Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-09-17 09:00pm

Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11
Rumsfeld Says Iraq Likely Not Involved in 9/11, Contrary to Stronger Statement by Cheney

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Sept. 16 —
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Cheney said he recalled being asked about an Iraq connection to 9/11 shortly after the attacks, and he recalled saying he knew of no evidence at that point.

"Subsequent to that, we have learned a couple of things," he said. "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on BW (biological warfare) and CW (chemical warfare) that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization."

At his Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are making satisfactory progress in stabilizing the country.

He said it was an "open question" whether the United States would get the 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops it seeks to create a third multinational division for security duty in Iraq. The Pentagon has been hopeful of getting at least that many additional troops from Turkey, Pakistan or other friendly countries to beef up security and possibly to allow some of the 130,000 U.S. troops there to go home next year.

"It would relieve some of the pressure on our forces," Rumsfeld said. "Whether or not there will be a (United Nations) resolution and whether or not even if there were a resolution we would get that number of troops is an open question."

Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared with Rumsfeld, said there are more than 210,000 coalition forces in Iraq: 130,000 American troops, 24,000 British and other international troops, and 60,000 Iraqi police, border guards and civil defense forces.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030916_1592.html

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-09-17 09:04pm

Nothing new there, people have being saying this for months.

Pity most Americans still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-09-17 09:05pm

Wow there credibility`s going down the drain,first Iraq was implicated in 9-11,now there not implicated.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-09-17 09:31pm

Ha! To quote the immortal gilbert gottfried,
"Oh! THERE'S a big surprise! I-I think I'm going to have a heart attack and DIE from Not surprise!"
I've thought that from the start. Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. First, 9/11, then WMD's, then the morality of removing Saddam, then WMD's....then freedom for the iraqi people..blah blah blah.
*scoffs* Your tax dollars at work.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-09-17 10:36pm

It's a step up, but perhaps he could tell us why we decided to take a brief intermission from the war on terror to oust Saddam if it wasn't links to terrorism.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-17 10:48pm

Sharp-kun wrote:Nothing new there, people have being saying this for months.

Pity most Americans still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Actually, I believe most American's are skeptical of claims of Iraqi involvement in the September 11th attacks.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-17 11:55pm

So I'm not the only one who talks about the Sept. 11 attack!

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-09-18 12:02am

It took Rummsfeld long enough, not to mention the money wasted. For God's sake, both Osama and Saddam have publicly admitted that they hate each other. Just put two and two together.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-18 12:54am

I hope the administration doesn't trip all over itself while it's doing all this backpedaling.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-09-18 06:48am

Admiral Johnason wrote:Just put two and two together.

They knew this, but Bush also knew that removing Saddam would boost election chances if he got it right.

Now, with things going a little bit pear shaped, he's got a problem, The Democrats actually have chance now.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2003-09-18 07:39am

It's not surprising. Coalition deaths at the hands of guerillas in Iraq are not well received by the US/UK public, so we see Al Qaeda trying - in their latest video release - to associate themselves with the guerillas, in an attempt to make it appear to the viewers that all the fearsome guerillas are part of the indestructible and widespread Al Quada movement. This is standard terrorist stuff - make yourself look more dangerous than you really are. Naturally the US government counters this piece of propoganda by pushing the opposite view. Notice that Al Qaeda did not try to associate itself with Iraq when Iraq was being pummelled by the coalition.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-09-18 10:38am

Stormbringer wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:Nothing new there, people have being saying this for months.

Pity most Americans still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Actually, I believe most American's are skeptical of claims of Iraqi involvement in the September 11th attacks.

You put too much faith in the average Americans.

"The result has been that seven in 10 Americans think Saddam was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings that killed approximately 3,000 people, a Washington Post poll released earlier this month found."

"But when she [Condoleezza Rice] was asked about the poll numbers showing seven in 10 Americans made the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, Rice said: "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

Kinda scary, if you ask me.

the source

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-09-18 11:25am

Oberleutnant wrote:"But when she [Condoleezza Rice] was asked about the poll numbers showing seven in 10 Americans made the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, Rice said: "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

They implied it often enough though.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-09-19 03:35am

Durandal wrote:I hope the administration doesn't trip all over itself while it's doing all this backpedaling.

Its not backpedalling if the people are too stupid to notice.