Support NeoGAF

[Dilbert]

I am trying to pin down exactly when Iraq was first connected to the so-called "War on Terror" by the Bush Administration, so I can confirm a theory of mine. I figured the board might be a good place to ask, since everyone in the political threads have an amazing talent for pulling links out of their asses...I mean, "doing research."

Part of the problem is defining exactly what kind of statement would constitute "connection." Including Iraq on the "Axis of Evil" doesn't qualify, in my book -- it was a laundry list of potential threats, and we didn't take action on Iraq until Bush started claiming that they were an "imminent threat." Still, it might be a good starting point.

What I'm looking for is the approximate date when the rhetoric turned from "Al Qaeda, the Taliban" to "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq." There was no mention of ANYONE but Al Qaeda immediately after 9/11, and the Taliban entered the conversation shortly thereafter once they started looking for hard sites to target with bombs. At SOME point, Bush publicly started pushing the case for war in Iraq...and I'm kicking myself now for not taking notes back then.

Can you help out? If you find any good quotes, please provide the source as well. Thanks!

 

[Prospero]

The first time I remember hearing the Iraq-al Qaeda bait and switch with my own ears was during Bush's State of the Union Address a couple of years ago. (2002?)

 

[Matlock]

Well, as far back as 1998, Iraq was mentioned in the same breath as "War on Terror" in the media.

No idea as for the governmental date of declaration, though.

 

[gofreak]

I doubt you could pin it down to one specific occasion..rather a period of time, a window, in which government officials slowly and subtly starting switching the public's focus.

 

[Matlock]

A small additoin:

Seems that Powell said that the US would "avoid Iraq unless it was necessary."

This was about a week and a half after 9/11.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=i...YXJr7.30$M7.6065@typhoon2.gnilink.net&rnum=15

 

[Incognito]

Well, in private, Iraq was mentioned for the "War on Terror'" on 9/11. That's according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward.

I guess I should read the title of the thread. My bad.

 

[Mermandala]

On Sept. 10, 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people in the United States, the government raised the threat level from yellow "elevated" to orange "high." Ashcroft said: "Information indicates that Al Qaeda cells have been established in several South Asian countries in order to conduct car bomb and other attacks on US facilities."

Yet two days later, Bush went to the United Nations to say: "In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place, in one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms. . . . Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0528-02.htm

Here's an early example of Bush saying "Saddam" when he should've been saying "Al Qaeda". Finding the switch though would be as futile as pinning down when "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became "Liberating Iraqi People" I'd think. Bush, personally (they tried to kill my daddy) and the Neocons collectively (democratize Middle-East through US Hegemony) wanted Iraq real bad and the whole process of 911/war on terror/invade Iraq to establish permanent US military bases was as good of an excuse as they'd ever get. So, what's your theory anyway?

 

[Dilbert]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0528-02.htm

Here's an early example of Bush saying "Saddam" when he should've been saying "Al Qaeda". Finding the switch though would be as futile as pinning down when "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became "Liberating Iraqi People" I'd think. Bush, personally (they tried to kill my daddy) and the Neocons collectively (democratize Middle-East through US Hegemony) wanted Iraq real bad and the whole process of 911/war on terror/invade Iraq to establish permanent US military bases was as good of an excuse as they'd ever get. So, what's your theory anyway?

Wow, good link.

My theory is that the whole "persuasion" before the American public and the United Nations was a complete and utter sham because the decision to invade Iraq was made before there was ANY public mention of that concept. Although Bush etc. tried to make it seem at the time that Iraq was an emerging threat, or that new information had come to light, the truth was exactly as you say -- the game was on, and 9/11 was the convenient excuse. The various factors in the equation (American people, Congress, the U.N., etc.) were manipulated until there was enough of "acceptance" of the idea to actually invade.

The date on the quote you found confirms my theory, but unfortunately, I can't share the other half of the data.

Keep those quotes coming...

 

[Matlock]

Netanyahu also made a connection between militant regimes and the war on terror.

