Bush and Rumsfeld both state Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Quick, someone check and see if the rivers have turned to blood…

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Bush: No Evidence Saddam Involved in 9/11

“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.

The president’s comment on Saddam, the deposed Iraqi leader, was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Of course it didn’t hurt their cause of getting the public to go along with the war to allow everyone to think that Iraq had a hand in September 11th so they didn’t bother to mention it until now, but I suppose I should be happy they’re at least owning up to the truth. Finally.

UPDATE: This is a bit more convoluted than I had thought. On the way home from work yesterday I was listening to NPR and they did a piece on this that seems to show that the Bush administration pushed the supposed link between Saddam and al-Qaida harder than I had thought. Click here to go to the news story. NPR’s story actually made my angry whereas before I was just annoyed.

25 thoughts on “Bush and Rumsfeld both state Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

  1. Am I the only one that this pisses off! He Lied, and he knew he was lying when he said it. People are just to lazy, or too damn stupid, or both, To do anything about it. If more people gave a damn, maybe this Nation wouldnt be soo shity.

  2. Wow, a politician mislead people, that has never happened before. I have been following this closely, and while I may have missed something, at no time did I ever hear the President say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He definitely gave the public that impression (clearly shown by the fact 69% of them think so), but he didn’t say it outright. If I was one of the people that was duped into thinking it was so, I may be pissed at the President (only for revealing my own gullibility). But, I think it is more appropriate to be pissed at the media for not questioning the implications of his statements at the time, and also at the majority of dopes that came to a conclusion that wasn’t supported by facts.

  3. Oh, we can be pissed at the President, too. He’s a lying, whoremongering asshole. He knew exactly what he was doing.

    The media has much to atone for, too.

  4. There is no question that this administration intentionally misled people.  These polls have been coming out for months saying a majority of people believe that Saddam had something to do with Al Queda and 911.  Lots of folks knew there was no tie, but they were dismissed as “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic”.  I even saw a bumper sticker that said “Support Bush on Iraq, remember who attacked us first” and it had a picture of the twin towers both smoking.  Surprising that people are so gullible?  No.  Sad?  Yes.

    BTW I think it is pretty pathetic for people to compare lying about a blow job with lying about reasons to go to war!  Just not in the same category.  Yes, lying is lying.  Lying is wrong, shame on Clinton for lying!  Shame on Bush for lying!  Shame on Clinton for hurting his family!  Shame on Bush for hurting America and sending US soldiers to die for no good reason!  See the difference?  It isn’t rocket science folks.

  5. If you noticed Mild Bill didn’t compare Bush lying about going to war versus Clinton lying about getting a blow job. If you believe Bush lied about why we went to war, then so did Clinton. Clinton also went to war in Kosovo, but they never attacked us, so why did we go? And talk about a quagmire, home by Christmas? We still have troops there 5 years later (I guess it must take longer than 5 months to rebuild a country). Let’s get over the blow job and look at the real misleading Clinton did.

  6. Valhalla, while I give you some benefit of the doubt as to whether Bush and Company actually offered un-contestable intelligence linking Hussein’s Iraq with 9/11, I will go as far as to say they worked hard to put the possible association into the minds of the public and the press.
    This is a great example:

    Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
    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.


    (Emphasis added)

    As is this:
    CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq

  7. Next, Bush will be saying that he never said there were WMDs in Iraq.

    His administration pushes the English language to the limit, leaving one to draw conclusions which can be “denied” at a later time.

    Fact: Bush implied a link between 9/11 and Saddam, and then acted AS IF there was such a link by invading Iraq.  So it is no surprise that most people have connected the dots on the manner in the way that polls indicate.

  8. So in other words, it all depends on what you mean by “the *heart*…of the geographic base.”  Someone attempting to take what comes out of Cheney’s mouth word for word might just parse this as….well, Iraq. 

    Semantics aside, all I’m gleaning here is the attempt to make the link in the minds of Americans while avoiding overt statements that the administration can be pinned down on.  Russert makes the conclusion desired, Cheney counters that he didn’t *really* say that.  Which does make me wonder about the “full remarks” made on the Saudi link to Al-Quaida—this apparently was brought in as proof of the unreliability of the WaPo?  That might be the case, MB, but your own quotes seem to add more, not less, credence to the attempt to draw a link.

    PS—if that second quote was “out of context…” couldja maybe give us the context?

  9. The question is if the administration has said that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  I think their policy shows pretty clearly that they think Iraq is part of the overall war on terror, but I don

  10. In summation, Bush and his cohorts repress relevant information, they use misinformation and innuendo, they endeavor to play on our emotions to accomplish desired support, and if they get caught at any of this, they simply say they were misquoted or misrepresented and call those who dare to ask for clarification unpatriotic.

    The problem we face is that except for calling people unpatriotic, every President in the last 50 years (and probably well before that) has done the same things.

