Skippy suggests that this is the reason bush has told the truth about saddam and 9/11.
Really, I’m not holding my breath for any more truth. He needs to establish a consistent new pattern for this to mean much. And, with rummie, rice and mcclellan working hard to revise history I don’t think we will see the pattern:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.
“If you’re talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim,” McClellan said.
As you will see below this is not quite true.
Rantavision posits that bush may be getting ready to cut out cheney:
The other interesting thing is that in distancing himself from Cheney, Bush might be paving the way for cutting him loose from the ’04 ticket, letting him take the blame, and picking up a Powell (or someone else equally outside of the Chaney/Rumsfeld/Wolfwitz camp) for VP?
And points us to The Left Coaster who believes that bush in admitting this has provided grounds for his own impeachment:
The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.
The Left Coaster is referring to the letter bush sent to the Speaker of the House justifying his authorization of the invasion. Best to go read the entire post but I have copied the justification letter into the extended entry section if you just want a quick look:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
This is a pretty silly claim. And like most such “lie” claims against GWB, if it got wider attention it would bite the Dems, not GWB, on the ass.
If you actually read the full text of the October 16, 2002 Force Authorization and of Bush’s March 18 letter, it is clear that he had to word it the way he did, but that that does not mean that he could only attack Iraq if it was involved in 9/11, but merely that an attack must be consistent or compatible with the war on 9/11 terrorism. Note the text from the authorization (especially part (2) at the end).
******
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
I grant your point that bush had to write the letter as he did if he was going to authorize the war and it was pretty obvious to one and all that he was going to do this no matter what.
He quoted the last part of para 2 (above) verbatim in his letter from the words “is consistent..” to the end.
When he says “we have no evidence that saddam hussein was involved with the sept. 11” attacks that suggests that there was no evidence at the time he sent the letter. I am having trouble seeing anything in the second paragraph that supports an invasion of Iraq and am open to new evidence.