 

[alejob]

I think the Bush family had a bad taste in there mouth after the Gulf war cause Saddam was still doing his thing. Then they found out Saddam was plan a hit on Bush Senior which got them even more pissed off. When the terrorist attacks came and they went into war with alqaeda and the taliban in Afghanistan it just gave them a perfect excuse to go into Iraq.

There was no reason to go to war with Iraq. Bush is an idiot. kerry is an idiot too.

I believe in a world without political parties! They f-up on everyone.

 

[xsarien]

Early 2002, and I say that with a reasonable amount of certainty because I remember quite clearly, sitting in the lounge area at my old job watching the press conference. I was enjoying my lunch from the kick ass greek diner down the street, and as soon as Bush mentioned Iraq I kind of just stopped eating, my mind couldn't process the utter load of bullshit.

 

[Minotauro]

and we didn't take action on Iraq until Bush started claiming that they were an "imminent threat."

Just a small correction... No one in the Bush administration ever called Iraq an "imminent threat" to us. Even if it was implied, those specific two words were never used in combination with eachother.

Something is definitely wrong when I have to defend Bush and his moron cronies.

 

[3rdman]

Iraq was on the plate from the minute Bush took office.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

As for the actual selling of it to the public, I think it started with the report that Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in the Chezch republic. A meeting the FBI and CIA have said never happened.

The problem is that it all happened very slyly...I'm reminded of an article I read...

German filmmaker Fritz Kippler, one of Goebbels' most effective propagandists, once said that two steps were necessary to promote a Big Lie so the majority of the people in a nation would believe it. The first was to reduce an issue to a simple black-and-white choice that "even the most feebleminded could understand." The second was to repeat the oversimplification over and over. If these two steps were followed, people would always come to believe the Big Lie.

 

[Nerevar]

Just a small correction... No one in the Bush administration ever called Iraq an "imminent threat" to us. Even if it was implied, those specific two words were never used in combination with eachother.

Uhm, Rumsfeld definitely said immediate threat. There's that famous video you can find of him on "Meet the Press" where he makes an absolute fool of himself about it anyway. I think you're splitting hairs if you want to imply the two phrases aren't identitical in meaning.

 

[Minotauro]

Uhm, Rumsfeld definitely said immediate threat. There's that famous video you can find of him on "Meet the Press" where he makes an absolute fool of himself about it anyway. I think you're splitting hairs if you want to imply the two phrases aren't identitical in meaning.

While similar, "immediate" and "imminent" are two separate things. If they weren't, liberal spin doctors wouldn't transpose them. Instead, they would just say that Bush said "immediate."

 

[3rdman]

Just a small correction... No one in the Bush administration ever called Iraq an "imminent threat" to us. Even if it was implied, those specific two words were never used in combination with eachother.

Something is definitely wrong when I have to defend Bush and his moron cronies.

Wrong...heres video of Rumsfeld eating shit...

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Heres a great collection of quotes that at least help to deliver the idea that there was an "imminent threat."

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

 

[Doc Holliday]

But but its on Moveon.org they obviously hired some commie hollywood director to use cg and fake the whole thing!

 

[Minotauro]

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

From your link:

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Now, here's the context of that remark:

"QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat."

As you can see, McClellan is saying that Iraq poses and imminent threat to Turkey, not the United States. While they

I'm not trying to defend the Bush administration or anything. I'm just pointing out that even the left can be deceptive when it wants to be.

For more on this specific issue, read through http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html .

 

[Minotauro]

They used both "immediate threat" and "imminently threatening." Close enough, in my book. Denying that they called Iraq an "imminent threat" is, to use the Republican phrase, Clintonesque.

But, but, "immediate threat" and "imminently threatening" don't equal "imminent threat."

Man, this administration is tricky.

 

[StoOgE]

I remember the administration mentioned one of the hijackers met one of Saddams men in Germany to recieve a package.. this was during the anthrax thing.

 

[3rdman]

But, but, "immediate threat" and "imminently threatening" don't equal "imminent threat."

Man, this administration is tricky.

