How'd they get that impression, counselor?

How did people get the impression that Bonds used steroids? People believe lots of false things. If there's a lot of talk about A & B, people who aren't paying much attention may associate A & B even if nobody ever said that there was a connection.

If there's a lot of talk about A & B, people who aren't paying much attention may associate A & B

Who was it who was doing that lots of talk about A (9/11) and B (Iraq) in 2002-2003?

even if nobody ever said that there was a connection

You mean, like this:

Bush ... contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

To claim that the Bush administration didn't painstakingly, persistently, and tirelessly do everything it could to make sure that "people who aren't paying much attention" would absolutely associate 9/11 with Iraq in 2002-2003 is laughable.

And to defend that campaign with the defense that, well, they never, you know, specifically, categorically, distinctly said it, is even more laughable.

Who was it who was doing that lots of talk about A (9/11) and B (Iraq) in 2002-2003?

Bush never said that 9/11 didn't play into the decision to go into Iraq; to the contrary, he said that 9/11 did play into the decision -- but in the sense that 9/11 showed that we should no longer hope to just contain Saddam and we shouldn't wait until threats become imminent, not in the sense that Iraq was connected to 9/11. Those who weren't paying attention thought that Bush was saying something other than he said; that's not Bush's fault.

I really don't understand the logic. "Bush said X, but people who didn't bother to inform themselves of what Bush said thought he said not X, and that's Bush's fault."

As to the argument that Bush was cleverly planting the seeds in peoples' minds that Iraq was connected to 9/11 without actually saying it, that argument might carry more weight if the people making it weren't the same ones who have been insisting for the last 8 years that Bush is a blithering idiot. What happened - were you fooled by this moron?

Politics are indeed fascinating. I did a projection and, according to my system, if you adjust some years to reflect how people might have voted, you get the following results for Presidential Elections.

1972 McGovern
1976 Carter
1980 Reagan
1984 Mondale
1988 Bush
1992 Clinton
1996 Dole
2000 Gore
2004 Kerry

Next week, I will enlighten you with my projections from 1936 to 1968.

Bush never said that 9/11 didn't play into the decision to go into Iraq; to the contrary, he said that 9/11 did play into the decision -- but in the sense that 9/11 showed that we should no longer hope to just contain Saddam and we shouldn't wait until threats become imminent, not in the sense that Iraq was connected to 9/11. Those who weren't paying attention thought that Bush was saying something other than he said; that's not Bush's fault.

You're going with this? Seriously?

It doesn't even approach the outer fringes of the boundaries of persuasiveness.

What happened - were you fooled by this moron?

Um ... just who is it who might have been fooled here?

Bush ... contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

Classy. A quote which couldn't be more dishonest if it came from Kevin's mouth. It's pulled from this press conference:

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

In other words, if one takes a six sentence quote, ignores the very first sentence, and then pulls the last sentence out from the supporting sentences, one can make Bush say the opposite of what he said.

In other words, if one takes a five sentence quote, ignores the very first sentence, and then pulls the last sentence out from the supporting sentences, one can make Bush say the opposite of what he said.

False. Read the entire quote, exactly in Bush's words.

He states the first sentence in response to the question:

on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement

The entire reason Bush felt compelled to say it was because his administration had been spending months inferring anything but.

So he says, it, but then immediately he jumps into saying that Saddam "has been involved with al Qaeda."

When in fact all evidence is that Saddam, quite sensibly, feared and detested al Qaeda.

Are you kidding me with this? This is a Clintonian denial of the freaking obvious, steadfastly dissecting leaves in an effort to ignore the forest.

The entire reason Bush felt compelled to say it was because his administration had been spending months inferring anything but.

Actually, the entire reason Bush "felt compelled to say it" was because he was specifically asked about it.

So he says, it, but then immediately he jumps into saying that Saddam "has been involved with al Qaeda."

WTF? He was asked to explain Cheney's statement in light of Rice's and Rumsfeld's statements. Which is exactly what he did.

Your attempt at justifying your ill-gotten conclusion is unseemly, Steve.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

I don't really disagree with the point your trying to make, but these polls aren't the way to make it.

It's 2001: the attacks are still all over the media, and the details are fresh in people's memories. Iraq has never been mentioned anywhere. The US is engaging in a war in Afghanistan. If you ask the question: "Where did the terrorists come from" people are unlikely to say Iraq.

Fast forward to 2008: Memories aren't quite as fresh as they used to be. There's been an extensive war in Iraq. Iraq has been linked with terrorism. Now you ask the question: "How many of the hijackers do you think were Iraqis" people are unlikely to say "none".

When you ask a knowledge based question, to people who do not actually possess this knowledge, the circumstances in which the question is asked, and how the question is phrased are directly related to which awnser you will get. People possibly linking 9/11 with Iraq is only a part of the difference in the results. Which is why you can't directly compare the results of these two polls.

I'll admit it. I got curious. Haven't read any of the rest of the thread but had to jump in and check out the beginning of the second millennium of posts. And I find this.

Is there some buried joke in the previous pages to explain the position Ray DiPerna is taking here? It's some form of deep satire? The conversation somehow moved toward psychoanalysis and this is an effort to demonstrate the process of overidentification?

Fast forward to 2008: Memories aren't quite as fresh as they used to be. There's been an extensive war in Iraq. Iraq has been linked with terrorism. Now you ask the question: "How many of the hijackers do you think were Iraqis" people are unlikely to say "none".

The poll mentioned in the excerpt from the CS Monitor was taken in January 2003; the article was published March 24. Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched on March 19. Obviously, in January the reasons for going to war should have been fresher in people's minds than anything else.

PWNED!

PWNED!

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. The only reason I noticed the date was that I thought the number must be higher now.

Well, people shouldn't quote polls stating "by January of this year", when they are in fact not from this year, without mentioning it.

And yes, I feel totally pwned. ZOMG! This totally changes the fact that the two questions were phrased in a way that induces people to answer them differently.

And to defend that campaign with the defense that, well, they never, you know, specifically, categorically, distinctly said it, is even more laughable.

