Bush wasn't implying that Iraq was behind 9/11

[EarlG]

No, "implying" is too weak a word. In this March 2003 letter to Congress which he signed off on, Bush is asserting that Iraq was behind 9/11.

__

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

March 18, 2003

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
__


Thanks to the person who sent this to me via email.

EG

[w13rd0]

1. That is from a liberal left-wing site...

...and can hardly be considered substantial evidence against el Presidente </sarcasm>

[LynneSin]

11. whitehouse.gov a liberal left-wing site?

That's Bush's home page; although I hope starting 2005 it IS a liberal left-wing site - if you know what I mean!

[w13rd0]

28. I know what ya mean...

...

;)

I'll vote for a Democratic dead man over George W Bush, and I'll insist the corpse serves his or her full term. But get this, I've actually HEARD that response from people I've debated. I cited a couple references, and the person I was debating said, "Oh, where are those from, some left-wing liberal site?" Astonishing cognitive dissonance...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. THIS IS HUGE, EARL!

Thanks for posting this! I wonder if the whore media will pick it up?

DTH

[Maeve]

5. I just e-mailed it to CBS

Pick an outlet and send it along

[BurtWorm]

6. I e-mailed it yesterday to Buzzflash

but I haven't seen it there yet. Maybe more should send it to [e-mail]

[Kenneth]

51. Buzz...

Its on Buzzflash now.

[Beetwasher]

3. Dana Milbank in the WP used the last paragraph

and Juxtaposed it with Bush's new line about no link between SH and 9/11. It was terrific!

Here's the link:

A Thousand Points of Plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49361-2003Sep22.html

MOVING TARGET: "Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 {congressional authorization for military force in Iraq} 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."

-- President Bush, March 18 letter to Congress.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

-- President Bush, Sept. 17.

[Cocoa]

23. that's impressive

a reporter making an important connection like that.

I wonder if Condi read that one to George. :-)

[Cha]

4. Thanks for this! It's getting real muddy with all the lies flying

out of bush's mouth.

[Don_G]

7. "Information Available To Me?"

Who's going to be the patsy on THIS one? Surely not Dimbo!

[HFishbine]

8. RU

the author of the Top 10 Idiots?

[EarlG]

14. IR

:)

[HFishbine]

17. Love

what you do! Thanks!

[EarlG]

30. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[southpaw]

9. Just e-mailed the link to Alan Colmes

Hannity and Coulter recently challenged Colmes to show where any member of the administration made a direct assertion that Iraq was linked to 9-11.

Maybe he'll mention it to Hannity...

Naaah... not likely.

[corarose]

10. Let's all EMAIL this article to all of the Newspapers (Thank You EarlG)

A massive email campaign about Jr lying should be done by all of us.

Thanks EarlG!

[JaneQPublic]

12. Here's the other Chimpy quote, to complete the set

Also from the White House website, here's the transcript of Chimpy's press conference on Wednesday, Sept. 17, where he admitted Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

[arcane1]

13. so... Congress gave the OK to go after any nation that...

supports the 9/11 terra-ists, and the Chimp double-crossed the Congress by mixing Iraq in there..?

when is that Saudi Arabia 'liberation'?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. PLEASE READ THIS...... smoking gun!!! Bush* Deceived Congress

Bush LIED to Congress to get his iraq war on!...and kennedy is the only one saying squat about it!!!!Congress was lied to by Bush* ...by bush*s own admittance

edited to fix link
http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=370664


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-14.htm
Published on Friday, September 19, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Might Bush's Blank Check for War Bounce If He Deceived Congress?
by Thom Hartmann

snip

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, George W. Bush said what virtually every other senior member of his administration had been going out of their way to refute.

"We've had no evidence," he told CNN's John King, "that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September the eleventh. No."

This came as a shock to the 70 percent of Americans who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq because they believed Saddam was a mastermind of 9/11 or that Iraqis were among the pilots who hijacked our planes.

But the bigger shock may be to members of Congress, who, hearing that, may now conclude that Bush just admitted he had explicitly misled them.

It started in the months leading up to the 2002 elections. In many parts of the nation Democrats were doing well in the polls, and it looked like Republicans may lose control of the House along with the Senate control they'd lost earlier when Jim Jeffords left the party in disgust.

