Why Shouldn't American Foreign Policy Be Blamed For 9/11?

[First]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Paul is right in the sense that it's well known, both in CIA and any half-wit intel agency that blowback is a reality of the world that people should get used to. Most don't question U.S. intentions because most know that the vast majority have good intentions when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs; e.g. GWB isn't in Iraq because he's evil, wants to kill Americans/Iraqis, etc. His intentions were good, his execution was downright horrid. Most know this. What most won't accept is that 9/11 was, unequivocally, blowback. CIA knows and will readily admit this assuming you're not conversing with a politically correct talking head, I suppose. Certainly the 9/11 Commission Report delineates blowback reality clearly.

Some of the best intentions, throughout history, have resulted in some of the worst horrors in human history. 9/11 is, in part, no exception. Combined with the irrational, illogical, and often completely blind hatred that many war mongering terrorists in the Middle East hold, American strategic mistakes in the region compounded into a horrible tradegy on September 11th, 2001. Let's hope those in charge learn from their mistakes.

Those in charge are going to be gone soon and haven't yet shown a propensity for learning from their mistakes. The proper "hope" would be that the next group in charge learns from this group.

Meh. Both this administration and the Republican party over the last 6+ years have yielded easily some of the worst foreign policy and domestic policy mistakes in U.S. history. I'd add a winky emoticon but I can't joke with someone who probably voted for both of them.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Infohawk
But for US support of Israel / US meddling in middle-east, 9/11 would not have happened. There shouldn't be a debate there.

The somewhat reasonable debate is whether the US's support of Israel / meddling in the middle-east was justifiable, and whether the (Muslim) response to that meddling was reasonable.

IMO the US foreign policy since Eisenhower in the 60s has been unreasonable. You guys went from isolationists to the police of the world; there was no middle ground!

I agree. As late as FDR, the US had a 'reasonable' foreign policy; under Truman, the republicans learned that the road back to political power after being destroyed by democrats since 1932 was the issue of fear-mongering, and dangerous movements towards militarism occured, from the 'loyalty oaths' and creation of the CIA under Truman to the McCarthyism of the early to mid 50's, paving the way for a dangerous cold war.

The Eisenhower administration pursued a variety of wrongheaded policies, usually involving siding wrongly with European allies, from overthrowing democracy in Iran in 1953 - the origin of the CIA term "blowback", culminating in the rise of the radical religious leaders in 1979 - to his support against independance in Viet Nam and for the French colonization, with the US paying 90% of the French war costs at one point. After the speed bump of JFK not going along, this led to the large-scale, wrong, war there.

With another 'speed bump' under Carter delaying meddling much, we've been right on track after, from Nixon to Reagan to Bush 41; whatever Clinton may have wanted, these policies put him in a corner on his options, setting the world stage for American policies in the world.

The thing is, few Americans today realize the radical shift from our traditional policies to the radical empire we've become after WWII, and they are hard-pressed to see any alternative way to run our nation than to continue with the same sorts of policies leading to ever-stronger 'control' in the world. They feel fear and worry about 'threats' even while being probably the most militarily secure and powerful nation in world history.

Just as the US failed in its first attempt at self-government under the articles of confederation by keeping too much power for the states, the world has failed twice to find any better way to run things than 'the most powerful nation does what it likes', first with the League of Nations and now, with the less than effective United Nations. So, we stumble on, with the power du jour fulfilling the old maxim, that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely, as perhaps the least corrupt nation in history, the US, succumbs as well.

We need to look for *systemic* improvements to world government, to end the cycle of some groups' wealth being based on other groups' misery, and so on.

I don't know what those are, any more than many who saw the problems with England's governing in 1770 knew that democracy (after revolt) was the answer then.

Even the founding fathers like Ben Franklin had spent years trying to get England to moderate its policies rather than pushing for independance and a republic.

But we need that discussion, and I don't see it almost anywhere. So, we can expect more of the same, as each power simply pushes for more for itself, whatever the impact.

I agree. It's very interesting that the US was just as much of a superpower *before* WW2 when it was an *isolationist* country. Now, they are no more powerful, but the world hates them because of their heavy military involvement in just about every major world conflict.

