Bush Says No Evidence That Saddam Hussein Involved in Sept. 11 Attacks

AP ^ | 9/17/03 | Terence Hunt

[Jean S]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - disputing an idea held by many Americans.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The president's comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

AP-ES-09-17-03 1715EDT

[WL-law]

The parties who directed the Anthrax letter attacks were working in conjunction with the 9/11 hijackers, and probably WERE the 9/11 hijackers.

And we have evidence that the anthrax attacks were linked to assistance from Iraq.

So -- we do have "some" evidence of this, as has been well documented here on FR.

So why would Bush state there was 'no' evidence, a la Janet Reno?

[Az Joe]

The Rats are in a desperate attempt to say that Bush lied because he mentioned Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech.

Pathetic.

[texasmountainman]

Why is Bush saying this? What about Salman Pak? Sometimes I don't understand why he does things like this. Just like the needless apology for the 16 words in the SOTU.
Frustrating.

[PISANO]

It seems as though GW is just being CAREFUL. If he says we have EVIDENCE then the MEDIA will take that as EVIDENCE that will stand up in a COURT of LAW and ask a million supporting and substantiating questions. It is much better to say there is NO EVIDENCE until you have it totally nailed down. Such are the times we live in with NO WMD found and 12 years of MANY countries' intelligence agencies swearing to their existence.

[theFIRMbss]

>Why is Bush saying this? ... Sometimes I don't understand why he does things like this. Just like the needless apology for the 16 words in the SOTU. Frustrating.

[texasmountainman]

That's good. You must feel my pain.

[Radix]

I do not care about which countries were not involved in the September 11, attacks. Will Bush say that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, as well as others were not involved?

This is what I look at. Tell me something about who was involved? That is the "root" of the matter.

[Leroy S. Mort]

a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

This is driving the Media CRAZYYYYYYY. Expect this to be pounded into the populace's head over and over in the next week. They simply CANNOT ALLOW THIS.

[Sabertooth]

I recall reading somewhere that there is some sort of UN treaty giving that body authority over situations where one nation uses a WMD against another.

The Cliff's Notes are that if there was an Iraq link to 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, the UN would have jurisdiction because we are signatories to that treaty.

Hence, we're not likely to admit such a link, if it exists.

Anyone else got confirmation on this?

[piasa]

So far we have found no direct orders between the regime leaders Saddam Hussein and his sons and the attackers of 911. We have plenty of evidence of contact between lower level Iraqi officials and al Qaeda. That of course isn't good enough for the press. (Even though the press makes accusations based on far less against so called rightwing leaders in other countries.)

The more important question is why did the reporter/editor choose to highlight one part of Bush's statement which seems to back up leftwing spin, and downplay the part which makes the media look like the partisan and deceptive SOBs that they are. Instead of headlining the piece with the title "Bush says that Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda," they chose a phrase which makes the media BS all these months look on the mark.

This is what we've all been saying all along:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Makes you wonder what the editors decided to leave out. Like how about evidence linking Iraq to the attacks AFTER 911?

[daniel boob]

Flame me if you want--but W better have a real good ploy in pocket. I think we are going back to the days of Trent "no cajones" Lott.

We should have pounded the 9th circuit. We should bitch slap the Judiciary for Estrada. Gas prices are through the roof, jobless claims are rising, work is going south (or worse, east) and the liberals are spouting lies (I know, we can't stop that) and Bush seems more worried about the energy task force than playing hardball.

I think it is time to kick some pre-election ass but I'm beginning to think we don't have the balls to do it. Fortunately, living in Texas, we are getting redistricting taken care of--because PERRY HAS CAJONES! Am I missing something?

/rant

[cyncooper]

Don't skip over the whole presidential quote. It was not Reno-esque:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

And there probably isn't any evidence of what, if any, role Iraq played in that particular event. He did not rule it out, and he was careful to emphasize the ties the entities in fact had.

[cyncooper]

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Not an apology in sight, and a confirmation of the ties al Qaeda had with Iraq.

[mil-vet]

Bush is wrong. I don't know what is going on or why he is denying so much evidence to the contrary (there are people in jail for life, convicted on far flimsier circumstantial evidence!), but he should know better. A fairly decent, but not complete, treatment of the subject is given here.....