An October Surprise was needed to turn 9/11 into a partisan issue the Republicans could exploit, some partisans suggest, so congressional allies of the Bush Administration trotted out Public Law 107-243, "A Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

The law specified that:


"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations. ..."

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

"... the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;...

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;..." that the President could use force against the perpetrators of terrorism, implicitly, of 9/11.

snip

The passage of Public Law 107-243 on October 16, 2002 caused a national uproar, and enabled the Republicans to paint the Democrats as war-wimps, weak on defense, and only grudgingly willing to go along with efforts to get the guy who, as Public Law 107-243 said, "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..."

more..
CONGRESS BETTER MOVE TO IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!!!

[KoKo]

32. What's interesting is why Bush is distancing himself from the Admin?

Is he doing a Tony Bliar? Blair has so far managed to keep the finger from pointing to his hand with the "dodgy dossier" but his Staff is resigning one by one over the hoopla from Hutton Report.

So, maybe he thinks he will stand alone........but who's advising him to do this? Who does he have in this administration of PNAC supporters who want him to be the last one standing?

Very interesting........

[priller]

16. Did you read Milbank's article today?

I don't know why no one has thought of this earlier. The "blank check" that congress gave Bush after 9/11 was specifically to go after the people responsible for 9/11. Bush, legally, couldn't unilaterally invade Iraq without making that connection. Now he denies it. That makes the Iraq invasion illegal to my simplistic non-lawyer mind.

[sistersofmercy]

18. Yes, I think this is the one!

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Sorry guys, this is not a smoking gun

It's obvious innuendo and proof that he wanted to lump Iraq and "folks what done 9-11" into a common group against which we'd retaliate, but it doesn't make the equation. This gives them plausible deniability--just like the sixteen words did--but it DOES show their intent to deceive. Surely, people who scrupulously cover their asses to be strictly "correct" when obviously intending to mislead is proof of moral turpitude and evil, so this is the tack that should be taken.

The most important thing this proves is that they were deliberately trying to mislead in a case where the KNEW that Hussein had nothing to do with it. That is the crime here, and that's what should be said.

Point (2) shows that we claim the right to attack a hodgepodge of terrorists, INCLUDING those who did us on 9-11. This does not say that Iraq was one of the latter.

[BurtWorm]

21. But if their intent was to deceive, how much more of a smoking gun

do you need? Here it is in writing, a reference to 9-11 in a document ostensibly about a war that had nothing to do with 9-11. Why not a reference to terrorists, including those who had a hand in Oklahoma City or the USS Cole incident? What is the need to mention 9-11 if not to deceive. Ergo, you have the smoking gun right in their hands.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. I Agree POE. Perilously Close, But No Cigar

It's a lump sum designation and doesn't specifically implicate Iraq.

The Professor

[BurtWorm]

27. How does it not implicate Iraq? It's an action on the IWR

(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.



What is the point of bringing up 9-11 in this document? What does 9-11 have to do with this war action against Iraq? Why not mention this action as being consistent with some other policy? Why "consistent"?

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Sorry It Took So Long To Get Back

First, remember that i said it was perilously close.

But, there are weasel words in there that obviate any direct connection being claimed. But, the first statement, as opposed to #2, is where the weasel words are. The second statement draws the inferential connection, but one needs to read #1 to get that inference. That's, i'm sure, intentional by the drafters.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure that they clearly intended to imply there was a connection. But, they were also clearly trying to avoid any direct connection in print. Hence this document is "perilously close" to making that connection directly, but it's clearly inferential.

Also, don't forget. You and i agree completely on the overall issue. I do think they implied it, on purpose. I do think it was political cover for a pre-existing plan. I do think these are shortsighted, foolish, and soulless people behind this plan.

I'm just saying they did a good job of covering themselves.
The Professor

[sistersofmercy]

25. Dang it, I didn't catch that but you're correct.

More of the same word association game and they're still doing it.
"we never said saddam was behind 9/11 but there is no question Iraq had ties to Al qaeda." (paraphrasing) "Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda." Listener hears "We never said Saddam was behind 9/11 but...had ties to Al Qaeda." At least the transcripts I've seen so far, they're not asserting a Saddam/Al Qaeda link but an Iraq/Al Qaeda link which is correct. It's more of the same, kennedy appropriately labelled it a fraud.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. but this is the "smoking gun"!!!

www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-14.htm

snip

An October Surprise was needed to turn 9/11 into a partisan issue the Republicans could exploit, some partisans suggest, so congressional allies of the Bush Administration trotted out Public Law 107-243, "A Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

The law specified that:


"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations. ..."

