S2Focus

If you read this UPI article , you'll find that the report produced by the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks states that there is no evidence of any links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The Bush Administration has had full access to all the information in this report for *months*, so it is reasonable to expect that Bush and his advisers were aware that there was no credible evidence linking Saddam to al-Qaida.

Yet on May 1, Bush uttered these exact words during his famous "aircraft-carrier" speech:

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance
in the campaign against terror. We have
removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off
a source of terrorist funding.


So Laci, in your view, what is the most likely explanation for this?

1) Bush deliberately lied to the American people about Saddam and al-Qaida.

2) Bush was "asleep at the switch" and honestly thought that Saddam and al-Qaida were working together.

3) Bush's speechwriters had information linking Saddam with al-Qaida, but the information was so top-secret that they didn't dare share it with the CIA.

4) Other (append your explanation here).


(Edited to insert the phrase "it is reasonable to expect" into the above text.)

Arken

Not a bush apologist, but I'm sure we'll soon be hearing about how we shouldn't worry about 'fifteen little words' and how the president was 'technically correct'

Nog

Here comes the spin

Maybe no connection with Al Qaida but there was other terrorist bases in Iraq. This is a war on terror .

Arken

That's not spin. That doesn't address the issue of why Bush specifically mentioned Al'Qaeda in the speech.

eldar1011

Let me give it a try...

Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda shared a hatred for America and our freedoms. They were both comrpised of evildoers determined to destroy our way of life.

In this manner, they were allied ideologically.

Godless Dave

There were? Got a source for that?

Happy Wonderer

4) Bush didn't read that report (too many pages)
5) There was evidence of a terrorist connection, but the dog ate it
6) The report was thought to be misinformation by Iraqi moles in the Senate (otherwise known as Democrats.)

hw

(Honest to the IPU, I saw a 'spin' that the Iraqi nuclear report wasn't read in entirety by the White House because it had 90 pages and footnotes )

Feather

Let me give it a shot:

Al Qaeda is a terrorist group. Iraq supported terrorism (paid hamas suicide bombers etc.). Therefore Al Qaeda was free to pursue other terrorist activities and concentrate resources elsewhere (i.e. the US). So while their may be no direct link, the link exists indirectly.

(How they would reconcile that with Faith Based Initiatives "who cares if it frees up proselytising money" is beyond me, though. )

Laci

So what's the answer. Who among the Democratic hopefules do you think will be elected president?

Flynn McKerrow

You already have a thread for this. I take this to mean that you have no comment. How surprising.