[cyncooper]

The more important question is why did the reporter/editor choose to highlight one part of Bush's statement which seems to back up leftwing spin, and downplay the part which makes the media look like the partisan and deceptive SOBs that they are.

Exactly.

[optimistically_conservative]

What really strikes me about this is I can't help but wonder what al Ani and Farouk Hijazi have told their interrogators.

The New Yorker had an interesting article about the intelligence debate concerning ties between Iraq and AQ (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact) and I think Judith S. Yaphe presented a good case on the unconvincing nature of the relationship between the two (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm).


I, like 7/10 of America, find it hard to believe that not one of the 9/11 hijackers received any training, funds or intelligence from Saddam's regime - not from the Mukhabarat, and not at Salman Pak.

I think Judge Harold Baer (who has a history of letting bad guys go despite solid evidence) concluded that there was enough evidence "albeit barely," for a reasonable jury to infer "that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further Al Qaeda's criminal acts." How could Iraq be held liable in the 9/11 assault with no evidence of a tie between Iraq and AQ? That's right, there is a tie, just no evidence Saddam ran the show.

A second lawsuit on behalf of FBI agent John O'Neill's estate claims "Al Qaeda, backed by Iraq, carried out the September 11th terror attacks with the financial and logistical support of numerous individuals and organizations, .... These individuals and organizations provided Al Qaeda with the means to recruit, train, and employ thousands of terrorists." The evidence includes documents seized from the bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence agency.

I wonder if Bush's comments have hurt their case.

[optimistically_conservative]

Fixed links from above:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

[John Beresford Tipton]

"I think Judge Harold Baer (who has a history of letting bad guys go despite solid evidence) concluded that there was enough evidence "albeit barely," for a reasonable jury to infer "that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further Al Qaeda's criminal acts.""

You can't read too much into that decision because of the procedural posture in which it was rendered. It was a suit in which the defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. In those circumstances the judge has to weigh the evidence in favor of the plaintiffs making all necessary inferences in their favor. It's sort of like a soccer game when one side gets a free kick at the goal. It does not mean that if the defendants appeared the result would have been the same; maybe yes, maybe no.

[optimistically_conservative]

I agree with, and understand that.

I'm thinking thru the "no evidence" part of Bush's statement. Obviously there was evidence, which you rightly point out, may or may have withstood refutation by the defendants and may or may not have measured the preponderance of the evidence to assign liability after the default judgement.

But, there was evidence. Not the level of evidence to show Saddam stood over a map with UBL showing Atta how to approach the WTC towers - but evidence none the less to tie Iraqi support for AQ to the 9-11 attacks.

If that is not evidence, then there is likewise no evidence that Saudi Arabia was involved in the 9/11 attack, right?

[jpl]

So why would Bush state there was 'no' evidence, a la Janet Reno?

The administration is deliberately utilizing strategic ambiguity here, for a variety of reasons: some with validity, and some for purely personal reasons.

[ex-snook]

"President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - disputing an idea held by many Americans. "

Maybe he should tell that to Rumsfeld-Rice who keeps saying we are in Iraq because we don't want another 9/11 here.

[cyncooper]

How did you manage to miss this (Oh, did you not read the article and base your "comment" on the headline? Oops!)

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said.

[mtbopfuyn]

I never suspected they were buddies but more of a Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon thing that connects OBL to SH.

I don't recall Bush ever saying SH was involved with 9/11 but the media picked it up and it's now urban legend along with the quagmire hoopla.

[alnick]

Why is Bush saying this? What about Salman Pak?

Salman Pak is not evidence that Saddam had anything to do specifically with 9/11. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rice nor Rummy has said that Saddam was not connected with AQ. They've said that they have no hard evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. This is nothing new; they've said this all along.

