And we thought Bill Clinton was funny for trying to figure out what the meaning of “is” is? Compared to Clinton, George W. Bush is the King of Comedy. The President is right. He never specifically said that “there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.” But, he did say there was a direct tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, Bush and his Administration worked overtime to fully link the phrase Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. Consider the following appeared in The New York Times on June 20, 2004, under the title, What the Bush Administration Said. (Kudos to the NY Times).
Critics of the Bush administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion — only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE
”Now the Al Qaeda is an organization that’s quite dispersed and –and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he’s had enough of dealing with sanctions and it’s time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist.”
Interview on ”Face the Nation,” Mar. 9, 2003
Q: Do you believe, because this is continually a subject of debate, that there was a link between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein before the war?
MS. RICE: Absolutely. And Zarqawi made the coming back to his old stomping ground. But we know that there was training of Al Qaeda in chemical and perhaps biological warfare. We know that the Zarqawi network was out of there, this poisons network that was trying to spread poisons throughout —
Q: You’re talking about the Ansar al-Islam base in northern —
MS. RICE: Yes. And there was Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to be operating in Iraq. So yes, the Al Qaeda link was there. And maybe they’re trying to reestablish it.”
Interview on ”Fox News” Sunday, Sept. 7, 2003
”Saddam Hussein –no one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let’s be very clear, he had ties to Al Qaeda.”
Interview on ”Meet the Press,” Sept. 28, 2003
DONALD H. RUMSFELD
”There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
Interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002
”The regime plays host to terrorists, including Al Qaeda, as the president indicated.”
Defense Department briefing, Jan. 29, 2003
Q: Mr. Secretary, today in a broadcast interview Saddam Hussein said, ”There is only one truth, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.” And he went on to say, ”I would like to tell you directly we have no relationship with Al Qaeda.”
MR. RUMSFELD: And Abraham Lincoln was short.
Defense Department Briefing, Feb. 4, 2003
”We said from the outset that there are several terrorist networks that have global reach and that there were several countries that were harboring terrorists that have global reach. We weren’t going into Iraq when we were hit on September 11. And the question is: Well, what do you do about that? If you know there are terrorists and you know there’s terrorist states –Iraq’s been a terrorist state for decades –and you know there are countries harboring terrorists, we believe, correctly, I think, that the only way to deal with it is –you can’t just hunker down and hope they won’t hit you again. You simply have to take the battle to them.”
Interview on ”Meet the Press,” Nov. 2, 2003
COLIN L. POWELL
Q: You referred in your speech to the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Now, even some of our secret service chiefs say publicly there is no evidence of that.
MR. POWELL: We do have evidence of it. We are not suggesting that there is a 9/11 link, but we are suggesting –we do have evidence –of connections over the years between Iraq and Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
Interview with European editors, Jan 26, 2003
”The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, to pass a weapon, share a technology or use these weapons again.”
Remarks at the World Economic Forum, Jan. 26, 2003
”We do have information that suggests that there have been links over the years, and continue to be links, between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. And the more we look at this the more we are able to look back in time and connect things with people who have come into our custody and other information has become available to us. It’s clear that there is a link.”
Interview with ITN Television of Britain, Jan. 29, 2003
”But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder.”
Remarks made before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003
DICK CHENEY
QUESTION REGARDING 9/11: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
MR. CHENEY: No.
Interview on ”Meet the Press,” Sept. 16, 2001
MR. CHENEY: I want to separate out 9/11 from the other relationships between Iraq and the Al Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years.”
Q: But no direct link?
MR. CHENEY: I can’t –I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments.”
Interview on ”Meet the Press,” Sept. 8, 2002
”[Saddam’s] regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade.”
Remarks at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, Dec. 2, 2002
”If we’re successful in Iraq we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
Interview on ”Meet the Press,” Sept. 14, 2003
”On the 9/11 question, we’ve never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government. We’ve never been able to collect any more information on that.”
Interview with The Rocky Mountain News, Jan. 9, 2004
”I continue to believe, I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.”