That's the Mainway schtick.

Well, people shouldn't quote polls stating "by January of this year", when they are in fact not from this year, without mentioning it.

The post with the quote came directly below the post where the article from which the quote appears was linked. I was posting rapid fire at the time, giggling all the while at the unintentional comedy provided
by the junior of the Mainway brothers. Sorry.

Actually, the entire reason Bush "felt compelled to say it" was because he was specifically asked about it.

And if there's one thing that's characterized this administration from the word "go," it's its "compulsion" to answer all questions asked of it in a direct and straightforward manner. Dick Cheney will always be known to me as "Captain Transparency."

Hilarious.

I had always thought that when I completed work on my flux capacitor, my first task would be to kidnap Larry Himes and force him to give Greg Maddux that extra 500K.... but now - it seems I could take on a higher task.

I could take Nieporent and DiPerna back to 2003 so they can explain to the media and the American public that the Bush/Cheney in no way meant for anyone to take their insinuations, maybes, and half-truths as evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.

Unreal.

It was the fault of the stupid American public, press, and congress for not understanding what what Bush/Cheney were telling us.

I guess Jonah Goldberg was right - George Bush is like an unappreciated great master... He would have been our bestest President ever if only we hadn't all screwed it up by failing to understand the nuances of his and his administration's statements.

Some of the posts in this thread are hilarious. Of course Bush and Cheney didn't mean people to get the wrong idea about poor Saddam...

yeeaaaaahhhhhh shhhhhhuuuuuurrrrre.....

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003)

Bush is only saying "could" here not in any way is he suggesting Saddam did, except of course by suggesting that he "aided and protected" them.

Some of the posts in this thread are hilarious. Of course Bush and Cheney didn't mean people to get the wrong idea about poor Saddam...

Well, I believe Karl Rove has made clear that the liberals tricksied poor George into attacking Iraq. The liberalses are tricksy!

Is there some buried joke in the previous pages to explain the position Ray DiPerna is taking here? It's some form of deep satire?

If only this site had more people on the left to ridicule someone once they made a pro-Bush point, the site might be more balanced. But the liberals here are outnumbered.

If only this site had more people on the left to ridicule someone once they made a pro-Bush point, the site might be more balanced. But the liberals here are outnumbered.

Uh-oh, watch out! It's one of those clever "misdirection" tactics.

It breaks down this way:

1. Offer up something patently ludicrous.
2. When it's roundly hooted for the ludicrousness it is, point the other way! Complain that you're outnumbered by meanie liberals! (Note: if you actually are a Republican politician, complain about the meanie liberal media.)
3. Endlessly repeat steps (1) and (2).

If only this site had more people on the left to ridicule someone once they made a pro-Bush point, the site might be more balanced. But the liberals here are outnumbered.

Weak sauce. That's not even good snark.

How did people get the impression that Bonds used steroids? People believe lots of false things.

You might be the last person left on earth who doesn't believe that Bonds used steroids. That kind of dedication deserves some sort of medal.

If only this site had more people on the left to ridicule someone once they made a pro-Bush point, the site might be more balanced. But the liberals here are outnumbered.

People aren't ridiculing those making pro-Bush points. They're ridiculing those making arguments that aren't tethered to reality. You're arguing that day is night and that black is white.

Are you making these arguments because you truly believe that Bush wasn't trying to connect 9/11 and Iraq, or because you don't like liberals and don't want to admit they might have been right?

Bush is only saying "could" here not in any way is he suggesting Saddam did, except of course by suggesting that he "aided and protected" them.

But he did aid and protect terrorists. Do you understand that terrorists != Al Qaeda?

There is no proof anywhere worth calling proof that Saddam had any connections with Al Qaeada.

I take post 1051 as parody.

People aren't ridiculing those making pro-Bush points. They're ridiculing those making arguments that aren't tethered to reality. You're arguing that day is night and that black is white.

That might make sense... if I wasn't the one pointing to Bush's actual words. Nobody has yet to produce a quote from Bush stating that Iraq was connected to 9/11. The people pointing to opinion polls are the ones arguing that day is night.

That might make sense... if I wasn't the one pointing to Bush's actual words.

Pointing to words, but ignoring subtext, innuendo, and intent.

I take post 1051 as parody.

Ok, actual request for information: what evidence do you have that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 version of Al-Qaeda? With the non-9/11 version?

Pointing to words, but ignoring subtext, innuendo, and intent.

Yeah, Ray. You're ignoring things that aren't there!

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


there is a letter from Bush directly stating his belief that Saddam did have something directly to do with 9/11

Yeah, Ray. You're ignoring things that aren't there!

Well, seeing as how both of you are paid to be almost obsessively literal, it's understandable.

Ok, actual request for information: what evidence do you have that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 version of Al-Qaeda? With the non-9/11 version?

Ok, actual request for effort: read more carefully.

I see evidence that Bush claims that Saddam had ties to 9/11. We also have evidence that Bush lies about the evidence he has.

Pointing to words, but ignoring subtext, innuendo, and intent.

Yeah, Ray. You're ignoring things that aren't there!

"not placed in words" /= "nonexistent." HTH. Unless you'd care to argue that there was no subtext to Bush's remarks, and he didn't deliver them with an "intent" in mind. If you think the "intent" was other than to connect Hussein's regime with 9/11 in the public consciousness, what do you think it was?

Or, what 1057 said. And I'm a member of that same literalness-obsessed profession.

there is a letter from Bush directly stating his belief that Saddam did have something directly to do with 9/11

The text of this letter was prescribed by the AUMF, not by Bush, and once you realize that, you realize that it says nothing of the kind. (Don't you think that if Congress had passed a law in 2002 saying, "You can only invade Iraq if it was responsible for 9/11," that someone might have noticed and commented on it?) Seriously, I swear that people can't read. That doesn't state Bush's belief that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That certifies, as required by Congress, that invading Iraq (a) is understaken only after diplomacy has failed, and (b) will not undermine ("is consistent with") the war on terror.

