RRC Archives

Cheney:
"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."
at the time this was a lie.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... hallenged/
more
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0313-03.htm
more video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/5238679#5238679

Bush:
Quotes linking Iraq to 911
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
This link to the BBC says that Bush did not say so directly. Cheney did however. If you read on in the BBC article one sees that Bush does say so as direct as possible without outright blaming Iraq for 911. Bush does state that terrorism lost a sponsor in Iraq and alludes to 911. You be the judge.

I remember him saying stuff like that on tv. I'll allow that Cheney implied a connection but he never said it explicitely. Sadaam did support terrorists just not the ones that attacked on 911. Cheney took that fact and twisted it to make the case for war. Fine. Neither he nor Bush ever said Iraq was responsible. I don't see how anything they said would make anybody think that. I don't buy it for a second that 70% of Americans thought there was a connection. Think about it. 7 out of ten people in this country? I don't think so.

caribe wrote:http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=320
audio
Act One. Truth, Damn Truth and Statistics.

Two years ago (2004, stats compiled from facts previous to 2004), a John Hopkins University study published in The Lancet estimated the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. It came up with a number — 100,000 dead — that was higher than any other estimate at the time and was mostly ignored. Producer Alex Blumberg tells the remarkable story of what it took to find that number, why we should find it credible and why almost no one believed it. (36 minutes).

Will this really change your mind about what is going on?
Is there a way to change your mind about what is going on?

The Lancet studys methodology (sampling) is highly suspect, no matter how much they go on about how scientific it is. I trust the numbers from iraq body count. Here's their critique of Lancet.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/b ... ty-checks/

I don't write english all that well, but I read and comprehend just fine. It was always clear to me that Bush and Cheney thought that Saddam's Iraq represented the same type of terrorist threat as Bin Ladden and the events of 9/11. A threat that we'd better deal with before we suffered a "9/11" at the hands of Saddam. In my opinion he never said, or implied that Iraq was responsible for the attack in question.

And that's why you can't find the quotes, because he never said it. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole ruckus about what was "implied" started when Democrats, who voted for the war in Iraq, started looking for cover.

Lander wrote:I don't see how anything they said would make anybody think that. I don't buy it for a second that 70% of Americans thought there was a connection. Think about it. 7 out of ten people in this country? I don't think so.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... iraq_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karo ... ml?cnn=yes

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... 92284.html

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 6&lb=hmpg2

Jammer,I wasn't doubting that there was a poll that showed those results. I just think the poll is wrong. Sue me.

Lander wrote:Jammer,I wasn't doubting that there was a poll that showed those results. I just think the poll is wrong. Sue me.

Oh. Sorry misunderstood.

There was no evidence of Iraq sponsored terror. Daddy Bush tried to assassinate Saddam and Saddam returned the favor. That was about it for documented Saddam action. The rest of it is Cheney's fevered mind. But it you can find evidence for that outside of the penguin blabbering about it, I will take the evidence and change my mind.

We the American people were lied to by the administration . . . again.

caribe wrote:There was no evidence of Iraq sponsored terror. Daddy Bush tried to assassinate Saddam and Saddam returned the favor.

That's a convenient re-writing of history.

Actually, I beleive the thing about Saddam trying to assasinate daddy Bush has been debunked. Not sure. But as for his links to terror, it's on the record. Check this out.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/