It's unfortunate that most Americans aren't very politically saavy and refuse to look beyond their own backyard to see the way the rest of the world conducts itself. Honestly, most Canadians complain of a subtle American arrogance; it's as though most Americans feel like they rule the world, completely ignoring how this makes citizens of other countries feel. 9-11 is truly a result of that type of sentiment to one degree or another (as I posted earlier, I think Bin Laden would have blown buildings up *somewhere* no matter what).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

I have first-hand testimony by agents whose specific mission it was to support the Muj through the ISI. (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars) What do you have - beyond rumors and speculation by 3rd-parties who had absolutely no connection to those operations whatsoever?

That's what I thought.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Paul is right in the sense that it's well known, both in CIA and any half-wit intel agency that blowback is a reality of the world that people should get used to. Most don't question U.S. intentions because most know that the vast majority have good intentions when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs; e.g. GWB isn't in Iraq because he's evil, wants to kill Americans/Iraqis, etc. His intentions were good, his execution was downright horrid. Most know this. What most won't accept is that 9/11 was, unequivocally, blowback. CIA knows and will readily admit this assuming you're not conversing with a politically correct talking head, I suppose. Certainly the 9/11 Commission Report delineates blowback reality clearly.

Some of the best intentions, throughout history, have resulted in some of the worst horrors in human history. 9/11 is, in part, no exception. Combined with the irrational, illogical, and often completely blind hatred that many war mongering terrorists in the Middle East hold, American strategic mistakes in the region compounded into a horrible tradegy on September 11th, 2001. Let's hope those in charge learn from their mistakes.

Those in charge are going to be gone soon and haven't yet shown a propensity for learning from their mistakes. The proper "hope" would be that the next group in charge learns from this group.

Just as those in charge have absolutely NOTHING with the motives behind 9/11, they will also have no effect whatsoever on the middle east's hatred towards the US. To think otherwise is revisionist history at best.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

I have first-hand testimony by agents whose specific mission it was to support the Muj through the ISI. (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars) What do you have - beyond rumors and speculation by 3rd-parties who had absolutely no connection to those operations whatsoever?

That's what I thought.

Can you prove that the ISI DIDN'T give Al Qaeda money? That's impossible to prove.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

I have first-hand testimony by agents whose specific mission it was to support the Muj through the ISI. (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars) What do you have - beyond rumors and speculation by 3rd-parties who had absolutely no connection to those operations whatsoever?

That's what I thought.

Can you prove that the ISI DIDN'T give Al Qaeda money? That's impossible to prove.

during the war with the Soviets? Actually, that's fairly easy. Why? Because AQ was not yet known as "Al Qaeda" during the Afghan-Soviet war.

But, I'll assume you meant to say "Osama" instead of AQ... so:

In this case, the onus is on the accusers to provide proof that the direct support of OBL actually occurred.

We have first-hand testimony from agents directly involved in the operations clearly stating otherwise - one example is the great book I referenced above.

This is the same as "Can you prove that Bush didnt lie?" or "Can you prove that 9/11 wasn't an insider job?"

These are examples of negatives that cannot readily be proven. The onus is on the accuser to establish the basis for the accusations - using historical facts and evidence. Most rational minds will accept the established truth until evidence is presented to contradict said truth.

get it?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

I have first-hand testimony by agents whose specific mission it was to support the Muj through the ISI. (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars) What do you have - beyond rumors and speculation by 3rd-parties who had absolutely no connection to those operations whatsoever?

That's what I thought.

Can you prove that the ISI DIDN'T give Al Qaeda money? That's impossible to prove.

In this case, the onus is on the accusers to provide proof that the direct support of OBL actually occurred.

We have first-hand testimony from agents directly involved in the operations clearly stating otherwise - one example is the great book I referenced above.

This is the same as "Can you prove that Bush didnt lie?" or "Can you prove that 9/11 wasn't an insider job?"

These are examples of negatives that cannot readily be proven. The onus is on the accuser to establish the basis for the accusations - using historical facts and evidence. Most rational minds will accept the established truth until evidence is presented to contradict said truth.

get it?