From a 2004 WaPo article:

"In late 2001, Cheney said it was 'pretty well confirmed' that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the 'geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.' "

I'll anticipate the retort: "Despite what those on the left believe, Cheney and Bush aren't the same person! We're talking about Bush!"

Fair enough. So let's agree that the Bush Administration was perpetrating the lie in question.

The first statement -- about Atta's meeting in Prague -- turns out to have been wrong, but at the time he said it, there was indeed evidence for it. (In any case, note that it does not say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11; it's allegations of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.)

The second, as can be seen from your quote, is half a sentence; the actual statement by Cheney does not, in fact, "call Iraq" anything of the kind. The actual quote is:

This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Anybody who thinks that this statement says "Iraq was involved with 9/11" needs a reading comprehension lesson.

If you think the "intent" was other than to connect Hussein's regime with 9/11 in the public consciousness, what do you think it was?

It's both more and less than that. I'm not saying that I liked the policy, but here's what I believe the administration was going for:

The Bush administration was taking advantage of a frightened nation in order to prosecute an otherwise unpopular war. I don't believe it rises to the level of outright lies, but I think it's pretty clear that they didn't mind laying out the facts in such a way that people could easily conclude that Iraq and 9/11 were much more related than reality. Perhaps I'm simply a pessimist, but that doesn't seem dramatically different than what politicians and the media generally do to convince people... cherry-picking facts, arranging them deceptively, and failing to correct misconceptions.

"Victory" in Afghanistan was a particularly unsatisfying result. There wasn't a face to put on our success. We didn't have Bin Laden in custody or his body. There wasn't a dramatic change the country could point to. What was needed was a polarizing figure that everyone agreed was a bad person that could be defeated and make us feel less helpless. Saddam was the easiest "bad guy" to find and beat up. I also think that the administration honestly believed that Iraq and the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and his deranged sons in power.

The Iraq war was also a message to other world powers that were less practical to attack outright, like North Korea and China. A message that the United States was not unwilling to resort to military force. Whether Iraq had WMDs or not, it was clearly a power that was looking for them.

The Iraq was was an attempt to establish a stronger military foothold in the Middle East, or at the least, a large, relatively wealthy Middle Eastern country that was sympathetic to the United States. The soundbite that people like to pick on about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here is not complete hogwash. If Iraq stabilizes, it may very well be that we can get better intelligence that works against future attacks. It also may serve as a launching point for further military action if it becomes necessary.

The administration believes that is not politically or economically viable to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil within an acceptable timeframe, and there's simply too much oil in Iraq for us not to get more directly involved out of sheer self-interest.

I'm sure it wasn't an unwanted side-effect that a country is generally more reluctant to switch leaders in times of war, and the election wasn't far away. Especially if you're the party generally thought of as having the pulse of the military.

Some of these are terrible reasons to go to war. Few of them are particularly noble. Some of them are very pragmatic. We know that we've paid a significant price for the War in Iraq, and we'll continue to do so. We don't know that we wouldn't have paid a more severe cost if we hadn't gotten involved, and we can't know for decades to come. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I do think history is going to be a lot kinder to him than people think right now.

I used that Cheney quote in 1023, BTW, from an LA Times article, And as Ray and David know, Dayn Perry is not one of us pathetic commiesympathizinggunfearingObamaloving lefties.

This has been pretty good. In SNL terms, Ray and David are more like the Martin Short tobacco guy than Aykroyd's Mainway character--Mainway was sort of likable, the con man who lets you peek at the cards. The "minimal level of reading comprehension" line was dead-on with the Short character--cold, arrogant, superior.

But the problem is that Bivens asked "How did they get that impression?" And it is clear--even in the quote Ray uses with the bold type--that the Bush Administration did all it could to create that impression without making an absolute categorical statement, although Cheney does come close. I am not at all in the Bush-is-evil/stupid camp like many of my ideologically-aligned friends are (He's just "despicable", eh Ray? Big difference), but the Bush Administration--with the help by the way of the "liberal media"--did all it could to create that "impression" without having proof. Now, you can partially blame the voters if you want. We, as a country, elected Bush in 2004. But to act like the Bush Administration and Bush himself had nothing to do with it is bizarre.

[quo/te]Anybody who thinks that this statement says "Iraq was involved with 9/11" needs a reading comprehension lesson.

Anyone who doesn't think that statement was not carefully crafted to imply a link between Iraq and 9/11 is a pseudo-Libertarian Republican flack.

Perhaps I'm simply a pessimist, but that doesn't seem dramatically different than what politicians and the media generally do to convince people... cherry-picking facts, arranging them deceptively, and failing to correct misconceptions.

Agree, and this is one reason--other than just personal sensibilities--that I am not a Bush-is-evil type lefty.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I do think history is going to be a lot kinder to him than people think right now

.

Possibly, or it may go the opposite way. Too early to tell. But I agree in the sense that I am a big believer in the idea that we cannot evaluate a president objectively until a generation or so has passed from the time he leaves office. This is why my reading about presidents the last few years has focused on LBJ, and Nixon. I will read more about Reagan and Clinton down the line.

I think I can adopt what CrosbyBird says in 1065, except for the implication that the U.S. attacked Iraq because our attack on Afghanistan was "unsatisfying." I don't think that's true; I think they were viewed independently. Bush wanted to attack Iraq, for many of the reasons you lay out, and would have wanted to do so even if Bin Laden's head were on a stick. One important thing to note is that there were/are different players -- Neoconservatives, Realists, liberal internationalists, etc. -- which is why there were so many different reasons.

The Bush administration was taking advantage of a frightened nation in order to prosecute an otherwise unpopular war. I don't believe it rises to the level of outright lies, but I think it's pretty clear that they didn't mind laying out the facts in such a way that people could easily conclude that Iraq and 9/11 were much more related than reality.

Yes. However...

Perhaps I'm simply a pessimist, but that doesn't seem dramatically different than what politicians and the media generally do to convince people... cherry-picking facts, arranging them deceptively, and failing to correct misconceptions.

