Did Saddam Hussein Have Anything To Do With 9/11?

[Zhade]

Poll question: Did Saddam Hussein Have Anything To Do With 9/11?

In another thread, I wrote that Iraq was the wrong target to strike after 9/11.

I received this response, from DUer "googly":

Facts do not agree with your view point

Saddam was paying large amounts to families of suicide bombers.
Saddam gave refuge to well known Al Qaeda operatives inclding
Abu Musab Zarqawi.

The 911 lead operative had met with Iraqi agents many times.
Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions after Gulf War I.

Now, I think this is bullshit. But for the record: did Hussein actually have a hand in 9/11?

If yes, please post evidence. If no, please post evidence debunking these oft-repeated rightwing talking points.

Thanks in advance for taking the opportunity to educate lurkers and newbies.

[caledesi]

1. Wolfowitz Interview says no.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1521

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Saudi puppets, PNAC strings.

[camby]

3. 9/11 commission says no link between Iraq & Al Qaeda

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.


<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html>

[rzemanfl]

4. The only part of this that is true is that Saddam was giving money

to the families of suicide bombers, which was a reason for Israel, not us, to attack him.

[rooboy]

7. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason for Israel to attack Iraq.

Being related to a suicide bomber only helps you get another house after the Israelis have demolished yours. That's the Israeli punishment for being related to a suicide bomber. So all Saddam was really offering is restitution to the family.

And anyway - the Saudis actually have telethons to raise money for suicide bombers' families, so they are the ones to blame if this is to be considered a crime.

[rzemanfl]

9. It would be up to Israel to decide what a reason to attack Iraq

was. We sure didn't have to do it for them. You are right about the Saudis, but we are being kept from knowing what they did to us by the classified portions of the reports on 9/11. Given the lies this Administration has been caught in, my guess is that this country, post 9/11, would have been clamoring to kick the Saudi's asses if we knew the truth.

[rzemanfl]

10. Now that I think about it and have had some coffee, Saddam was

dishing out his money before the Israelis started destroying bomber's houses.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Yeah, but every time the Saudis enable terrorism

someone ELSE gets invaded, preferably someone -like Iraq- that they don't particularly like.

[pie]

67. In fact, that is no reason at all

I guess there is a little humanitarian in all of us.

[TomClash]

11. Would that be before or after they withdraw from Occupied Palestine?

[rzemanfl]

12. That depends, if you define "occupied Palestine" like the Arabs

do, all of the Jews in Israel would have to move to Miami Beach. Then where would the gays and Cubans go?

The foregoing sarcasm may not accurately reflect the worldview of the writer.

[TomClash]

15. Well, gee, how about east of the Green Line?

Or is that Eretz Israel to you?

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Unfortunately, the region was almost there.

And Yasser Arafat threw away the best opportunity for peace in a generation.

It's certainly not a black and white situation, but IMHO he royally screwed the pooch in 2000, and everyone involved is paying the price.

[pie]

68. What a pantload!

Mr. Arafat was offered nothing of value in exchange for
complete capitulation.
Israel was building on occupied territory (bargaining in bad
faith, as it were) all the while they were
'negotiating.'

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Call it what you will...

Maybe you think things are better there, now.

Maybe you think he did well by his people.

I don't. Reasonable people on both sides- the folks who have to actually LIVE in places like Jerusalem- understand that the best chance for a final, workable deal is something that's going to look a lot like what everyone was on board for in 2000. The peace process was 90% complete and Arafat spit in its face. Well, if your idea of a fair settlement is insisting on the right of return while pursuing an agenda of "lets promise our people that we will drive the Jews into the sea", maybe he did the right thing.

But the "total capitulation", as you call it, offered by Barak is a helluva lot better than anything the Palestinians are going to get now. That's REALITY.

[Zhade]

18. You mean, define occupied Palestine like SOME Arabs do.

Let's not make the mistake of assuming all Arabs want Jews to leave Israel. That's a blanket assumption that simply isn't true. Many Arabs feel that, since Israel is now there, they should be allowed to stay, as long as Palestinians are fairly compensated for the land they lost.

