Have any of the other candiates tried to refute the lie that Saddam=9/11

[JohnKleeb]

I mean by this, have any of the other candiates tried to refute the lie that Saddam was connected to 9/11. My candiate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich has.
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020910-iraqand9-11.htm
I have on my iPod a speech of his from mid last year where he mentions that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so I got no link but its called Imagine America if anyone wants to know.
Thanks.
This better not turn in to flame bait and candiate fighting and such. I really am curious.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I don't think

the candidates have sunk it into the ground. But I would think that it would be mentioned in passing.

[JohnKleeb]

2. ok

I know Kucinich has, that link I provided was a news release he made a year or so ago. Hes also mentioned it while campaigning although it wasnt the topic when I was there, when I saw him speak, he spoke about community and such. I hope my question gets answered.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Dean, many times.

(Source= me at three of his rallies)

[JohnKleeb]

4. good for him

This lie is still believed by the masses. I wasnt trying to invoke trouble and shit but I am glad others have mentioned this. Links arent always needed.

[madfloridian]

5. Here is one statement from Dean, there are others.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8815

SNIP..."Dean accused Bush of deliberately misleading the public by tying Iraq's deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, to terrorism and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush repeatedly linked Saddam and the so-called war on terrorism Sunday night.

"I don't believe the war on Iraq had much to do with the war on terror," Dean said. "He's certainly using the original tragedy to justify a war that had nothing to do with the original tragedy."

[Kathleen04]

6. Wesley Clark on Meet the Press today..

<snip>

GENERAL CLARK: And as I went back and looked at the issues as they began to unfold, I remembered the conversation I had had right after 9/11, when an officer had told me that the decision had been made to strike Iraq regardless of whether Iraq was involved in 9/11. And then I began to see the other indicators and I realized that what we had was an administration which was determined to take us to war in Iraq, almost no matter what. That’s misleading, it’s wrong, it shouldn’t be permitted, and that administration has to be held accountable. And that’s one of the reasons I’m running.

<snip>

GEN. CLARK: I hope we will, but I hope we’ll ask a deeper question than that, because I don’t think this goes simply to the intelligence agencies. I think it goes to the heart of the decision-making process of this administration. I think they owe the American people an explanation. Why, when we were struck by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda—why did we determine to attack Iraq? Why did we distract ourselves from the war on terror? Why are we spending $150 billion on Iraq?
MR. RUSSERT: What’s the answer?
GEN. CLARK: I think the answer is that it was going to be very difficult to go after al-Qaeda. It required a new way of thought, new organizations. And this was an administration that was concerned about its image, concerned about reassuring the public, and had a predisposition to believe that somehow it could use military force to clean up the Middle East during this period after the fall of the Soviet Union and before the rise of the “next great power.”
MR. RUSSERT: You went...
GEN. CLARK: So I think there were mixed motives on this. But the administration needs to come clean with the American people and not just blame the intelligence community.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp?cp1=1

[gottaB]

7. Carol Moseley Braun --all the time

but here's one speech where she makes the argument.

[JohnKleeb]

8. Thanks all