# WTC attacked? Must be Saddam! Get 'im! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777 "2003-06-23T15:26:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/1 "2003-06-23T15:26:43Z")
[http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html](http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html) Retired General Wesley Clark has stated in an interview that immediately after the attacks, the Bush Administration was tying 9-11 to Iraq and pushing Clark to publically pin the blame on Saddam, despite a complete lack of evidence. As he said: > [@](#): > > “Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.” The article goes on to say: > [@](#): > > Clark’s assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: “Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.” According to CBS, a Pentagon aide’s notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the “best info fast” to “judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL.” (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration’s response “go massive…sweep it all up, things related and not.” Ominous, indeed… “things related and not”? Like I’ve been saying, we’re past the point where we need to investigate who knew what when. Certainly it looks like Rumsfeld isn’t above a little lying to justify an invasion of Iraq, whether it’s “related” or “not.” This is, of course, aside from what we already know from _Bush at War_, in which Bush & Co. want to invade Iraq well before 9-11. The book also quotes them as having a list of countries to invade, even though Rumsfeld later sneered at the idea that anyone could be so stupid as to think he had a list. What was that about revisionist history? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/2 "2003-06-23T16:02:33Z")
Just another log on the fire, as far as I’m concerned. I guess the real debate is, are any Americans at all upset that top members of the presidential administration lied, and lied repeatedly, about the reasons for invading Iraq? If so, what, if anything, can be done about it? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/3 "2003-06-23T21:59:27Z")
In the immortal words of the poetic George W. Bush. “F\*ck Saddam! We’re taking him out.” These inspiring words rank right up there with Churchill and FDR in their elegance and flair.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/4 "2003-06-24T03:35:47Z")
I thought we already identified most of the bombers, and most of them were Saudis(from Saudi Arabia), 14 out of 17? United Arab emeriates might have been the rest? Anyways, none of the criminals of 9-11 in the WTC or Pentagon bombings were Iraqis (from Iraq). ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/5 "2003-06-24T03:37:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*I thought we already identified most of the bombers, and most of them were Saudis(from Saudi Arabia), 14 out of 17? United Arab emeriates might have been the rest? > > Anyways, none of the criminals of 9-11 in the WTC or Pentagon bombings were Iraqis (from Iraq). \*\* You really think Bush would let facts get in his way? ---
**Author:** ![Matchka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Matchka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Matchka)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/6 "2003-06-24T06:24:11Z")
**Just another log on the fire, as far as I’m concerned. I guess the real debate is, are any Americans at all upset that top members of the presidential administration lied, and lied repeatedly, about the reasons for invading Iraq? If so, what, if anything, can be done about it?** I am upset. No debate needed. I fear nothing can be done about it. I am convinced that Dub-yah is our leader only because he cheated, and he will be our leader for another 4 years, possibly longer: I’m willing to bet he challenges term limits. Now please, please, PLEASE don’t go into where the hijackers came from (not that I intend to offer any resistance to the idea that Saudi Arabia may not be our bestest buddy in the world). They were recruited by “an organization” that was funded and organized by “someone.” I would imagine that people of the calibre required to pull of the 9/11 business are fairly rare, but that they would tend to hang out together. If you find a good candidate in Biff from Seattle, you’re gonna ask him if he knows someone who can help. Chances are he won’t be suggesting someone from Virginia simply because he doesn’t visit there too often. What gets me is that SH & OBL needed to be taken out for lots of reasons–REAL reasons. Why all the saber-rattling & posturing and symbolic gesturing? WHO on the planet would have objected to an honest, “Look, we know these guys are up to something, so we’re just gonna grease 'em. Sorry, people of Earth, but what we are about to do is a violation of international law, but it’s for (y)our own good.” Bad? Yes. But at least it’s honest. ---
**Author:** ![Spite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc-attacked-must-be-saddam-get-im/183777/7 "2003-06-24T06:49:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Certainly it looks like Rumsfeld isn’t above a little lying to justify an invasion of Iraq, whether it’s “related” or “not.” It does? Where? The Defense Secretary of a country asks his aid to look at plans on attacking a country that was a likely candidate for a devestating attack on his countries citizens? I would think it foolish if he didn’t have such a plan during such a time hwne his president may require it from him. And I can barely take any more ‘anonymous sources’, ‘unidentified aid’s’ , ‘witheld name’, and general leaks. If there is verifiable evidence that Rumsfeld or Bush or anyone with a name deliberately lied about the knowledge of Iraq’s WMD, then I would sincerely like to ask for a cite. I supported this war, and still support our president, but I do not like being lied to either. And while I still enjoy the demise of Saddam, and would not have supported not doing it, The POTUS should not deliberatley lie to his citizens on such a matter and I would support pretty much any action against him.