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

Washington Post ^ | 18 September 2003 | Dana Milbank

[Peach]

Great job and good morning analysis. The Washington Post has the same record as the NYT - that is to say biased, unapologetic DNC stenographers who work there and learned Spin 101 from their favorite impeached president.

[Sloth]

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

Um, no. Iraq very openly supported terrorism, but Bush never claimed that they were behind 9/11.

[Peach]

I cannot believe those metaphors he used to describe then Gov. Bush. That has told me everything I need to know.

These people moved beyond the boundaries of good taste some time ago and all too rarely get called on it.

[montag813]

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.

The buck stops with Bush alone. There was no reason to undermine Dick Cheney's MTP appearance by denying an Iraq-9/11 link. Why not simply say we have evidence of it, and not reveal sources? Now Katie and Company are grinning about Bush's "flip flop" this morning.

Korl Rove is asleep at the wheel. Who is running the store over there?

[cookcounty]

The phoney religious / secular terrorist divide "argument."

I heard this nonsense again yesterday: "Saddam and Al-Qaeda couldn't be in cooperation because Saddam is secular, while A-Q is religious. To A-Q, Saddam is an infidel."

Saddam, the secularist, has been a major supporter of Hamas, the foaming -at-the-mouth "religious" death-cult.

Terrorists are immoral opportunists that use and abuse others, forming any and every temporary alliance in order to kill and maim. People that think a middle-eastern "secularist" and a "religious" can't or won't get in bed together knows absolutely nothing about the middle-east.

[Matchett-PI]

"...Titanic Woman (aka Molly Brown) asserted 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.'" ~ shhrubbery!

The WH has not made that *specific* connection because there is no apparent, definitive, conclusive evidence tying Iraq to 9-11 *YET*, but the WH is suggesting that there _IS_ evidence linking Iraq to the 1993 WRC bombing.

So to "connect the dots" if they tried it once, only a dim-wit, or someone with an agenda/vendetta against Bush, would be STUPID enough to actually believe that they wouldn't try it again .... like on 9-11. Duh!!!

Read on:

This is from The Iraq News Letter published by Laurie Mylroie:

From: "Laurie Mylroie" sam11@erols.com
Subject: Cheney: Iraqi Link to 1993 Trade Center Bombing
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:30:50 -0400

The White House, for the first time, has publicly suggested Iraq might be linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

In fact, at the time, New York FBI believed that Iraq was involved, while the US Attorney's office there (focused on securing the convictions of those charged and arrested)
was quite open to the possibility.

Meet the Press
September 14, 2003
Host: Tim Russert
Guest: Vice President Dick Cheney
(Excerpt)

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack.

At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that.

Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved.

The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93.

And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into
Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

[Ed: This is Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted in August 1993, and is the sole remaining fugitive from that attack]

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact.

With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there.

The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.

[cookcounty]

He's linked to 9-11 by the fact that no one in the world worked harder to create a climate in which terrorist acts against american (and other) civilians is viewed as a desirable and laudable acheivement. He murdered far more civilans that Al Qaeda ever dreamed of.

That's not a "link" that will hold up before the Ninth Circuit Court, but it's good enough for 70% of us.

[Matchett-PI]

See #46.

What the WH House has suggested is that Iraq is tied to the 1993 WTC bombing. Got it???

[Miss Marple]

Quite correct. That is a documented fact. The guy entered the US on an Iraqi passport and left and returned to Iraq.

I had an argument with someone here the other day that there was no connection to the 93 bombing, and a quick Google search shows that Iraq was, indeed, implicated.

[Quilla]

Trivia Quiz

What dictator was in charge of commissioning murals in Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Hint: If he wasn't involved, he certainly regrets it.

[Matchett-PI]

This is what I just sent to all three links you provided:

Greetings,

This is in regards to the misleading article written by Dana Milbank on 18 September 2003 entitled: "Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link"

The White House has never made a specific connection because there is no apparent, definitive, conclusive evidence tying Iraq to 9-11 -- YET, but the White House does suggest that there IS evidence linking Iraq to the 1993 WTC bombing.

A critical thinker, using logic and legitimate powers of deduction (called, "connecting the dots"), would reasonably conclude that if Iraq tried it once they might just try it again --- like on 9-11. Duh!!!

President Bush said these things in his State of the Union speech in January 2002: "... I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer."

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

And he said this aboard The USS Abraham Lincoln:

"Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.

Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted." [end excerpts]

This is from The Iraq News Letter on Sun, 14 Sep 2003, published by Laurie Mylroie:

Cheney: Iraqi Link to 1993 Trade Center Bombing

The White House, for the first time, has publicly suggested Iraq might be linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

In fact, at the time, New York FBI believed that Iraq was involved, while the US Attorney's office there (focused on securing the convictions of those charged and arrested)
was quite open to the possibility.

Meet the Press
September 14, 2003
Host: Tim Russert
Guest: Vice President Dick Cheney
(Excerpt)

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack.

At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that.

Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved.

The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93.

And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into
Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

[Ed: This is Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted in August 1993, and is the sole remaining fugitive from that attack]

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact.

With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there.

The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know. [end excerpts]

If, like the NY Times, you ever hope to rebuild your credibility, you will need to correct false impressions like the one that was floated by another one of the well-known, well documented Bush haters on your staff, Dana Milbank.

Thank you.

Warm regards,

Name, Town, and phone #

[hemogoblin]

How the hell does this get past an editor?

it was probably made that way BY the editor. Happens all the time.

[Stultis]

The buck stops with Bush alone. There was no reason to undermine Dick Cheney's MTP appearance by denying an Iraq-9/11 link.

He didn't

Why not simply say we have evidence of it

Because that would contradict Cheney, who said on MTP that we do NOT have evidence of an Iraq/911 linkage (although there is evidence of Iraq al Qaeda links, and of an Iraqi linkage to the '92 WTC attack).

[Stultis]

"the '92 WTC" should, of course, be '93.

[montag813]

Because that would contradict Cheney, who said on MTP that we do NOT have evidence of an Iraq/911 linkage (although there is evidence of Iraq al Qaeda links, and of an Iraqi linkage to the '92 WTC attack).

Cheney did not mention the airbases in Iraq where jihadists trained using commercial jetliners. Nor did he mention the Al Queda base in northern Iraq which produced the Risin which found its way to Britain. Safire chrolicled this months before the war. The lack of fight in this bunch is what I am talking about. There is plenty of evidence to back up the Iraq--Al Queda link, and thus an indirect link to 9/11. There is an election next year. This is no time to be caught on the defensive. Do you disagree?

[Stultis]

There is plenty of evidence to back up the Iraq--Al Queda link, and thus an indirect link to 9/11. There is an election next year. This is no time to be caught on the defensive. Do you disagree?

No. But the administration, even if not aggressive enough for your taste, or for mine, has been clear on all this, and the 'Rats and presstitutes are flat out lying in asserting that they haven't. That's the point (of this thread anyway).