I see where you are going, and co-incidentally its an arguement I recently had with my brother, but its an arguement that (I believe) doesn't hold any water. Because, even if there was no mention of someone saying there was an "imminent threat" there was certainly TONS of evidence to show a deliberate and malicious attempt to link 9/11 and Iraq together. The website I pointed to reflects this from various quotes.

Imagine how carefully planned it all was for the Bush Administration to now say that they had never mentioned an "imminent threat" yet they did NOTHING to keep the American public from believing in it anyway.

At the start of the war against Iraq, more than 60 percent of the American people believed that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11.

Edit: Its about damn time I got rid of the Junior Member status.

 

[HAOHMARU]

Iraq has been an on going problem since they invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. should have finished the job but he didn't. That left it open for Clinton to half-ass his "war" with Iraq. (war as in he bombed them on multiple occassions...the first conveintly being the week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal came out.)

Since Bush was given intelligence information about WMD being in Iraq by muliple sources (US, UK and Russian intelligence agencies) he and his administration decided to go in and take them out. There was a fear that the WMD would be given to terrorist to further aid them in their attacks. There was concern about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that had potential to be given away. Obviously they haven't found any as of today...but who knows.

Do I feal safer now that Saddam is no longer in power? Yes I do...but I still feel there is a huge terrorist threat out there, and to think that the average cost of attack is only $50,000 is frightening. Its very easy for them to attack us, and I do expect more in the future. I mean, look...they have been trying to attack us since after the first Iraq war. 1993 was the first World Trade center attack right? I know we have stopped a few potential threats and we were extremely worried about New Years 2000.

We need more intelligence funding, more home land security, better customs inspections and tougher border protection. The last thing we need is a reduced military and a more "sensitive" war on terror. If we piss off a few allies to protect our way of life then too fucking bad.

 

[Nerevar]

Iraq has been an on going problem since they invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. should have finished the job but he didn't. That left it open for Clinton to half-ass his "war" with Iraq. (war as in he bombed them on multiple occassions...the first conveintly being the week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal came out.)

Since Bush was given intelligence information about WMD being in Iraq by muliple sources (US, UK and Russian intelligence agencies) he and his administration decided to go in and take them out. There was a fear that the WMD would be given to terrorist to further aid them in their attacks. There was concern about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that had potential to be given away. Obviously they haven't found any as of today...but who knows.

Do I feal safer now that Saddam is no longer in power? Yes I do...but I still feel there is a huge terrorist threat out there, and to think that the average cost of attack is only $50,000 is frightening. Its very easy for them to attack us, and I do expect more in the future. I mean, look...they have been trying to attack us since after the first Iraq war. 1993 was the first World Trade center attack right? I know we have stopped a few potential threats and we were extremely worried about New Years 2000.

We need more intelligence funding, more home land security, better customs inspections and tougher border protection. The last thing we need is a reduced military and a more "sensitive" war on terror. If we piss off a few allies to protect our way of life then too fucking bad.

holy crap. I've never seen someone able to more accurately recite the party line than that. Do you work for the Republican party or something?

 

[Azih]

I don't understand the difference between imminent and immediate

im·mi·nent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.



im·me·di·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-md-t)
adj.

1. Occurring at once; instant: gave me an immediate response.
2.
1. Of or near the present time: in the immediate future.
2. Of or relating to the present time and place; current: “It is probable that, apart from the most immediate, pragmatic, technical revisions, the writer's effort to detach himself from his work is quixotic” (Joyce Carol Oates).
3. Close at hand; near: in the immediate vicinity. See Synonyms at close.
4. Next in line or relation: is an immediate successor to the president of the company.
5. Directly apprehended or perceived: had immediate awareness of the scope of the crisis.
6. Acting or occurring without the interposition of another agency or object; direct.


Definition 2(1) of immediate is a synonym for imminent.

