rokus2595
06-16-2004, 11:27 PM
President's Political Thorn Grows Only More Stubborn
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, June 16 - The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks further called into question on Wednesday one of President Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.
In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.
Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.
That is the difficult reality Mr. Bush faces 15 months after ordering the invasion of Iraq, and less than five months before he faces the voters at home. The commission's latest findings fueled fresh partisan attacks on his credibility and handling of the war, attacks that now seem unlikely to be silenced even if the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis comes off successfully in two weeks.
Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, was quick to seize on the commission's report to reprise his contention that Mr. Bush "misled" the American people about the need for the war. Even some independent-minded members of Mr. Bush's own party said they sensed danger.Is that the right word to use? so Bush intentionally deceived the American people on the reasons for invading Iraq? :roll: rofl
"The problem the administration has is that the predicates it laid down for the war have not played out," said Warren B. Rudman, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who has extensive experience in assessing intelligence about terrorism. "That could spell political trouble for the president, there's no question."
Mr. Bush has said that he knows of no direct involvement by Mr. Hussein and his government in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the president has repeatedly asserted that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a position he stuck to on Tuesday when he was asked about Vice President **** Cheney's statement a day earlier that Mr. Hussein had "long-established ties with Al Qaeda."
Mr. Bush pointed specifically on Tuesday to the presence in Iraq of Mr. Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Mr. Hussein, and who has been implicated by American intelligence officials in the killing of Nicholas Berg, the 26-year-old American who was beheaded by militants in Iraq in March.
The White House said Wednesday that there was a distinction between Mr. Bush's position and the commission's determination that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on attacks on the United States.
The commission's report did not specifically address that distinction or Mr. Zarqawi's role. It found that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, but that Iraq never responded to Mr. bin Laden's subsequent request for space to set up training camps and help in buying weapons. It said there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
It quoted two senior associates of Mr. bin Laden denying adamantly "that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq." It concluded that there never was a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers; in an interview with National Public Radio in January, Mr. Cheney cited intelligence reports about the possibility of such a meeting in asserting that there was not confirmation "one way or another" about links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Democratic strategists said there was now no question that Mr. Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned. But Mr. Bush's supporters said that in political terms, the amazing thing was how well he had weathered the problems thrown at him by Iraq.
"If you look at the last eight months at the White House and in particular the last 90 days, I've never seen more negative stories come out in a concentrated period," said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican advertising consultant and fund-raiser. "Yet despite all that, the president is still even with John Kerry or, if you count the Electoral College votes in the battleground states, ahead. Then there's a creeping plus for George Bush, which is that the economy is taking off."
James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations, who studies the interplay between foreign policy and domestic politics, said the issue now was less whether Mr. Bush was wrong in asserting a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda than whether he could stabilize Iraq and show progress in bringing American forces home.
rofl..what?????? so once we discover that Bush lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, that issue is no longer important as is the stabilization of Iraq? they are both important, in fact, perhaps it is the invasion of Iraq and its continuing occupation the reason why Iraq is not stabilized!!
"Does the commission's finding make it easier for the Democrats to say, Look, the administration got it wrong?" Mr. Lindsay said. "The answer is yes. But the bigger question for the administration is whether it can succeed in getting Iraq to be stable. If it does that it will largely neutralize the threat the Iraq issue poses to the president's re-election."Huh?? Iraq does not threatens the US! What the Iraqis are doing is simply ressisting the US occupation of their country. Let's not forget who the aggressor are here, not Iraq but the US.
The commission's findings were the latest in a string of Iraq-related developments this year that have kept Mr. Bush's campaign on the defensive, helping Mr. Kerry during a period when the White House's political strategy had hoped he would be especially vulnerable.
The official White House strategy for Wednesday may have been to deny any real differences with the commission. But on this day as on many others recently, its real goal appeared to be to stick a bandage on whatever wound it might have suffered, keep moving toward June 30, when the United States will return sovereignty to the Iraqis, and then bank on its ability to redefine the election on terms more favorable to Mr. Bush.
In one indication of the White House's doggedness, Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, held a conference call with reporters about the same time the commission was delivering its description of the Sept. 11 plot. His topic: the economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17assess.html?hp Yeah, talk about keeping his head buried in the sand
EDIT:
President George Bush,1 May 2003
The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida
Vice-President Cheney,22 January 2004
There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq
Donald Rumsfeld,14 November 2002
Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida
Condoleezza Rice,17 September 2003
Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged
Critics of the White House say there was a deliberate policy to manipulate public opinion and create an association between Saddam and the attacks on New York and Washington. If true, such a plan has certainly been successful: a poll taken last September by the Washington Post newspaper found 69 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=532341
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, June 16 - The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks further called into question on Wednesday one of President Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.
