WH: "But The President Never Connected Iraq To The 9/11 Attacks..."

Sure, I believe what ever you say...

it wasnt over WMD
What was it for Mr. President? And if this link was never made, how come we arent attempting to catch the people responsible for 9/11?

SPINNING IN CIRCLES????!?!??!

It says Bush never made the connection... not the administration.

The NYT specifically says the administration made the claims:
The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It could be they're planting the seed to distance themselves from Cheney for whatever reason. You know they'd love to get somebody in as VP that they can run in 08.

it says Bush never said it, but... hmm, curious.

But there is a lot of video of the criminals contridicting themselves and the public seems to be connecting the dots.

Hats off to the many who WERE THE MEDIA and kept pounding the truth until the media can no longer get away with ignoring it.

:patriot:

...probably because the entire Rovian propaganda machine was linking Iraq and 9/11.

Now if you had previously assumed the President said that the two were linked, and now find that they deny ever saying that, would YOU feel better about it? Nope. Much like when you buy a used car and discover it's a lemon, you'd feel like you got duped, no matter what the President says the 'fine print' said.

This is a really lousy political strategy, in my opinion. Ain't gonna fool anybody.

outcome of the civil war while they are at it.
:banghead:

snip........ 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, organiza-tions, 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).


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

states that Bush misrepresented Iraq's link to Al Qaeda 19 times in speeches and public statements.

In a November 7, 2002, speech, President Bush stated: Saddam Hussein "is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida..... true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint."

"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," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html




Bush rallies support by linking Iraq to Sept 11
By Toby Harnden in Washington


President George W Bush has swung American popular opinion firmly behind him by linking the threat from Iraq to September 11.

George W Bush: said Saddam was preparing to attack the US

In a speech in Cincinnati on Monday night, Mr Bush said Saddam Hussein was linked with Osama bin Laden. "We know that Iraq and the al-Qa'eda terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America," he said.

"We know that Iraq and al-Qa'eda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al-Qa'eda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qa'eda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/09/wirq09.xml

seems like the WH spinning is in full throttle these days.

My emphasis in bold...

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.

guess WH thought that they could post this press release, and everything would be find and dandy?

He screwed up the message. Prior to that he had it down in his speeches, as did Rice et al. They used an advertising trick, Saddam is an evil dictator....yak,yak,yak.....those responsible for 9/11." If the full sentences are read from the speeches there is never a link being made by the speaker between Saddam and 9/11. But using them in the same sentence over and over ad nauseum the listener forms a link where there isn't one, the listener takes the sentence out of context by remembering the first few words of the sentence and the last few words of the sentence.
Now they did indicate a link to "IRAQ" and Al-qaeda or terrorists and in deed there was one or perhaps more than one. In the northern Kurdish controlled Iraq, extremists were known to be operating there. Prior to 9/11, they blew up a UN office and also attacked Christians in the area (particularly gruesome was the bombing of the residence of a female Christian activist they blew up her home with her and her family in it.) In addition, an Al qaeda operative was in Baghdad prior to the war for medical treatment for a few days but was asked to leave Iraq when Saddam found out.

As I remember, congress gave authorization to Bush to go to war if he felt necessary, but he had to show that Iraq was connected to 9/11. He submitted the letter, thus stating the connection.

He didn't have to show Iraq was connected to 9/11, he just had to announce (not PROVE, just SAY -- one of the many ways in which the supposedly "limiting" IWR was a toothless joke) that in his judgement (har har) military force was necessary to counter an emergency threat from Iraq.

The letter he turned in also didn't state such a connection. What it did say, that's often construed as a connection, is that in his judgement (har har), invading Iraq would not interfere with our efforts to grab the culprit(s) of 9/11. (Which, of course, was itself obviously wrong, but then that's another story).

Not that it matters: as has been admirably documented in this thread already, it's all a smokescreen.
1) Bush didn't have to literally say "Saddam planned 9/11" if he keeps saying "Al Qaeda planned 9/11, and Saddam is in cahoots with them now" (the latter half of which is still a lie), or if the VP is repeatedly saying Saddam is in cahoots with them and nobody shuts him up. As the Romans said, he who remains silent assents.
2) Bush basically did go ahead and say it in the debate with Kerry, or at least made a revealing Freudian slip, when he outright said that he was forced to attack Iraq because "the enemy attacked us". There's only two ways that can be logically parsed: either you mean that "the enemy" is Iraq, or you think that "all them people are in on it together". Either way, you've lost grasp on reality -- pick between hallucination and paranoia. :eyes:

now that they're getting down to their base they can start telling outrageously transparent whoppers; lies so brazen you think the earth has stopped spinning. Eventually the media will start repeating it.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

same breath every damn chance they got! :grr: Which left many Americans to draw their own conclusions from that. :mad: They certainly facilitated the idea that 9/11 and Saddam were connected.

so all is good. :sarcasm:

He would have been laughed out of office for it, we hope! Jesus! This is bordering on the edge of the ridiculous or pure insanity! Take your pick!