Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link [OUTRAGEOUS Spin From Washington Post - FREEP IN ORDER]

Washington Post ^ | 18 September 2003 | Dana Milbank

[Stultis]

Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link
Administration Has Been Vague on Issue, but President Says No Evidence Found

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 18, 2003; Page A18

President Bush said there has been no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disavowing a link that had been hinted at previously by his administration.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," the president said yesterday after a meeting at the White House with lawmakers.

In stating that position, Bush clarified an issue that has long been left vague by his administration.

[snip]

[Stultis]

This is so DAMN disgusting. Now they're not just falsely accusing Bush of lying in things he did say, but in things he DIDN'T say. And it's not the Democrats on the campaign trail, or in Congress, but the press. This would be outrageous spin even if it were on the editorial page, BUT IT'S NOT. This is a "news" story built on a blatant lie!

Dana Milbank, how the HELL can someone "disavow" a postition they have never "avowed" in the first place?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Shermy]

Gosh. I seem to remember the Bush Admin going WAY out of the way to deny links between Atta and Iraq, like the meetings in Prague.

[Stultis]

Letters to the Editor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

Email the Ombudsman:
ombudsman@washpost.com

Email Dana Milbank
whitehouse@washpost.com

[KC_Conspirator]

So let me get this strait. Dana Milibank, Bush hater, writes a column in which he lies about the claims of the Bush administration, and now publishes this as some sort of "clarification"? He should be fired.

[Stultis]

The FBI reportedly disbelieves in a meeting, in Prague, between Atta and an Iraqi agent that Czech intelligence claims to have witnessed (and sticks by) because it contradicts the itenerary they've established for Atta. (The FBI apparently has him in Florida then.) The CIA, I believe, is agnostic. And I *think* it is uncontested that Atta visited Prague on another occassion (and apparently went out of his way to do so) although his activity then is unknown.

But that's all beside the point. There are multiple links between al Qaeda and Iraq, and between other terrorists and Iraq. It doesn't depend on Atta. The adminstration has consistently said this: that there is compelling evidence that Saddam was associated both with al Qaeda and with terrorism more generally. They have therefore argued that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. At the same time, Bush and his adminstration have been equally consistent in stating that there is no evidence linking Saddam with 911.

This is all very clear and very simple. Yet Milbank, in this "news" article, claims that saying Iraq was tied to terror somehow "implies" that Saddam was involved with 911, and that Bush and other admin officials have forwarded this implication. It's a complete non sequiter, which is a nice way of saying it is utter bullsh*t.

[Stultis]

Ping!

[Shermy]

I think there was a mistake on the date.

I noticed that the media leaked "doubts", if read carefully, denied that Atta was in Prague in a certain month, NOT that Atta didn't meet Al-Ani, or any other Iraqi.

[UnsinkableMollyBrown]

Doesn't anyone besides me remember that Bush did in fact say that he had proof that Iraq was involved in Sept 11th? And he would show is the proof in the future.

[Richard Axtell]

Your comments are the most concise and to the point I've seen regarding this issue. I only wish you could counter Charlie Rangel's lies and distortions on air, and put these liars down. I knew when I hears someone say "Bush admitted that there is no Al Quaida link" that they were being misled, and of course he said nothing of the sort. I swear, this next campaign year is going to be the worst when it comes to mendacity and fraud on the part of the Party of Mendacity and Fraud, the Democrat Party.

[Shermy]

Doesn't anyone besides me remember that Bush did in fact say that he had proof that Iraq was involved in Sept 11th?

Not I.

He said Iraq had links to Al Qaeda. Of course, so what? They all do.

[PurVirgo]

hehehe - you're treading dangerous water saying that!!!

Heaven forbid the Prez be wrong - even intentially.

I dunno, I could be wrong, but I thought that was the reason (one of em anyways) why we went to Iraq in the first place.

Guess we both better don asbestos underpants

[Stultis]

Doesn't anyone besides me remember that Bush did in fact say that he had proof that Iraq was involved in Sept 11th? And he would show is the proof in the future.

No, I don't think any careful, non confabulating, reader or viewer of the news does.

Time to give yourself a reality check:

You realize that every public statement of the American President is recorded somewhere? (I assume you're not claiming to have had a private conversation where Bush told you this.) You also realize that the 'Rats have been pushing this spin for weeks and weeks now that Bush or the admin somehow tried to forward the notion that Saddam is connected with 911? So, obviously, if Bush, or any adminstration official, really had said anything even remotely like what you describe, the 'Rats would be hitting him over the head with it daily. But they aren't. They have nothing. Read the damn article and see for yourself how Milbank tries to make this case.

[Stultis]

I dunno, I could be wrong

I do know. The public record is unequivocal. You are wrong.

[UnsinkableMollyBrown]

I'm going to find his quotes. Some people have really short memories.

[Stultis]

He should be fired.

Milbank isn't the only one. Here is a NEWS story, the ENTIRE substance of which is a non sequitor, based soley on the OPINION of the reporter, for which not a single shred of real evidence is offered, nor is there any such evidence whatsoever in the public record.

How the hell does this get past an editor?

[nutmeg]

.

[shhrubbery!]

I'm going to find his quotes.

You can try, but you won't find 'em. Because they don't exist.

[Stultis]

I'm going to find his quotes.

Yeah. When you do, be sure and pass them on to Milbank. Even though he's been the Washington Post whitehouse correspondent throughout Bush's presidency, hates Bush and would love to nail him, has full Lexus/Nexus access, and all the other resources of one of the nation's largest newspapers, he can't find 'em. Nor can any of the dozens or hundreds of other reporters, 'Rats and pundits who have been pushing this spin.

But knock yourself out.

[yonif]

This is a war on terrorism, not a war on just Al Queda. Saddam Hussein's regime was a terrorist one.

[BlackVeil]

I seem to remember something about some terrific proof that was going to be produced in the future. But about what ... I forget.

Bush most definitely did say that we had found WMDs in Iraq - he said so during a press conference in Poland. But what he meant was those infamous weather balloon trucks.