National Public Radio interview, Jan. 22, 2004
GEORGE W. BUSH
”We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.”
Remarks on Iraq made in Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002
”[Saddam Hussein] is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda.”
Washington press conference, Nov. 7, 2002
”Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.”
State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003
”Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”
Speech: ”World Can Rise to This Moment,” Feb. 6, 2003
”The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”
Announcement that major combat in Iraq was over, May 1, 2003
”The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001.”
Same speech, May 1, 2003
”The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
So, what do we say to President Bush and his Cabinet about their effort to link Saddam with Osama. How about, “Mission Accomplished”?
Good God Larry! You sure know how to make a case, lol!
Excellent and thorough to the bone. Which leads me to wonder why did the admin. pass on three on Zarqawi three times?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The story gets worse in its details. As far back as June 2002, U.S. intelligence reported that Zarqawi had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq that was capable of producing ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon drew up an attack plan involving cruise missiles and smart bombs. The White House turned it down. In October 2002, intelligence reported that Zarqawi was preparing to use his bio-weapons in Europe. The Pentagon drew up another attack plan. The White House again demurred. In January 2003, police in London arrested terrorist suspects connected to the camp. The Pentagon devised another attack plan. Again, the White House killed the plan, not Zarqawi.
When the war finally started in March, the camp was attacked early on. But by that time, Zarqawi and his followers had departed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.slate.com/id/2100549/
The big al Qaida connection in Iraq.
Larry just remembered the Waxman Report.
This comment links to News Max which refers to the Weekly Standard.
I think I will just “ignore it as best I can.”
The Weekly Standard on the documents which supposedly prove the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and therefore 9/11.
But what about the fonts and the superscript? where are the document specialists to authenticate these docs? Forget that, “seem to be the real thing” is a good enough proof to go to war but not good enough to authenticate the military records of President Bush.
This “article” unfortunately omits any mention of the specific connection revealed in the “authentic documents.”
You can go to any bookstore and buy “authentic” Arabic documents. That doesn’t mean they establish–or have anything at all to do with–a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Vague paragraphs sprinkled with:
“add to the growing body of evidence”
“contains speculation about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda”
“report seems to confirm”
Here’s the money quote:
“An approval to meet with opposer Osama bin Laden by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency” [Saddam Hussein]
Arab states were coming to an agreement about what to do about Osama bin Laden, at the time he was being expelled from Saudia Arabia and accepted by Sudan.
This is all they’ve got from what I can figure out.
This is a pretty minor reference to cooperation between the two parties. Although, if it had to do with attempting to throw the Americans out of Saudi Arabia after Operation Desert Storm, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some reason to entertain the possiblity. Even the worst of foes can be united by a common enemy.
But, “the document” in question doesn’t actually say that bin Laden met with Iraqi intelligence, whether some one from al Qaeda acutally met with Iraqi intelligence, what the background to “the meeting” was, other than propaganda, and what the outcome was.
So even if the document is “authentic” by CBS standards, there isn’t any indication that it actually links bin Laden and Sadam.
There are no joint operations.
Even the worst of foes can be united by a common enemy.
Or a common ally.
There is discussion about bin Laden, who was being expelled from Saudi Arabia. From what I could filter out, Arab states did not want to annoy the Saudis by accepting him, but it was okay if the Sudan accepted him. Bin Laden is pictured as a ‘hot potato’ in the Arab world, someone to be avoided.
No link between bin Laden and Iraq, Saddam Hussein, or 9/11.
It’s a desperate attempt to find something/anything in a document dump.
LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running — when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I’d be doing that.
But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we’ll ever have to use troops.
But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must — as a last resort.
I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye.
And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have said, “Let the inspectors work, or let’s, you know, hope to talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work,” he would have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There’s just no doubt in my mind we would rue the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power.
So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force.
But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we’ve affected the world in a positive way.
Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs.
Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it.
So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, “The enemy attacked us.”
Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s number one criminal and terrorist.
They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.
That’s the enemy that attacked us. That’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That’s the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.
He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.
If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.
And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.
We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.
link here: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html