No one claimed that bin laden got money from the ISI. All we are asking is that you prove that they didn't. You say "trust me" and "go read this book." But you know that that isn't good enough.

In other words, you believe they didn't, but you don't know for sure. You may never know for sure. Let's just leave it at that unless you have absolute proof.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Dari
No one claimed that bin laden got money from the ISI.

uhh, that is exactly what too many people have said since 9/11, and even right here in this very thread! Where have you been?!

All we are asking is that you prove that they didn't. You say "trust me" and "go read this book." But you know that that isn't good enough.

Did you not understand the entire point about the onus being on the accuser to establish a truth that contradicts firsthand testimony and established fact? I have presented my evidence and the firsthand testimony of those involved. What have the accusers presented beyond their own speculation and that of other uninvolved parties?

In other words, you believe they didn't, but you don't know for sure. You may never know for sure. Let's just leave it at that unless you have absolute proof.

What constitutes "absolute proof"? Video?

The fact is, the agents who were primarily responsible for the operations there, throughout the entire conflict, have stated that we did not, in any way, directly support OBL during his fight with the Soviets in Afghanistan. So, until someone who believes otherwise can provide evidence to the contrary, rational minds will accept the testimony of the agents as the established truth.

Once again, the onus is on the accusers to provide evidence contradicting the established truth.

This is the same reason that rational minds will not accept the "Bush lied!" crap. The onus is upon the accusers to provide proof and evidence that he did so; otherwise, the established truth remains the most rational.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

I have first-hand testimony by agents whose specific mission it was to support the Muj through the ISI. (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars) What do you have - beyond rumors and speculation by 3rd-parties who had absolutely no connection to those operations whatsoever?

That's what I thought.

Can you prove that the ISI DIDN'T give Al Qaeda money? That's impossible to prove.

In this case, the onus is on the accusers to provide proof that the direct support of OBL actually occurred.

We have first-hand testimony from agents directly involved in the operations clearly stating otherwise - one example is the great book I referenced above.

This is the same as "Can you prove that Bush didnt lie?" or "Can you prove that 9/11 wasn't an insider job?"

These are examples of negatives that cannot readily be proven. The onus is on the accuser to establish the basis for the accusations - using historical facts and evidence. Most rational minds will accept the established truth until evidence is presented to contradict said truth.

get it?

No one claimed that bin laden got money from the ISI. All we are asking is that you prove that they didn't. You say "trust me" and "go read this book." But you know that that isn't good enough.

In other words, you believe they didn't, but you don't know for sure. You may never know for sure. Let's just leave it at that unless you have absolute proof.

For whatever reason you are missing the point of Palehorse's point of it being up to the accuser. Let me rephrase it for you. If the po po come knocking on your door saying you are part of a bank robbery spree, the burden of proof lies with the po po and the prosecutor, NOT with you. THEY must prove it.

Get it?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

I have first-hand testimony by agents whose specific mission it was to support the Muj through the ISI. (Steve Coll: Ghost Wars) What do you have - beyond rumors and speculation by 3rd-parties who had absolutely no connection to those operations whatsoever?

That's what I thought.

Can you prove that the ISI DIDN'T give Al Qaeda money? That's impossible to prove.

In this case, the onus is on the accusers to provide proof that the direct support of OBL actually occurred.

We have first-hand testimony from agents directly involved in the operations clearly stating otherwise - one example is the great book I referenced above.

This is the same as "Can you prove that Bush didnt lie?" or "Can you prove that 9/11 wasn't an insider job?"

These are examples of negatives that cannot readily be proven. The onus is on the accuser to establish the basis for the accusations - using historical facts and evidence. Most rational minds will accept the established truth until evidence is presented to contradict said truth.

get it?

No one claimed that bin laden got money from the ISI. All we are asking is that you prove that they didn't. You say "trust me" and "go read this book." But you know that that isn't good enough.

In other words, you believe they didn't, but you don't know for sure. You may never know for sure. Let's just leave it at that unless you have absolute proof.

For whatever reason you are missing the point of Palehorse's point of it being up to the accuser. Let me rephrase it for you. If the po po come knocking on your door saying you are part of a bank robbery spree, the burden of proof lies with the po po and the prosecutor, NOT with you. THEY must prove it.

Get it?

Does that logic apply to President Bush too visavi accusing Saddam of being part of the 9/11 spree?

 

[blackangst1]

Does that logic apply to President Bush too visavi accusing Saddam of being part of the 9/11 spree?
---------------------------------------------
As said over and over and over and over...Bush never ever ever ever said that. If you want to imply he did, that's your business. But the fact is, he NEVER said that.

Ever.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Does that logic apply to President Bush too visavi accusing Saddam of being part of the 9/11 spree?
---------------------------------------------
As said over and over and over and over...Bush never ever ever ever said that. If you want to imply he did, that's your business. But the fact is, he NEVER said that.

Ever.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

"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.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero."

Even if Bush never said verbatim 'Saddam perpetrated 9/11', the message was still the same in the end.

 

[glugglug]

You have the cause and effect reversed, sort of.

Angered muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. The right-wing neocons who hijacked our government destroyed the WTC as an excuse to go and anger them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: glugglug
You have the cause and effect reversed, sort of.

Angered muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. The right-wing neocons who hijacked our government destroyed the WTC as an excuse to go and anger them.

huh?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: glugglug
You have the cause and effect reversed, sort of.

Angered muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. The right-wing neocons who hijacked our government destroyed the WTC as an excuse to go and anger them.

huh?

yeah no sh1t I didnt get it either. *shrug* Must be the clown avatar cuz it sounds like something Moonbeam would say lol

Just a joke

 

[dyn2nvu]

That crazy "kook" talking about foreign policy during the Clinton years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfU5ayG5aYo

I like the sign they have "screw Monica, not sudan"

 

[DealMonkey]

Regarding the whole ISI-Osama thing, we fought our little proxy war through the muj and using the ISI as an extra layer for deniable plausibility. We supplied the arms and cash, the ISI did what they did with them. No records were ever kept. I doubt we'll ever know for sure if we inadvertently funded OBL or not. It's okay to have a question mark there, that shows that you're not biased either way. Still, even if we didn't fund OBL directly, we indirectly funded plenty of islamofascists and haters that no doubt learned to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Regarding the whole ISI-Osama thing, we fought our little proxy war through the muj and using the ISI as an extra layer for deniable plausibility. We supplied the arms and cash, the ISI did what they did with them. No records were ever kept. I doubt we'll ever know for sure if we inadvertently funded OBL or not. It's okay to have a question mark there, that shows that you're not biased either way. Still, even if we didn't fund OBL directly, we indirectly funded plenty of islamofascists and haters that no doubt learned to bite the hand that feeds them.

...and as I've already stated in this thread, we also funded the group that eventually helped us smash the Taliban in '01. You have to take the good with the bad when it comes to the laws of unintended consequences. And unless one of you is related to Nostradamus, I'm not sure we have a choice in the matter either...

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Does that logic apply to President Bush too visavi accusing Saddam of being part of the 9/11 spree?
---------------------------------------------
As said over and over and over and over...Bush never ever ever ever said that. If you want to imply he did, that's your business. But the fact is, he NEVER said that.

Ever.

You are correct. Bush did NOT link Saddam directly with 9/11, ever. The fact is that Bush was so good at NOT linking Saddam with 9/11 directly, ever, that the majority of the foolish war supporters believed there was a link.

However Bush the prosecutor did link Saddam with Al Qaida, the "robber gang" in this particular spree. That was one of the main justifications for the war, and it was a lie.

My point was that why does not the burden of proof lie on President Bush? If the prosecutor is lying - why are there no consequences?

President Bush: ''The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda'', U.S. President George W Bush told reporters Thursday, is ''because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.'

In his explanation to Congress for the reason he went to war against Iraq President Bush argued that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on Sep. 11, 2001".

So Bush did in fact argue that Saddam was part of the 9/11 spree. Of course Iraq neither "planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks". That was a lie.