![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenIf you've been following the news over here in the US lately then you know that we're in the path of a hurricane. You may also notice this tiny little news story called "Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks".
Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks
Saddam did have al Qaeda ties, president says
Thursday, September 18, 2003 Posted: 2:03 AM EDT (0603 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 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 Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the September 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."
I want you to be aware of this because I want you to understand the full extent to which the man in office right now assumes that you, the American public, is RETARDED.
Now then, as I am on my way to work in what my computer's clock tells me is 3 minutes and counting, I do not have the time right now to search through every speech Dubya has ever made and prove or disprove if he ever made the direct accusation that, to quote our dear national security advisor, "Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11" so I'm willing to spot the president on this one. I'm willing to take on faith that he never said those words. You got it, Mr. Hail to the Chief. It's a gimme.
Allow me, though, to take what I am told is 0.23 seconds of my time to do a Google search on "President Bush" "9-11" and "Saddam".
The very first link that I get is to this article in the Christian Science Monitor which points out that by constantly mentioning 9-11 and Saddam in the same speeches as though they were related somehow that Dubya may have possibly given the impression that they were related somehow. Funny how that works.
This article is dated March 14, 2003 by the way, so it's not even a rebuttal to Bush's oh so generous clarification yesterday.
Then, for shits and giggles, I take another second out of my time to head on over to the White House's official website. The website is thoughtful enough to provide transcripts of what it calls Major Speeches. As this is the very thing we are attempting to clarify, I click on the link underneath it called "Iraqi Threat".
Read the speech that comes up, won't you? This speech, by the way, is dated October 7, 2002.
Ignoring the time that this transcript helpfully tells us when people applauded - the laugh track of presidental speeches, if you will - I'd like to highlight the following passages, with a few things I've put into bold to help them stand out:
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."
This is 3 paragraphs in, by the way, in a speech that, if I'm reading the captions here right, he gave at the Cinncinati Museum Center. Which I wasn't aware was a "Major Speech" occasion but who am I to dispute the White House's own judgement of which of Bush's words to value?
Let's go on:
"Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th."
"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. "
"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace."
I think you're starting to get the idea. Is he directly saying it? No. Is he implying it as strongly as all get out? Well, let's take a look at this paragraph, just in case it was still unclear:
"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. "
In other words, I'm not saying that President Bush has sex with underage Rottweilers, I'm just saying that he loves dogs, he's bought lube on occasion and he's been known to speak of how the youth of America are our future. You make your own conclusions.
Gee, all that and it only took 3 minutes of my time. Why is this man still in office again?
Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks
Saddam did have al Qaeda ties, president says
Thursday, September 18, 2003 Posted: 2:03 AM EDT (0603 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 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 Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the September 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."
I want you to be aware of this because I want you to understand the full extent to which the man in office right now assumes that you, the American public, is RETARDED.
Now then, as I am on my way to work in what my computer's clock tells me is 3 minutes and counting, I do not have the time right now to search through every speech Dubya has ever made and prove or disprove if he ever made the direct accusation that, to quote our dear national security advisor, "Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11" so I'm willing to spot the president on this one. I'm willing to take on faith that he never said those words. You got it, Mr. Hail to the Chief. It's a gimme.
Allow me, though, to take what I am told is 0.23 seconds of my time to do a Google search on "President Bush" "9-11" and "Saddam".
The very first link that I get is to this article in the Christian Science Monitor which points out that by constantly mentioning 9-11 and Saddam in the same speeches as though they were related somehow that Dubya may have possibly given the impression that they were related somehow. Funny how that works.
This article is dated March 14, 2003 by the way, so it's not even a rebuttal to Bush's oh so generous clarification yesterday.
Then, for shits and giggles, I take another second out of my time to head on over to the White House's official website. The website is thoughtful enough to provide transcripts of what it calls Major Speeches. As this is the very thing we are attempting to clarify, I click on the link underneath it called "Iraqi Threat".
Read the speech that comes up, won't you? This speech, by the way, is dated October 7, 2002.
Ignoring the time that this transcript helpfully tells us when people applauded - the laugh track of presidental speeches, if you will - I'd like to highlight the following passages, with a few things I've put into bold to help them stand out:
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."
This is 3 paragraphs in, by the way, in a speech that, if I'm reading the captions here right, he gave at the Cinncinati Museum Center. Which I wasn't aware was a "Major Speech" occasion but who am I to dispute the White House's own judgement of which of Bush's words to value?
Let's go on:
"Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th."
"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. "
"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace."
I think you're starting to get the idea. Is he directly saying it? No. Is he implying it as strongly as all get out? Well, let's take a look at this paragraph, just in case it was still unclear:
"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. "
In other words, I'm not saying that President Bush has sex with underage Rottweilers, I'm just saying that he loves dogs, he's bought lube on occasion and he's been known to speak of how the youth of America are our future. You make your own conclusions.
Gee, all that and it only took 3 minutes of my time. Why is this man still in office again?
