Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (461620)	9/19/2003 10:09:45 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The Terrorism Link That Wasn't September 19, 2003 On Wednesday, President Bush finally got around to acknowledging that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. White House aides will tell you that Mr. Bush never made that charge directly. And that is so. But polls show that lots of Americans believe in the link. That is at least in part because the president's aides have left the implication burning. President Bush himself drew a dotted line from the 9/11 attack in declaring the end of hostilities in Iraq. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Mr. Bush said. He continued the theme in his last major speech on the war. But on Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney went too far. He said it was "not surprising" that many Americans drew a link between Mr. Hussein and 9/11. Asked if there was a connection, he replied, "We don't know." But the administration does know, and Mr. Bush was forced to acknowledge it on Wednesday. Of course, Mr. Cheney was not surprised that Americans had leapt to a conclusion. He was particularly enthusiastic in helping them do it. "Come back to 9/11 again," Mr. Cheney said on Sept. 8, 2002, "and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability." Mr. Cheney was careful then not to claim that any evidence really linked Mr. Hussein to the 2001 attacks. But he drew a convoluted argument about Mr. Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and suggested in closing that he was not telling all he knew because he did not want to reveal top secrets. Before the war began, Mr. Bush switched the justification for the invasion repeatedly. The argument that was most persuasive, the danger of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Mr. Hussein, has fallen flat since the weapons have failed to turn up. Plenty of evidence has emerged that Mr. Hussein was a bloody despot who deserved to be ousted for the sake of his beleaguered people. But recent polls suggest that the American public is not as enthusiastic about making sacrifices to help the Iraqis as about making sacrifices to protect the United States against terrorism. The temptation to hint at a connection with Sept. 11 that did not exist must have been tremendous. The Bush administration always bristles when people attempt to draw any parallels between the quagmire in Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. If the president is really intent on not repeating history, however, he should learn from it. The poison of Vietnam sprang from a political establishment that was unwilling to level with the American people about what was happening overseas. Stark honesty is the best weapon Mr. Bush can employ in maintaining public confidence in his leadership. nytimes.com