks of 9/11 or any other terrorist activity for that matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.
PoliPundit.com
The Iraq War was not retribution for 9/11/01, but the Iraq War has been very much about 9/11. It is about 9/11/2008 or 9/11/2012 or whatever the date, God forbid, the next large scale attack on America is scheduled to take place. It is about a U.S. President being responsible enough to act where he saw a threat so that he would not find himself waking up to another 9/11 and knowing that it happened because he had not connected the dots.

Posted by Dave Johnson at June 29, 2005 5:56 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/424

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraq Caused 9/11:

» Exhibit #1 from PoliPundit.com
Yesterday, in my post on the relationship of 9/11 to Iraq, I stated the following:Okay, now I am going to very slowly explain something that Bush haters evidently cannot comprehend. President Bush never said that we should invade Iraq because Saddam Hu... [Read More]

Tracked on June 29, 2005 9:14 PM

» Regarding Iraqi Ties To September 11th 2001 from SoCalPundit
It seems President Bush’s mentioning of Iraq in the same sentence as the attacks of 9/11 has set off a bit of a fire storm among the leftist elite in America. So often I hear even centrist individuals and media folk state that there is no evide... [Read More]

Tracked on June 29, 2005 9:54 PM


Comments

Totally off the wall. Worst of it is that they believe these lies. Sad.

Posted by: gbreez at June 29, 2005 9:47 PM

Can you please quote and cite from President Bush's speech where he said Iraq was *behind* 9/11?

Obviously, you disagree with Clinton's Iraq regime change resolution and the recent 99% vote in Congress to authorize military force.

I'm curious where you would draw the line with a foreign dictators? How many times a country must attack their neighbors (Hussein did 5 times), pay suicide bombers (Hussein did many times), harbor and welcom terrorists (over a dozen like Zarqawi were loitering there), try to assisinate a US President (Hussein did at least once), express death to America (many times by Hussein, even Baghdad airport had "Death to America" engraved in the tile), defy cease fire and UN resolutions (over a dozen by Hussein), and kill their own people with WMDs (tens of thousands)?

Posted by: bryan at June 29, 2005 10:17 PM

Boy Howdy! I sure do like the idea that Osama Bin Laden is a free man and we can't do a thing about it because we are bogged down in Iraq.

I really like the idea that there are people who really do wish to do us harm and they may very well get their hands on nukes from Bush's "allies", but we won't be able to stop them because we are stuck in Iraq fighting and training our brand new enemies.

I love how America is the only place a lazy man can benefit from the greatest failure of all time and he can have a cadre of typists cheerlead that failure on cue.

Posted by: grannyinsanity at June 30, 2005 12:10 AM

Iraq Caused 9/11. Yeah Right! No, we Liberals are not wrong in saying "There was never a connection". You CON-servative wingnuts are being spoonfed lies living in your stage managed little D.C. world worshipping that Little Tin God you call George W. Bush.

Posted by: Dystopia Productions at June 30, 2005 3:06 AM

Oh by the way, I'm not accusing Seeing the Forest of anything wrong because I know they tell the truth as well as other progressive/democrat/socialist bloggers. I just want to get yelled at by some conservative wingnut :-)

Posted by: Dystopia Productions at June 30, 2005 3:10 AM

One can summarize Bush's speech in two words: NO CHANGE. Just the same old crap, warmed over again. Just how stupid IS the American public? Bush is counting on them being very, very stupid, and we'll see.

The sad truth is nothing's really being done about the so-called "War on Terror," largely because of the resources wasted on Iraq. It seems that the Taliban's still functioning and becoming dangerous again, the poppy fields are thriving in Afghanistan, providing most of the world's opium supply plus tons of cash for the warlords and zillions of real terrorists, and we've turned Iraq into the new training ground for terrorists.

One thing I don't understand is why we have to "train" such a vast number of Iraqis to defend their own country. Didn't they have a standing army of several hundred thousand well-trained soldiers? Where are they? Is that the "insurgents" we're now fighting?

God, what a mess! What makes me sick is that we're justifying this on the basis that if we were wrong our own dead have died in vain.

Posted by: MJ at June 30, 2005 7:03 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot, Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would have kicked ass all over the Middle East. I thank God every day President Bush is the one protecting the USA.

I thought I asked a simple question of where you draw line if not with in 2003 with Hussein.