[TomasUSMC]

Low IQ = inability to back up an argument. Lack of Courage = unwillingness to back up an argument. Both = GOP in 2003

Boy if they thought moral in the military was low, wait till this gets out to the troops who are sweating their butts of and burying their comrades every dang day and seeing more sent of to a hospital in Germany with no leg or arm or eye. You know what, we sure as heck didn't go to "Free the Iraqi People"! Heck what about doing the entire african and asian continents next. We went to wup butt on governments that support Islamic Terrorism, period. Why can't the Pres pronounce those few words? If I was a democrat I would be saying, "Well the president is confused mentally, first he says one thing, then he says another".
Hey Mr. Presidential advisor, if you can't tell Bush to say something intelligent, just shut the

---

up! Talk about undermining moral. Next thing this administration will say is that Saddam is bad just missunderstood and that there is room for him in the new Iraq.
Unf

---

believeable!

[cyncooper]

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said.

[TomasUSMC]

its cojones. but keep on my brother and right on for Perry!

[joesnuffy]

If that is true...then Saudi Arabia is every bit as guilty as Iraq perhaps more so as they spend the most amount of money nuetering our political leaders and the institutions and agencies run by them

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

President GW Bush

[texasmountainman]

There was an airplane fuselage (possibly a 707) there that was photographed numerous times by satellite. Some Iraqi defectors told U.S. officials that foreign terrorists used the fuselage to train for hijacking missions. Marines destroyed the base during the war and claimed that many non-Iraqi fighters were killed. The information about Salman Pak obtained by the Marines after the base was destroyed has not been released. Until this information is made public it is not true to say that Salman Pak is not evidence of a Saddam link with 9-11.

[PsyOp]

So why would Bush state there was 'no' evidence, a la Janet Reno?

At this point, unless they have proof positive, it's best to say they have no direct evidence. Why hand Dems another rock to throw at them. While we may speculate all we want, that is something they have to be careful about. Look at all the trouble they are having over stuff we have much greater proof of...

[cookcounty]

There is strong evidence linking the 1993 WTC attack to Saddam (the attempted murder of 10,000 Americans. And there are indications of links between the WTC 1993 folks and the WTC 2001 people. That's close enough for me to say Saddam was "probably" involved.

[Jorge]

The Rats are in a desperate attempt to say that Bush lied because he mentioned Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech.

Pathetic.

And sadly they will probably succeed in convincing many among the ignorant masses in their voter base.

[Jorge]

Maybe he should tell that to Rumsfeld-Rice who keeps saying we are in Iraq because we don't want another 9/11 here.

Go back and read the article again.
Nowhere did Bush contradict anything Rumsfeld-Rice said.

Just because Saddam is known to have supported terrorism doesn't mean we know he was behind 9/11.

[woofie]

The afternoon radio guy was pounding on this ...but the left has maintained there is No connection between al Quaeda and Iraq....

[piasa]

I agree, as I don't need to know if al Qaeda had direct orders from Hussein or not to advocate the invasion of Iraq. I've been all for nailing Hussein's regime (among others) since the Gulf War, primarily because I think US credibility is important to prevent our enemies from assuming they can strike at will and never have to pay for it. My brother's been inside Iraq's indian country through the 90s taking pics and so on for the gov enough to know they have WMD and are not adverse to hiding it inside or outside Iraq, so I am sufficiently convinced on that account that nothing the press or even the president could say would convince me that Iraq doesn't have WMD, WMD capability, or WMD programs.

But there isn't any amount of info which will convince the press, short of finding an order to Atta with Hussein's signature on it in his very own blood. (They would simply claim it is a forgery.) Even than, I doubt the press will not quit their mantra that Hussein wasn't involved in 911 or the later attacks like the anthrax, any more than they have quit their mantra that Bush said Iraq bought yellowcake in Niger... they don't care that Bush never said it, or that the UK still stands by their assertion Iraq did try to purchase uranium in Africa, or that Iraq had already purchased uranium from Niger in the past- the press only needs to keep repeating their false claims against the war and Bush until people come to accept it.

