?? Is this a Smoking Gun on 9-11 Saddam fuss??

Bush's congressional resolution to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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.


Sincerely,



GEORGE W. BUSH

...include info about 9-11 attacks with request for war on Iraq if he didn't intend the public to be misled?

You got it, grasswire. :yourock:

remember?

It was Clinton's fault!

They can argue all they want that technically they didn't say SH did it, even here, but the inference here especially is WAAAAAAAAY too much to ignore...

Something!! This SMOKING GUN destroys ChimpCo!! Let's send it to the Dean people as a reminder!!

Have you blasted this to every news organization and prez campaign on Earth yet? Please do. They certainly won't bother to do the basic research.

It seems too good to be true. If so, with his recent statements, it's time to crucify him. There'd be solid evidence that he knowingly misled the nation, and lied to gov't agencies. If they don't impeach him, the candidate who NAILS him down with this gets my support.

Now that the focus has shifted away from weapons of mass destruction to "liberation," etc. This resolution mentions NOTHING about liberation. It mentions only a continued threat to the US and enforcement of UN resolutions, so the reasons laid out in this resolution are entirely false even without the 9/11 reference.

I hadn't considered that. This is what he went ot congress with and it mentions NOTHING ABOUT LIBERATION!!

eom

Everyone better download this, before it gets scrubbed!

http://www.uscg.mil/legal/Homeland_legislation/PDF/100902%20Senate%20Amendments.pdf

The text in question is on page 5.

Also, the letter is corroborated by the Australian embassy:
http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2003/0319/epf303.htm

both tv and print (NY Times, etc.) and please e-mail it to some of our candidates or all of them and any Dem congressperson. This truly IS IT!!!!!!!!!!

Text of a proposed Congressional resolution submitted by Pres. Bush. on Sept. 19, 2002, authorizing military action against Iraq.

WHEREAS Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the president to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235);

WHEREAS Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security;

WHEREAS Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region by refusing to release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

WHEREAS the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

WHEREAS the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward and willingness to attack the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and coalition armed forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

WHEREAS members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

WHEREAS Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

WHEREAS the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;

WHEREAS the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;

WHEREAS Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself;

WHEREAS Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian population that threatens international peace and security under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these "subsequent relevant resolutions";

WHEREAS Congress in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president to use the armed forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 678;

WHEREAS Congress, in Section 1095 of Public Law 102-190, has stated that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of the Security Council resolutions 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688";

WHEREAS Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

WHEREAS the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

WHEREAS the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States;

Now therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Further Resolution on Iraq."
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/rights/law/03032106.htm

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 21, 2003

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section
3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further
diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that
only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and
restore international peace and security in the area. 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. United States objectives also support a transition
to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of
1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now
inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and
consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I
directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to
commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish
our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military
forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this
time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or
duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to
accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace,
stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United
States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH





This one does mention "liberation" though.

Busted dead to rights....

United States objectives also support a transition
to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of
1998 (Public Law 105-338).

You're right...

I'm sorry....I have to attend a very sick (possibly dying) cat pal today. I'll be on and offline, and can't hype this to media. If only we could send to Bev's A list.

"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."

This is also smoking gun on the bullshit corporate media!!!

:puke:

...and anyone who could send these documents to your favorite news person, please do!!

Could someone send to Josh Marshall? I don't have time right now to go looking for email addresses.

I'm coming up with lots of stuff, and I know I am just scratching the surface!

JHB andGrasswire has been trying to bring attention to it .

This thread has done it :bounce: Finally

thanks for working at that Grasswire and JHB.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Why would opinions about Saddam change after 9/11? Unless...

The (conveniently unspoken but clear) implication is "because he had something to do with it"!

But noooo, they never said there was a connection.... :argh:

kick!

:kick:

Less than 1 year after 9/11. Why?

They needed to distract and derail the 9/11 investigation. Was the War so necessary that this administration needed to react right away? No, Card said that August was not the time for a marketing campaign to begin.

They needed to distract Americans and carefully craft a campaign that would IMPLY Hussein was behind 9/11.....almost every quote and document is careful to make the association, but not the statement.

