The Obfuscation Report

The littany of excuses for W continue. There is now a movement afoot to claim that George W. Bush never said there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Just to set the record straight, I'll let George W. Bush explain it to you in his own words:

US President George W Bush - 17 June 2004:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

9/11 Commission - 16 June 2004:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

US Vice-President Dick Cheney - January 2004:

"There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq".

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - January 2004:

"The most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda."

Just to make sure we have the facts straight. There was no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Bush insisted there was. (A lie) Dick Cheney insisted there was. (another lie)

Makes one long for the days when a President only lied about getting a hummer.

But the right wingers have developed another excuse: Now they are claiming that Bush never said there was a link between Saddam and al-qaeda and 9/11. They are now just claiming Saddam had a relationship with al-qaeda (which is still dubious) but that Bush never indicated that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Wasn't that the justification for going to war?

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

In September 2004, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "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."

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

Using that rationale couldn't we connect Republican President Ronald Reagan to bin Laden because he trained and financed him during the 80's when he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan? And using that same logic couldn't we connect Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein when Donny boy went to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand after Saddam had used Chemical Weapons on his own people? So following that logic Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are responsible for 9/11?

Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

I realize there are many stupid people out there, but I really thought Clinton was the master of parsing language to cover his ass, but the right wingers have taken it to a whole new level.