Bush doesn't have the level of proof neccessary for the press' standards to say that Hussein actually ordered the attacks. We do have good reason to assume Iraq knew in advance there were going to be attacks because of what Iraq put in its state-run press before 911, but Iraq's knowledge may stem from Iraqi intel on al Qaeda rather than bin Laden asking Hussein for permission to pull it off. We do know Iraqi intel officials did meet with bin Laden, that bin Laden went to Iraq, that Zarqawi did as well, that Iraqi officials went to Afghanistan and to Sudan to meet with al Qaeda leaders, that an Iraqi was involved in one of the Malaysia meetings with the hijackers, that Iraq did carry out an act of war against the uS when it tried to assassinate Bush 1, that Iraq shared bioweapons info with Zarqawi's group, that Iraqi supergun plans ended up in Afghan al qaeda hands, that Zarqawis Milan terrorist group did recruit fighters to fight the US in Iraq, that Iraq was running funds to Lebanese banks which ended up in terrorist's hands, that Iraq did bribe western and UN officials as well as journalists, that an Iraqi diplomat was involved in the murder of a US Green Beret in the Philippines, that Iraq has close ties to the same Philippines terror groups al Qaeda is tied with, that Iraq had numerous front companies smuggling weapons and supplies and people worldwide, that it had set up many "charitable" front groups dedicated to lobbying for it and influencing US officials, that Iraq did train some al Qaeda people at Salman Pak, that Iraq had indeed ordered the assassinations of many people worldwide, including people in the uS and Americans, that Atta was in Prague as was the Iraqi al Ani, that Iraqi agents were caught by the Germans scouting US bases near Heidelberg, and much, much more.

But we cannot yet prove beyond any doubt that the 9/11 attacks specifically took place on Hussein's orders, or that he ever issued such orders in a way we could verify, on paper or electronically- al Qaeda is difficult to penetrate and Saddam isn't talking, so those details may never be available, and everything may have been coordinated through fronts and aliases rather than by the book, making proof scarce. Bush simply can't say Iraq ordered it- al Qaeda may have been supported by both Iraq and Iran for all we know on that attack, or maybe Iraq paid them to do a different one, or perhaps al Qaeda just went on their own while Iraq cheered. The attacks on 911 likely would have occured whether Hussein ordered them or not.

(The anthrax attacks may be another matter entirely as al Qaeda may have needed Iraqi permission to acquire the anthrax, but Atta certainly didn't need Iraq's OK to ram a building with a passenger jet.)

But at this time, we cannot say for certain just why Atta met with al Ani. While we know Atta was in Prague when al Ani was there, and the Czechs shared more intel complete with photos so we hear, the US may yet be bound to maintain discretion on intel provided by a foreign country, just as the UK was bound by its treaties to be discrete with passing on intel other countries gave to UK intel agencies on Niger and Iraq.

Because of treaties with such countries, because informants may be damaged, or because foreign intel may not be backed up substantially by CIA or FBI intel, the US cannot simply issue statements about such foreign intel "as fact," even if it is fact. Bush caught hell for mentioning intel on Iraq's interest in Niger's uranium from Great Britain in his SOTU speech, for example. The intel may have been 100% correct, but the intel depended on UK info acquired from various sources and had not been or could not be doublechecked by the CIA, which only had one document of questionable origins passsed on to it. Maybe this is because the UK couldn't reveal enough of its sources for security reasons, leaving the CIA with nothing to go on but the UK's word, or because the CIA simply doesn't have its own people inside al Qaeda or Niger to acquire its own intel.

A president has to be much more careful with his words, and conservative with the proof, than we do as private citizens.

[Alamo-Girl]

I went looking for the treaty you mentioned, but I'd need some help to narrow it down. The U.N. charter gives broad but vague authority to the organization and there are various international arms control treaties which may have some connection with the U.N.

[Buzzcook]

I don't know about anyone else but I was under the impression that Bush had been saying all along that Saddam WAS involved in the 9/11 attacks.
I remember at one point his saying that Saddam would have used nuclear material in those planes if he could have.

This denial disturbs the heck out of me.

Buzz

[mil-vet]

You raise excellent points and ask a good question! Within two days of 9/11, the mosad (Isreali intel service) offered clear proof that Saddam had bankrolled both the '93 and 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

The USS Liberty debacle notwithstanding, if the Israelis don't know what's going on in that part of the world, nobody does!!

Haven't heard anyone mention this financial connection for quite some time, but at the time the proof was unquestionable and unquestioned. I have no clue why such an obvious connection should be so ignored.

[optimistically_conservative]

Well, it deserves repeating here ....

Who did it? Foreign Report presents an alternative view