PDA

View Full Version : Palin links Iraq to 9/11



Tetragrammaton
09-12-2008, 09:53 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789_pf.html

Even Bush stopped spouting this. Has she ever even watched the news?

FinFatale
09-12-2008, 10:00 AM
Gov. Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline) linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

I didn't read this as linking the intial war beginning in Iraq with 9/11...........that brigade was going to Iraq where the surge has aided but the enemy is still there...the same enemy that supported the attack on 9/11........that is how I read this anyway..........

Dolphins9954
09-12-2008, 10:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789_pf.html

Even Bush stopped spouting this. Has she ever even watched the news?


Can you say NEO-CON?

I started a similar thread about this. This is definitely cause for concern. I think the majority of the hate on Palin has been overblown. But her foriegn policy is one that needs to be challenged. It's no different than Bush's foriegn policy. And we see where that got us.

Eshlemon
09-12-2008, 03:41 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1




(A blast back, from Bill Kristol, in The Weekly Standard: "Kornblut's interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks."



Update [Ed. Note by John McCormack]:
It appears the Washington Post has tried to (partially) walk back Kornblut's distortion that Palin tied responsibility for 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's regime. The second paragraph of this story, as noted above, originally read:

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary."


It now reads:


The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.


Agree with FinFatale. But hard to fault Wayward for salivating on the red meat of the source originaly gave him.

Tetragrammaton
09-12-2008, 03:47 PM
Agree with FinFatale. But hard to fault Wayward for salivating on the red meat of the source originaly gave him.

She still said what she said. The quote itself wasn't changed or challenged.

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 03:50 PM
The quote itself, if you read it without blinders, was referencing Al-Qaeda, whom we still fight in Iraq. Or was that just another talking point to be ignored as well?

poornate
09-12-2008, 04:01 PM
The quote itself, if you read it without blinders, was referencing Al-Qaeda, whom we still fight in Iraq. Or was that just another talking point to be ignored as well?

But who had no foothold in Iraq until we went there...

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 04:03 PM
But who had no foothold in Iraq until we went there...

Did they not train in Iraq before we went in? I'm being serious here, because i understand that they did. Is that a foothold? I dunno, but it's definitely a prescence

poornate
09-12-2008, 04:08 PM
Did they not train in Iraq before we went in? I'm being serious here, because i understand that they did. Is that a foothold? I dunno, but it's definitely a prescence

If you know that, you know more than me... I guess it is possible... Fundamentalists exist in all nations and in all religions... They definitely had camps in a lot of places, but even without direct corroboration of this I know one thing, their presence there was small...

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 04:20 PM
If you know that, you know more than me... I guess it is possible... Fundamentalists exist in all nations and in all religions... They definitely had camps in a lot of places, but even without direct corroboration of this I know one thing, their presence there was small...

Yeah, but like cockroaches that scramble when orkin comes, they all go to the safest central place to congregate and re-group.

Eshlemon
09-12-2008, 04:22 PM
She still said what she said. The quote itself wasn't changed or challenged.




Guess you can believe Al Queda did not plan and rejoice in 9/11. Plenty others do not.

Or maybe in Iraq where the brigade is being sent those killed by AQ are not innocent...or AQ is not our enemy.

poornate
09-12-2008, 04:22 PM
Yeah, but like cockroaches that scramble when orkin comes, they all go to the safest central place to congregate and re-group.

Sounds like Afghanistan and Yemen to me... You want to read about a dangerous damn place... read up on Yemen...

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 04:59 PM
I didn't read this as linking the intial war beginning in Iraq with 9/11...........that brigade was going to Iraq where the surge has aided but the enemy is still there...the same enemy that supported the attack on 9/11........that is how I read this anyway..........

Okay, explain this to me like a 2 year old, how did you not link the language she used to not talking the begining of the war...let's see..


Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Planned and carried out....what does that mean to you?

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 05:07 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1






Agree with FinFatale. But hard to fault Wayward for salivating on the red meat of the source originaly gave him.

I missed something here, this looks like 2 different stories, yours seem to be on the interview, and Wayward on what she said to the troops going away..let me reread the posts here, because this seem out of sync somehow.

idaho
09-12-2008, 05:45 PM
Yeah, but like cockroaches that scramble when orkin comes, they all go to the safest central place to congregate and re-group.


As I understand the situation , they were in afganistan and now hide in pakistan if you are refering to Osama bin laden. Saddam deserved what he got but not at the expense of letting bin laden escape and not meet a torturouse death he deserves.

