Exact text of Bush's Saddam/WTC links

[Darth Wong]

Just in case anyone's curious, here's an example of what people are talking about when they say the Bush administration implied a link between Hussein and Sept 11:

"If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

[Peregrin Toker]

To me, it seems like he didn't as much imply links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as calling for a neutralization of all enemies.

[Joe]

No, I don't see how he's trying to establish a direct link between the two here.

[Vympel]

No, I don't see how he's trying to establish a direct link between the two here.

There are other examples. Rumsfeld, when questioned by the Senate (or Congress? Whatever) as to what had changed to make it necessary for Iraq to be attacked now, snapped back: "because 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre".

[Joe]

No, I don't see how he's trying to establish a direct link between the two here.

There are other examples. Rumsfeld, when questioned by the Senate (or Congress? Whatever) as to what had changed to make it necessary for Iraq to be attacked now, snapped back: "because 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre".

Even that, though, really doesn't imply a direct link between the two. It may lump the two together in the same category, incorrectly, but I don't see how that statement must imply a direct link.

[Gil Hamilton]

Even that, though, really doesn't imply a direct link between the two. It may lump the two together in the same category, incorrectly, but I don't see how that statement must imply a direct link.

What do you mean no direct link? He said directly that Iraq must be attacked now because of the the World Trade Center attack. That's a direct as you can get statement.

[Joe]

Even that, though, really doesn't imply a direct link between the two. It may lump the two together in the same category, incorrectly, but I don't see how that statement must imply a direct link.

What do you mean no direct link? He said directly that Iraq must be attacked now because of the the World Trade Center attack. That's a direct as you can get statement.

Or he may be saying that Iraq is merely like al-Qaeda and if we don't act, we may have another 9/11 in the future, this time from Iraq instead. What he may be doing is trying to lump Iraq in with al-Qaeda as an entity that would attempt something like a 9/11 attack. Probably not correct, but not trying to establish a direct link nonetheless.

[Gil Hamilton]

Or he may be saying that Iraq is merely like al-Qaeda and if we don't act, we may have another 9/11 in the future, this time from Iraq instead. What he may be doing is trying to lump Iraq in with al-Qaeda as an entity that would attempt something like a 9/11 attack. Probably not correct, but not trying to establish a direct link nonetheless.

But that's not what he said. He said we needed to attack Iraq now because of the attack on the World Trade Center specifically. He wouldn't have been so specific if he meant some hypothetical attack.

[Joe]

Or he may be saying that Iraq is merely like al-Qaeda and if we don't act, we may have another 9/11 in the future, this time from Iraq instead. What he may be doing is trying to lump Iraq in with al-Qaeda as an entity that would attempt something like a 9/11 attack. Probably not correct, but not trying to establish a direct link nonetheless.

But that's not what he said. He said we needed to attack Iraq now because of the attack on the World Trade Center specifically. He wouldn't have been so specific if he meant some hypothetical attack.

To prevent something like that from happening again, perhaps? You're going to have to produce something more than a vague association made by Rumsfeld here.

[Gil Hamilton]

To prevent something like that from happening again, perhaps? You're going to have to produce something more than a vague association made by Rumsfeld here.

Vague association?! He states directly that the invasion of Iraq is specifically because of the WTC attack! That's not vague at all!

[Joe]

To prevent something like that from happening again, perhaps? You're going to have to produce something more than a vague association made by Rumsfeld here.

Vague association?! He states directly that the invasion of Iraq is specifically because of the WTC attack! That's not vague at all!

Yes, to prevent another 9/11 from Iraq instead of al-Qaeda. What he's trying to do here is to establish Iraq as a regime that would sponsor terrorism. And because of the fact that Iraq is a terror-supporting regime (theoretically, again), and because the U.S. has vowed to fight all terrorists and the regimes that support them, Iraq is an enemy in the same vein as al-Qaeda. Still does not establish the two as being directly linked.

[SirNitram]

So the politicians played semantics whoring? I'm not impressed.

[Axis Kast]

What do you mean no direct link? He said directly that Iraq must be attacked now because of the the World Trade Center attack. That's a direct as you can get statement.

On September 11th, the United States suffered a terrorist attack. Fact.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein. Fact.

Iraq was percieved to be a threat by the United States and Great Britain, based primarily (if not entirely) on the possibility that it could deploy unconventional weapons or support terror strikes on targets in the continental United States. Fact.

Hence why President Bush invoked the circumstances of September 11, 2001 to preface justifications for war in Iraq. It's opinion, but it's not a falsehood.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

No, I don't see how he's trying to establish a direct link between the two here.

There are other examples. Rumsfeld, when questioned by the Senate (or Congress? Whatever) as to what had changed to make it necessary for Iraq to be attacked now, snapped back: "because 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre".

Can anyone say, "Lynch-mob mentality"? Damn.

"We gots to hang this hyar Injun!"
"But why?"
"Beh-cuzz six o' mah best caow's done died'ed!"

[Patrick Degan]

What do you mean no direct link? He said directly that Iraq must be attacked now because of the the World Trade Center attack. That's a direct as you can get statement.

