President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 – disputing an idea held by many Americans.
I don’t like the guy, but I like him better for saying this, at least.
Good for Bush. Eat that, Cheney.
So, my house gets robbed, I tell the neighborhood. I tell everyone on the block that one of our neighbors (who’s pissed me off in the past) is a convicted thief and that he might steal again, so I go over to his house and beat the shit out of him and kick him out of the neighborhood. Long after that, I tell everyone that he had no involvment with the people who actually stole my stuff, but since he’s a convicted thief, I did everyone and myself the favor of making sure that he never gets the chance.
At least no one can call me a liar.
You’ve got to be kidding…
And then we have these fine quotes from the past week:
So yes, on the one hand, the administration is finally admitting that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and on the other hand, the administration is still trying to do their best to tie them together in the minds of the electorate.
Where’s that quote from, Mark? Because that sounds like some cover-his-ass reporting. Shouldn’t it be “President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 – disputing just about everything they’ve said the last year or two.” or possibly “disputing an idea held by the administration itself”?
Back pedalling like a muthafucka, is what it looks like to me!
Mark, you honestly like him more for thinking you are such an idiot you will not remember what he said last spring? I think he is just banking on the idea that most American’s have a short attention span, but as is being pointed out here already, if they listen to his administration, that attention span has to be less than 1 day.
I think he is saying it now so he can deny saying everything else he said when the democrats start throwing it in his face on the campaign trail.
Chet
For the love of all that is decent and good, will the democratic candidate for president please go to town with all the shit like this and will the American public please empower themselves like the main character in a Lifetime movie that decides she doesn’t want to be a victim anymore!!! We don’t have to keep taking showers to try and scrape off the dirty feeling, we can do something about it.
I saw it on CNN’s site. Yeah, I’m glad Bush has made this admission. Maybe it will help people begin to disconnect Saddam from 9/11.
Why would it? It’s just news burying. I don’t know if you Americans heard about it but on 9/11 that was what Jo Moore suggested should happen.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2927577.stm
The same thing is happening here - what difference does it make now that Bush has steamrollered into Iraq that he states that he was basically lying about Saddam’s connections to 9/11? None whatsoever. No one is paying attention to it. No one is looking to criticise the administration because that is ‘unpatriotic’. Bush could start getting his cock sucked in the Oval office and it probably wouldn’t raise an eyebrow at this point in time.
Wadda mean, props? Background: Cheney said last Sunday that Saddam might have been behind 9/11. Press promptly goes apeshit; they’re not putting up with these flat-out lies anymore.
Fast forward: the entire administration starts backing off.
I’m with Jason. This is way too little, way too late, and smacks of ass-covering.
Or maybe Bush is finally wresting control back away from the nuts he’s surrounding himself with?
Hey, a guy can hope, right?
You actually think he had control?
Bush isn’t saying that Saddam isn’t connected to Al-Queda. What he’s saying is that he doesn’t believe that Saddam was actively involved in the planning and executing of 9/11. However the administration still fully believes that getting rid of Saddam is key to making sure another 9/11 doesn’t happen. Now whether that’s true or not is debatable, but I don’t see this as backpeddaling. Since Bush to my knowledge has never directly said that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.
edit: oh and do you think that stabilizing and creating a democracy in Iraq WOULDN’T “strike a major blow” against terrorism? Even Dean has said that a democratic Iraq would be helpful in the war on terror, he just wanted to use other means besides force to cause it to happen.
You actually think he had control?[/quote]
For about 5 minutes after inaugeration, sure. ;)
From Slate’s “Today’s Papers”:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2088567/
As most papers mention inside, and the LAT plays on Page One (in today’s must-read), President Bush yesterday said “we have no evidence” that Saddam was involved in 9/11. That’s one of the first times the White House has acknowledged not having the goods. As the papers explain, the comment seems to be part of a larger attempt at damage control after Vice President Cheney not so subtly suggested that Saddam might have been involved.
As everybody notes, Bush also said, “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.” The papers say intel analysts think that’s overstating things: There were some contacts in the early 1990s, but no significant cooperation.
The LAT takes a few paragraphs to revisit some similar assertions by Bush, such as his May 1 victory speech comment, “We’ve removed an ally of al-Qaida.” One unnamed official told the paper, “Nobody has alleged that al-Qaida was working hand in glove with Iraq.”
Bush has to start letting some soldiers come home after December. The election is coming up and he’ll lose a lot of military votes (and their families) if he doesn’t.
I think he already lost a great deal of the military vote. The cutting of vet benefits did not go unnoticed by them.
Chet