Edit: That was from dictionary.com from webster.com

1 a : acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency : DIRECT <the immediate cause of death> b : present to the mind independently of other states or factors <immediate awareness> c : involving or derived from a single premise <an immediate inference>
2 : being next in line or relation <the immediate family>
3 a : existing without intervening space or substance <brought into immediate contact> b : being near at hand <the immediate neighborhood>
4 a : occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : INSTANT <an immediate need> b (1) : near to or related to the present <the immediate past> (2) : of or relating to the here and now : CURRENT <too busy with immediate concerns to worry about the future>
5 : directly touching or concerning a person or thing <the child's immediate world is the classroom>

Where 3.b (near at hand) is a synonym for imminent.

 

[Dilbert]

Blah, blah, blah.

Ummm...this thread is about tracking down when the rhetoric changed from "We must get Al Qaeda!" to "We must get Iraq!" Although I'm sure you enjoyed writing that little speech, it is OFF-TOPIC. Either contribute a source, or move along.

 

[xsarien]

I mean, look...they have been trying to attack us since after the first Iraq war. 1993 was the first World Trade center attack right?

"They" have been attacking "us" since well before the first war in Iraq. As for the first WTC attack, that wasn't an Al-Qaeda attack in as much as a cousin twice removed from Ted Bundy killing someone makes it the clown's kill. That was an isolated group of extremists from Jersey.

I also like how, in this day of "us" vs. "them," we all conveniently forget about the OKC bombing, which was a terrorist act pulled off by two good ol' boys from the midwest. If it were two Arabs, people would be bringing it up left and right. Terrorism is an ideology, a tactic, a way of thinking. Anybody can be a terrorist, as scary a thought as that might be. Our penchant for pigeonholing really disgusts me sometimes...

 

[brooklyngooner]

"They" have been attacking "us" since well before the first war in Iraq. As for the first WTC attack, that wasn't an Al-Qaeda attack in as much as a cousin twice removed from Ted Bundy killing someone makes it the clown's kill. That was an isolated group of extremists from Jersey.

I also like how, in this day of "us" vs. "them," we all conveniently forget about the OKC bombing, which was a terrorist act pulled off by two good ol' boys from the midwest. If it were two Arabs, people would be bringing it up left and right. Terrorism is an ideology, a tactic, a way of thinking. Anybody can be a terrorist, as scary a thought as that might be. Our penchant for pigeonholing really disgusts me sometimes...

IRGDAWTP

 

[3rdman]

jinx, this is the earliest known mention that I could find...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of a Saddam "armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror" who could "directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And, in Cincinnati on October 7, President George W. Bush warned, "The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." Citing Saddam's association with Al Qaeda, the president added that this "alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

But as Richard Clarke shows in his book, Iraq was on the plate as early as 9/12/2001. I do believe (as I've mentioned before) that the very first public mention came from the Chezch republic that stated Atta was in Praque.

 

[KingV]

"They" have been attacking "us" since well before the first war in Iraq. As for the first WTC attack, that wasn't an Al-Qaeda attack in as much as a cousin twice removed from Ted Bundy killing someone makes it the clown's kill. That was an isolated group of extremists from Jersey.

I also like how, in this day of "us" vs. "them," we all conveniently forget about the OKC bombing, which was a terrorist act pulled off by two good ol' boys from the midwest. If it were two Arabs, people would be bringing it up left and right. Terrorism is an ideology, a tactic, a way of thinking. Anybody can be a terrorist, as scary a thought as that might be. Our penchant for pigeonholing really disgusts me sometimes...

While not all of terrorist attacks have come from the Middle East, certainly the majority of rhetoric, and the most organized terrorists have hailed from that region of the world. Not only terrorists in the US, but worldwide.

I think Iraq became the forefront because of the intelligence citing they had WMD. Though it turned out that the intelligence was flawed, after the fact, the thought that Saddam had 1) a grudge against the US, and 2) access to chemical and biological weapons made it a scary proposition. I truly believe that the situation could have ended much differently, perhaps without the invasion, if France and Germany weren't promising to Veto the UN vote, emboldening Saddam Hussein. Though the intelligence was flawed, some of it, like the Baathists trying to obtain Uranium from the African nations was eventually proven true (this was about a month or two ago). However, the suspected larger stockpiles of WMD were never found. They may have existed at sometime and been destroyed, or just never existed in the first place. If Saddam had played honest after his defeat in the Gulf War much of the suspicion probably would have been laid to rest a long time ago. In other words, I don't know if there ever was an exact moment when the switch occurred, it was more like a slow reordering of priorities as the situation in Afghanistan came under control.

