So Cheney, Bush, the NY Post, Wash Times, et al still want to maintain a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. No real surprise there, though even Reagan eventually said "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." The Post says, The report claims that those contacts "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." But that's far from a flat-out "no ties exist." But the article I just posted says, Osama bin Laden sought Iraq's help in obtaining weapons and setting up terrorist training camps in the early 1990s, and he reportedly met with a top Iraqi intelligence officer. But Iraq "apparently never responded" to al-Qaeda's requests for help, a preliminary report by the commission says.
The Post says,
The staff report, re leased as part of yes terday's final public hearings, says there was no evident connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the Bush administration has never said there was.
But in fact, they did:
However, Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 — the day the war in Iraq began — Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press in September 2003 that "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection" between Saddam and Sept. 11.
Selectively choosing facts, failing to recall statements made, making suggestive statements with false innuendos, taking statements out of context--this is the modus operandi of the Bush admin. |