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 06:11 PM
Okay, explain this to me like a 2 year old, how did you not link the language she used to not talking the begining of the war...let's see..



Planned and carried out....what does that mean to you?


Are we not fighting an arm of Al-Qaeda in Iraq? I thought sure we were. And haven't we concluded Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11? Not sure where it gets much clearer

Eshlemon
09-12-2008, 06:54 PM
I missed something here, this looks like 2 different stories, yours seem to be on the interview, and Wayward on what she said to the troops going away..let me reread the posts here, because this seem out of sync somehow.

That reference and links is are towards the middle in the abc what you see is what you want article.

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 06:56 PM
Are we not fighting an arm of Al-Qaeda in Iraq? I thought sure we were. And haven't we concluded Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11? Not sure where it gets much clearer

NO... we were fighting the ****es with Al-Qaeda mixed in at they're allowance. Our war was with Iraq from the beginning..once we won that war and failed to sucure the borders, the AL-Qaeda came across and mixed with the ****es, then we had Iran helping the Sunni's and a civil war was on our hands...We were trying to protect ourselves from the al qaeda taking pot shots at us while the civil war was going on, and of course the ****es were helping them, and the sunni on us helped by Iran, at the same time they were fighting each other, it was a mess, that's why a surge was called for..we didn't have enough troops to deal with it all.

Now, what happens, the awakening, ****es kicked Al qeada out and answer to a cease fire, the summis get paid to stand down, and our surge troops come in to clean up the mess and what's left of al qeada...violence is down..so now it's a peace keeping mission until the gov't gets it act together..that include all 3 tribes figuring out how they will govern and split revenues the country make... Her son is going over as a part of our peace keeping force...we're downsizing the troop level there now.

poornate
09-12-2008, 07:00 PM
Is Sunni's being caught in the filter?

Eshlemon
09-12-2008, 07:05 PM
Is Sunni's being caught in the filter?

the other sh-(2 i's)-te

shi'ite work.

Edit: shiite works, MD just forgot an i...possibly all intentionaly

milldog
09-12-2008, 08:08 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789_pf.html

Even Bush stopped spouting this. Has she ever even watched the news?

Probably because she's clueless and knows less than many of us on foreign relations!

idaho
09-12-2008, 10:40 PM
NO... we were fighting the ****es with Al-Qaeda mixed in at they're allowance. Our war was with Iraq from the beginning..once we won that war and failed to sucure the borders, the AL-Qaeda came across and mixed with the ****es, then we had Iran helping the Sunni's and a civil war was on our hands...We were trying to protect ourselves from the al qaeda taking pot shots at us while the civil war was going on, and of course the ****es were helping them, and the sunni on us helped by Iran, at the same time they were fighting each other, it was a mess, that's why a surge was called for..we didn't have enough troops to deal with it all.

Now, what happens, the awakening, ****es kicked Al qeada out and answer to a cease fire, the summis get paid to stand down, and our surge troops come in to clean up the mess and what's left of al qeada...violence is down..so now it's a peace keeping mission until the gov't gets it act together..that include all 3 tribes figuring out how they will govern and split revenues the country make... Her son is going over as a part of our peace keeping force...we're downsizing the troop level there now.



Thanks you save me having to respond to that thread. A good explanation of the Iraq war. Al queada are in afganistan. Bush must have had an out dated map. Reminds me of the pilot that landed in Buffalo and thought he was like in New YOrk. NOw Bin Ladens is in Packistan and is going to be hard to get. Should have sealed the border at first and we would have maybe had him pinned. Why the Hell we waited months and then invaded Iraq is the dumbest military decision in the history of the world. When word came out of the invasion I remember saying what about bin laden. His existence is the shame of this administation.

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 10:41 PM
the other sh-(2 i's)-te

shi'ite work.

Edit: shiite works, MD just forgot an i...possibly all intentionaly

Thanks, I didn't check as usual, I try to respond to too many questions, I didn't notice this until you pointed it out...thanks.. I do need to do spell check more.. I get carry away in thought and forget to proof read way too often.

milldog
09-12-2008, 10:53 PM
Are we not fighting an arm of Al-Qaeda in Iraq? I thought sure we were. And haven't we concluded Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11? Not sure where it gets much clearer

Sure we are. And they have WOMD! Clearly Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Al Qaeda was certainly the main suspect, why not go after them. They aren't and never were operating solely out of Iraq. This terrorist orginization is spread about the world. Why try and justify Iraq was the stronghold for these fu**s! They are everywhere, even here. Trying to justify invading Iraq because of Al-Qaeda is like trying to tell me theres swordfish only in the Atlantic ocean. Dude, there everywhere!