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

"... the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;...

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;..." that the President could use force against the perpetrators of terrorism, implicitly, of 9/11.

snip

The passage of Public Law 107-243 on October 16, 2002 caused a national uproar, and enabled the Republicans to paint the Democrats as war-wimps, weak on defense, and only grudgingly willing to go along with efforts to get the guy who, as Public Law 107-243 said, "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..."

[welshTerrier2]

37. I Disagree !!

The ONLY use of force authorized by the resolution was force directed at Iraq ... not at all terrorists or terrorist nations ...

Here's point (2) under what bush had to "determine" before he invaded Iraq:

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


Invading had to be consistent with our goal against terrorism but it did not authorize attacks of "generic terrorists" beyond Iraq ...

I disagree with your interpretation of point (2) ...

my reading indicates that bush was required to certify that "ATTACKING IRAQ WAS CONSISTENT WITH" our stated purpose of taking "necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The specific action he took was to attack Iraq ... we did not attack a "hodgepodge of terrorists" ... we attacked Iraq in accordance with the only authorization of force granted by the resolution ... the Iraq War Resolution DID NOT authorize bush to wage war against just any terrorists ... it authorized him ONLY TO INVADE IRAQ .... and only if attacking Iraq was part of our war against terrorism ...

Bush's letter certified that ATTACKING IRAQ was consistent with attacking terrorists INCLUDING those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." There no escaping it ... this is proof of bush's blatant linkage between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists ...

The letter is absolutely a smoking gun ... and politically, even if bush can squirm out of this, it will still be nice to watch him squirm ...

BTW, for those who would like to read the actual wording of the resolution, you can find a copy here ==> http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. welshTerrier2 i concur! and so does ted kennedy!

kennedy is no dupe...he knows this is a smoking gun!!!

[spindoctor]

43. I beg to differ

New to this forum, and I haven't read all the replies yet, so sorry if I duplicate anybody here.

At first sight I agreed with you, Purity, but if you look at it closely, point 2 mentions the following categories:

1. international terrorists
2. terrorist organizations

Although I don't think any country can be considered an organization, Bush stipulates that category 2 includes "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

So, is Iraq and international terrorist? No, because Iraq is not a person.
Is Iraq a terrorist organization? No, because Iraq is not an organization.

Unless you apply the stipulation about nations planning, authorizing, committing or aiding 9/11, it makes no sense.

Granted, I am picking nits here, but considering that the Administration built its case against Iraq by insinuations that could not be held against them, it is about time they started to fuck up.
First Cheney on Meet the Press, and now it is Bush's turn.

[EarlG]

20. An interesting document

This was also forwarded to me today. It's in Word format so I've uploaded it to the DU server:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/iraq-claimsfacts.doc

[salin]

24. Did he mention 911 in todays speech?

Has he purged that particular inneundo from his rah rah get iraq rhetoric?

[KoKo]

33. Salin, it was a "merge" of his Speech heading up to Invasion & SOU........

like he was digging up all the reasons we went into Iraq, you know the drill.....terrorists, kill, WMD, Nuclear (nukular) Sex trade, murderers........It was (to me) a compilation of all of his speeches cobbled together and the tone was of a Religious Zealot showing how Good we Americans are and that the "Evil Ones" are out to get us.....It was quite creepy...because it seems he only can remember what he's given before. He did add a very nasty paragraph calling the Palestinians Terrorists & adding a few other snipes at them (which should do wonders for our Peacemaking efforts there).

But, as a speech by the President to the UN it was very beligerant and the tone was religious preaching. Nothing diplomatic was said...in any way offering humility or modesty about why we invaded Iraq.

As others have mentioned his long description of the "Sex Slavery Trade" was bizarre.....which is why I think he has some really weird hang ups religiously......like he thinks he's an avenging Dark Angel and he's going to take the US and the people on a Crusade.......