Why? Because they did not want the investigation of 9/11 to proceed...to make the connections for the real supporters and enablers of 9/11. Because there was enough incriminating evidence to prove this administration had prior knowledge and personal associations with the terrorist supporters.

PNAC motives were important, IMHO, but the #1 reason to get this war on was to distract our attention from investigating 9/11.

Really evil bastards....

you are so right

I got these excerpts to Keith Olbermann, Josh Marshall, David Gregory and Campbell Brown. Any assistance in sending this out would be greatly appreciated as this is a really bad day for me. Here's the condensed clips that I've been sending:

Regarding the silly notion that the WH did not claim an Iraq-911 connection, see these public documents:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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.


Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

From the Sept. 19 2002 proposal for resolution sent from Bush to Congress:

WHEREAS members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

WHEREAS Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

WHEREAS the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;

WHEREAS the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;

WHEREAS Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself;


From Bush March 21 letter to Congress on the start of war:

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section
3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further
diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that
only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and
restore international peace and security in the area. 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. United States objectives also support a transition
to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of
1998 (Public Law 105-338).

I'll do what I can locally :hi:

...in order to win 2002 congressional elections. Never forget that the plans for war were rolled out just prior to those elections.

I've been telling people all day that I would find Bush's 9/11 connection to Iraq, but haven't had time to look. You saved my butt. :yourock:
Does anyone have more?

...if we were to review the speeches made, the press conferences, the correspondence during that time. I've got a very sick beloved old kitty on my hands today requiring a lot of TLC, and just can't dig in.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/

Rice: Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons

Thursday, September 26, 2002

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development -- information she said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism.

The comments by Condoleezza Rice were the strongest and most specific to date on the White House's accusations linking al Qaeda and Iraq.

The accusations followed those made by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier in the day said the United States has evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda, but they did not elaborate. And the charges came as the White House sought to dispel accusations by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who blasted the administration for an "outrageous" effort to seek political gain from the Iraq debate.

<snip>

"Both of them need to be dealt with," Bush told reporters at the White House. "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."


Need to google 09/26/02. Seems Bush and Rummie both made statements that day about Saddam and al Qaeda. Of course, when Condi speaks, she is speaking for the pResident. This is not her opinion, it is her boss, W's opinion and she is speaking for him.

:yourock:

This is like going fishing and I love it when the fish are running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml

Text Of Bush News Conference

WASHINGTON, March 6, 2003

Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

Nah, W wasn't trying to link Saddam to 9-11, nah who would ever think such a thing?

I am assuming you are a female. I kick for ya!

caught red handed.

This thread will be needed in discussions...

...and thanks to those DU kickers!

back up.

...for the night crowd

Everyone needs to read this

here's the proof, dammit!

to keep it on for those of us who don't visit daily


:kick:

let's keep this kicked till we see it on a blog or an online mag....I have little hope for media whoredom until the evidence is shoved down their throats and they have to swallow, not spit.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Here is why he is "innocent", to the FReepers

Once again, poor George was set up. Even though he is the president, and everyone supposedly answers to him, he keeps getting misled by poor intelligence or that evil bastard Hans Blix.

Another reason is that, recently, Bilx stated that Iraq may have in fact destroyed its WMD program and had none at all. So, the FReeper rationale is, "Blix lied to Bush, withheld information from him". Once again, George is a victim.

Its pathetic.

because I thought "so what...they will just say as always, that Iraq aided the 9/11 terrorists in SOME capacity." Then it hit me. Oh... OH!... OH YEAH!!! For anyone else dense like me: what did chimpy admit just days ago???
OOH BOY.

On the Big Dog's penis. I am working on a theory, that is was so massive, after he killed more righteous republican critics, and upped his body count, that it lurched all the way from New Zealand on 9-11, and struck both towers.

Damn, I hate the chimp and his minions. If Clinton lied like this, the media would have gone nuts. It kinda reminds me of the story about Howard Fineman's explanation of why there were 13,000 campaign stories of Clinton's deferment, and only 140 of Shrub going AWOL. He says the press got so tired of attacking Clinton that they don't have the energy to attack whistle ass. What a load o' crap.

.