CK, I will challenge you to find anywhere that anyone in the Administration ever linked 9/11 to Iraq. They never have to the best of my knowledge (which is considerable.) The Democratic chatter on this issue stems from what was said by Dick Cheney during an interview with Tim Russert on Sep 13, 2003. The segment in question went as follows:
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
Please note that it was speculation by the media after 9/11, not comments from the Administration, that started the 9/11-Iraq link. Cheney was just responding to that speculation. Also, note that Cheney spells out the connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but twice says "we don't know" of any connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. So "we" have no ability to seperate 9/11 from Iraq because "we" never connected them. It was misinformed people on the left and the right who thought that, primarily because of some crappy reporting by the media.
As for Clinton, he had chances to get Bin Ladin and didn't follow up. Clinton's Administration was the one that ignored the evidence that Mohammed Atta was an al-Qaeda agent in 2000. Clinton was the one who opted to boost the image and reputation of the Bin Ladin and al-Qaeda on the Arab street by not taking Reagan-esque action against them. It was the Clinton Administration that treated international terrorist actions as domestic crimes. The only ball dropping I've seen for Bush was his administration didn't act on the flight school reports. So, who messed up more here, and deserves more of the blame???
Lastly, you talk about Republicans saying one thing then backsliding to another, but what have you been doing? You initially stated that Bush had lied to the Dems and as a result has been forced to reform the intelligene agencies. When you shown to be wrong on both those counts, you then slide to linking 9/11 and Iraq, and how we're blaming Clinton.. and you're wrong on both those counts also. So what's next... that Bush lied about not having sexual relations with Valerie Plame?
odhoretzspellingfixed:
fool