On September 11th, the United States suffered a terrorist attack. Fact.

Which Iraq had nothing to do with. Fact.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein. Fact.

None of which was aimed at the United States. Fact.

Iraq was percieved to be a threat by the United States and Great Britain, based primarily (if not entirely) on the possibility that it could deploy unconventional weapons or support terror strikes on targets in the continental United States.

A "possibility" which has been revealed to have been grossly exaggerated if not a baldfaced lie. Fact.

Hence why President Bush invoked the circumstances of September 11, 2001 to preface justifications for war in Iraq. It's opinion, but it's not a falsehood.

Um, BULLSHIT.

[CelesKnight]

Just in case anyone's curious, here's an example of what people are talking about when they say the Bush administration implied a link between Hussein and Sept 11:

"If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Where exactly do you (or other people) see that he's implying a link? This is an honest question--I've read and reread that but I can't see anything that suggests that Bush thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

To me, it looks like he's merely implying that Saddam may one day give WMD to terrorists, or directly use those WMD against the US. I think that the mention of 9/11 is a reminder that a WMD attack would be even worse, and perhaps a reminder that the unthinkable can happen.

[Axis Kast]

Which Iraq had nothing to do with. Fact.

Are you saying that we must deal with September 11th as an event isolated in time, from which none of the enemies of the United States could possibly draw inspiration?

Not one of which was aimed at the United States. Fact.

That’s debatable; Palestinian suicide bombers often kill American citizens in Israel. Not that we don’t have national security interests in the general vicinity anyway.

A "possibility" which has been revealed to have been grossly exaggerated if not a baldfaced lie. Fact.

At the time of the statement of the opinion, we knew nothing at all. Remember, there was no way we could have known without occupying Iraq ourselves.

Um, BULLSHIT.

I'm sorry you don't agree. That doesn't however make anybody else a liar.

[Natorgator]

I think that they definitely implied a connection, surely 70% of americans aren't completely and utterly stupid. But then there's also this:

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
(Emphasis added)

[Joe]

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Key word: "including." It does not authorize action solely against nations and organizations connected to the September 11 attack. Saddam's Iraq has funded Hamas, a terrorist group, therefore it qualifies.

Not that I particularly approve of this legalistic language. Including the 9/11 bit was absolutely pointless.

[Axis Kast]

I don't see the problem in relating contemporary foreign policy to September 11th. It was, after all, a massive turning point in this nation's diplomatic history, if not the world's.

[Johonebesus]

Where exactly do you (or other people) see that he's implying a link? This is an honest question--I've read and reread that but I can't see anything that suggests that Bush thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

To me, it looks like he's merely implying that Saddam may one day give WMD to terrorists, or directly use those WMD against the US. I think that the mention of 9/11 is a reminder that a WMD attack would be even worse, and perhaps a reminder that the unthinkable can happen.

Well, most folks do not carefully analyze the president's exact words like you seem to be doing. Bush and company chose their words carefully do that they did not explicitly state that there was a direct link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but by constantly mentioning the attacks when justifying the invasion of Iraq, Bush was deliberately giving Americans the impression that they were linked. The average person, when hearing numerous statements like Rumsfeld's answer mentioned above, is naturally going to come to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with the attacks on September 11, as polls have shown.

[TheDarkling]

Politicians mention "9/11" in order to shield from criticism whatever policy they are pushing forward with regard to national defence, this constant linking of the two by the administration has led to many in the US populace thinking there is an actual link in reality instead of just politicians using the event to get a carte blanche for their policy of the week.

In other words the US administration using the attacks to get support has paid off beautifully and I think they should be given a pat on the back for leading their people (by the nose to wherever they want them to go).

[Darth Wong]

I like the way "Iraq paid off families of terrorists attacking Israel" becomes "Iraq is planning terrorist attacks against the United States". Very nice shell-game substitution, folks.

[Nathan F]

I like the way "Iraq paid off families of terrorists attacking Israel" becomes "Iraq is planning terrorist attacks against the United States". Very nice shell-game substitution, folks.

But is it not a logical assumption that since, in the past, they have supported Palestinian terrorists attacking a strong ally of the US, they might very well support terrorists attacking other targets, espeicially western targets of the 'great Satan'?

I, frankly, see that as a perfectly logical train of thought.

[AdmiralKanos]

I like the way "Iraq paid off families of terrorists attacking Israel" becomes "Iraq is planning terrorist attacks against the United States". Very nice shell-game substitution, folks.

But is it not a logical assumption that since, in the past, they have supported Palestinian terrorists attacking a strong ally of the US, they might very well support terrorists attacking other targets, espeicially western targets of the 'great Satan'?

I, frankly, see that as a perfectly logical train of thought.

That is because you obviously do not see what is wrong with the oxymoronic term "logical assumption".

BTW, if the possibility that somebody "might" be capable of doing something to the USA is now a perfectly valid reason for invasion, I hope you're ready to invade most of the countries in Asia and Africa. Of course, it's also possible that you, like so many other apologists, are simply trying to save face for the Bush administration.