Just a friendly reminder that, like Jews, Arabs are not a monolithic people.

[MGKrebs]

13. We compensate the families of our warriors too.

[rzemanfl]

14. Yes, but as far as I know, nobody who lost a loved one in Iraq

of Afghanistan gets compensation from the leaders of other countries.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Maybe you define a "warrior" as someone who blows up buses

with little kids on them, but I sure as fuck don't.

And, let's make it clear: the behavior is unacceptable no matter WHO commits it. And I don't think it's "justified" when families are killed vis a vis our occupation in Iraq, either. And I don't believe Saddam's token payments to families of suicide bombers was any justification for any action on the part of the US, nor was it floated as such, except as simplistic red meat for the crowd that's too lazy to distinguish between palestinian terrorists and the nutbars coming out of Saudi-family-financed madrassas.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. Would you rather define a "warrior" who fires indiscriminantly into....

...a house killing all of the occupants including women and children?

How about the individual that fires a cruise missile from 1500 miles away that blows up over an apartment complex that houses a number of civilian families?

How about the helicoptor pilot that hoses down a farmer's field killing the unarmed farmer and his two sons?

How about the mortar platoon lobbing rounds into a row of houses that can't be seen directly?

How about the pilot launching a missile that strikes a bus or train carrying civilians away from a combat zone?

How about the roadblock guards that fire into civilian vehicles if they fail to stop exactly when ordered?

Now that's just the US troops...

How about the Israeli troops that have shot children for throwing rocks against tanks and personnel carriers? Are they "warriors" in your definition?

How about the Israeli troops that have broken the arms of children also caught throwing rocks?

How about the Israeli helicoptor gunner that fires a missile into a fully occupied apartment building in hopes of killing one terrorist?

How about the Israeli troops that have driven bulldozers over buildings with some of the occupants still inside?

Have I made my point?

[Warren DeMontague]

47. No, you haven't.

There is NO justification for the actions of suicide bombers. Period.

Has Israel's behavior been pristine and blameless? No. It is not a black and white situation. Personally, I think both sides have acted reprehensibly of late- and unfortunately in 2000 the greatest opportunity for lasting peace was thrown out-- by Arafat, I might add.

And if you want to argue with me about what's been going on in Iraq, you've got the wrong guy. It's hard to justify any killing in the name of illegal wars based on bald-faced lies.

But if your "point" is that you want to sit around and blame the victims of terrorist attacks and/or justify the actions of people- anyone- who kill innocent people, I personally find that reprehensible.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Unfortunately there is no Choice for:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, you **c*ing ***b*ss, and everybody and his bastard brother Bob should know that by now.

Edit: I uncharacteristically toned it down to avoid insulting people who really, really, really, REALLY ought to know better.

[LynnTheDem]

27. ROTFL!!!

LOVE it! :D

[leesa]

41. Thank you. Why something like this is posted is beyond me.

[Zhade]

49. If you reference the link in my OP, you'll see why.

We have DUers arguing that Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

That kind of ignorance and reliance on rightwing lies must be examined and repudiated, so that such propaganda doesn't spread further.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. FYI

The "You ought to know better" wasn't directed at you, but at the people who ought to know better. Should be obvious but I thought I would re-iterate.

[Zhade]

60. No worries, I figured as much.

NT!

[DeepGreen]

54. By the way, I am not a bastard and unfortunately do not have a brother !

:toast:

[wellst0nev0ter]

6. Of Course He Did

He and the Tooth Fairy personally loaded the planes with Saudi-Arabian-looking Iraqis and personally paid them $1 million Russian dinars in order to carry out their act :sarcasm:

[ClintonTyree]

8. That particular poster....

should have backed up those assertions with facts. Since he/she didn't, it's only more empty rhetoric that we've come to expect from the right wing propaganda machine.

To:Googly
Please provide links to back up your claims. If none are forthcoming we'll assume that it's a lie and that you have no credibility whatsoever.

[yella_dawg]

16. Other

Need a catagory for "Is this the dumbest damned poll ever on DU?"

