You'll have to look in the first pop-up graphic illustrating this article to find that admission, but it is there.
Critics of the Bush administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion — only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.
"Seems to bear that out." What a weaselly admission, but there it is. In other words, the Bush administration told the truth, but we think they fooled you anyway. However grudging, the admission is a step forward. Perhaps the editorial page editors will read it and rewrite their recent editorials beginning with this this one.
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11. Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
And this one.
Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
Both statements are wrong. That the 9/11 Commission agrees with Bush does not seem to bother the editorialists at the New York Times (or many other newspapers). For some reason, the Times did not find room in their article for some of Lee Hamilton's sharper critiques of the press coverage.
Finally, I should add that many of the polls, though not the one used by the Times in the first article, were tentative in their questions about links between Saddam and the 9/11 attack, and the answers reflect that. If someone asked me whether Saddam ordered the attack, I would say almost certainly not. If someone asked me whether he helped in the attack, I would say possibly. If someone asked me whether we have definitive proof that he was not involved — as the New York Times editorials assert — I would say no, and we may never have such proof. Those who say the public was fooled ignore the precise wording of the questions used in many of the polls.
- 11:36 AM, 20 June 2004 http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/June2004_3.html#jrm2306
I'm a little disappointed that the Slimes backed down after only a few rounds with the Bush administration. If they had pushed this a little harder...it would have cracked the Times credibility with mainstream America, as well as quite probably the rest of the media. They were on a crusade, they went too far, and they got called on it. There is a reason the Slimes is backing down...they were going to lose, big time, and they knew it.
bookmark bump