Dolphan7
09-12-2008, 11:20 PM
I don't know. I see the statement in the linked article, but you really have to infer some things to make it sound like she is blaming Iraq for 911.

She could have just as easily been trying to pump up the troops. Giving them a purpose for their mission. Meaning that there are some of the same culprits still in Iraq who are members of Al Queda.

I don't know. I see a lot of spinning.

milldog
09-12-2008, 11:25 PM
Can't wait till this is over and we can get ready for more debt, more of the same, etc.....When will we get to the real issues that plague us?

Eshlemon
09-12-2008, 11:37 PM
Sure we are. And they have WOMD! Clearly Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Al Qaeda was certainly the main suspect, why not go after them. They aren't and never were operating solely out of Iraq. This terrorist orginization is spread about the world. Why try and justify Iraq was the stronghold for these fu**s! They are everywhere, even here. Trying to justify invading Iraq because of Al-Qaeda is like trying to tell me theres swordfish only in the Atlantic ocean. Dude, there everywhere!

No where in article did Palin state AQ in Iraq in 2001 with Saddamm which the article is implying or the invasion in 2003...and the Post even tried to edit in a backtrack with the change of oh yes, AQ is in Iraq now.

She is talking about Iraq in 2008 where the brigade is being sent. Which contains AQ, who was responsible for 9/11, and the brigade will facing.

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 11:55 PM
I'm glad some people understand the concept of context. She was exhorting the troops the way a coach motivates players before a game. It's really not that hard to grasp

MDFINFAN
09-13-2008, 12:54 AM
I'm glad some people understand the concept of context. She was exhorting the troops the way a coach motivates players before a game. It's really not that hard to grasp

Nice, part of this is true imho, but the spin isn't exactly true, based on the words she used...but I understand..if she's your canidate, you must help her in the spin world.. the harder she's hit, the harder you guys will bunker down, is that it..I get it..even if the girl turns out to be a nut, and I'm not calling her one, just making a point..as long as someone calls her out, you guys will support her, reguardless of the situation or legit circumstances... Let's say it together 4 for years, 4 for years....yea that's the ticket..:rolleyes:

Eshlemon
09-13-2008, 01:33 AM
Nice, part of this is true imho, but the spin isn't exactly true, based on the words she used...but I understand..if she's your canidate, you must help her in the spin world.. the harder she's hit, the harder you guys will bunker down, is that it..I get it..even if the girl turns out to be a nut, and I'm not calling her one, just making a point..as long as someone calls her out, you guys will support her, reguardless of the situation or legit circumstances... Let's say it together 4 for years, 4 for years....yea that's the ticket..:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Obama has stated vehemantely even after troop withdrawals military force will be used against AQ that exist in Iraq today where the brigade is being deployed. Obama also believes AQ was responsible for 9/11. If you where to say this means he believes Iraq and Saddam where involved in 9/11...I would strongly disagree.

MoFinz
09-13-2008, 06:44 AM
Nice, part of this is true imho, but the spin isn't exactly true, based on the words she used...but I understand..if she's your canidate, you must help her in the spin world.. the harder she's hit, the harder you guys will bunker down, is that it..I get it..even if the girl turns out to be a nut, and I'm not calling her one, just making a point..as long as someone calls her out, you guys will support her, reguardless of the situation or legit circumstances... Let's say it together 4 for years, 4 for years....yea that's the ticket..:rolleyes:

yeah, nice spin there MD....lets say it together now...

You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round:rolleyes:

ohall
09-13-2008, 11:32 AM
The FACT is Al-Qaeda and the Saddam regime did have contact with each other pre-invasion of Iraq. Just because they found no documented links after the war that the TWO were aligning themselves against the USA does not disprove they may have been aligning themselves to that end.

If someone wants to think they were talking to each other because they wanted to trade interior design ideas that's more than your right.

Now if someone believes they were meeting with each other to at minimum talk about their shared desire to destroy America this does not make them wrong or some how a war monger. IMO to believe they were meeting for anything but to talk about this countries destruction is in fact naive.

Saddam was already paying, I believe it was to the PLO $25-$75k per homicide bombings. Why is it such a leap to think Saddam was in fact willing to start funding AQ in a similar fashion?

I'm not sure why so many of you trust the Saddam regime so much. They had months to destroy all kinds of evidence pre-invasion. It's like some of you think Iraq didn't have paper shredders or could make fire to burn paper.