Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld begins the back pedal on the claim linking Saddam and AQ coordination on 9/11. And I respond to a neo-con back pedaling cover for Rumsfeld. (Ed. 10/3/2023)
At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved (in the 9/11 attack).
“I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that,” Rumsfeld said.
This after a full year and a half after 9/11 of inferences, innuendo, and not firmly stating that there is no link or evidence allowing the American people to be misled. I think the neo-cons are becoming as morally bankrupt as Clinton was when it comes to a willingness to manipulate the truth to obtain an end result, Clinton was over a hummer and domestic policy, and this involves 130,000 troops now stationed in harm’s way.
I wonder when we’ll see the news report where Rumsfield responds to a question about Iraq having had WMD with: “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”
And of course talk about failed intelligence in leading up to a unilateral pre-emptive war is being reported that Saddam himself may have been lied too by his own generals claiming WMD they never created. Not saying it’s true, but it is a potential Occam’s razor of why no WMD have been found, becuase they don’t exist and haven’t for 10 years. Tim C.
Do you have proof the Bush administration ever claimed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda?
I believe the administration tried to support the notion out of one side of the mouth while not officially denying the link out of the other side of the mouth. Did a single administration official ever say that Saddam had no link with 9/11 previous to our invasion? I can certainly find plenty of statements they made linking Saddam with 9/11 and making the inferential case that Iraq harboring Al-Queda = Iraq behind 9/11.
But did the administration ever explicitly say those words linking Saddam to al-Qaeda?
Oh come on…let’s not put our heads in the hole here. The administration knew exactly what it was doing and used a simple inferential connection to imply causality without having to prove it. Here’s a sample:
“Remember 9/11, all those Americans killed.”
“As we know 9/11 was caused by Al-Queda”
“We know for a fact that Iraq has links with Al-Queda”
Now what conclusion should be drawn? Will be drawn, would be drawn? Do a search on defense department official transcripts and crossreference Saddam, 9/11, and Al-Queda. Every time they’re before Congress or a Microphone administration officials are sure to combine all three in the statement.
And now Powell is saying the gassing of Kurds in Iraq in 1988 is another justification for war. What?!?! A 15-year-old justification for a pre-emptive war? Truth or not the perception is they’re shifting to find a justification that will stick and stick well. This is because WMD has not materialized, and the likelihood now is that they won’t. Every justification for the war on Iraq given pre-invasion as outlined in Resolution 1440 and other statements is falling apart: WMD, Al-Queda connection. It’s okay for us to sit back and debate these things, and I love good foreign policy debates on the issues, but what this is doing to our international credibility when we need to have it for situations like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan? Though our discussion occurs in a vacuum the larger discussion on the world stage does not.