The news service is attempting to rewrite history (again):
The administration of former US President George W. Bush had hastily linked Saddam Hussein, the ousted Iraqi dictator, to the 9/11 attacks.
That was one of the justifications for the 2003 US-led invasion, but the argument has since been widely dismissed.
No one in the administration claimed that Saddam was involved in 911, despite ongoing leftist lies to the contrary at the time, for which AP and others were happy to (and apparently remain happy to) be stenographers. The administration claimed operational links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which did in fact exist.
The irony, of course, is that the reporter perpetuates this historical lie in the service of accusing Leon Panetta of a “gaffe.”
Would the US have gone into Iraq if 9/11 never happened? Answering that question unambiguously in the affirmative is likely beyond the ability of a reporter.
Cheney on Meet the Press (12/9/2001), linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks:
TIM RUSSERT (host): Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Would the US have gone into Iraq if 9/11 never happened?
The US was already over the skies in Iraq enforcing a no fly zone prior to 9/11.
Hey Jim, thanks for punctuating Rands’ point: The administration claimed operational links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which did in fact exist.
The missing link, Jim, is where Cheney goes on to say and THEREFORE we decided to invade Iraq. But he didn’t say that, did he? In fact, all he did say is that he no longer believed there was no evidence of involvement of Iraq in 9/11. A long, long way from saying “The reason you guys are here is because of 9/11.”
Still, I’m sure your imagination can supply the links. What a pity you don’t attempt ths same discovery of implied links between the Obama Administration’s statements on gun control and whether Eric Holder and Obama himself signed off on Operation Fast & Furious — and hence on supplying guns used to kill American border agents.
Jim: Linked Iraq to a dude that was part of the 9/11 attacks, sure.
But that’s not saying “Iraq was behind 9/11”. They never did say that – because they knew it wasn’t so.
Their claim was always that Iraq was sponsoring international terrorism and was willing to play buddy with Al Quaeda as they felt it useful, and that claim has held up very well, it turns out.
(The first part, in fact, was never deniable; Iraq was openly paying for suicide bombing attacks on Israel, for instance.)
Likewise re. Panetta’s comments – 9/11 was the catalyst for Draining The Swamp, as it were – but not a “go get Iraq because Iraq was involved in 9/11“.
They were always clear about that, too to anyone who bothered to actually listen. Oddly, people who had a political motive to try and say “lots of people believe Hussein was involved in 9/11, therefore the Government must have told them that and BUSH IS A LIAR!!!!” never did read very closely.
Saddam, al Qaeda, and 9/11 bear much the same relation as Hitler, Tojo, and Pearl Harbor. Why were we in Europe in WWII, fighting Germans? Was it because Hitler helped Tojo plan the Pearl Harbor attack? No… but was it incorrect to point out the links between Germany and Japan as a motivation for the European war?
Well, there was a not so quiet cold war going on with Germany in 1941 on the Atlantic, punctuated by the sinking of the USS Reuben James. Add to that the fact that Germany and Italy declared war on the US on Dec 11, 1941, a few days after Pearl Harbor.
Was it because Hitler helped Tojo plan the Pearl Harbor attack?
I have heard it from good authority (no less than a future US senator) that Hitler attacked Pearl Harbor (link not currently available because I can’t get to YouTube from here).
Well, there was a not so quiet shooting war going on in Iraq in 2001, also. Saddam’s troops were targeting US planes in the no-fly zone every day.
It’s perhaps impolitic to point out that the USS Reuben James was escorting ammunition ships to help Great Britain in the dark days before Pearl Harbor. From the standpoint of the Third Reich, the fact that the ship flew a US flag made no difference at all. It was a legitimate military target. Don’t get me wrong — we were on the side of the angels (and the Angles) in WWII… but the sinking of the Reuben James is not why we fought Hitler, no matter what Woody Guthrie said….
Likewise, in the security environment post-9/11, there was no way any responsible American government could let Saddam’s regime continue with “business as usual”.
Not to nitpick because they are about the same on bias but it was AFP. They are probably WORSE than the AP
“The reason you guys are here is because of 9/11. The US got attacked and 3,000 human beings got killed because of Al-Qaeda,” Panetta told about 150 soldiers at the Camp Victory US base.”
“We’ve been fighting as a result of that,”
Leon Panetta agrees today! Let’s see how quickly this gets buried!
Why were we in Europe, fighting Germans? Well, lemmesee the timeline here… Dec 7 Japan attacks the USA, Dec 8 We declare war on Japan, also Dec 8 iirc, Hitler declares war on the USA in compliance with the Tripartite Pact. What, we’re supposed to ignore him? He was only kidding?
As far as Iraq goes, we had casus belli out the wazoo every stinking time targeting radar locked onto aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone that Sadaam agreed to, if you’ll recall. And when a murderous psychopath such as Sadaam does his level best to convince all about that he really has nasty stuffages just waiting to be launched what’re we supposed to do ignore him? He was only kidding?
ts;dr
Heh. Urban Dictionary works faster than they used to.