Posted by: bryan at June 30, 2005 7:09 AM

"One can summarize Bush's speech in two words: NO CHANGE"
- A President who doesn't pull out and run because we have a bunch of pussy liberals whining?

"One thing I don't understand is why we have to "train" such a vast number of Iraqis to defend their own country."
- Are you that freakin dumb? Are you wondering why we just didn't just keep the Taliban forces in Afghanistan too?

"What makes me sick is that we're justifying this on the basis that if we were wrong our own dead have died in vain."
- *sigh* Bush was talking about why it's a serious mistake to set a deadline for withdrawing forces, because the troops morale would be hurt if we pulled out too soon.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 7:29 AM

I find these new attempts to tie Saddam (a hedonist secular leader) to Bin Laden (a hard core Islamist, who considered Saddam one of those who must be eliminated) very humorous, and kinda sad.

The two each saw them-selfs as leaders of a Pan-Arab movement, and clearly saw the other as a threat to their own dreams of power, and view of what the Pan-Arab state should be.

The fact that the Bush has had to resort to trying to imply that the attack of Iraq is in any way related to the events of 9-11 is just an indicator of how bankrupt all his reasoning for his war has become.

and Bryan.

Yes Saddam was an SOB. The sad reality is he is not the only one out there. However, He is the only one we have ever removed. Others like Islam Abdughanievich Karimov we actually help stay in power.

This fact is very telling.

Also remember, while Saddam did Gas the Iranians, and the Kurds, his abiliity to make the gas was a result of the efforts of the Reagan Administraion, and when the US Congress tried to punish him for his acts, it was block by Reagan and Bush.

Saddam, like Bin Laden, are creations of past policy decisions made by our own Governement. Now it is time to consider how many more Saddams and Bin Ladens we have created with our latest policy decisions, and how we can correct that.

Posted by: John at June 30, 2005 8:14 AM

Today's Ben Sargent cartoon is very appropriate

Posted by: darms at June 30, 2005 9:10 AM

"I find these new attempts to tie Saddam (a hedonist secular leader) to Bin Laden (a hard core Islamist, who considered Saddam one of those who must be eliminated) very humorous, and kinda sad."
- It's all old intelligence from 1990's and early 2000, nothing is new. Mutual hatred of the US and Israel and desire to hurt your common enemies . Hussein was and continuous to show himself to be a very religious Arab, not an aetheist.

"how bankrupt all his reasoning for his war has become."
- His war? It's our war Congress authorized unless you aren't a US citizen. Pacifism of Carter and Clinton only made things worse, it's not a strategy.

"He is the only one we have ever removed. Others like Islam Abdughanievich Karimov we actually help stay in power. This fact is very telling."
- After 9/11, our policy was not to use force against threats to America, and Hussein was the most offender, coupled with every in bryan's post abovce. It was the right time in history to deal with it. We tried over a decade of diplomatic strategies with Iraq, hopefully we'll get results faster with Iran.

The Swedish Institute studied the source of Iraq weapons, and 5% came from the US. The rest came from Europe and elsewhere.

"Saddam, like Bin Laden, are creations of past policy decisions made by our own Governement. Now it is time to consider how many more Saddams and Bin Ladens we have created with our latest policy decisions, and how we can correct that."
- The US created Saddam and bin Laden now? The US has had moments of "the enemy of my enemy is my temporary friend" when we were fighting communists. The hatred of Jews and chopping off heads is a long radical Islamic tradition.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 9:14 AM

- After 9/11, our policy was not to use force against threats to America, and Hussein was the most offender, coupled with every in bryan's post abovce.

Anonymous wing-nut on drugs or the recipient of a Bush brain transplant.

Posted by: Blubbo at June 30, 2005 10:52 AM

Looks like the wingnut regiments have been called out in full force! Too bad (on so many levels) they are too unconvinced by their own arguments to enlist.

Posted by: richard at June 30, 2005 12:48 PM

Can everybody else smell the fear? The smell permeates my monitor everytime we get another anonymous poster to throw hateful accusations and regurgitate lame talking points.

I welcome hearing an original dissenting voice who is willing to have a reasonable discussion based on the facts. Our recent visitors appear to be nothing more than fearful trolls and I suggest that we don't feed them any more. Whether they are paid to disrupt our conversations or they cringe from the movement of their own shadows is completely irrelevant.

When we continue to feed them, they continue to be parasites on what should be rational discussions about the health of our democracy.

