Bush's 9-11 Problem --MUST READ!

[radfringe]

Bush's 9-11 Problem
The President wants to link Al Qaeda and Iraq, but the knot keeps slipping
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0425/schanberg.php
by Sydney H. Schanberg
June 22nd, 2004 11:00 AM

Almost every week or so, the American predicament that is Iraq seems to expand and, in expanding, to consume our government. It has grown like kudzu out of the methods President Bush used to win congressional and public approval for the invasion of Iraq. The core issue is: Did he mislead the nation into a needless war?

This past week, the White House erupted over some new staff reports from the bipartisan commission that President Bush had grudgingly named to look into the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and into how those bloody events, which took nearly 3,000 lives in New York and Washington, led to the Iraqi war. These latest staff reports said that while there had been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, these meetings "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." The commission staff said further it had found evidence that the secular Iraqi dictatorship had rebuffed the Islamist terrorists' requests for assistance.

--snip---

Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney reacted with heat, directing most of their vitriol at the press for playing up the disparities between the commission's findings and the administration's much stronger contentions about Iraqi-Al Qaeda links.

The president told reporters, "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."

Bush added, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

---snip---

On March 21, 2003, the day after the war began, President Bush sent a letter to both houses of Congress laying out the legal backing and underpinning for his decision to go to war. In the letter's second paragraph, Bush wrote: "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Read his lips. He keeps swearing he never claimed a direct link, but here it is, as the saying goes, in black and white. It is very difficult to think of any interpretation of the above sentence other than that the president of the United States was declaring that Iraq was one of the "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

[Search Party]

1. They're fucked

which is a perfect predicament for fuckers.

Now if the media doesn't allow the "knot to slip" we may get somewhere.

[Kolesar]

2. "including those nations"describes a subset of "Terrorists&terrorist orgs"

Bush contends that he had the authority to attack "terrorists and terrorist organizations" of his choosing, a subset of which is those who committed the attacks of 9/11. He just chose to attack those who did not perpetrate 9/11.

Logically diagramming the broad world of associations with terrorists:
((Iraq) (9/11 terrorists and allies))

Hey, the logic is twisted, but it was good enough for CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox and NPR!

[Straight Shooter]

3. Get ready to watch the legalistic hula-hooping over the meaning of words

"necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

If Saddam had been declared a terrorist, or was presumed to be a terrorist by the bush administration, then he falls within the realm of the above phrase. Notice that the word "including" precedes the umbrella of those who planned, authorized, committed or aided in 9/11. So they'll probably argue that Saddam qualified as a terrorist, but it's a circular argument, inasmuch as the only reason they considered him a terrorist is because he supposedly was threatening us and others with WMD.

Failing that argument, they'll find some half-assed "link" as their justification. They are reduced to grasping at straws, but a straw is all they need at this point.

I am disgusted with bush's legal maneuverings.

[dand]

4. Defoliating the bushes,

a little bit at a time, thanks for the great post:toast:

[JDPriestly]

5. Bush focused on Iraq long before 911.

Ronald Suskind reports in his book, "The Price of Loyalty," on Paul O'Neill that Bush's foreign policy focus was on regime change in Iraq beginning with his first National Security Policy meeting on January 21, 2001. In "Against All Enemies," Richard Clarke describes telling Bush after 9/11 that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and being asked to go back and check again. Clarke was unable to find any link.

Bush knew there was no link. He lied when he suggested there was. Now, of course, he defends himself by pointing out that his language was vague. He never said outright that Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan 911. He just carefully chose language that would cause people to believe that Hussein helped Al Quaeda plan 911, deliberately using words that conveyed a falsehood so that he could deny having lied when the truth emerged. That is the worse kind of lying.

How ironic. Just when the Clinton controversy about the meaning of "is" has come up again, Bush creates a controvery about the meaning of "connection." There you go again, Bush.

[Gators4Dean]

6. 9/11 and Iraq

The link between 9/11 and Iraq is non-existant but to be honest, we all know that al-Queda and Hussein had a relationship of some sort. I hate to say it cause I hate Bush, but it is so.

[LastDemocratInSC]

8. We don't KNOW anything until there's evidence of it

Knowledge is a very different thing than speculation, suspicion, or opinion. Many have been surprised that a credible link between Al Quaeda and Saddam hasn't been demonstrated. In a nation governed by the rule of law evidence takes priority over speculation, suspicion, or opinion.

If there's no evidence for something, there's no knowledge of that thing ... everything else is wind.

[Bridget Burke]

9. It's a lie.

The Al Qaeda/Hussein link has been disproved again & again.

[CatWoman]

10. I've been saying this a lot lately

I had a relationship with my daughter's father. My daughter is now 30. So, 28 years ago I had a relationship with him.

If he went out an robbed someone, can the victim haul my black ass into court as an accomplish?

Common sense is a rarity these days....................

[struggle4progress]

7. Boosh botched!

<snip>
On March 21, 2003, the day after the war began, President Bush sent a letter to both houses of Congress laying out the legal backing and underpinning for his decision to go to war. In the letter's second paragraph, Bush wrote: "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
<snip>

[Disturbed]

11. The Legality of the Invasion!

This is why BushCo is fighting so hard. No WMDS. No ties to Al Q. Invasion of a sovereign country! I even read that this bogus Pres. stated that Saddam kicked out the UN Inspectors, Hans Blix team.

The definition of "relationship" is now the crux.

This is The Twilight Zone!

Is Amerika still a Nation based on Laws?

[filterfish]

12. don't see Bush needing to fight at all

no one really cares about the details...it's plausible and hell Saddam was a bad guy

while repubs went nuts over Monica, dems are going nuts over faulty pretexts= moral equivalence? ok, maybe not.

but bush and especially cheney don't seem at all on the defensive...they can merely assert the connection, over and over and over again...that's all joe six-pack needs to hear says one theory