To preserve liberty, we must destroy it.

[Aquaholic]

From your own source:

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.

They only reference worth noting is that Chaney said they are still developing information, and would not rule out anything yet (at that time).

The SC article also goes on to say that administration officials claimed several links between Saddam and al Qaeda existed.

Here's more on the mother of all connections (please READ it. It's long but worth it.) :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1440001/posts?page=1

 

[griz]

So when President Bush said "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," from the deck of the USS Lincoln on May 1, 2003, what do you think he meant? I know he never said the phrase "Saddam was behind 9-11", but if you look at the context of his statements he implied it over and over.

At any rate I think we are in dead horse territory. It's been nice talking to you, and I'm sorry I forgot to say welcome to THR after your first post.

 

[Aquaholic]

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on,"

ok... I don't see how he is implying anything but what he said. One victory in a larger war. He has always said if you harbor terrorists, or have terrorist leanings, we will deal with you.

I honestly can say without any reservation that I never once had the impression, express or implied, that the Bush administration ever tried to link Saddam and 9/11. I really can't see how anyone could... I'm perplexed.

But as you correctly noted, dead horse.

Thank you very much for the welcome, I had been lurking here for a couple months. Great forum, intelligent members, generally civil discourse. I like it.

Respect, Mon.

 

[griz]

Sounds good, now lets talk about guns!