 

[HAOHMARU]

"They" have been attacking "us" since well before the first war in Iraq. As for the first WTC attack, that wasn't an Al-Qaeda attack in as much as a cousin twice removed from Ted Bundy killing someone makes it the clown's kill. That was an isolated group of extremists from Jersey.

You are right, I'm wrong. Really the whole thing started with the oil crisis in the 1970's. That led to our presence in the Gulf region. I forgot about that and the fact that there have been multiple attacks of U.S. embassys and bases in the 80's. I have never heard about a extremist group from N.J. being the first WTC suspects though. I'm confused about that one...can you inform me?

I also like how, in this day of "us" vs. "them," we all conveniently forget about the OKC bombing, which was a terrorist act pulled off by two good ol' boys from the midwest. If it were two Arabs, people would be bringing it up left and right. Terrorism is an ideology, a tactic, a way of thinking. Anybody can be a terrorist, as scary a thought as that might be. Our penchant for pigeonholing really disgusts me sometimes...

Eaclty right...and that makes terrorism that more scarier. Good points, if you thought I was thinking otherwise let it be known that I agree with you.

Ummm...this thread is about tracking down when the rhetoric changed from "We must get Al Qaeda!" to "We must get Iraq!" Although I'm sure you enjoyed writing that little speech, it is OFF-TOPIC. Either contribute a source, or move along.

I did contribute to the topic...do you want my sources to be happy? I don't care if you are a mod or not, threads are made and they will inherently branch off to other discussions (even though mine is on topic). I've contributed to your topic, you might not like what was said but that is just my input.

And about my input, it is hardly off-topic...it is my interpretation of the timeline of events. Granted, I have been corrected by xsarien but my last post is pretty much how "Iraq (became) related to the war on terror."

 

[Diablos]

Jinx, how dare you ask such a thing... you are NOT worthy of being a patriot. Tsk tsk.

 

[3rdman]

1.Iraq has been an on going problem since they invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. should have finished the job but he didn't.

2. That left it open for Clinton to half-ass his "war" with Iraq. (war as in he bombed them on multiple occassions...the first conveintly being the week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal came out.)

3. Since Bush was given intelligence information about WMD being in Iraq by muliple sources (US, UK and Russian intelligence agencies) he and his administration decided to go in and take them out.

4. There was a fear that the WMD would be given to terrorist to further aid them in their attacks. There was concern about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that had potential to be given away. Obviously they haven't found any as of today...but who knows.

5. Do I feal safer now that Saddam is no longer in power? Yes I do...but I still feel there is a huge terrorist threat out there, and to think that the average cost of attack is only $50,000 is frightening.

6. Its very easy for them to attack us, and I do expect more in the future. I mean, look...they have been trying to attack us since after the first Iraq war. 1993 was the first World Trade center attack right? I know we have stopped a few potential threats and we were extremely worried about New Years 2000.

7. We need more intelligence funding, more home land security, better customs inspections and tougher border protection. The last thing we need is a reduced military and a more "sensitive" war on terror. If we piss off a few allies to protect our way of life then too fucking bad.

1. Actually Iraq has been a problem since the Reagan era when we were helping them in their war against Iran. Even after it was known that he was gassing the Kurds, we still supported him...talk about state-sponsered terrorism. Bush Sr. should have (at the very least) finished off the Republican Gaurd while they were retreating. It would have at least given the liberation fighters in Northern Iraq a chance of winning. So, surprisingly I agree with you, but what you are not grasping is that an occupation in which American troops are the majority of the force would only serve to inflame fundamentalists. Bush Sr. knew this which is why he fought long and hard in creating a coalition.

