« Gaffney Says Iraq/Sadaam behind Oklahoma City | tmccarthy0's Blog | Blakeman Tells Alex Witt the President is a Bookie in Vegas »
Blakeman to Schuster: We didn't go to Iraq b/c of 911
Are the Republicans going insanely crazy or what? First the Gaffney thing about Iraq being behind the Oklahoma City bombing, even though he admitted there was no evidence.. whatever, but Brad Blakeman today on 1600 with Schuster insisted the US did not go to war with Iraq because of 9-11?? What?? I think I have whiplash. The Neo-Cons continue their assault on history and are continuing to efforts to rewrite what happened in the run up to the War with Iraq. Quoting an article by Dana Milbank in September 6, 2003 issue of the Washington Post "Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam
Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration
and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this. Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely
that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That
impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were
mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by
Democrats, Republicans and independents. So what is that again Brad, the administration didn't go to war with Iraq because of 9-11, means these guys have some more explaining to do since they convinced people What tools, and yes I do have the clip.
However, the continued attack on the real record of what happened in the run up to the Iraq war is something we should all watch and these guys should be called upon to prove their accusations.
However, the continued attack on the real record of what happened in the run up to the Iraq war is something we should all watch and these guys should be called upon to prove their accusations.
Advertisement












Of course we went into Iraq because of their connection with the Taliban. I don't understand what's the big deal about that.
March 16, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, you are determined to minimize the severity of the crime the Bush Regime committed against your own country taking it to war for no other reason then the opportunity to make obscene profits sending bills to the US Treasury for services never rendered. There was no regard whatsoever for the cost in human lives and suffering, either for our tropps or the Iraqi people who had nothing at all to do with the dictatorial government that held power. That is a big deal.
March 17, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not minimizing anything. There were a lot of people who thought there was a credible connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. A lot of people who reported on this even before Bush took office. It wasn't something that he invented.
March 17, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, are you serious? Are are you just provoking here? You seem like a much more knowledgeable person than fall for lies like that. There are a lot of neocon reasons why we went into Iraq, but they had nothing to do with Al Quida or 911
March 17, 2009 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were lots of credible sources who thought there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Newsweek magazine in 1999 ran an article titled "Saddam + Bin Laden?"
NPR reported - "Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994..."
The Clinton administration in 1998 (before the bombings in East Africa) cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq over WMD's.
I could go on...so with all these other sources pointing to a connection, I don't think it's a credible theory that Bush concocted some lies to bring justice to his dad's legacy.
March 17, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No there was one guy in German custody who most of all these stories sources trace back to. And the Germans didn't believe him, neither did the French, British, Russian, or anybody else who bothered to do their homework.
Saddam was scared to death of Islamic fundamentalist taken him down, he persecuted them throughout his regime (baath meant secular 'renaissance' party, with emphasis on secular) and they hated him. Anybody who bothered to do some research on knew that. Ask Richard Clarke, or even the british MI6 who reported that the connection was sexed up.
Its has been always a lie. There is no evidence for the link it was always conjecture used towards an end. We had that thousands of eyes on that country 24/7 and completely boxed in with a naval blockade and two no fly zones covering two thirds of the country. It was utterly ludicris to suggest they had WMDs (we bombed the shit out of them a decade ago, and about once a month throughout the 90s. with weapons inspectors for most of that time).
Sorry, but this is and always has been an absolutely lie. I grow sad for the future to see it still repeated.
March 17, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Clarke once said that he was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to an al-Qaeda linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Even Hillary said that the al Qaeda-Iraq link was one of the reasons why she voted for the Iraq war.
March 18, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T84H30zCMe4
Link to Schuster Vs Blakeman
March 17, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the work of THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
March 17, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only people who made a connection between 911 and Iraq were the neocons who used that to sell the war. It was Cheney himself who repeatedly claimed that Mohammad Atta had met Iraqi secret agents in Prague even though the CIA had determined he had not.
March 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink