It seems to me that when Bush tries to explain something to us, he does so in a way that sounds like he's regurgitating the same language that was used to explain the issue to him. Is it just me, or do others think that? Anyway, here's the President saying there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. washingtonpost.com Bush Asserts That Al Qaeda Has Links to Iraq's Hussein President Cites Potential Cooperation as Concern By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 26, 2002; Page A29 President Bush asserted a link yesterday between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network, saying he fears they will join forces and are already virtually indistinguishable. "The danger is, is that they work in concert," Bush said. "The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world." The administration had begun deemphasizing claims of links between Hussein and global terrorism. Senior intelligence officials told The Washington Post this month that the CIA had not found convincing proof, despite efforts that included surveillance photos and communications intercepts. U.S. officials have continued to hint at connections, however. Evidence linking Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks could help erode reservations on Capitol Hill and among world powers about the justification for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. A few hours before Bush's remarks, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked by reporters traveling with him in Warsaw if there are linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq. "I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes," he replied. Rumsfeld had just appeared before NATO defense ministers with CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin to give an intelligence briefing on the Iraqi threat. Rumsfeld said McLaughlin told them about linkages between Hussein and al Qaeda. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tried to play down the specificity of Bush's charge, saying the president was talking about what he feared could occur. Fleischer repeated the administration position that it would be a mistake to wait for a smoking gun. "Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq," he said. "In the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late." Bush was in the Oval Office with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia when he was asked whether Hussein was a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda. "That is an interesting question," Bush began. "I'm trying to think of something humorous to say." "But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," the president continued. "They're both risks. They're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government." Bush then drew another distinction that differs from longtime reports from the country. "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't," Bush said. In fact, military planners fear finding Hussein could be a challenge if Bush decides to depose him, because the Iraqi leader often works and sleeps at different palaces and other sites. "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," he said. "They're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." Bush praised Uribe, the Colombian president, who took office on Aug. 7 amid guerilla attacks, for his vision for the long process toward a peaceful and prosperous Colombia. "He's a man who told the people of his country that he would work to eradicate terrorism, narco-trafficking," Bush said. "The Colombian people believe him, and so do I." The two discussed ways Colombia can secure international aid to fight drugs and terrorism, and Bush said the United States is "certainly willing to help the government and the Colombian people realize a prosperous future." Fleischer said Bush told Uribe that the United States will press the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other organizations "to assure an increased flow of financial and development assistance." Bush made a connection between terrorism and drug trafficking when he cited the unsealing of federal charges Tuesday against Carlos Castano, head of a violent right-wing Colombian paramilitary group, who is accused of bringing 17 tons of cocaine into the United States and Europe since 1997. "The guy who got indicted yesterday made a decision to be a terrorist," Bush said. "We made a decision to hold him to account, and we will continue to do that."
I'm trying to wean myself of political threads, but here's an abcnews report of Condi Rice's statements concerning the link between Iraq and Al Q: ABC link for Condi Rice I want to believe this if it's true, but to me, it really seems like this administration keeps saying "trust us," and "details will follow," but I don't have that trust, and I never get the details.
I question Bush too sometimes, but I don't constantly call him an idiot like many around here. That being said, I'll jump on the bandwagon if he doesn't pick Rice for a running mate. That woman is smart, attractive, and oh so smooth.
Pole, I want him to pick Arlen Specter as a running mate. Then we could have bumper stickers that say "Bush-n-Specter." (I know, it's old. I just couldn't resist.)
I agree BBob. If we are going to war there, I would like to have just reason like this, but it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. The administration has said that Saddam was involved in 9/11 over and over again, and were contradicted by the U.S. intelligence agencies. Now they are saying it again. It may actually be true, but there is no way to know until we see the proof. There were certain some lies during the first Gulf War, saying that Iraqis were stealing Kuwaiti babies from incubators and slamming them on the ground. It turned out later that it wasn't true, and the girl who testified about was actually the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomat who wasn't even in Kuwait at the time she was testifying against. Then there were the sattelite photos of Iraqi troops gathering at the Saudi border, I believe it was a Miami paper that showed the real sattelite photos, and there was massing of Iraqi troops at the Saudi border. Now it's true that Saddam did invade Kuwait and that alone may have been enough to justify UN action, but the fact that certain things were made up, just breeds distrust. I try not to be too cynical. But I'll have to wait and see the proof before I buy into this 100%.
