Quote:
Originally posted by bishop,
here are some things that bush did say:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
if you don't think that he tried to tie saddam with 9/11, i have piece of land i'd like to sell you. it isn't hard to see through their double speak. they'll admit under their breath that saddam had no part in 9/11, while spewing all sorts of allegations that he trained terrorists, was an active supporter of terrorists, etc..
mix that in with a couple false claims or lies about wmd and you have one tasty sandwich. |
But that's exactly what I mean. I've seen you refer astutely to original documents that refute the imposition of interpretation by others. Here you're doing exactly the oppposite. You're taking original words and stating that what they don't say is the real message.
I think they believed that Saddam might have had something to do with 9/11, but because they couldn't prove it they could only speak regarding terrorism in general (but realistically talking about the suicide bombers in Israel). We had no hard evidence linking Atta to the events of 9/11 before the fact, only general plans from al Qaeda possibly involving airplanes. It seems reasonable to keep an open mind regarding possible links between Iraq and al Qaeda given the rhetoric of both camps directly after 9/11. It's only as time has passed that we've been able to start closing some possibilities because we're convinced we've investigated them thoroughly.
I think the President wanted to go after Saddam for multiple reasons, but only stated the reasons that most influenced his decision. In light of further investigation, is it any wonder the President decided to keep an open mind regarding possible connections even if the CIA was playing CYA with their recommendations? Given all the clues that were missed I don't think the President should be excoriated for allowing the possibility that the enemy might have more up his sleeve than the CIA could find, especially with thousands of fresh graves on his mind.