I don't disagree with this either, but the stakes--certainty of loss of significant life and treasure, law of unintended consequences with regard to the military and political situation post-invasion (which the administration pretty clearly did a half-assed [at best] job of preparing for anyway)--were much higher in this instance than in your run-of-the-mill policy disagreement. I think where war is being considered, there is an ESPECIALLY strong obligation to rise above "what politicians and the media generally do to convince people."

(In any case, note that it does not say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11; it's allegations of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.)

Honestly, you sense no implication in those words? Really?

Anybody who thinks that this statement says "Iraq was involved with 9/11" needs a reading comprehension lesson.

You realize, of course, that the full quote adds no context, right? Again: You sense no implication in those words? I suppose you think the White House had nothing to do with the Habbush Memo?

I used that Cheney quote in 1023, BTW, from an LA Times article, And as Ray and David know, Dayn Perry is not one of us pathetic commiesympathizinggunfearingObamaloving lefties.

My bad, missed that. I'm voting for Obama, but I just can't bring myself to love him. It's sad, really.

It's abortion, guns, and the War on Doobage that keep me from being a Democrat. It's just about everything else that keeps me from being a Republican.

(Edited for an embarrassing lapse in subject-verb agreement.)

"not placed in words" /= "nonexistent." HTH. Unless you'd care to argue that there was no subtext to Bush's remarks, and he didn't deliver them with an "intent" in mind. If you think the "intent" was other than to connect Hussein's regime with 9/11 in the public consciousness, what do you think it was?

Oddly, I think Bush's intent was to explain to people his view that 9/11 changed how we should deal with Iraq. Because, you know, that's what he said.

Look, Bush can be criticized on many fronts w/r/t to Iraq. If you want to argue that his worldview on this was flawed, fine. But claiming he meant the opposite of what he said is pretty bizarre.

My bad, missed that. I'm voting for Obama, but I just can't bring myself to love him. It's sad, really.

No reason you should, based on what I know about your beliefs. I was just reminding Ray and David that it isn't just Obamaniacs like me talking at them here (JPWF is an undecided independent, IIRC. I am pretty sure retro, zonk and Steve are all voting for Obama).

Robinred: WTF does Obama have to do with this discussion?

Robinred: WTF does Obama have to do with this discussion?

If only this site had more people on the left to ridicule someone once they made a pro-Bush point, the site might be more balanced. But the liberals here are outnumbered.

****

Robinred: WTF does Obama have to do with this discussion?

Ray: I think your brain is stuck.

Or Ray thinks mine is.

It was a simple point: Dayn, in spite of his electoral choice, has no great love for liberal policies/politics/politicians, as exemplified at this moment in our history by Obama, so this little dust-up is not entirely a lefty/righty thing. You suggested you were getting hassled/disagreed with because of "liberals." That ain't the whole story.

My guess, actually, is that you and Dayn agree on more issues overall than Dayn and I do.

I am praying for Ray to make a full recovery.

I am praying for Ray to make a full recovery

.

Change we can believe in.

I am not a MADTV fan, but I saw about one minute of it Saturday and they have a guy who does a pretty good Obama. He kept saying "change and hope, change and hope" and finally welcomed the new cast members to "our community of 'chope'." The guy who was doing McCain didn't have him nailed at all.

I have not seen SNL in months, but I noticed they had to do the no-brainer and bring Fey back to be Palin.

Some of these are terrible reasons to go to war. Few of them are particularly noble. Some of them are very pragmatic. We know that we've paid a significant price for the War in Iraq, and we'll continue to do so. We don't know that we wouldn't have paid a more severe cost if we hadn't gotten involved, and we can't know for decades to come. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I do think history is going to be a lot kinder to him than people think right now.

Interesting. I agree with much of what you said though I disagree with how history will view him. Bush is the president who presided over the fall of the American Empire. A man who responded to the challenge of war by trying to convince the American people that torture wasn't torture. He has made sophistry his vocation and the truth a mockery. He is the paragon of doublespeak and the breeder of nihilism. He has purged the bureacracy of professionalism and replaced it with a culture of cynicism, ideological loyalty and corruption. He has consistently cloaked vice in virtue until we can no longer tell the difference. Under his watch the United States has descended in an orgy of unmatched greed, avarice, consumerism and selfishness from which it may never recover. No, I don't think history will look kindly upon him.

And I say this as someone who has been accused of being a conservative.

Honestly, you sense no implication in those words? Really?

So you guys are saying that there's simply nothing Bush could have said about a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that you would not claim had an "insinuation," "subtext," "implication," etc. of blaming Iraq for 9/11. Even if he explicitly disclaims it in the same paragraph. It's impossible to say one without also trying to get people to believe the other. If he says X, he's insinuating Y. If he says Not Y, he's insinuating Y. If he says absolutely positively 100% not Y, that's just part of the trick.

You realize, of course, that the full quote adds no context, right?

I don't realize that, no. (That wasn't the full quote, btw; just an extended one. Cheney goes on for longer about the administration's worldview.)

Again: You sense no implication in those words? I suppose you think the White House had nothing to do with the Habbush Memo?

The one that Suskind's alleged sources say on the record that they didn't tell him about? Or is there another one? (You'd think if Bush were going to forge and leak a document to link iraq to 9/11, he'd have done it before the war rather than nine months after the war. It would be rather less effective at that point at convincing people to go to war.)

Under his watch the United States has descended in an orgy of unmatched greed, avarice, consumerism and selfishness from which it may never recover.

I was getting excited for a minute, until I realized how dumb and out of touch with reality the claim really was.

This thread is reaching new heights of hilarity.

The Bush administration owns the push to invade Iraq. The Bush administration owned Iraq in 2003. They owned in 2006. They own it today - and they will own it in 3008.

They pushed it like a charlatan hawking some sort of non-regulated herbal supplement, making sure they never quite got on the record going as far as the nonsense pushed by nutjobs like David Horowitz and the like; but make no mistake -- there wasn't any 'misinterpretation'. All the Bush administration did was make sure to leave themselves enough (debatable) plausible deniability.

