Today’s hour-long [tag]White House[/tag] [tag]press conference[/tag] featured a treasure trove of bloggable tidbits, but the most interesting, at least to me, was an exchange about the connection between [tag]Iraq[/tag] and [tag]9/11[/tag], or lack thereof.
After the president had just gone through a litany of the inevitable tragedies that would occur if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, Cox News’ [tag]Ken Herman[/tag] noted that “a lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in.” Bush responded, “You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of ‘we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest’ theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.”
Herman interrupted, asking, “What did Iraq have to do with that?” prompting Bush to ask, “What did Iraq have to do with what?” (Laurel & Hardy, of course, came to mind.) When Herman clarified, asking what Iraq had to do with 9/11, the president said:
“[tag]Nothing[/tag], except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that [tag]Saddam Hussein[/tag] ordered the attack. Iraq was a — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”
Actually, there’s a little more to it than that. OK, more than a little.
Right off the bat, the Bush White House absolutely argued that Saddam Hussein’s regime was involved with 9/11 when, immediately before the invasion began, the president told Congress that the war was consistent with “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.” Today, Bush said Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Call me picky, but I think there’s a disconnect there.
Second, as Salon’s Tim Grieve explained, there’s Dick Cheney.
In an interview woth National Public Radio in January 2004, the vice president said there was “overwhelming evidence” that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al-Qaida. In a “Meet the Press” interview in December 2001, Cheney said it had been “pretty well confirmed” that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials before the attack. And in another “Meet the Press” appearance in September 2003, Cheney said it was at least an open question whether Saddam had played a role in plotting the 9/11 attacks.
During the “Meet the Press” interview, Tim Russert asked Cheney about polls showing that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11. The vice president said it was “not surprising” that so many people “make that connection.” Yes, Russert said, but is there a connection? “We don’t know” Cheney said.
Today’s message doesn’t quite match up to the previous, pre-war rhetoric. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.