    Yes, we are in the here and now, but Iraq is a done deal, we can’t go back and unattack. I wish we could, but we are now stuck with the situation as it stands, and I don’t think anyone feels we should just abandon the Iraqi’s to their own devices. So what do we do now? The pundits and politicians opposed to Bush seem to think they should do some of the same things that Bush did to get us into Iraq (I see alot of innuendo and playing on emotions, like Sen. Kennedy saying we are bribing countries to join us in Iraq, but provides no evidence to back it up). This over the top rhetoric seems all too popular these days (on both sides of any issue), but it only entrenches support for both sides. Was Bill Clinton was the worst President, or He was the Best President? I would say the truth is none of the above, but if you want to play on emotions you will use which ever is appropriate for “your side”.

  11. I know this thread is primarily about whether or not the Administration misled the public on a Iraq / 9/11 connection, but I can’t resist a quick general comment.  Forgive me for skewing the topic…

    One, it was a BIG mistake for Pres. Bush to link the invasion of Iraq to WMD.  This reduced the whole thing to a bizarre “scavenger hunt” when that was never really the point of the invasion to begin with.  Unfortunaty it was a politically expedient reasoning put out there in an attempt to garner international support.  More to the point of the thread, I would posit that it was also not about revenge for 9/11 (except maybe for a certain vengeful minority of the populace).  In my eyes the main point was to remove a reactionary, muderous regime in a very key area.  In the long term, a free democratic Iraq (to use the current political buzzword) will lead to a more stable region.  And, trust me, the majority of Iraqis are quite happy Saddam is out of power.  The lines of people along the roads who wave and cheer were just as thick 3 months after the offensive as they were on the second day of it. I’ve read polls (of Iraqis) to that effect as well, but I don’t have the data on hand.
      Of course, this is just my opinion.  In the end, history will decide.  Just know that it is often beneficial to envision the future beyond the next election.  We, as Americans, often do not choose to do that.  We are typically more content to view events as belonging to some “asshole politician”

  12. It would appear that G.W.Bush is convinced that everyone else is as thick as he is, or worse still he deludes himself with the belief that he is actually smarter than most people. So in his fantasy world everyone buys his stories about Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever else he decides to take his war on terror.

    If you want to consider a more valid reason for the war on terror(TM), then do a Google search for ‘peak oil’ the results may open your eyes a little bit.

  13. Serai

    Do you think that government of Afghanistan sponsoring an attack against the United States is maybe, kind of, sort of a pretty good reason to remove that government?  I must say that is pretty unrealistic if you don

  14. And double dipping…


    I just heard on CNN that 78% of respondents thought Saddam was involved in 9/11. 
    One would think of the 8 or so folks that have responded to this page, that at least one would have been among the

  15. Yes of course, it’s just an incredible coincidence that the US financed the Taliban in the expectation that they would in turn honour deals for a pipeline, and also a HUGE coincidence that when the Taliban refused to honour the above agreement Bin Laden a convenient bad guy gives the US just the reason they needed to take control of Afghanistan.

    Then as if these amazing coincidences were not enough, Saddam begins wearing a suspicious look on his face or something, provoking the US to begin it’s crusade against terror. Come on if WMD and all the other daft excuses for the Iraq war were true then why did they wait so long?

    I don’t disagree with removing evil murdering dictators, I just find this whole scenario stinks of BS. Come on be honest do you really think peak oil has nothing to do with this then? And if peak oil isn’t a factor is it because you believe a) the US has plans to resolve the crisis that don’t include siezing the worlds richest remaining oil reserves? b) Peak oil is a myth and the world has enough oil for centuries.

    One way or another you have to face the facts that the resource our civilisation depends on most, (fossil fuel) is dwindling at an alarming rate along with drastic increases in consumption. So to imagine that the world powers cannot see this and are not taking steps to grab as much of the reserves for themselves as possible is in my opinion a little naive don’t you think?

    Governments don’t go to war for the sake of some greater good, it’s a nice myth that the good guys are out there crusading to save the world from tyranny and evil, but that’s an ideal best reserved for fantasy fiction.

  16. As usual an interesting and well thought out response Bill. It really is speculation on my part and I admit that, but I am concerned by the motives of our governments yours and mine. Resources are running out, exactly how much is left and how long it will last isn’t certain, but I do believe a struggle to control what remains is on the cards.

    It seems to me that human society now has become ‘throwaway’, as in politicians not planning further than the next election, and environmental concerns being ignored as long as they won’t affect us in ‘our lifetimes’. It’s a shame that we spend so much time researching ancient civilisations and yet learning nothing from them, I mean we aren’t suffering ill effects from ancient Egyptian pollution are we? Can we say the same for civilisations that come 2000 years after us?

  17. It would be naive to suspect that the present administration has any interest in oil for profit. The Bush dynasty has no history or present connections with oil producers and sources, either here, in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. This war and the war on terrorism in general are about stopping renegade religious factions. It’s about liberation, justice and truth so noble and bright that it shines through, manifesting at least one thousand points of light.
    No energy company contributed most of the money necessary for legal efforts put forward in Florida to battle the vote recount there.
    Ken Lay never met Bush personally prior to 1998.
    The White House didn

  18. Serai

    I read your thing on Peak Oil and it is quite interesting.  You clearly know much more about this stuff than I do (I did nod off a few times while reading it :sleepy:).  I don

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.