If the Bushies governed even a tiny fraction as well as they played politics - perhaps the next President wouldn't be staring at shambles domestically and abroad.

We could have had a national debate about the shifting foreign policy 9/11 wrought, but we didn't -- and that is to the discredit of the administration... not people who didn't "listen closely" and paid attention to the wink, wink mushroom cloud babble.

It wasn't strictly a public show, either.

Check out Barton Gellows' Angler.

And in particular - pay attention to the chapter where Dick Armey is spun like a top into believing that Saddam Hussein not only had a burgeoning nuclear program, but also had magical miniaturization abilities that he was ready to start handing out to al Qaeda.

There was a coordinated effort in front of the cameras to surreptitiously tie Iraq to 9/11, and there was concerted and organized effort to lie behind the scenes.

Anyone who says otherwise slept through 2002 and 2003.

It was a simple point: Dayn, in spite of his electoral choice, has no great love for liberal policies/politics/politicians, as exemplified at this moment in our history by Obama, so this little dust-up is not entirely a lefty/righty thing. You suggested you were getting hassled/disagreed with because of "liberals." That ain't the whole story.

I was joking about the people who claim that this site is balanced; I don't care if I get attacked for my comments.

As for this being not "entirely" a lefty/righty thing, not that it matters, but I don't see a single conservative in this discussion. Unless flournoy is, but he barely commented.

I agree with the CrosbyBird interpretation as well. And I'm the Communist, although I have been reading about anarcho-syndicialism and maybe it needs to make a comeback...

It's quite interesting that that is no direct statement linking 9/11->Iraq, and yet the perception of the link is very strong. As CB says, they certainly did nothing to correct this "misinterpretation".

Could Bush have actually *scared* by the 9/11 attacks? So much so that he, really, honestly felt that the "hostile" Hussien regime would NOW be emboldened to undertake such attacks?

So you guys are saying that there's simply nothing Bush could have said about a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that you would not claim had an "insinuation," "subtext," "implication," etc. of blaming Iraq for 9/11.

Wrong. The issue isn't about what hypothetically might have happened, and how people might have interpreted it. The issue is about what did happen, and how people actually did interpret it.

And performing a lawyerly arabesque to attempt to somehow explain that what did happen, well, really didn't, it was just mass delusion on everyone's part but yours and Ray's, is comical. Your contention that the Bush administration didn't actually make a sustained and concerted effort to conflate 9/11 and Saddam doesn't even rise to the level of an argument worth refuting. It's fantasy.

As for this being not "entirely" a lefty/righty thing, not that it matters, but I don't see a single conservative in this discussion. Unless flournoy is, but he barely commented.

When lefties don't have real conservatives to attack, they'll round up the libertarians and CALL them conservatives.

the United States has descended in an orgy of unmatched greed, avarice, consumerism and selfishness

Sounds like fun, sorry I missed it.

And performing a lawyerly arabesque to attempt to somehow explain that what did happen, well, really didn't, it was just mass delusion on everyone's part but yours and Ray's, is comical. Your contention that the Bush administration didn't actually make a sustained and concerted effort to conflate 9/11 and Saddam doesn't even rise to the level of an argument worth refuting. It's fantasy.

I couldn't agree more, but then all of Ray's posts follow this pattern. What's interesting is it isn't even consistent skepticism. He applies extreme skepticism to those positions with which he disagrees and then follows that up with the most wide eyed credulousness in other areas.

It's quite interesting that that is no direct statement linking 9/11->Iraq, and yet the perception of the link is very strong. As CB says, they certainly did nothing to correct this "misinterpretation".

So when Bush said we had no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, that was "certainly doing nothing to correct the misinterpretation"?

So not only did Bush "insinuate" a connection, but when he actively asserted that there wasn't one, he was "doing nothing" to correct the insinuation. Okay.

Wrong. The issue isn't about what hypothetically might have happened, and how people might have interpreted it. The issue is about what did happen, and how people actually did interpret it.

That wasn't an answer. Is there anything Bush could have said that you wouldn't have "interpreted" the way you wanted? Because if you're just going to hold both sides of the conversation, then why bother to quote Bush at all? Your beliefs are as faith based as Bush's apparently were about WMD in Iraq. (At least he had George Tenet telling him it was a Slam Dunk; you guys are relying on Frank Rich.)

And performing a lawyerly arabesque to attempt to somehow explain that what did happen, well, really didn't, it was just mass delusion on everyone's part but yours and Ray's, is comical. Your contention that the Bush administration didn't actually make a sustained and concerted effort to conflate 9/11 and Saddam doesn't even rise to the level of an argument worth refuting. It's fantasy.

Silly Ray and me. We both seem to think that if you're going to say, "So-and-so did X," you ought to have evidence that so-and-so did X. (Why is it that demanding actual proof is always derided as "lawyerly" by those who sneer at Bush's approach to facts?)

And performing a lawyerly arabesque to attempt to somehow explain that what did happen, well, really didn't, it was just mass delusion on everyone's part but yours and Ray's, is comical.

How in the world is it a "lawyerly arabesque" to point to Bush's actual words? (And I don't mean in the way you tried to do, Steve, which was to present his actual words ripped out of context, in a lame Charlie Gibsonesque sort of way.) I'm not the one claiming Bush meant something other than what he said.

Your contention that the Bush administration didn't actually make a sustained and concerted effort to conflate 9/11 and Saddam doesn't even rise to the level of an argument worth refuting. It's fantasy.

Bush talked about a changed worldview, Steve. A changed worldview. That 9/11 changed how we should deal with Iraq. That's the "connection."

Your contention that the Bush administration didn't actually make a sustained and concerted effort to conflate 9/11 and Saddam doesn't even rise to the level of an argument worth refuting. It's fantasy.

FWIW he also contends that Nixon never had a "Southern Strategy" either.


Anyway Bush may come out looking a lot better on the Iraq issue than lefties seem to care to contemplate. Hussein was a thug among thugs. Iraq still could turn into something approximating a democracy, while at the same time NOT financing suicide bombers in other countries- that counts as an improvement in World Affairs

Could Bush have actually *scared* by the 9/11 attacks? So much so that he, really, honestly felt that the "hostile" Hussien regime would NOW be emboldened to undertake such attacks?

