Replies

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

The administration is deliberately utilizing strategic ambiguity here, for a variety of reasons: some with validity, and some for purely personal reasons.

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

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...