In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.
Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.
That is the difficult reality Mr. Bush faces 15 months after ordering the invasion of Iraq, and less than five months before he faces the voters at home. The commission's latest findings fueled fresh partisan attacks on his credibility and handling of the war, attacks that now seem unlikely to be silenced even if the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis comes off successfully in two weeks.
Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, was quick to seize on the commission's report to reprise his contention that Mr. Bush "misled" the American people about the need for the war. Even some independent-minded members of Mr. Bush's own party said they sensed danger.Is that the right word to use? so Bush intentionally deceived the American people on the reasons for invading Iraq? :roll: rofl
"The problem the administration has is that the predicates it laid down for the war have not played out," said Warren B. Rudman, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who has extensive experience in assessing intelligence about terrorism. "That could spell political trouble for the president, there's no question."
Mr. Bush has said that he knows of no direct involvement by Mr. Hussein and his government in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the president has repeatedly asserted that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a position he stuck to on Tuesday when he was asked about Vice President **** Cheney's statement a day earlier that Mr. Hussein had "long-established ties with Al Qaeda."
Mr. Bush pointed specifically on Tuesday to the presence in Iraq of Mr. Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Mr. Hussein, and who has been implicated by American intelligence officials in the killing of Nicholas Berg, the 26-year-old American who was beheaded by militants in Iraq in March.
The White House said Wednesday that there was a distinction between Mr. Bush's position and the commission's determination that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on attacks on the United States.
The commission's report did not specifically address that distinction or Mr. Zarqawi's role. It found that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, but that Iraq never responded to Mr. bin Laden's subsequent request for space to set up training camps and help in buying weapons. It said there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
It quoted two senior associates of Mr. bin Laden denying adamantly "that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq." It concluded that there never was a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers; in an interview with National Public Radio in January, Mr. Cheney cited intelligence reports about the possibility of such a meeting in asserting that there was not confirmation "one way or another" about links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Democratic strategists said there was now no question that Mr. Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned. But Mr. Bush's supporters said that in political terms, the amazing thing was how well he had weathered the problems thrown at him by Iraq.
"If you look at the last eight months at the White House and in particular the last 90 days, I've never seen more negative stories come out in a concentrated period," said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican advertising consultant and fund-raiser. "Yet despite all that, the president is still even with John Kerry or, if you count the Electoral College votes in the battleground states, ahead. Then there's a creeping plus for George Bush, which is that the economy is taking off."
James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations, who studies the interplay between foreign policy and domestic politics, said the issue now was less whether Mr. Bush was wrong in asserting a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda than whether he could stabilize Iraq and show progress in bringing American forces home.
rofl..what?????? so once we discover that Bush lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, that issue is no longer important as is the stabilization of Iraq? they are both important, in fact, perhaps it is the invasion of Iraq and its continuing occupation the reason why Iraq is not stabilized!!
"Does the commission's finding make it easier for the Democrats to say, Look, the administration got it wrong?" Mr. Lindsay said. "The answer is yes. But the bigger question for the administration is whether it can succeed in getting Iraq to be stable. If it does that it will largely neutralize the threat the Iraq issue poses to the president's re-election."Huh?? Iraq does not threatens the US! What the Iraqis are doing is simply ressisting the US occupation of their country. Let's not forget who the aggressor are here, not Iraq but the US.
The commission's findings were the latest in a string of Iraq-related developments this year that have kept Mr. Bush's campaign on the defensive, helping Mr. Kerry during a period when the White House's political strategy had hoped he would be especially vulnerable.
The official White House strategy for Wednesday may have been to deny any real differences with the commission. But on this day as on many others recently, its real goal appeared to be to stick a bandage on whatever wound it might have suffered, keep moving toward June 30, when the United States will return sovereignty to the Iraqis, and then bank on its ability to redefine the election on terms more favorable to Mr. Bush.
In one indication of the White House's doggedness, Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, held a conference call with reporters about the same time the commission was delivering its description of the Sept. 11 plot. His topic: the economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17assess.html?hp Yeah, talk about keeping his head buried in the sand
EDIT:
President George Bush,1 May 2003
The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida
Vice-President Cheney,22 January 2004
There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq
Donald Rumsfeld,14 November 2002
Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida
Condoleezza Rice,17 September 2003
Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged
Critics of the White House say there was a deliberate policy to manipulate public opinion and create an association between Saddam and the attacks on New York and Washington. If true, such a plan has certainly been successful: a poll taken last September by the Washington Post newspaper found 69 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=532341