Bush Says No Evidence That Saddam Hussein Involved in Sept. 11 Attacks

AP ^ | 9/17/03 | Terence Hunt

[Jean S]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein 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 that masterminded the Sept. 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."

AP-ES-09-17-03 1715EDT

[WL-law]

The parties who directed the Anthrax letter attacks were working in conjunction with the 9/11 hijackers, and probably WERE the 9/11 hijackers.

And we have evidence that the anthrax attacks were linked to assistance from Iraq.

So -- we do have "some" evidence of this, as has been well documented here on FR.

So why would Bush state there was 'no' evidence, a la Janet Reno?

[Az Joe]

The Rats are in a desperate attempt to say that Bush lied because he mentioned Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech.

Pathetic.

[texasmountainman]

Why is Bush saying this? What about Salman Pak? Sometimes I don't understand why he does things like this. Just like the needless apology for the 16 words in the SOTU.
Frustrating.

[PISANO]

It seems as though GW is just being CAREFUL. If he says we have EVIDENCE then the MEDIA will take that as EVIDENCE that will stand up in a COURT of LAW and ask a million supporting and substantiating questions. It is much better to say there is NO EVIDENCE until you have it totally nailed down. Such are the times we live in with NO WMD found and 12 years of MANY countries' intelligence agencies swearing to their existence.

[theFIRMbss]

>Why is Bush saying this? ... Sometimes I don't understand why he does things like this. Just like the needless apology for the 16 words in the SOTU. Frustrating.

[texasmountainman]

That's good. You must feel my pain.

[Radix]

I do not care about which countries were not involved in the September 11, attacks. Will Bush say that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, as well as others were not involved?

This is what I look at. Tell me something about who was involved? That is the "root" of the matter.

[Leroy S. Mort]

a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

This is driving the Media CRAZYYYYYYY. Expect this to be pounded into the populace's head over and over in the next week. They simply CANNOT ALLOW THIS.

[Sabertooth]

I recall reading somewhere that there is some sort of UN treaty giving that body authority over situations where one nation uses a WMD against another.

The Cliff's Notes are that if there was an Iraq link to 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, the UN would have jurisdiction because we are signatories to that treaty.

Hence, we're not likely to admit such a link, if it exists.

Anyone else got confirmation on this?

[piasa]

So far we have found no direct orders between the regime leaders Saddam Hussein and his sons and the attackers of 911. We have plenty of evidence of contact between lower level Iraqi officials and al Qaeda. That of course isn't good enough for the press. (Even though the press makes accusations based on far less against so called rightwing leaders in other countries.)

The more important question is why did the reporter/editor choose to highlight one part of Bush's statement which seems to back up leftwing spin, and downplay the part which makes the media look like the partisan and deceptive SOBs that they are. Instead of headlining the piece with the title "Bush says that Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda," they chose a phrase which makes the media BS all these months look on the mark.

This is what we've all been saying all along:

"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.

Makes you wonder what the editors decided to leave out. Like how about evidence linking Iraq to the attacks AFTER 911?

[daniel boob]

Flame me if you want--but W better have a real good ploy in pocket. I think we are going back to the days of Trent "no cajones" Lott.

We should have pounded the 9th circuit. We should bitch slap the Judiciary for Estrada. Gas prices are through the roof, jobless claims are rising, work is going south (or worse, east) and the liberals are spouting lies (I know, we can't stop that) and Bush seems more worried about the energy task force than playing hardball.

I think it is time to kick some pre-election ass but I'm beginning to think we don't have the balls to do it. Fortunately, living in Texas, we are getting redistricting taken care of--because PERRY HAS CAJONES! Am I missing something?

/rant

[cyncooper]

Don't skip over the whole presidential quote. It was not Reno-esque:

"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.

And there probably isn't any evidence of what, if any, role Iraq played in that particular event. He did not rule it out, and he was careful to emphasize the ties the entities in fact had.

[cyncooper]

"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.

Not an apology in sight, and a confirmation of the ties al Qaeda had with Iraq.

[mil-vet]

Bush is wrong. I don't know what is going on or why he is denying so much evidence to the contrary (there are people in jail for life, convicted on far flimsier circumstantial evidence!), but he should know better. A fairly decent, but not complete, treatment of the subject is given here.....

[cyncooper]

The more important question is why did the reporter/editor choose to highlight one part of Bush's statement which seems to back up leftwing spin, and downplay the part which makes the media look like the partisan and deceptive SOBs that they are.

Exactly.

[optimistically_conservative]

What really strikes me about this is I can't help but wonder what al Ani and Farouk Hijazi have told their interrogators.

The New Yorker had an interesting article about the intelligence debate concerning ties between Iraq and AQ (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact) and I think Judith S. Yaphe presented a good case on the unconvincing nature of the relationship between the two (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm).


I, like 7/10 of America, find it hard to believe that not one of the 9/11 hijackers received any training, funds or intelligence from Saddam's regime - not from the Mukhabarat, and not at Salman Pak.

I think Judge Harold Baer (who has a history of letting bad guys go despite solid evidence) concluded that there was enough evidence "albeit barely," for a reasonable jury to infer "that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further Al Qaeda's criminal acts." How could Iraq be held liable in the 9/11 assault with no evidence of a tie between Iraq and AQ? That's right, there is a tie, just no evidence Saddam ran the show.

A second lawsuit on behalf of FBI agent John O'Neill's estate claims "Al Qaeda, backed by Iraq, carried out the September 11th terror attacks with the financial and logistical support of numerous individuals and organizations, .... These individuals and organizations provided Al Qaeda with the means to recruit, train, and employ thousands of terrorists." The evidence includes documents seized from the bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence agency.

I wonder if Bush's comments have hurt their case.

[optimistically_conservative]

Fixed links from above:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

[John Beresford Tipton]

"I think Judge Harold Baer (who has a history of letting bad guys go despite solid evidence) concluded that there was enough evidence "albeit barely," for a reasonable jury to infer "that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further Al Qaeda's criminal acts.""

You can't read too much into that decision because of the procedural posture in which it was rendered. It was a suit in which the defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. In those circumstances the judge has to weigh the evidence in favor of the plaintiffs making all necessary inferences in their favor. It's sort of like a soccer game when one side gets a free kick at the goal. It does not mean that if the defendants appeared the result would have been the same; maybe yes, maybe no.

[optimistically_conservative]

I agree with, and understand that.

I'm thinking thru the "no evidence" part of Bush's statement. Obviously there was evidence, which you rightly point out, may or may have withstood refutation by the defendants and may or may not have measured the preponderance of the evidence to assign liability after the default judgement.

But, there was evidence. Not the level of evidence to show Saddam stood over a map with UBL showing Atta how to approach the WTC towers - but evidence none the less to tie Iraqi support for AQ to the 9-11 attacks.

If that is not evidence, then there is likewise no evidence that Saudi Arabia was involved in the 9/11 attack, right?