Bush's 9/11 admission and it's larger consequences

Editor and Publisher has a great article on how little attention Bush's admission that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11 is getting in the mainstream media. Unfortuantely, they made one small but consequential error in the article. This is essentially the text of a letter I sent to the reporter and the "Letters to the Editor" section, with the hopes that maybe they'll at least be abe to get some notice made of the fact that, even as he was trying to convince us that Saddam was involved in 9/11, he knew that there wasn't sufficient evidence to make that claim.

The article states that this is the first time that Bush has made such an acknowledgement. Back on January 31, 2003, however, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair held a joint press conference, the transcript of which is available at the official White House website.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.

This was months before we actually started the war, and it was also prior to his sending notification to Congress that he intended to invade Iraq. Yet, even when writing that notification, he still went to pains to attempt to link Saddam and the 9/11 attacks - after publicly admitting that he could not claim such a link existed.

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The text in this notification does not specifically state that Iraq is one of the that falls under the "including those nations, organization or person who.... September 11, 2001", but there is no other purpose for that line to even have been included as part of his official justification for the war except to try and mislead people into think that a connection does exist - and making this impression is important as it is one of the conditions Congress placed upon the President for justifying the use of military force. It echoes the language used in Public Law 107-243 ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002") which gave the President authorization to attack Iraq on the conditions quoted below, but its purpose is still to mislead people into thinking that a link does exist.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

There were three conditions placed on the President in justifying the use of military force. Force had to be considered the only way to defend against the "continuing threat" posed by Iraq *and* to enforce the UN resolutions, and the President had to determine that attacking Iraq would be "consistent" with taking necessary actions against terrorists, including those who were involved in 9/11. At the time he submitted his determination to Congress, however, its becoming clear that Bush already knew that there was no evidence supporting the idea that Iraq was a threat (and that there was no reason to believe that continued inspections would not be of use) and Bush had already admitted that he knew knew there was no link between Saddam and 9/11 (or terrorists in general, to the best of my knowledge)

I initially blogged about this on March 24, 2003 and have been trying since then to get people to recognize that first admission for what it truly is - evidence that Bush knowingly took us into the Iraq war at least in part on false pretenses, and that he had no problem misleading the American people into believing something he, himself, knew wasn't true.

It's horrible that his admission from last week hasn't been more widely acknowledged, but it is quite frankly shameful that the media in general never picked up on his earlier, pre-war admission, or questions how he could have provided the notification he did to Congress when he knew that at least part of what it clearly implies was false. I think that, in and of itself, should be considered a very serious issue, and one that deserved more investigation that it's likely to ever get.

Posted by thorswitch at September 20, 2003 06:06 AM | TrackBack