Sorry to be so harsh, but damn.

[Zhade]

19. Believe me, I wish there were no need for such a poll.

Unfortunately, as long as even one DUer is sucked into the lies and propaganda about "Saddam = 9/11", we'll have to keep schooling them a little so they wake up.

[yella_dawg]

21. I hear ya' n/t

[bpilgrim]

17. it's all neoCON BULLSHIT

all debunked right here on DU cept some got swept into the basement.

but the funny thing is that is all they got left... BULLSHIT.

they're goin DOWN, bet.

peace

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. Bush (on Sep 17 03) NO Saddam Connection with September 11

Bush clearly admitted that there was no evidence of ANY INVOLVEMENT Saddam Hussein in the events of September 11--He made this clear statement on September 17, 2003. Although this was widely reported in the UK and all over the world--as usual the U.S. corporate media gave it a virtual media blackout.

Here is the link to the BBC article of September 18, 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

[flyarm]

22. ?Coincidence?????? i think not!!

The US and Iraqi troops are up in the north of Iraq rooting out possible insurgents. What a coincidence. The other day the pipeline from the northern city of Mosul to Israel opened.

[Nothing Without Hope]

32. No, not a coincidence. And hi, fly! Been a long time and it's good to

see you! :hi:

[femme.democratique]

23. Ok, please tell me that "Yes" vote is a joke....

Duh?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Zhade]

50. See link in OP.

I'm pretty sure a non-lurker voted Yes.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. Googly is a goddamn Freeper (Yes I said it, so sue me)

If you doubt it, pick any 10 of his posts at random, and tell me they aren't the work of a Linda Smith loving pukebot.

He'll know what that means, even if you don't.

[Disturbed]

26. WMDs, then WMD programs, then...

etc. Now it's "Spreading Democracy". If the Bush Regime was freakin' interested in this why didn't they work on their buds the Saudis or Kuwaite, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and others instead of illegally invading Iraq?

[Canuckistanian]

63. It was the "WMD Program-Related Activities"!

It's because they were planning to think about starting a program to plot out possible actions on considering maybe building WMD's!

[Warren DeMontague]

77. There was a guy in the government who rented a trailer from a company

whose owner's brother's college roommate once knew a person who borrowed a book from a library staffed by a librarian whose mother-in-law got a pizza delivered by a guy whose car was filled up at a gas station that had an office with a picture on the wall of a man who once talked about WMDs.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Gotta agree with your assessment.

When you tell a poster FACTS and give credible full total and dozens of sources, and that poster AGAIN posts the same debunked bullshit 3 posts later...

Only one conclusion possible.

[Zhade]

51. Oh, I don't doubt it in the slightest.

Either that, or he has freeper friends infecting his brain with lies.

[Zhade]

55. Did googly get banned?

All his posts on the other thread have been deleted.

[ck4829]

25. CHARLES TAYLOR

He was connected to 9/11.

He tried to make West Africa a haven for Al Qaeda, yet he isn't in custody, I wonder why.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Because bush says Charlie-boy is no longer a danger to anyone.

The world and Charlie-boy's people & neighbors disagree, but as we all know, bush knows best.

Heh.

[KC21304]

34. Bush and Pat Robertson. nt

[LynnTheDem]

36. We won't point out the fact that neither was Hussein a danger. OH LOOK!

OIL!

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. How was Pat Robertson's business partner conntected to 9/11?

Didn't Pat tell us all (along with his buddy Jerry Falwell) that the gays and the abortionists were responsible for 9/11?

[FrenchieCat]

29. Oogly is often wrong....

in fact, if I remember correctly....more like always.

[bigwillq]

30. NO!

[Must_B_Free]

31. Other: Yes - he lost his government over it

[KC21304]

35. Yes, Saddam had a lot to do with 9/11. 9/11 was

the excuse used to get rid of Saddam. :silly:


But I still voted no.

[killbotfactory]

40. he had nothing to do with it

anyone who believes otherwise is deranged.

[LynnTheDem]

42. Hey LOOK! We got TWO IDIOTS on DU!

Ok who let them in???

