The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 17, 2003; 5:34 PM
President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
The president's comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.
Yet, a recent Post poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.
On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."
In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.
"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.
Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."
posted on September 17, 2003 05:37:59 PM
Poll results indicate that Americans who were manipulated into believing that Saddam had a connection with 9/11 are now wising up. Bush's approval rating on Iraq has fallen to its lowest level and his overall approval rating is the lowest it has been since 2001.
The poll also finds that a declining number of Americans think the U.S.
is in control of the situation in Iraq, and only 22% think the Bush
administration has a clear plan for rebuilding the former dictatorship.
Americans also question whether a successful rebuilding of Iraq would
ultimately pay dividends for them back at home: most do not think the
United States will be any safer from terrorism even if Iraq does become
a stable democracy. But many Americans do believe the rebuilding
process in Iraq will force tough financial tradeoffs back at home -
tradeoffs they would be unwilling to make.
In this poll, President Bush receives his lowest rating on his handling
of the situation in Iraq since CBS News began asking the question in
February. American opinion is now evenly divided on this measure,
with 46% approving and 47% disapproving.
Bush's approval rating on Iraq has dropped 11 points since last month
and 33 points since April, when he received his highest rating on this question.
posted on September 17, 2003 07:46:36 PM
Nobody could figure out why Bush wanted to go after Saddam so fast until he talked about the al qaeda connection, or did I dream that? This only makes Bush & Co. look like they have Alzheimer's.
posted on September 17, 2003 09:51:18 PM
how sleazy is this one???
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on September 17, 2003 11:40:13 PM
From my military experience. Terrorist are like hit men. They or a member of their family are paid to do an act by other governments or people. They use extreme beliefs to shield these acts. They also use the media and personal political tunnel vision to confuse, misdirect their operations.
This tread "BUSH SAYS SADDAM PLAYED NO PART IN 9/11" That is untrue. It is a misdirect to draw people.
So I could say from my military experience Saddam & most middle east Countries along with France & Germany all had a part in 9/11.
I also could say that the tunnel vision of the far Left & Right political beliefs will shield, misdirect and pay for the next attack on this country.
posted on September 18, 2003 05:09:48 AM
Too little, too late, IMO. He can sit on his throne and admit to lying until the cows come home and I still won't like him. In fact, I hope he does do that. The more lies he admits to, the further down his approval rating will go. Maybe some or most of his devout followers will see him for what he really is.
posted on September 18, 2003 06:18:58 AM
It's Just an effort to erase some lies and begin again...rewrite history. The truth is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lied and our soldiers died. To preemtively attack a country which had been without WMD for a decade, according to Blix, is abominable . This administration will eventually be held accountable for these lies...beginning with the defeat of Bush in 2004.
The following example illustrates the technique that Bush and company used to link Iraq to 9/11 when, in fact, no link existed.
In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "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, showed 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."
Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."
Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
In this letter to Congress, Bush again exaggerated the connection with Iraq
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:
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
In summation, Bush lied to congress and the American people and now he admits it. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and as Bush just admitted, there is no evidence that he played a part in 9/11.
Fred said,
"This tread "BUSH SAYS SADDAM PLAYED NO PART IN 9/11" That is untrue. It is a misdirect to draw people."
President Bush said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
Condi Rice said,"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11."
Q: There have been a number of public opinion polls that show a fairly sizable percentage of the public believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks. Do you believe that?
Rumsfeld: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
Q: Mr. Russert: But is there a connection [between Saddam and 9/11]?
Cheney: "We don’t know."
Sunday when Tim Russert challenged Vice President Dick Cheney to defend his claim, made on "Meet the Press" before the war, that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. "Yeah, I did misspeak," Cheney admitted. "We never had any evidence that [Hussein] had acquired a nuclear weapon."
posted on September 18, 2003 10:25:15 AM
Helen said"What country will be blamed next?" The far left has already placed the blame on the United States..
posted on September 18, 2003 10:54:05 AM "Helen said"What country will be blamed next?" The far left has already placed the blame on the United States.."
I am asking what country will the far right blame next? In other words, Who will be the next target?
posted on September 18, 2003 10:59:33 AM
People are asking, why are all the confessions coming forth right now? Robert Scheer has a good answer.
Excerpt
At that same Senate hearing, Vincent Cannistraro, formerly the CIA's director of counter-terrorism operations and analysis, testified: "There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans."
So, Wolfowitz and the administration might prove to be right after all. Not about Iraq's ties with Bin Laden before the invasion. Nor about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction the president used to scare up support for war. But by turning its claim that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Without this claim, the president's men would be revealed as imperial adventurers who wasted the lives and resources of this country to redraw the map of the world. That scheme, including "preemptive military intervention," can be traced to a "Defense Planning Guidance" document prepared by Wolfowitz in 1992 when he was Cheney's undersecretary of Defense for policy.