Posted by: grannyinsanity at June 30, 2005 1:10 PM

"- After 9/11, our policy was not to use force against threats to America, and Hussein was the most offender, coupled with every in bryan's post abovce.

Anonymous wing-nut on drugs or the recipient of a Bush brain transplant."

** The word "not" was a typo, obviously. Our policy *was to use force*. Sorry for the confusion, I wrote that above anon post.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 1:47 PM

"I welcome hearing an original dissenting voice who is willing to have a reasonable discussion based on the facts."

- Everything stated as a "FACT", was a "FACT" in the post above. If you don't think so, please point out which ones were incorrect, that's how debates work, no? Disagreeing on strategy and going into Iraq is fair argument, but Anonymous and Bryan stated facts (which are not debatable) and based on those facts drew conclusions (which you can debate).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 1:52 PM

"Looks like the wingnut regiments have been called out in full force! Too bad (on so many levels) they are too unconvinced by their own arguments to enlist."

You are want to reduce crime and arrest criminals, why aren't you a police officer? You want Osama caught, why haven't you bought a plan ticket to Afghanistan looking for him? You want us off oil, why aren't you inventing new sources of energy?

See my point? We all choose different career paths, some choose the army, police, fire fighter, etc. I may want to be a cop, the last thing I'd want to do is be a cop, but I want them in the toughest part of town busting bad guys. If there is virtually no alternative, I'll do it, but it's not required of me or you at the moment.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 1:58 PM

Anonymous demonstrates the true patriotism of the Wingnutosphere. He is all for the war as long as someone else has to go.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at June 30, 2005 2:16 PM

No, I don't. In fact, you are a coward who prefers others to die for your foolish beliefs.

Posted by: richard at June 30, 2005 2:17 PM

If there were any facts buried in those talking points above I can't find them.

Please find them and your source then we can start there.

Posted by: grannyinsanity at June 30, 2005 2:54 PM

There are facts there. It's just that they are intended to deceive. Saddam did do most of what the creep says he did. So what? There is nothing among those facts that individually or collectively justifies an illegal invasion and occupation.

Posted by: richard at June 30, 2005 5:10 PM

Richard -

Thanks for being intellectually honest, and recognizing our main difference on this issue is what action, if any, is appropriate given the situation in 2001-2003. I agree that none of my reasons by alone is enough to justify a forced ousting. But sometimes when the decades of circumstances culminated as they did for Hussein, you have to pull the trigger. But, hey, Hussein and his crazy sons are gone and not threatening anyone. I think it is well worth it saved us American lives in the long run.

Grannyinsanity -
I remember most of it from reports throughout the late 1990's thru early 2000s, and everything I said was also repeated is some form in the 9/11 Commission report. Which particular item do you think is not accurate?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 6:13 PM

I would direct anonymous to the gold star families. org. Sorry I have no clue how to link to a website.Tried, isn't working.But...maybe anoymous needs to go see what they have to say.A friend of mine is going home to see her brother this weekend.Her brother is 44 years old, deployed in Iraq from a guard unit in Wisconsin.He called his sister a week ago to say hello and talk about the upcoming weekend.She was trying to be the perky little sister and asked him if he was taking lots of pictures and so on, he told her no.I'm not taking any pictures.I don't want to remember this, we don't belong here.My point is 44 is a little old to worry too much about what anyone else thinks.He got there and made up his own mind.His job is for the government and admittedly I didn't ask her what he does but it is contingent upon his being part of the military.I'm thinking at his age he has done that job for some time.He told my friend that he will find something else when he gets home and he doesn't care what he loses for making that decision.He is doing the job that the military requires of him but he isn't being blinded by the propaganda nor is he influenced by any negative liberal bias.The man can think for himself.

Posted by: Kay at June 30, 2005 7:08 PM

"But sometimes when the decades of circumstances culminated as they did for Hussein, you have to pull the trigger."

BUT WE WERE ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR! A REAL WAR!

When you are in a WAR you don't pull your researuces out in order to go attack domeone THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO!

And look at the consequences of THAT! The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, we need ti immediately find 100,000 or so troops to put in there or the Taliban will throw us out! And we need another 200-300,000 troops in Iraq or it will turn into chaos with us in the middle of it. meanwhile Korea threatens to explode and China is making noises about invading Taiwan.

Thsi is a FINE mess we're in because of thinking like that which you expressed here.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at June 30, 2005 10:11 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page