Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
Reuters ^ | Sep 16, 2003

Posted on 09/16/2003 5:22:10 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said on Tuesday the Bush administration had never accused Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) of directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.


Slideshow

 

Her statement, made in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's "Nightline" program, came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks. Those charges helped fuel a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a role in the attacks.

"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice said.

"What we have said is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them (and) was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate."

Defending the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) to oust Saddam, she said he represented a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

Rice said the United States was "getting closer" to capturing Saddam and she expressed confidence the United States would obtain a "full accounting" of alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which have not yet been found following Saddam's ouster.

She said she continued to believe unconventional weapons stockpiles had been present in Iraq.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiraq; condoleezzarice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 09/16/2003 5:22:10 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
who the heck said Saddam was behind 9/11?? there is a difference.
2 posted on 09/16/2003 5:24:51 PM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Her statement, made in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's "Nightline" program, came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The author of this article seems to not make the distinction between linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq and whether or not OBL and Saddam Hussein colluded to cause 9/11. There's a world of difference but the author has done their best to dilute that difference.

3 posted on 09/16/2003 5:27:36 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
who the heck said Saddam was behind 9/11?? there is a difference.

The Media/Press did

4 posted on 09/16/2003 5:28:28 PM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Does anyone at Reuters understand English?
5 posted on 09/16/2003 5:29:03 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
How many times does does the administation have to repeat this before the media gets it right? Nevermind, they won't. Media=selective hearing
6 posted on 09/16/2003 5:29:14 PM PDT by Nexus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
If these people at Reuter's cannot tell the difference between "Saddam was behind 9/11" and "Saddam had ties to terrorists," then they're more stupid than I thought.
7 posted on 09/16/2003 5:29:17 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative

Rice/Rumsfeld sing the old song "How come you believed me when I told you I loved you when you know I have been a liar all my life"

8 posted on 09/16/2003 5:29:54 PM PDT by ex-snook (Americans needs PROTECTIONISM - military and economic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Does anyone at Reuters understand English?

LOL. Evidentally not.

9 posted on 09/16/2003 5:29:54 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alnick
If these people at Reuter's cannot tell the difference between "Saddam was behind 9/11" and "Saddam had ties to terrorists," then they're more stupid than I thought.

They are doing it on purpose .. especially Chrissy Matthews and then they turn around and say that Bush lied to the american people

10 posted on 09/16/2003 5:31:30 PM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Lets take a page from the book of the evil ones..

Tell the libs you meet, "Its an old story, lets move on and work for the safety and security of the American people..."


11 posted on 09/16/2003 5:31:35 PM PDT by ConservativeStandUP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
They're both arab followers of mohammed who said to kill infidels. These guys live in the middle ages. Osama and Saddam both want to be Saladin and win the Crusades in the 21st century. Isn't that enough collaboration?
12 posted on 09/16/2003 5:32:20 PM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
she said he represented a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

Seems like that's the new talking point as Cheney's saying the same thing:

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) 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."
13 posted on 09/16/2003 5:32:24 PM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Her statement ... came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Why is that word "despite" in there? Saddam can be "linked" to "Al Qaeda", and not have been behind 9/11, at the same time. The article makes it sound as if the two are necessarily in conflict when they are not.

By the way, I don't believe it's true that there were ever "long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network".

Oh yeah, and "Al Qaeda" isn't merely "accused of the Sept. 11 attacks", they've claimed credit for them.

The bias in this article works on multiple recursive levels.

Those charges helped fuel a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a role in the attacks.

The above sentence isn't a factual piece of news. The author of this article knows no such thing and cannot prove this and has no objective data on which to base this claim.

14 posted on 09/16/2003 5:32:24 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
The author's word "despite" conjoins two separate facts as if dependent on each other. It's malicious.
15 posted on 09/16/2003 5:32:56 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
EXCELLENT analysis. We need you here at FR more often, I see.
16 posted on 09/16/2003 5:33:52 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
They are doing it on purpose

And it really makes my blood boil. It infuriates me that they lie in order to accuse someone else of lying.

17 posted on 09/16/2003 5:34:29 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Peach
The author of this article seems to not make the distinction between linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq and whether or not OBL and Saddam Hussein colluded to cause 9/11. There's a world of difference but the author has done their best to dilute that difference.

I made this very point in another thread. What we have here a yet another Democrap attempt to rewrite history in real time. This is clearly a talking points initiative - just keep claiming that "Bush told us Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and he lied to us again". Do it enough times, get it on Peter Jennings enough times and it will become "the truth".

Clinton's students have learned their craft well.

18 posted on 09/16/2003 5:34:35 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alnick
It infuriates me that they lie in order to accuse someone else of lying.

That's what liberals do best ..

19 posted on 09/16/2003 5:36:03 PM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: alnick
If these people at Reuter's cannot tell the difference between "Saddam was behind 9/11" and "Saddam had ties to terrorists," then they're more stupid than I thought.

Reuter's can tell the difference; they're just counting on readers who can't.

20 posted on 09/16/2003 5:37:35 PM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson