Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Evidence Collection: Did bush "explicitly" link Iraq to 9/11 ??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 08:25 PM
Original message
Evidence Collection: Did bush "explicitly" link Iraq to 9/11 ??
you bet he did !!! here's the proof ... please add any other sources you can find ... thanks ...

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030319-1.html


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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. ahhhhh not exactly
the comma before your caps changes the meaning of the sentence. read it again and you'll see what i mean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. i see your point, but ...
i have read this clause two different ways ...

if you read item (2) as granting authorization "to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations" which might happen to include "those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001", then the invasion of Iraq pursuant to this clause was being justified because of part "(1)" and because Iraq supported international terrorists or terrorist organizations (that may or may not have been involved in 9/11) ... there had to be some finding of Iraqi responsibility under part 2 but this interpretation would not require a tie to 9/11 ... i understand that to be your point ...

HOWEVER ...

there is nothing in part "(2)" that explicitly authorizes the use of force under the act against a "nation", unless that nation was tied to 9/11 ... i would argue that the invasion of a sovereign nation was not authorized unless that nation was tied to the events of 9/11 ... the explicit authorization was provided for "international terrorists and terrorist organizations" ... nations were only included in the membership when they met the additional test of being tied to 9/11 ...

take a read on the second point of view and see if you think a case can be made to support it ... i think there are two ways to parse the language ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. a very good point WT and it has a validity to it
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 09:16 PM by AZDemDist6
works for me :)

unless they make the case that Saddam is an international terrorist

nah that won't fly, I think you're right WT and thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. my compliments to you
i was impressed with your careful attention to detail ... your post really challenged me to add clarity to the case i was making ...

thanks for taking a second look !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. i bookmarked the thread for future reference
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 09:41 PM by AZDemDist6
as well as the WH page, it will come in handy I'm sure

and thanks again for the "lawyerly" reading of the letter and your kind words to me :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. just for the record
i'm a software engineer ... not a lawyer ...

they tell me we're supposed to be good with logic ...

the reality of the matter is that we should try to circulate bush's letter as widely as possible as evidence that bush linked Iraq to 9/11 ...

most people will not analyze the language as carefully as you did ... and while there's a convenient "other interpretation", it would still put bush on the defensive ... and when you're playing defense, the best you can hope for is breaking even ...

i think the voters have come to understand that many "facts" were manipulated to deceive the Congress and the American people about Iraq ... this would just be one more brick in the wall ... i'm a little worried, on the other hand, that bush is not being held responsible for his failure to produce WMD's ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. yeah I hear ya
the WMD thing sure didn't grow the legs i thought it should
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. All right people, go to that address and
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 08:33 PM by shraby
copy paste it into an email to the networks and newspapers.

I think it links them because they are in the same declaration for military action.

edited to add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Big picture
I'm glad that there are technical examples of where BA linked Iraq to 9/11, but the big picture and the stronger point is that the inference was clearly made over and over.

67% of the people in the US didn't get the impression that Iraq and 9/11 are connected because of the resolution quoted...nor did they come to that conclusion on their own. It was cleverly laid out for them repeatedly but indirectly. That should be the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. IME arguing with freepers
if you don't rebut their arguments one at a time you don't get anywhere and this is one of their favorite talking points this week
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. the big picture and the best evidence
you and I agree that this was a longterm strategy to deceive the American people ... we agree that language used was very carefully chosen to allow "plausible deniability" ...

they knew if support for the war ever waned, they would need an "escape hatch" ...

your argument about seeing the big picture, while valid, may be a tough sell to those in the center or on the right ... the better our evidence, the greater our influence ...

i'm afraid it would be easy to suggest that the media "did not accurately report" what bush said ... or that Saddam was attacked because of how he treated his own people rather than because of 9/11 ... or this, that and the other thing ...

i think your point is correct ... but i also think it's a tougher sell than providing hard evidence ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC