Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_saddam_5 By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) 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 new 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-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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." Read the quote at the end... *hilarious*. Bush includes Iraq and 9/11 in just about every single speech he could give leading up to war and now they can with a straight face say they made no claim there was a relation. That quote from Rice about Iraq being a threat from the area in which the 9/11 threat emerged is so freakin comical.
MSNBC: CYA Begins: Bush Admits No Connection Between Iraq and 9-11. On Countdown on MSNBC ( hardly a bastion of liberal journalism/Bush hating) the host and all three experts brought in agreed that this was an effort on the part of Bush et al to try and retreat off of the 'Broad sweeping statements" made pre-war which convinced the majority of US residents that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 and redefine their position with the election in mind, and the knowledge that they were vulnerable on this issue, among others. All of them considered this a gamble on Bush's part, because in that about 70% of the public bought the connection without any evidence, it might have been better to let that empty idea float by itself rather than admit it was erroneous and have the public...and the soldiers...who bought into Iraq as the war on terrorism now say " Well, wait a minute...you told us this was about 9-11...and now you're saying it never was?!!?!?" They showed 5 clips of Bush connecting 9-11 and Iraq, if not directly, at least with the agreed obvious intent to lead people to that conclusion...which worked, obviously. All of them agreed that this is huge. Bush: Saddam not part of Sept. 11 MSNBC News Services President Bush said Wednesday that there was no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq. "THERE'S NO QUESTION that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." The president's comment was the administration's firmest assertion that there was no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice President Dick Cheney clouded the issue Sunday by saying, "It's not surprising people make that connection." Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney also repeated an allegation, doubted by many in the intelligence community, that Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in the Czech Republic five months before Sept. 11, 2001. "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said Sunday. However, other U.S. authorities have said information gathered on Atta's movement showed that he was on the U.S. East Coast when that meeting supposedly took place. ALLEGATION HOTLY DISPUTED Critics of the Bush administration have pointed to statements like Cheney's as evidence that the administration was exaggerating al-Qaida's prewar links with Saddam to help justify the U.S.-led war against Iraq. A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam probably was personally involved. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday, "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-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush himself has taken to referring to Iraq as the central front in the war against terror. But Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaida. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." BUSH WOULD WELCOME SADDAM'S DEATH Bush spoke after a number of newspapers from states important to his re-election campaign printed articles Wednesday morning based on an interview he conducted Tuesday. In that interview, he predicted that Saddam would eventually be captured or killed, but he said the definition of victory in Iraq would be when the country was free and peaceful. The comments were published on the same day that a new audiotape surfaced in which the purported voice of Saddam demanded the United States unconditionally withdraw from Iraq or face "catastrophic" losses. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that Bush said that his policies for rebuilding Iraq and dismantling militant organizations were working but that the message had not filtered down to the public. In response to a question about the importance of capturing Saddam, Bush said: "The definition for victory is for there to be a free and peaceful Iraq. And yes, we'd like to capture or kill him, as well. And we will at some point in time." The alleged Saddam audiotape, meanwhile, called for Iraqi men and women to step up their fight against the U.S. occupation. "You Mujahedeen, Iraqis and women, increase your attacks on your enemies," the voice said. It sounded like Saddam's, but there was no way to independently verify who the speaker was. The man called on U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq immediately. "We call on you to withdraw your armies as soon as possible and without any conditions or restrictions, because there is no reason for you to suffer more losses, which will be disastrous for the Americans," he said, claiming that the recording was made in "mid-September." The man also called on Iraqis to protest against occupation in the streets, to "beat the walls in protest" and to donate money to the resistance. The last purported Saddam tape was broadcast Sept. 1 by the Al-Jazeera television network, and the CIA said it was likely authentic. REVENGE ATTACKS FEARED Al-Arabiya news editor Aymen Gaballah said the new tape was received Wednesday in Baghdad. As usual, he said, someone called the Al-Arabiya office and said he had a tape of Saddam. He said the tape was aired in its entirety, 14 minutes. Speaking with long pauses between thoughts and with the sound of papers rustling as if reading the message, the voice sounded to experienced ears to be that of Saddam, who sounded very tired. U.S. forces in Iraq have been plagued by guerrilla attacks blamed on Saddam's followers since he was ousted in April, hampering efforts to rebuild the country. In an interview published Wednesday, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, told The Times newspaper of London that U.S. soldiers now alsofaced revenge attacksfrom ordinary Iraqis angered by the occupation. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003
One interesting aspect covered on Countdown was that in addition to the majority of the American public who are going to feel mislead and betrayed by this, their experts say that the same proportion of US soldiers fighting in Iraq are their under the impression that they were fighting against terrorists (with WMD )because of 9-11. While the expert said that the troops are too professional and cohesive for this to have a physical effect on their efforts, there will almost certainly be a widespread sense of confusion and angry questions.
I don't know if the American public will feel mislead. Especially if around election time the Bush administration points to these statements and tries to claim that they never tried to make a connection. They will have these statements to use as evidence. On a sidenote, I really like Countdown. I hope that doesn't discredit it to the more conservative on the board. Keith Olberman adds the right amount of humor, and has an original show. I've seen him end segments between guests early because they were trying to talk over each other as opposing guests often do.
- no proof of Saddam link to 9/11 - no WMDs - no post-Iraq plan - no Saddam - no Taliban destruction - no al Queda destruction - no Bin Laden that's a whole lot of nothing.....
I wonder if the Bush team all get mad about this sort of backstabbing statment by Bush or if this is part of the plan. Here's Cheney dancing around to still imply the 9/11 lie on the talk shows and now Bush outs him a few days later. I still remember poor Condoleeza grimacing and staying on message as she maintained the Niger yellowcake thing was legit on a weekend talk show only to have, the Admin admit it was a forgery the next day or two. Will Bush get away with this? It depends on what the media does with it. If they don't play it up for a few weeks only the 10% who read newspapers or the internet will know. The proportion of people who know that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 will drop from 70% to 60%. Bush will be back to saying Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism and linked to Al Qaeda and he will be back asking for another $87 billion, which anti-war Demos will vote for so they won't be thought "soft:" on defense by the majority who still believes Sadam planned 9/11. Interesting Bush is still deceiving "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," . The reason I say deceiving is that the CIA and many governbment had Al Qaeda ties,. if you mean occasional contact, which is all that has been shown. this shows a change in message and is consitent with the new "Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism". A better message as it is harder to pin down the lies.
Isn't this kind of statement exactly what most of you have been calling for? A retraction of the connection between 9/11 and Saddam?
Did anyone REALLY think there was a link? I mean did they come out and SAY that Saddam was involved in 9-11? Nope, and any thinking person understood the relevance of the connection he had with Terrorism, or potential terrorism, and not 9-11. Glad to see that our leader is still stepping up as an honest man. DD
Yes some people did. A recent poll had 70% of Americans believing that Saddam was behind 9/11. As MacBeth said it wasn't accidental. On countdown they showed numerous Bush speeches where he made or inferred that very link. They showed Dick Cheney from this weekend trying to make a tie-in. When Russert asked him specifically Cheney said that he was careful not to say that exactly. So yes some people REALLY believed there was a connection. Those people were gullible enough to think that the President and his advisors wouldn't manipulate the facts to start a war.
The only argument with the retraction is that it's preemptive to prevent the democratic candidate from using Bush's earlier statements to impune his credibility. I think there is still anger of Bush and his crew pushing the connection previously. Just changing their tune a few months later doesn't make up for the initial misleading of the public in order to build support for starting war.
Anyone? Yes. Treeman and Johnheath have said so at length on this message board. Treeman himself has sworn to the veracity of Czech intelligence reports on many occasions. In addition, Treeman was citing (forged?) documents that linked the two that were found a British reporter "found" in a thread to MacBeth just this past week. Not to mention the 2/3 of Americans think this as well, and not to mention Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, et al. have eagerly tried to create this impression. I'm sure somebody could dig up a list of public statements by Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Feith, Perle and the rest that purposefullly hint at such a tie as well, but I'm not going to bother, as you'll just dismiss it with three line post any way "it doesn't matter, the war was good! Bush is Great DD" comical. Really comical. Welcome to hopeless shill-hood. Johnheath and tj have been waiting for you.
Bush might also want to clear up his stance on tax cuts and short term economic stimulus, before the 2004 election cycle really starts going.
Yes, they did. This was back when the UNSC was drafting its Iraq resolution, circa 9/2002. The Bush Admin stated that they found a connection and that they would make the linkage public shortly. They never did make it public, but they won the battle in the public opinion polls. Hign marks for political gamemanship; extremely low marks for statemanship. Pretty much sums up the GWB Presidency in a nutshell.
If anyone really believed there was a link they were not researching the facts. As for manipulating data etc...well, of course...DUH !! Every president has done this since the country was founded. Most people decide for themselves, not on what the president says. As for me, taking Saddam out and making a play for a more stable middle east was enough. DD
If Hayes says the statement is a retraction, then that means he is backing off another statement which was either a lie or at least wrong.
