Posted on 07/13/2004 12:39:43 PM PDT by rface
His comments came despite reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the commission that's investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that no evidence links Hussein and Islamic terrorists who collaborated to kill Americans.
Specifically addressing national security issues for the first time since the Senate report was released Friday, Bush acknowledged “shortcomings” in the intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programs that was used to justify the war. But good intelligence or faulty, the president said war with Iraq was necessary.
His comments, made at Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, came as the White House is making his handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of his re-election campaign and as polls show that more Americans think the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism, not lowered it.
“Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,” the president said. “We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them.”
He added: “In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.”
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was speaking broadly about “the nexus between terrorists and outlaw regimes.” Asked if the president was speaking about an al-Qaida-Hussein connection, McClellan said, “We know there were ties between Iraq and terrorists, including al-Qaida.”
McClellan noted that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Palestinian from Jordan held responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in Iraq and who ran an al-Qaida camp in Afghanistan, was a “senior al-Qaida” member who was in Iraq.
But U.S. intelligence officials consider Zarqawi an associate of the terrorist network, not a member sworn to obey Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi, they think, is an independent operator who cooperates with al-Qaida when it's convenient. He and some followers found sanctuary in an enclave in northern Iraq run by armed Kurdish Islamic extremists who were outside Hussein's control.
In 2002, Zarqawi reportedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and started cells in the city, leading Bush administration officials to view his presence there as proof that Hussein was collaborating with al-Qaida.
U.S. intelligence officials think it just as likely that Iraqi officials, who were hostile to Islamic extremists, gave him medical care and refuge because it was easier to monitor his activities in Baghdad than in northern Iraq.
In its report, the Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed CIA analyses that despite contacts between al-Qaida and Iraqi intelligence officials during the 1990s, “these contacts did not add up to an established relationship.”
The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reached a similar conclusion in a staff report in June.
Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top administration officials contended repeatedly in the run-up to last year's invasion that Hussein was supporting bin Laden's terrorist network. They argued that Hussein had to be ousted before he could turn over biological or chemical weapons to Islamic terrorists.
The Senate report, however, showed that the CIA told Bush and his senior officials in two reports after the Sept. 11 attacks that it could find no evidence that Hussein and al-Qaida were in league.
The CIA produced assessments in June and September 2002 and in January 2003 that came to the same conclusion. Moreover, the September 2002 and January 2003 assessments and an October 2002 analysis indicated that the CIA was highly dubious that Hussein might arm al-Qaida with biological or chemical weapons.
The Bush administration has continued to insist that Hussein and al-Qaida worked together.
“If we're successful in Iraq ... then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9-11,” Cheney said on NBC last September.
In a National Annenberg Election Survey released June 23, 63 percent of those surveyed said they thought the war in Iraq had increased the risk of terrorism against the United States. A poll released June 17 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that 43 percent of Americans said the Iraq war had helped the war on terrorism, down from 59 percent last December.
The Pew poll, conducted June 3-13, was a nationwide survey of 1,806 adults with a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The Annenberg poll was based on interviews of 1,431 people May 17-31. Its sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.
This sounds like Bush is lying...but whats the deal? It's perfectly true.
I think someone is holding back a thunder-clap magnitude stash of evidence of this. My guess is that in the next few weeks we're going to see videos from 2001 of Saddam and Osama slapping each other on the back next to the pool at the Baghdad Hilton.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
This is a lie.
While you, me and GWB may believe this, it is not supported by any statement of GWB in the article. Specifically, Iraq:
"had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them.”
This is true, but is not citation of an actual operational link. It is citation of a potential operational link, which potential we removed.
Will the press ever get one sentence completely right?
I especially like the "our intelligence was faulty" argument. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because we didn't know what Iraq had as they weren't cooperating fully with the UN inspectors. And when you don't know, you must assume the worst. You know, shoot first and ask questions later.
"I think someone is holding back a thunder-clap magnitude stash of evidence of this."
Who and why? If the administration has evidence and did not share that with the various other investigations, and more importantly the American people - why why why?
There also seems to be a distinction being made between contacts and operational links. This seems reasonable since not all contacts with others develop into operational links - consider that the US & France have numerous contacts, but few operational links (especially in relation to Iraq).
Have you ever been fishing? Do you know what happens when you lightly tug a worm away from a fish? The fish wants it even more. If you tug it again the fish will dive again. After the third time the fish will make such a grab at that worm that it will be unable to spit the hook out. Sometiems they swallow the whole "hook, line and sinker."
I think someone politically savvy is playing with the partisans in the media. Maybe they don't have the tape or whatever evidence it is, but they know its coming. The President is way too confident in my opinion to be going on just the meager evidence we all have heard about on the news.
"I think someone politically savvy is playing with the partisans in the media."
Yes, I've been fishing (and used to drag $20's through trailer parks too).
If someone is 'playing' with those nasty elite partisans in the media - they're 'playing' with you and me as well. Don't know about you, but I sure as h*ll don't appreciate being 'toyed' with - especially concerning little things like war and truth.
They harped for months on how Bush said an attack was "imminent" when he said no such thing. When confronted they simply drop it, they do not correct the mistake.
For months the Press went on about the Niger connection; now that what they and Wilson said has been proven false they merely drop it, without explaining what the truth is.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
DNC media: "we can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing, when it's all done, we haven't told you a thing..." 
I just hope the good guys are setting the hook and if caught, the media will actually show themselves hanging from the warf. With the way stories like the serin gas attack against our soldiers gets buried, I am really having growing doubts. The mainstream doesn't really believe in fair and balanced news. They have their agenda and are sticking to it.
Every time the media lies are exposed, they raise the bar. So, now to be part of Al Qaeda means one has to take an oath to obey Bin Laden? "Cooperating" isn't enough? How would that make a tinker's damn bit of difference to people they kill in attacks where they merely "cooperate."???
They're not playing with me. I'm as convinced as The President is about the connection between Saddam and Al Q.(though for possibly differnet reasons). If he has to hold back some of that proof for evidentiary or nationaly security reasons, so be it. If he wants to taunt his foes along the way, more power to him.
ping
No. Let's parse this one.
His comments came despite reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the commission that's investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that no evidence links Hussein and Islamic terrorists who collaborated to kill Americans.
The report concluded just the opposite. Links between Al-Qaida and Saddam are confirmed by the report.
Even if it had found no links to Al-Qaida Saddam had well known links to other Islamic terrorist who collaborated to kill Americans. Al-Qadia is not the only Islamic terror group out there.
"If he has to hold back some of that proof for evidentiary or nationaly security reasons, so be it. "
I'm truly glad that you're happy being kept in the dark - for whatever reason. Any leader that would knowingly withhold important info from the public must have something to hide. I think I can handle the truth, you must not want or know how to deal with that. Maybe you just like bedtime stories more than I do - I outgrew them a long tome ago.
BugMeNot.com helps you skip past all those pesky registration sites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.