Thus, it was not too surprising that the bodies recovered after the 9/11 attacks were barely in the ground before Cheney and Wolfowitz were arguing that a proper response to 9/11 was to go after Iraq — whether or not it had anything to do with the plot. They were willing to say anything to convince us they were right, even trying to sell this as a war without cost.
In March, one week into the war, Wolfowitz told Congress, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." Now we find that Iraq can't pay for its own reconstruction and since we went to war unilaterally, defying world opinion, we are unlikely to convince anybody else to chip in.
Last week, a Washington Post poll showed that 60% of the American people opposed the president's plan to throw $87 billion more into this quagmire, on top of the $79 billion budgeted already. Perhaps, like people blinking in the sun after a long hibernation, Americans are finally awakening to the stupid and craven things being done in the name of protecting us.
posted on September 18, 2003 05:29:10 PM
But today comes along this report:
U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack By John Diamond, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."
Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced. He asserted that the campaign in Iraq is striking at terrorists involved in the attacks. Cheney also disclosed the new evidence about the 1993 suspect on the program, but he did not name Yasin.
Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.
Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture. The bureau questioned and released him in New York shortly after the bombing in 1993. After Yasin had fled to Iraq, the FBI said it found evidence that he helped make the bomb, which killed six people and injured 1,000. Yasin is still at large.
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.
The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established.
posted on September 18, 2003 07:34:15 PM
Fred you are soooo right when you say: The far left has already placed the blame on the United States.
-----------
In Helen's excitement, glee and joy to once again blame Bush for lying....she overlooks an important FACT. That is she presents her 'side' of the case that IF 70% of American's who were polled believed Saddam was in some way linked to 9-11, that HAS TO BE the President's fault. WHETHER THE PRESIDENT EVER SAID THAT OR NOT....he is blamed by those one the far left with Helen as their biggest mouth piece on these boards.
But once HAS to consider there have been many published reports from many others who believe there is a connection between the two. To differing levels....but still reported.
I am posting a link to an article where there are quotes from two Iraqi papers [when Saddam was still in control] that show binladen and Saddam both supported one another in attempts to bring harm to our country.
There are many other articles that can be found where people speak why they believe Saddam and binLaden shared a mutual goal...destruction of America too.
So the point I'm hoping to get across is maybe, just maybe, it wasn't because our President nor his administration said they believed this, but rather because so many others were making the connections. And people bought into that.
To believe otherwise is to say one believes that our President had some 'magical' powers to MAKE/FORCE people to think this even though he never really said it.
posted on September 18, 2003 07:40:08 PM
Linda, just because Saddam and Osama might have had the same goal in mind (harming the U.S.), doesn't mean they were in cahoots together. Like Helen stated, it sounds like they're trying to re-write history.
posted on September 18, 2003 07:53:34 PM
Once again, our President stands accused by supporters of Saddam, of being a liar. There are many in our country that have long believed there is a mutual connection of 'ideals' binladen and Saddam had for our country.
Read the quotes in this article, not just what I've copied and pasted, because I know the lefties here aren't going to believe what a different opinion has to say. The quotes in this article, and others like it, have led a lot of people to believe President Bush SHOULD have made a strong case of the connection.
But more importantly it ignores the shared anti-American purpose that has long united both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Certainly bin Laden's latest taped threat shows he understands this mutual purpose. Bin Laden refers to "our mujahideen brothers[b]" inside Iraq and stresses "[b]the importance of martyrdom operations against the enemy, these attacks that have scared Americans and Israelis like never before."
[i]Iraq may be run by Baath Party "infidels," he adds, but "it does no harm in these circumstances that the interests of Muslims and socialists crisscross in the fighting against the Crusaders[//i]."
What our readers should understand is that the rulers in Iraq have also long admired the methods of bin Laden and other anti-American terrorists, going back before September 11, 2001. This is clear simply from reading the Iraqi press, which is of course government controlled. We sort through some of that evidence below, and nearby we reprint Iraqi magazine covers that give the most graphic indication of how much Saddam admires bin Laden's 9/11 handiwork.
[i][b]Baghdad Al-I'lam
September 11, 2002[/i] "Proof of U.S. Failure: Al Qaeda Still Exists[/i]"
As long ago as the bombing of the U.S. military offices in Riyadh in 1995, a November 14 Agence France Presse report from Baghdad quoted an official Iraq newspaper as saying, "The Tigers of the Gulf have shaken the Saudi throne and made Washington tremble." It praised the emergence of a "secret Saudi opposition movement" and predicted "dramatic events" in the country. A core bin Laden goal is of course to oust the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and topple its monarchy.
More recently, and eerily, a July 21, 2001, commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praised bin Laden: "In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it."
The article recounts bin Laden's attacks on U.S. targets and U.S. efforts "to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them bin Laden, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The commentary is ominously prescient, especially since it could never have appeared without official sanction. "Bin Laden is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit," it continues, speaking about his goal to "drive off the Marines" from Arabia. Most eerily of all, the writer adds that those Marines "will be going away because the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man . . . will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Did Saddam know what would happen two months later?