[GiovanniC]

44. I Was Gonna Say We Had Two Freepers In This Poll

But that would be redundant.

[samos1016]

43. It was clearly stated in

the 9/11 commission report that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no operational ties. Saddam did not financially support the 9/11 attacks. I do not have a link, however, if you check out the 9/11 report, I believe it page 169? you see come to the same conclusion.

[Fleshdancer]

45. Am I the ONLY person who even remembers his response of 9/11??

I remember feeling a little shocked when Saddam Hussein of all people gave his condolences to America after the 9/11 attack. Sure, he threw in the expected "you're government sucks but the American people are good and don't deserve this" sort of remark, but hey, it was more than I expected from him...not exactly something someone says if he's bankrolling the attack.

He's not a good guy. His sons weren't any better. But was he responsible directly or indirectly for 9/11? No. Personally, I think he was up to his eyeballs in his own corrupt little world to even know something like that was even being planned.

[Individualist]

48. Only a koolaid drinking cultist would answer yes

[Disturbed]

52. The Iraq invasion was illegal and so is the Occupation.

The Bush Regime may not have attacked Iraq if Saddam had not commited an unpardonable sin. He started selling oil via the Euro and planned on selling oil to most nations other than Amerika. That sealed his doom.

[LynnTheDem]

76. And now we have FOUR koolaid drinking cultists! 4 Stupid People.

And not one of em brave enough to explain why they're so stupid.

[minnesotaDFLer]

53. i said other

although there was no direct involvement. every major political leaders actions effected other leaders decisions in some way...

[kittenpants]

62. so by that rationale we could have invaded ANY country if "ALL

political leaders' actions Affect other leaders' actions." That's the most indirect link I can possibly think of. Just say NO. Saddam was not connected, dammit!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

70. That statement contains no logic

either Saddam was involved, or he wasn't.

[AntiCoup2K4]

58. So.... are the other two Busheep pussies going to justify their responses?

Or just remain lurking in the shadows like the chickenshits that they are?

BTW, here you go, asswipes... http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

[LynnTheDem]

59. THREE busheep pussies now! Who's letting in the stupids?

And not one of the 3 stupids has the guts to post why they're so stupid as to believe Saddam had anything to do with 911. Typical.

[Fridays Child]

61. No but Kevin Bacon did.

eom

[BiggJawn]

64. I chose "other"

Because you didn't have "Are you fucking INSANE? HELL NO he didn't!" as a choice...

Oh, Freedom's on the March!

"Saddam was paying large amounts to families of suicide bombers."

And we sell Bulldozer parts to the Israelis. What's that say about US?
Actually, that's unfair. It has been PROVEN that Cat sells parts to Sharon, can't say the same about So-Dumb...

[yurbud]

65. He supported anti-Israel terrorist--like many of our allies did

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

66. Saudi supplied Al Qaeda with hundreds of millions (Seymour Hersh)

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker covered this.

Which really begs the question of the whole war on terror.

If our ally is the biggest funder of the terrorists who attack us, and we attack someone else and don't even get mad at the funders, aren't the American people getting played?



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[oblivious]

69. Abu Musab Zarqawi was operating in the area under US and UK control.

I hate to dignify this thread with a response, but this Zarqawi nonsense is exactly the opposite of what the propagandists are promoting.

He was operating in the northeastern area covered by the no-fly zones. So Saddam's government had no control over his group. The US knew he was there and could have taken Zarqawi's group out any time they wanted.

So we can basically say that the US and UK were Zarqawi's protectors.

[Zenlitened]

71. Saddam was a bad man. A bad man.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[MrSlayer]

72. Even the idiot Chimp admits Saddam wasn't involved.

Only a complete and utter fool would say he was.

[Orangepeel]

73. stupid. Osama hated Saddam because his govt. was too secular

and if funding terrorists was a reason for war, we should have taken out the Saudi and Pakistani governments long before Saddam.

[stickdog]

75. Unless you count LIHOP/MIHOP for the purposes of invading Iraq, no,

[Englander]

78. From OldAmericanCentury;