For the extreme right winger, the world is full of convenient oversights and dismissals. Even the most well documented and chronicled events are overlooked, tossed aside and dismissed when it doesn’t fit within their tightly constructed network of fabrications. This, of course, has especially been their modus operandi since the invasion of Iraq
in 2003, and is the only way the lies have been perpetuated to the point that 43% still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 according to a recent CNN poll, even though this theory has been widely discredited.
The new America in which we live is one where there is no accountability for what government officials say or do, and in which presidents can hide behind cleverly placed qualifiers and semantic acrobatics. For example, at a recent press conference that received a bunch of attention, when asked what Iraq had to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush said, “Nothing.” He then added, “Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”
Pay close attention to Bush’s clever use of language. He said, that no one ever suggested that Iraq “ordered” the attacks of September 11th. In fact, no one in the Bush administration has ever explicitly said that Iraq “ordered” the September 11th attacks, but Bush & co certainly suggested links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which despite Bush’s attempt at plausible deniability, pretty much served the same purpose. Any suggestion of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, prior to the Iraq invasion, were surely intended to create the impression that Saddam had a hand in the planning and execution of the attack. In fact, not only did they suggest such a link in various speeches and interviews, but it was strongly suggested in a much more official way-President Bush’s letter requesting the authorization to use force against Iraq:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(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.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The above letter clearly states that Bush is asking for congressional approval to use force against Iraq in order 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.” What else could this mean other than suggesting that Iraq had a hand in planning, committing or aiding in the attacks on September 11th?
Nonetheless, Bush and Cheney are playing the politics of confusion once again. Bush says no one has “ever suggested” that Iraq ordered 9/11, and claims that 9/11 has “nothing” to do with Iraq. Not too long afterward, Cheney appears on Meet the Press and denies responsibility for making such claims, and then, in the very same appearance, claims that there certainly was a “relationship” between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
Again, the truth is that Cheney himself has always been the most vocal about an Iraq/Al Qaeda “relationship during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. In 2001, Cheney said his famous statement that it was “pretty well confirmed” that Sept. 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi official. In fact, there was no such confirmation. In 2004, well after the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection had been initially debunked, Cheney insisted that Al Qaeda & Iraq “had long established ties”.
However, the Senate Intelligence Report on pre-war intelligence determines, as did the 9/11 Commission Report, in short, that despite apparent attempts by Al Qaeda operatives to garner support from Saddam Hussein, they were consistently rejected because the dictatorial Iraqi regime was distrustful of groups it could not control. When this was pointed out to Cheney during his Meet the Press appearance, he said he hadn’t “had a chance” to read the Senate report yet.
Bush on numerous occasions, too many to list here, has proclaimed that Saddam Hussein had provided safe haven for Al Qaeda operative Zarqawi. However the recently released Senate Intelligence Report concludes that Saddam Hussein “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi”. Could it be that Bush and Cheney simply have not caught on to the fact that their public statements might be recorded in some way?
Yet despite all these well documented Bush administration LIES and their subsequent denials, critics of the war that point out the lack of any “relationship” between Iraq & Al Qaeda are the ones often labeled by bush sycophant’s as history “revisionists”. Black is white, up is down, 2+2=3…