[i]Baghdad Alif Ba
September 11, 2002[/i]
"September 11 Events Revealed the True Face of America"
This convergence of Iraq and al Qaeda interests appeared again in the Iraqi press after September 11, this time in a commentary by Saddam Hussein's son, Uday. Writing in Babil on September 20, Uday sketches the scenarios for the war in Afghanistan he expects to come. Iraq should merely be "the spectator" at first, he writes, because "if we do anything Iraq will be attacked . . . perhaps like the attack of 1991."
he continues:
The Americans will join the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban, but will then "sink into the Afghan quagmire"--a point that could have been stolen at the time from the New York Times. But then the son of Saddam adds, "In this scenario, there is nothing wrong with Iraq turning from a spectator to an active player on its territory to restore the north, which has been out of its control since 1991." So Iraq's interests are again furthered by bin Laden's terror.
[i]Uday continues: "At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything. The attack might not necessarily be launched by the Islamists. It might be done by the Zionists or any other party through an agent. The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it."
For some reason, not to EVER be understood by me, we have American's here who will continue to support/argue the side of Saddam's innocense and how terrible our President is.
Well....for me and mine, we're thankful we have a President who is able to clearly see there are many groups of terrorists in this would that would 'pull together for and support' one another against the USA.
That's what sickens me so much, when I see the 'angry left' continuing to bash a President that is doing what he can to keep our country from suffering another 9-11. Will never understand American's not being on America's side.
posted on September 18, 2003 08:00:01 PM
Linda, don't get too upset... we both know that he will be in office until 2008.
It just boggles the mind that even after all is said and done, not one person from the left has had the decency to even be thankful we no longer have Saddam as a threat of any kind.
They ask who is next? Whoever needs it done...
Oh and I think you will find that recruiting is up...
posted on September 18, 2003 08:00:31 PM
KD - I don't agree. it sounds like they're trying to re-write history.
No one is re-writing anything. Helen cannot produce a quote from our president where he says there is a definate connection. He has reported just as have many others [outside this administration] what different sourses have stated. That's not lying. That's reporting on what intelligence is showing. Some agree some don't. That's the way it is in every administration and those on the oposite side.
But to continually side with American's enemies against a US president is treason, imo. I know that's a strong statement but I really mean it. This is not a Bush vs. Clinton or anyone else issue. This is about protecting our country from those who wish to see it destroyed. Especially, as I have posted many times, the LAST THREE ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE VIEWED Saddam in the same light.
posted on September 18, 2003 08:13:48 PM
twelvepole - Upset???? Did I appear upset?
These lefties are capable of reading. They KNOW that Clinton said the same thing about removing Saddam because of the threat he posed to the US. But what's more important to them? Bashing Bush or both parties working to protect our way of life? It looks pretty clear to me who's side they're on.
posted on September 18, 2003 08:19:31 PM
Linda, it was my impression that Bush went to war with Iraq, so soon after 911, because of the al qaeda connection (and also the imminent threat of nuclear WOMD being used). I don't know how far you can go back with old posts, but before the Iraqi war, nobody understood why Iraq was being targeted, other than being on the axil of evil list.
I agree that Saddam & Co. had to be removed from power. I just don't think Bush did it under the right circumstances. Now his fibs are catching up with him and the American people have to pay for them with their lives and pocketbook. It just seems a bit shady to me Linda.
posted on September 18, 2003 08:42:05 PM
KD - There are no FIBS. Only Helen's statement that Bush is to blame for people believing there was a connection. My position is that this could have occured because many people [outside this administration] believed it to be true and were reporting each and everytime a report found a connection and it was presented to the American public...NOT because our President said it was true.
It's a spin....a political spin. Plain and simple. Defenders of our enemies sicken me.
I agree that Saddam & Co. had to be removed from power. I just don't think Bush did it under the right circumstances.
That's the first time I've ever seen you post that you believe Saddam should have been removed. Maybe I just missed it before, but you always appear to me to side against the US position. Many don't think it was under the 'right circumstances'. That doesn't matter. Each administration does it's job and that is doing their best to protect our nation.
What matters is that Saddam was removed and that we win the war with all the terrorists who are fighting against our soldiers....not withdraw as some lefties support.
If we run from the terrorists now, they've won.
"...and the American people have to pay for them with their lives and pocketbook. Just like we had to pay with our pocketbook when 9-11 happened. More 9-11s would have been just as expensive...maybe more so when the total costs are figured in.
And yes, KD, thank God we have brave young men and women who feel they are fighting for a worthwhile cause and knowningly job to defend their country. If everyone felt like the anti-war people do, we'd be up shi$ creek.
But maybe the Saddam supporters would rather live under a ruler like Saddam since they appear to me to think everything that's happened to him has been because of an American president's lies.
posted on September 18, 2003 09:27:51 PM
What I do understand about the poll was that 70% of the people in the United States are very smart & can not pulled around by the nose by anyone.
This pole put the left in shock. They can not understand that 70% of the American people can think for themselves. That is the story. Not that someone lied to them.
