Bush DID state Iraq ties to September 11. Here's the letter...

[Widgetsfriend]

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

So every time they say that no one in the administration has ever said that they are LYING. Read the letter. Here's the relevant passage:

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.

Rice just told the lie again to Tim Russert. Can we please put this BS to rest?

[Jawja]

1. It was Saddam's ties to

September 11 they deny never having made. They are standing behind their Al Qaeda claim, per *'s statement on September 17, when he denied having said Saddam had a hand in September 11, and pointed out that Cheney (in his comments on "Meet the Press") was talking about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.

on edit: you are correct though, the letter does tie Saddam to the September 11 attacks. But they are still out there connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda, which is not being challenged in the press.

[Widgetsfriend]

2. Thanks. I just fixed the headline.

The letter to the Speaker of the House from George W. Bush states that the war will commence BECAUSE of Iraqi ties to September 11, not Al Qaeda as I originally stated. Thanks for the fix. This is VERY relevant. Condi just said that no one in the administration has made the claim that Iraq was tied to September 11. This letter refutes that absolutely.

And on edit: You're right as well. They keep trying to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam and that has also been positively refuted and Russert did NOT call her on it.

[Jawja]

3. Absolutely!

And the letter should be spread around. :thumbsup:

Also, the "ties to Al Qaeda" claim needs to be put out front and challenged as often as possible.

[wryter2000]

4. That's part of the war resolution

I'm pretty sure. Not a letter. It's the best link I've seen so far.

[forgethell]

5. I'm not trying to defend Bush, here,

but I think that this letter has not been parsed accurately by you. At no point did the letter state that Iraq had ties to Al-Queda, or even September 11. Read the damn thing. It said terrorists "organizations". This definitely includes Iraq. Then, it threw in "including...September 11, 2001."

Now, this can be read to say that Iraq was involved. It can also be read as not saying that, but reminding the addressees of the problem. The "necessary actions" are to be taken against "international terrorists and terrorist organizations". The prepetrators of 9/11 are a subset of that. In short, it was slick and subtly worded. If Bush is a moron, then he at least has hired some very clever and intelligent staff members. By itself, then, this statement can be denied as being a lie. Not on this board, of course, we all know what was going on. But I have found this statement does not convince my conservative acquatainces when I have brought it up to them. i'm not sure anything would, of course.

[Oilwellian]

6. Maybe you can explain....

why 70% of the American public believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Maybe you can explain why we attacked Iraq if they didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Can you tell us what Saddam's "terrorist organization" was called and please direct me to the evidence that supports this. Thank you.

[forgethell]

8. to your first question, I do not know the answer.

The second and third questions are not relevant to my comments, which is that Bush's statement can be read either way, and that he has plausible deniability that he connected Iraq and 9/11 directly. If there is additional evidence that he did, I would be glad to hear it. I like to bolster my arguments as well as I can.

[ima_sinnic]

7. oh really?

"terrorist organizations" "definitely includes Iraq"?
not sure I know what you're saying here. Is Iraq a nation or an organization?

[forgethell]

9. is the government

of a nation an organization, or not??

Parse what is said. don't read things into comments that are not there.

[htuttle]

10. I think it's important to make them parse their own words anyway

Even if they can parse their words in a 'lawyerly manner' to show that they 'technically' told the truth, I still think it's important to make them do so.

After all, this president was supposed to 'change the tone' and not base his case on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. The more they have to resort to that same tactic, the worse they look to all but the most rabidly partisan Republicans.

[grasswire]

11. here's our original thread...

....with that letter and other equally relevant documents.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=361053