Posted on 09/17/2003 2:32:44 PM PDT by 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
The administration is deliberately utilizing strategic ambiguity here, for a variety of reasons: some with validity, and some for purely personal reasons.
Maybe he should tell that to Rumsfeld-Rice who keeps saying we are in Iraq because we don't want another 9/11 here.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said.
Salman Pak is not evidence that Saddam had anything to do specifically with 9/11. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rice nor Rummy has said that Saddam was not connected with AQ. They've said that they have no hard evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. This is nothing new; they've said this all along.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
President GW Bush
At this point, unless they have proof positive, it's best to say they have no direct evidence. Why hand Dems another rock to throw at them. While we may speculate all we want, that is something they have to be careful about. Look at all the trouble they are having over stuff we have much greater proof of...
Pathetic.
And sadly they will probably succeed in convincing many among the ignorant masses in their voter base.
Go back and read the article again.
Nowhere did Bush contradict anything Rumsfeld-Rice said.
Just because Saddam is known to have supported terrorism doesn't mean we know he was behind 9/11.
But there isn't any amount of info which will convince the press, short of finding an order to Atta with Hussein's signature on it in his very own blood. (They would simply claim it is a forgery.) Even than, I doubt the press will not quit their mantra that Hussein wasn't involved in 911 or the later attacks like the anthrax, any more than they have quit their mantra that Bush said Iraq bought yellowcake in Niger... they don't care that Bush never said it, or that the UK still stands by their assertion Iraq did try to purchase uranium in Africa, or that Iraq had already purchased uranium from Niger in the past- the press only needs to keep repeating their false claims against the war and Bush until people come to accept it.
Bush doesn't have the level of proof neccessary for the press' standards to say that Hussein actually ordered the attacks. We do have good reason to assume Iraq knew in advance there were going to be attacks because of what Iraq put in its state-run press before 911, but Iraq's knowledge may stem from Iraqi intel on al Qaeda rather than bin Laden asking Hussein for permission to pull it off. We do know Iraqi intel officials did meet with bin Laden, that bin Laden went to Iraq, that Zarqawi did as well, that Iraqi officials went to Afghanistan and to Sudan to meet with al Qaeda leaders, that an Iraqi was involved in one of the Malaysia meetings with the hijackers, that Iraq did carry out an act of war against the uS when it tried to assassinate Bush 1, that Iraq shared bioweapons info with Zarqawi's group, that Iraqi supergun plans ended up in Afghan al qaeda hands, that Zarqawis Milan terrorist group did recruit fighters to fight the US in Iraq, that Iraq was running funds to Lebanese banks which ended up in terrorist's hands, that Iraq did bribe western and UN officials as well as journalists, that an Iraqi diplomat was involved in the murder of a US Green Beret in the Philippines, that Iraq has close ties to the same Philippines terror groups al Qaeda is tied with, that Iraq had numerous front companies smuggling weapons and supplies and people worldwide, that it had set up many "charitable" front groups dedicated to lobbying for it and influencing US officials, that Iraq did train some al Qaeda people at Salman Pak, that Iraq had indeed ordered the assassinations of many people worldwide, including people in the uS and Americans, that Atta was in Prague as was the Iraqi al Ani, that Iraqi agents were caught by the Germans scouting US bases near Heidelberg, and much, much more.
But we cannot yet prove beyond any doubt that the 9/11 attacks specifically took place on Hussein's orders, or that he ever issued such orders in a way we could verify, on paper or electronically- al Qaeda is difficult to penetrate and Saddam isn't talking, so those details may never be available, and everything may have been coordinated through fronts and aliases rather than by the book, making proof scarce. Bush simply can't say Iraq ordered it- al Qaeda may have been supported by both Iraq and Iran for all we know on that attack, or maybe Iraq paid them to do a different one, or perhaps al Qaeda just went on their own while Iraq cheered. The attacks on 911 likely would have occured whether Hussein ordered them or not.
(The anthrax attacks may be another matter entirely as al Qaeda may have needed Iraqi permission to acquire the anthrax, but Atta certainly didn't need Iraq's OK to ram a building with a passenger jet.)
But at this time, we cannot say for certain just why Atta met with al Ani. While we know Atta was in Prague when al Ani was there, and the Czechs shared more intel complete with photos so we hear, the US may yet be bound to maintain discretion on intel provided by a foreign country, just as the UK was bound by its treaties to be discrete with passing on intel other countries gave to UK intel agencies on Niger and Iraq.
Because of treaties with such countries, because informants may be damaged, or because foreign intel may not be backed up substantially by CIA or FBI intel, the US cannot simply issue statements about such foreign intel "as fact," even if it is fact. Bush caught hell for mentioning intel on Iraq's interest in Niger's uranium from Great Britain in his SOTU speech, for example. The intel may have been 100% correct, but the intel depended on UK info acquired from various sources and had not been or could not be doublechecked by the CIA, which only had one document of questionable origins passsed on to it. Maybe this is because the UK couldn't reveal enough of its sources for security reasons, leaving the CIA with nothing to go on but the UK's word, or because the CIA simply doesn't have its own people inside al Qaeda or Niger to acquire its own intel.
A president has to be much more careful with his words, and conservative with the proof, than we do as private citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.