That's what I felt listening to it........and he HAS TO BE STOPPED....he's very dangerous...more so than we imagined and have proof of here......and we've imagined some pretty bad stuff here on DU along with the facts.....it's worse, imho.....

[KoKo]

31. It is interesting to see the distortions and lies side by side with facts.

And, Congress should go after him on this......but will they? Did Kennedy fire the first volley? I don't hear much else there........but if these polls keep ticking down.......we need an independent investigation....started immediately.

[EarlG]

26. I'm getting some great stuff forwarded today....

I think this has come up on the board earlier today, but check out these remarks from the U.S. Embassy in Israel's website - this is a transcript of Colin Powell, there's no date at this link but from what I've read elsewhere these remarks were made in early 2001:

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2001/february/me0224b.html

"We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions--the fact that the sanctions exist--not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

[ozymandius]

49. I wonder what the CIA has to say about this.

Now that personal responsibility for this assertion has been taken. How might the CIA react to being named co-conspirator? We know it's coming, again.

[oasis]

34. Let's see if he can slither from under this in the presidential debate.

[prolesunited]

35. I'm sure if a Dem candidate brings it up

the media will chastise him for being so mean and picking on poor little Georgie.

[oasis]

36. A kick for Carville /Begala's "Crossfire" staff.

[Mechatanketra]

38. Easy accusation, unfortunately, easy defense too.

Maybe y'all remember that at the time when we still had vague hopes of stopping the rush to war, one of the arguments against invading Iraq was that it would actually weaken the "war on terrorism" by simultaneously inflaming more hostility against America and tying up its resources in a pointless (for Joe Sixpack) endeavor overseas.

Bush (or rather, his handlers) can always claim that this section is there simply to affirm that America is capable of dealing with both the (imagined) Iraq threat and the threat of terrorism.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Not sure I'm following you here.

You said yourself that the threat was "imagined." Therefore, the defense is also imaginary. Am I missing something?

[untelevised]

40. Old news

This was on Tom Tomorrow and dKos last week and one of the DailyKOS readers pointed out that the crafty legalese used here ("including" as opposed to "specifically") gets Bush off the hook. See: http://www.dailykos.com/archives/004211.html#004211

[Gman]

41. So is Bush now speaking "Clintonesque"

Is this a case of the definition of "is"? Let them argue it. It'll only make him look worse.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. untelevised welcome to DU

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[spindoctor]

45. nope

Update: dKos poster RG reluctantly gives the Bush defense:

There's evidence that Saddam funded Hamas. Any country that provides terrorist funding is itself a terrorist nation. INCLUDING does not mean ONLY. Iraq qualifies.

But again, Hammas did not commit 9/11. So even if Saddam aided Hammas (didn't Israel support Hammas too at some point?), the NATION Iraq did not AID the "terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".

The nation Afghanistan aided the terrorist organization Al'Queada, only that one fits the bill.

[bspence]

46. My take is that it's no smoking gun

That's the difference between liberals and neo-cons. They'll push something if there's even a hint of wrong doing. We stay above that until we have proof.

Here's my take:

Bush stated that there was no link between 9-11 and Saddam. However, he does think that Saddam helped Al-Qaeda because one member of that organization was in Baghdad. The letter says that any nation helping the organization that caused 9-11 would be attacked.

Now if Bush said that there was no connection between Saddam and the organization of Al Qaeda, we'd have something. Unfortunately, he said that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11.

Not that Saddam and this other guy actually met, but that this Al Qaeda guy was physically in Baghdad. Y'know, I remember there were at least 19 Al Qaeda operatives here in America, but nobody's trying to start war over here!

(Except you Ashcroft, we know you're doing your best to destroy our society!) ;)

I just wish this administration would explain their actions. War is too serious to not offer a hint of proof.

[bspence]

47. Oh, and...

BIG THANKS FOR THE TOP TEN CONSERVATIVE IDIOTS!!

I love that article, and I look for it every week. You rock Earl!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. "Imp lying" is more like it.

:kick:

[dmr]

52. Thank you Earl!

I was looking for something like this. Took a screen shot of it, since it just may 'disappear'!

Thanks again! :)