I think this is a likely situation. There was definitely a neo-con push to "get Iraq" from even before the 2000 election. I'm not sure Bush was ever a part of it or a particular supporter of the idea. I think he may actually have meant it when he campaigned on lessening our foreign intervention and eschewing nation building. But 9/11 was huge. I think many of us have dealt with our feelings/views that changed that day but for the vast majority of the country, as terrible as it was, life got back to normal soon enough. Sure we thought about it and discussed it and its implications but you went back to work, watched ballgames, played with your kids. But think about Bush, he's been hearing all these guys talk to him about the "threat" of Iraq and all of a sudden, bang 3000 dead Americans on your watch. I don't see anyway it didn't radically alter his participation in the neo-con dialogue. I'm sure it's still with him to this day and I don't say that critically. To have the responsibility he has and be in the position he was in and to get hit with such an event and its fallout is beyond imagination. That doesn't excuse him in anyway, he's been a terrible president. But, on a human level, I feel bad for him. When you're elected president, you'll make history, for good or bad. It must really suck for it to be for bad.

As for the American Empire, it will be back. Hell the British lost a ton of wealth and face in the late 18th century and within another 50 years were kicking the world's ass again. Expecting an empire to stay at the same level over time is nuts.

That wasn't an answer. Is there anything Bush could have said that you wouldn't have "interpreted" the way you wanted?

There's a million things he could have said that I wouldn't have interpreted in the way that I did. He could have told the truth, for example. But he didn't. He said what he did, and I interpreted it the way I did. The attempt to turn this into a hypothetical of what might have happened won't succeed in deflecting us from understanding that your contention is that what happened, didn't happen, and it's our powers of perception that are the problem.

When lefties don't have real conservatives to attack, they'll round up the libertarians and CALL them conservatives.

Only those who spin energetically for for the GOP day after day. And as stated, JPWF and Dayn aren't really "lefties" except perhaps on the baseball field.

Bush talked about a changed worldview, Steve. A changed worldview. That 9/11 changed how we should deal with Iraq. That's the "connection."

Quite frankly, I wish he'd just left the matter at that, inasmuch as that would have been a more than adequate casus belli: "We were just attacked by terrorist barbarians, Saddam Hussein consorts with terrorist barbarians, we're in something resembling a state of war with him already, and our policy is being changed to reflect explicitly that we're going to remove him from power, by force if necessary. The world has changed." (**)

(**) Which -- anticipating flaming -- doesn't come close to excusing the monumentally incompetent planning and prosecution of the war.

I disagree with how history will view him. Bush is the president who presided over the fall of the American Empire. A man who responded to the challenge of war by trying to convince the American people that torture wasn't torture. He has made sophistry his vocation and the truth a mockery. He is the paragon of doublespeak and the breeder of nihilism. He has purged the bureacracy of professionalism and replaced it with a culture of cynicism, ideological loyalty and corruption. He has consistently cloaked vice in virtue until we can no longer tell the difference. Under his watch the United States has descended in an orgy of unmatched greed, avarice, consumerism and selfishness from which it may never recover. No, I don't think history will look kindly upon him.

I think that's how people look at him right now, without the benefit of perspective. That which is closest always seems the largest.

If you look with a fine enough comb, you will find evidence of the culture of selfish consumption you're criticizing for as long as this country has existed. The Revolutionary War was financially motivated. We were an imperialist nation from the start, convinced that the economic and civil rights of non-Americans were less valid than our own. All our politicians lied, and all of them twisted the law in times of crisis. All of them had a public face and a private face. All of them were beholden to special interests.

Here's where I am fairly confident that Bush will be viewed as a better president in 2058 than he is in 2008. The jury isn't out for most people. The people that are staunch Bush supporters are almost universally party-based voters and aren't going to change their minds. The people that are rabidly anti-Bush will not be able to sustain the hatred in the face of new issues. It's hard not to do better than "worst president in the history of the United States" as time passes.

Right now, there are many people who state as incontrovertible fact that Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen. Let's see how well the next guy does with what he inherits and how easy it would have been to govern through these times. Let's see what Iraq looks like in 2025. There's not a high bar to improve beyond "complete failure."

There's a million things he could have said that I wouldn't have interpreted in the way that I did.

I don't believe you. Based on the fact that you insist on interpreting "Iraq is not responsible for 9/11" as an insinuation that Iraq is responsible for 9/11, I don't think there's anything Bush could have said that you would not interpret the way you want to.

Bush is the president who presided over the fall of the American Empire.

I just checked a few minutes ago to be certain, and as I suspected, we still have the same system of government that we've had for 232 years, the government is still functioning, and the White House and Capitol haven't yet been burned down to the ground by pillaging invading hordes. Even putting aside the dubious assertion that our "empire" has "fallen", I would think this would be a turn of events most folks here would welcome.

Under his watch the United States has descended in an orgy of unmatched greed, avarice, consumerism and selfishness from which it may never recover.

I've been hearing this same sort of nonsense since Reagan was in office, yet we have a Gross Domestic Product three times higher than the next highest country, the highest level of immigration in the world with people willing to risk their very lives to come here and make a better life for themselves (no other country comes close), and we're easily the most generous nation that has ever existed in the history of mankind.

There's a million things he could have said that I wouldn't have interpreted in the way that I did.

I don't believe you.

I think this pretty much sums up the entire thread. Maybe the entire world.

Silly Ray and me. We both seem to think that if you're going to say, "So-and-so did X," you ought to have evidence that so-and-so did X. (Why is it that demanding actual proof is always derided as "lawyerly" by those who sneer at Bush's approach to facts?)

It's lawyerly to obsessively parse a few select quotes to support your predetermined position. You seem to have adopted the Bush admin. and the claim that it didn't link 9/11 and IRaq as your client, and you're arguing for your position as an attorney would. It's clear that you have no interest in determining the "truth" -- you're simply trying to win the argument. (just like your suggestion that it's unfair to state that Bonds took steroids because no one has produced a smoking gun admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

Only those who spin energetically for for the GOP day after day. And as stated, JPWF and Dayn aren't really "lefties" except perhaps on the baseball field.

Eh, if Ray and DMN were abducted by the libertarian mothership tomorrow and never posted here again, the liberals would just turn their guns on the next most "non-liberal" poster. Heck RR, you're probably like 8th or 9th in line for that here... best hope nothing bad happens to all the libertarians. ;-)

Also, while I'm not particularly interested in reprising "Bush Lied, People Died!" I'd like to second Crosby's take on the Iraq War and Bush's role in it as set forth in #1065. Best post here in a good while.

Based on the fact that you insist on interpreting "Iraq is not responsible for 9/11" as an insinuation that Iraq is responsible for 9/11

Which of course you have to realize isn't true at all. What I (and the vast majority of the planet) insist on interpreting as insinutation that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 was the gazillions of statements the Bush administration made in 2002-2003 that were distinctly different from the few "Iraq is not responsible for 9/11" utterances that you so desperately want us to believe are all that was said.

I think many of us have dealt with our feelings/views that changed that day but for the vast majority of the country, as terrible as it was, life got back to normal soon enough.

I was fortunate enough not to lose anyone on September 11, but life has never gone back to normal for me, and I don't think it has for most of my friends and family. It may be specific to living in the New York City area. Life isn't normal with armed soldiers in Penn Station.

Most of the people of the United States, and I include myself in this, had never experienced the concept of "terror," and things changed that day. An attack could come, without warning, in peacetime, targeting civilians, through the transportation network that is vital to our country's functioning. Lots of people didn't look at an Arab on an airplane as frightening... there had been hijacked planes, but that was in other countries... not America.

We have been a fortunate nation to have been spared the horrors of war on our home soil for generations. I think something changes in a person when they discover that they are not so safe as they thought themselves.

we're easily the most generous nation that has ever existed in the history of mankind.

These numbers indicate otherwise:

Private Philanthropy as a Percentage of GDP (1995-2000)

Net ODA in 2007 as percent of GNI

Quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving/GDP (%)

That's not to say that the US isn't generous, but rather that it's not the most generous.

an orgy of unmatched greed, avarice, consumerism and selfishness...the highest level of immigration in the world with people willing to risk their very lives to come here and make a better life for themselves

I think it just goes to show that most people are greedy, avaricious, selfish and burn with lust for consumer products. If that's a better life, they are welcome to it.

Exstingue flammas litium,
Aufer calorem noxium,
Confer salutem corporum,
Veramque pacem cordium.

Why is it that demanding actual proof is always derided as "lawyerly" by those who sneer at Bush's approach to facts?)

It's lawyerly to obsessively parse a few select quotes to support your predetermined position.

"Select quotes"???? These are the very quotes being cited as evidence for the opposite proposition. I'm not going out and hunting down an obscure quote somewhere where Bush says "Iraq isn't responsible for 9/11"; I'm taking the quotes that liberals here are putting forward and simply providing the entire quote, rather than half of the sentence or paragraph.

These are the very quotes being cited as evidence for the opposite proposition.

When, of course, they aren't. When one reads the entire quote, rather than half of the sentence or paragraph, that becomes abundantly clear.

And moreover the desire to focus our attention on the few quotes cited in this thread also fails the credibility test, given that the issue at hand was the broad, full context of Bush administration communication and behavior over the period of many months in 2002-2003. Which all of us witnessed as it actually took place.

Which of course you have to realize isn't true at all. What I (and the vast majority of the planet) insist on interpreting as insinutation that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 was the gazillions of statements the Bush administration made in 2002-2003 that were distinctly different from the few "Iraq is not responsible for 9/11" utterances that you so desperately want us to believe are all that was said.

And, yet, among all those gazillions of statements Bush made in 2002-2003, not one in which he said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

There's been a lot of mocking and laughing and high-fives exchanged among liberals in the past hundred or so posts since I asked when Bush made the statement, and, yet, not a single quote produced to show this incontrovertible fact.

C-Bird, normal may not be the best word. But I think most folks have gotten on with their lives. Maybe we feel less safe, maybe seeing high security everywhere is a little different but life isn't centered around the attacks. I've been in NYC a number of times since 9/11 and haven't noticed a huge difference - perhaps it's just a lack of experience with the city. I suppose my feeling of safety disappeared April 19, 1995 so I get that point.

I just think the effect on a recently elected president - one who I don't think was hugely ready to be a wartime leader - was profound. He didn't have the luxury of getting on with his life and accomodating the change in the world in the back of his mind. I think your post in 1065 is right on in a number of ways. I just think it wasn't Bush who came in thinking he'd get Iraq but there were those around him who could use 9/11 to push the idea that we couldn't isolate ourselves at home.

"Select quotes"???? These are the very quotes being cited as evidence for the opposite proposition. I'm not going out and hunting down an obscure quote somewhere where Bush says "Iraq isn't responsible for 9/11"; I'm taking the quotes that liberals here are putting forward and simply providing the entire quote, rather than half of the sentence or paragraph.

THose are the few quotes that have been offered, but no one has suggested that that is all of the evidence. The Bush Admin. and its supporters spent ~18 months trying to convince the US that it was necessary to invade Iraq, and suggesting that Iraq was behind 9/11 played a key role in that argument. The entire point that people here have been making is that the Bush Admin. made the argument over a long period of time and in many different ways. The argument was often very subtle, but there was no doubt that it was there. And that's what people mean when they say that the quoted statements must be looked at in context -- the context is the entire campaign, from October 2001 to the spring of 2003. Something convinced many Americans that Iraq had ties to 9/11, and it wasn't Santa Claus.

But think about Bush, he's been hearing all these guys talk to him about the "threat" of Iraq and all of a sudden, bang 3000 dead Americans on your watch. I don't see anyway it didn't radically alter his participation in the neo-con dialogue. I'm sure it's still with him to this day and I don't say that critically. To have the responsibility he has and be in the position he was in and to get hit with such an event and its fallout is beyond imagination. That doesn't excuse him in anyway, he's been a terrible president. But, on a human level, I feel bad for him. When you're elected president, you'll make history, for good or bad. It must really suck for it to be for bad.

You said this before, and I am with you in some ways. I don't really blame Bush for 9/11 any more than I blame him for the economy. The Pres, powerful as he is, does not control everything. Everyone KNOWS that, but sometimes forgets it anyway.

My armchair read is that Bush always wanted to take out Hussein, for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which was dealing with his old man's "unfinished business". My old man was around politicians his whole career, and between that and my reading/exp I think that as outsiders we often underrate basic human factors in looking at what pols do (I said this earlier in relation to Obama's decision to bypass Hillary as VP, who I think might well have said no anyway).

And I think CBird and David bring up some other reasons Bush et al wanted to do it.

. best hope nothing bad happens to all the libertarians.

Absolutely. Without you guys, we wouldn't HAVE political threads.

And, yet, among all those gazillions of statements Bush made in 2002-2003, not one in which he said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Bush flat out said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact, I think everyone here is making the opposite argument -- over a long period of time, Bush pushed the notion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 without ever explicitly making the claim, leaving the admin. enough plausible deniability to deflect accusationst that they were being dishonest. The fact that we don't have a smoking gun to point to just proves that they were successful and tricked a lot of people (both into thinking that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and that the Bush admin. wasn't actually making that claim).

Jeepers y'all, there's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the Saddam-Al-Qaeda link controversy. Some significant bits:

September 17 2002, Washington, DC: Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before a Congressional Committee: "There is evidence that Iraq provided al-Qaida with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear). Although Saddam did not endorse al-Qaida’s overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden’s operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are (redacted as classified info) from sources of varying reliability." [I include that last sentence because of DMN's assertion that once you read context, the statements become more equivocal. Fair enough. But why is the director of the CIA going before Congress with some half-###ed intelligence?]

September 25 2002, Washington, DC: President Bush tells reporters, "Al-Qaeda hides. Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. 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. . . . [Y]ou can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

February 5 2003, New York, NY: Colin Powell gives speech to the United Nations Security Council citing information linking Saddam Hussein to (al-Qaeda leader] al-Zarqawi.

September 24 2003: At a hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Paul Bremer testified "There are, as the Director of the Central Intelligence has testified, clear intelligence connections, clear evidence of intelligence connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime."

Of course I am cherry-picking here, and of course there are tortuous denials here and there of some specific link (9/11 planning, active arming of al Qaeda) whenever it's expedient to plausibly deny. But seriously.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Bush flat out said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact, I think everyone here is making the opposite argument -- over a long period of time, Bush pushed the notion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 without ever explicitly making the claim, leaving the admin. enough plausible deniability to deflect accusationst that they were being dishonest. <u>The fact that we don't have a smoking gun to point to just proves that they were successful </u>and tricked a lot of people (both into thinking that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and that the Bush admin. wasn't actually making that claim).

In other words, the lack of evidence is proof of guilt?

And to be fair to Ray, nobody did say that Saddam planned 9/11. But Administration rhetoric is kind of like noticing that the Maine blew up in Havana and wondering if the Spanish could possibly have anything to do with that, of course not, why would they, but it is a Spanish colony and all, we're just sayin'.

The fact that we don't have a smoking gun to point to just proves that they were successful and tricked a lot of people (both into thinking that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and that the Bush admin. wasn't actually making that claim).

So Bush was clever enough to be a front man in the plan to "trick" a lot of people, using his unparalleled intelligence and superior command of the English language to articulate "a gazillion" statements about the subject, all designed to weave a tangled web of deception without ever slipping up and revealing this sinister plan?

Tell me - were you one of the people "tricked" by this person that everyone claims is simultaneously a moron and a genius?

I apologize for not having read the whole thread before jumping in here, but going on my memory of 2002/3, even at that time I never thought the Bush administration was accusing Iraq of involvement in 9/11. However, it was clear to me that the Bush administration used the events of 9/11 as partial justification for the invasion of Iraq. They did this in a twofold way:

1) They asserted that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors, and that if Saddam didn't confess to his WMD programme he'd be in trouble;
and (2) They asserted that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, IIRC saying Iraq was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

From these two assertions, the administration then publicly drew the conclusion that Saddam MIGHT launch terrorist attacks against his enemy, the United States, and that these terrorists WOULD be armed with the WMD then in development and out of the ability of UN inspectors to detect. The risk to the United States was such that only an invasion and change of regime in Iraq would ensure the long-term security of the United States.

IF people drew the conclusion that Saddam was somehow sponsoring al-Qaeda, either in the past or since 9/11, well, that was in the Bush Administration's policy interests, so they weren't going to correct the misapprehension. Any sensible government is going to encourage people to draw the 'right' conclusions that facilitate the government's objectives. What's wrong with that?

Far worse than any propaganda campaign of confusing people is the question of whether the Bush administration distorted the evidence to threaten us all with a non-existent WMD programme in order to promote the invasion. Why don't you guys argue about something important for a change?

But Administration rhetoric is kind of like noticing that the Maine blew up in Havana and wondering if the Spanish could possibly have anything to do with that,

Cheney to Fox News "you provide the prose poems--I'll provide the war"

Cheney Cited Iraq Intelligence That Was Known To Be False»
One of the given rationales for attacking Iraq was that Saddam was linked to the 9-11 hijackers through a claim that Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in April 2001 before the attacks. The supposed Prague meeting was advanced by former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, using evidence obtained from the Czech government. But according to the FBI, Atta was in Virginia Beach at the time. The Czech government later backed off its claims, but Vice President Cheney stuck to it. In December 2001, Cheney said:

“Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that–it’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 12/9/01]

WHEN ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT AN IRAQ - 9/11 LINK, CHENEY SAID IT WAS “PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED”:


RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]

March 2003

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

In fact, Bush justified the war against Iraq by directly linking it to 9/11:

The use of armed forces 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, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]