2. Half assed? Not according to Colin Powell who on Feb. 2002 said "...even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." Condaleeza Rice in July of that same year said, "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Heres a video of them (for once) telling the truth...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

Whats funny about what you wrote though is that in one sentence you condemn Clinton for his policy on Iraq and then claim he was wagging the dog whenever he did somehting about it...typical.

3. Be more specific, because the burden of proof lies with you. The 9/11 commision agrees with me and not you. As far as I know EVERY instance of WMD's and their "imminent"use was complete rubbish.

4. Sure there was a fear of it...there just wasn't any proof. As for nuclear ability..."Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, recalled, "I became dismayed when a knowledgeable government scientist told me that the administration could say anything it wanted about the [aluminum centrifuge] tubes while government scientists who disagreed were expected to remain quiet." As Thielmann puts it, "There was a lot of evidence about the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs to be concerned about. Why couldn't we just be honest about that without hyping the nuclear account? Making the case for active pursuit of nuclear weapons makes it look like the administration was trying to scare the American people about how dangerous Iraq was and how it posed an imminent security threat to the United States."

5. You feel safer even though there have been more terrorists attacks in 2003 compared to 2002 and similiarly from 2002 to 2001???? Hell, attacking Iraq was like throwing fertilzer on terrorist recruitment.

6. I'm glad you brought up the WTC in 1992...thats was the attack in which we actually went after those involved, arrested, and then convicted them, right?

7. No. What we need is intelligent people who can look at things the way they really are and not in pure black and white terms and to have these intelligent people at those positions. Bush REALLY screwed up after 9/11. He could have heralded in a time of understanding and tolerance, instead half the world hates us the other half tolerates us because we are the US. In Iran there were, honest to God, pro-American sentiments on the streets of Bahrain following 9/11 and now (somehow) I don't think they feel that way anymore. Bush...The Great Divider.

 

[Dilbert]

I did contribute to the topic...do you want my sources to be happy? I don't care if you are a mod or not, threads are made and they will inherently branch off to other discussions (even though mine is on topic). I've contributed to your topic, you might not like what was said but that is just my input.

And about my input, it is hardly off-topic...it is my interpretation of the timeline of events. Granted, I have been corrected by xsarien but my last post is pretty much how "Iraq (became) related to the war on terror."

I asked for sources which would date when the BUSH ADMINISTRATION started making statements in public about how Iraq was linked to the "war on terror." What you posted had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. In fact, other than mentioning the WTC bombing in 1993 and the non-event of New Year's 2000, you mention no dates at all, and your original post contains NO direct quotations. So, yeah -- however fascinating your snowglobe rendition of history might be, it doesn't address the topic.

 

[Dilbert]

Jinx, how dare you ask such a thing... you are NOT worthy of being a patriot. Tsk tsk.

You have no idea.

 

[videogamer]

Sept 21. US officials tell the Washington Times that Saddam Hussein made contact with Bin Laden days before the attacks. Later, it is verified after repeated denials that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Czechoslovakia. Iraqi defectors claim that hijackers were trained in a mockup Boeing 707 at the Salman Pak base in Iraq.

Contacts among Ansar al-Islam, Al Qaeda, and aides to the Iraqi President

By Scott Peterson
Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor

2 April 2002

While Ansar is gaining strength in numbers, new information is emerging that ties the organization to both Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Al Qaeda contacts allegedly stretch back to 1989, and include regular recruiting visits by bin Laden cadres to Kurdish refugee camps in Iran and to northern Iraq, as well as a journey by senior Ansar leaders to meet Al Qaeda chiefs in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the summer of 2000.
A 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence alleges the Iraqi government secretly provided cash and training to Ansar . . .

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0418irqtr.htm

You might want to check out some of these sources. I couldn't follow them all the way because I don't have access to some (like going back to Sept 21 and looking at articles). Yeah, it's quite fuzzy trying to figure out when the government started to make noise over the Iraq terrorism.


http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...in+laden+"washington+times"++21&hl=en&start=5
http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm