Submitted by John Stauber on
An important New York Times/CBS News survey finds that six years after the terror attacks of 9/11, "33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved." In reality, of course, Saddam and Iraq had absolutely no connection to the terror attacks. 1/3 of Americans believe the Big Lie propaganda tactics employed by the pro-war lobby. Only 5 percent of Americans "most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders. That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans."
Phil Partynski replied on Permalink
OBL-Saddam connection Propaganda
I came across an old ABC News report from 1999 on YouTube the other day and it shocked me! Not only did the propaganda piece suggest links between Al-Quida and Saddam Hussien, but it also stated ,flat out, that Saddam intended to provide OBL refuge! The date of this information raises disturbing implications in relation to future events and I encourage others to view this clip!
Mutternich replied on Permalink
Here's a link to that clip:
It's no secret that the neocons wanted to knock off Saddam all along. But Bush Senior didn't want to bite off more than he could chew, and Cheney agreed at the time -- or was he just waiting until he could gain more influence over a more manipulable president?
Anyway, during the years between Gulf War I and O.I.F. the public got constantly reminded of how big a threat Saddam supposedly remained, at the same time we were bombing targets in Iraq and squeezing it with sanctions. By the time Osama bin Laden obligingly served up the "Pearl Harbor event" the neocons were waiting for, Saddam's regime was as well softened up as anyone could wish for and the American public was ready to believe anything about Saddam and Osama.
I'd say "...and the rest is history," but you can't take for granted what anyone will or won't accept as "history" these days.
tnugent replied on Permalink
Nonpartisan, historically literate, objective readers will understand that Sadaam Hussein was indeed the prime mover that set the chain of events leading to 9/11 in motion. His invasion of Kuwait led to the first Gulf War. Deployment of US troops on Saudi soil was Osama Bin Laden's causus belli for declaring war on the US. 9/11 was (to date) the most successful operation in that ongoing war, arguably followed in effectiveness by the Al Qaeda led insurgency in Iraq. So Iraq has been and will continue to be a central front in the war against the jihadis, regardless of the outcome of the current US incursion.
To seek revenge for Gulf War I, Huessein attempted to assassinate George Bush the elder while the former President was in Kuwait, evidence that the Baathist swere aggressively and recklessly seeking revenge for their humiliating defeat.
While no "smoking gun" has been found to connect 9/11 with active Baathist involvement, it has been well documented that the regime supported terorism against Israel by awarding "martyrdom" death benefits to families of suicide/homicide bombers. We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our 2003 invasion. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, in spite the chilly relations between the two, that at some point after Gulf War I "the enemy of my enemy became my friend", to paraphrase the Arab saying. One certainly wouldn't advertise or document such connections for fear of the wrath of the US. As Don Rumsfeld once said about WMD, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Of course, there are few nonpartisan, historical literates among us these days. And many would want to pin a medal on Hussein for trying to kill a Bush. For those of you with such sentiments, imagine if it was a Clinton Sadaam had put a hit on. And remember that the enemies of the current President are as eager to kill you as they are to kill him.
And that's no lie!
Mutternich replied on Permalink
You can debate whether responding to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was or was not the right thing to do, but the U.S. didn't have to do it. It takes two to tango.
You've arbitrarily chosen one link at which to cut off the causal chain of events that led to 9/11. For example, you don't mention all the enabling support Saddam received from the U.S. before he invaded Kuwait. The most you can say about Saddam Hussein in relation to 9/11 (although it doubtless made his day when he heard the news) is that he was one of many indirect and unwitting sub-prime movers.
Um...not really. How many were there? A half-dozen? Fifty? Several thousand? Where did they go, who did they talk to, and what did they do? Please give us something less ectoplasmic than "it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility" and more directly relevant to 9/11 than Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel. All you've offered is a lot of speculation and one unsupported claim that "we know" something we don't.
Just what makes nonpartisan, historically literate, objective you think any of us would harbor such sentiments? It's a gratuitous, sleazy accusation, and it makes me wonder if you really don't harbor that very wish about Bill Clinton.
And yes, the claim that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 really is a Big Lie.