me too!! but I'll throw a little fuel on this fire... There very well may be a link to Iraq and Al-Qaida but the bigger link is Bush and his oil buddies to the 2nd largest untapped reserve of oil in the mid east, Iraq. When Bush attacks Iraq, installs a puppet government, he and his oil buddies will makes zillions from new petroleum plants, exploration, exporting and exploitation of untapped oil, we will no longer be dependant on Saudi oil... as I've stated before with Bush and his cronies, "it's all about oil"
I believe Bush said he believed there was the possiblity. Since there is a wealth of Iraqi defectors who have claimed Saddam has terror camps outside of Baghdad again there lies a possiblity. Now if you read that article a little close Mrs. Rice said the information came from al-qaida operatives after 9-11. How might they be able to prove this to you? Perhaps play the tape of the interrogation on television? Correct me if I'm wrong but many terrorists have been caught thanks to these interrogations. I wouldn't go right off the bat and say my country is lieing to me because this would be detrimental to the Bush team if proven they are in fact lieing to the American public.
X-PAC, nice post. I, for one, am not accusing anybody of throwing lies around at this point. But I would like (and more importantly, the WORLD would like) to see or hear a tape of an Iraqi official meeting with a proven Al Q member. The problem with "captured Al Q operatives say..." is that I don't know why (1) anyone would believe what ANY Al Q member would say, and (2) why any Al Q member WOULDN'T want us to attack Iraq! That's what the terrorists would love, IMHO. More conflict, more anger, more confusion, more hatred.
] I disagree whole-heartedly. The Rudy who cleaned up the City from crime and decay (see Times Square) is the same Rudy who exhibited great leadership and statesmanship after 9/11. In between those times he had marital problems and a health condition which changed his focus. The man we saw after 9/11 was still there the whole time though.
B-Bob posted my own thoughts on the matter. Al Qaeda has already lied. They've said that there would be a big strike in August and that Bin Laden would release a new tape of himself talking about that strike. It didn't happen. There may be a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. I'm just saying at this point, I'll wait and see. In the previous war with Iraq, there were lies spread prior to the action, so it's understandable if people are little skeptical.
It's not just your opinion. The stated goal of Bin Laden is to incite wars between muslims and the west. The funny thing to me is that with all the dossiers and the 2 month long marketing campaign (which has happend to push bad economic news and corporate responsibilty off the front page) is that we're finally hearing this now.
You say Rudy G had "marital problems " when he was banging his secretary like a screen door in a hurricane. Rudy G has the "great leadership and statesmanship" that this country needs right now. All those who want another adulterer in the White House, raise their hands and be counted. Of course, Republicans who commit adultery are a different breed than Clinton.
It is my opinion that many Presidents have had affairs. Most have done it discreetly...unlike Clinton. Not to mention the fact that Rudy is marrying the secretary rather than turning her into "America's Favorite Slut" like Clinton did to Monica.
The thing with rudy is this: He does well when he has a cause to rally against, like the whole clean up NY thing back in the early 90's (although it bears noting that nearly every big US city did the same thing at the same time) or the immediate crisis last september. But when there's nothing for him to do, he turns into don quixote tilting at windmills, such as the Brooklyn art museum fiasco, his war on jaywalkers. The last four years of his admin, coupled with his ugly public divorce and his publically ugly conduct regarding such, were bad, bad, bad up until the end. People here were fed up with him, and are for the most part satisfied with the job done by Bloomberg thus far.
I say we just all shake hands on the "affairs" issue (depending on where those hands have been. ). I mean, one guy marries his mistress but does destroy a marriage, one guy doesn't marry his mistress but stays married to his wife. As I always type (with limited effectiveness): tomayto, tomahto. It's slimely in both cases, and I didn't care about either case, except for all the bad jokes that came out of it.
You're kidding right? First off, it wasn't discreet if it ended up on the front page of the Post, and there was no independent prosecuter digging up dirt on that one. Second, your problem with Bill is that he didn't marry Monica? Somehow I have a feeling if he did that you'd bash him for abandoning his wife and daughter.
ask mr. packwood about that statement. i'm not happy with adultery...i'm less happy with lying under oath...one is punishable under the law...one isn't...detract from that issue if you must.
I know adultery is more fun to talk about, but I want to reiterate my questions from above (you know, the ones that relate to the thread). 1) Why would anyone ever trust what an Al Q terrorists says to an "infidel" like a US agent. If you want me to believe Al Q testimony, you better show me that you dosed that guy up with truth serum or some such. 2) Wouldn't an Al Q guy WANT us to attack Iraq? Increase tensions, maybe drag Israel into a full war against muslim states, etc. I hate to put myself in a terrorist's shoes, but that's what I would want, I think.
