More Backpedaling

[IJ Reilly]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-rummy17sep17,1,806295.story?coll=la-news-a_section
No Proof Linking 9/11 to Hussein, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that they had no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a direct hand in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

The two officials' rejection of a direct connection between Hussein and the attacks comes on the heels of a Washington Post poll showing that nearly 70% of respondents believed the ex-Iraqi leader was probably involved in the plot.

The Bush administration has asserted that Hussein's government had links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the last year or so, administration officials have suggested close links.

Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, said Sunday that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

But asked at a Pentagon news conference Tuesday about the widespread belief that Hussein was personally involved in the attacks, Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

"We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children," Rumsfeld said, referring to payments Hussein made to relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers. "And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

Meanwhile, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," Rice said that one of the reasons President Bush went to war against Hussein was because the Iraqi leader posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

But asked about the poll, she said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

"What we have said," she added, "is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them, but most importantly that this is someone who, with his animus toward the United States, with his penchant for and capability to gain weapons of mass destruction, and his obvious willingness to use them, was a threat in this region."

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the poll expressed a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

[shadowfax]

this doesn't seem like a good example of back-pedaling at all.

for one thing, not being able to establish a link doesn't disprove the existence of one, it proves that you can't find it. and for another, i would bet that the Iraqi aid to Al Qaeda has been more of a sin of omission rather than commission--as in, rather than directly aiding them financially or strategically, it seems more likely that the regime simply sympathized with the group, and as such allowed them a more or less safe haven. i think in that sense the overthrowing of the regime is a step towards a region less friendly towards terrorism.

either way, though, this is hardly backpedaling. that's more what the administration is doing w.r.t. WMDs.

[toontra]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i would bet that the Iraqi aid to Al Qaeda has been more of a sin of omission rather than commission--as in, rather than directly aiding them financially or strategically, it seems more likely that the regime simply sympathized with the group, and as such allowed them a more or less safe haven.

shadowfax

This is an important issue here. 70% of your population think there is a link. No link has been proven, despite the best minds in your intelligence dept putting their efforts into establishing one for well over a year.

With that in mind, I don't think it's good enough to muddy the waters with suggestions of "sins of omissions". Either there were links or there weren't.

What is known is that Sadam hated Bin Laden. If you are suggesting that he sympathised with him and allowed Al Qaida "more-or-less safe haven" in Iraq you should substantiate that, otherwise you could be accused of adding more disinformation to an already very ill-informed debate.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's put it this way: when it was to the administration's advantage to shade the debate towards implicating Saddam in the 9-11 attacks, then they did not hesitate to give the public that impression. We got statements like:

".. there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented... [but] no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
—National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 26, 2002

So now, the "full disclosure" we get nearly a year later is that they've got no evidence to support the earlier assertions, just the same vague accusations.

[zimv20]

imo, this is some pretty substantial backpedaling.

can't figure out why the sudden annoucements, though. there's got to be a reason the administration that never admits a fault is pretty vocal about telling the public there's no link.

maybe they've got evidence the democratic candidates were going to hit them w/ it pretty hard. take the wind out of their sails.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
maybe they've got evidence the democratic candidates were going to hit them w/ it pretty hard. take the wind out of their sails.

I suspect you are right. Karl Rove is probably telling the President that they need to put some daylight between themselves and the claims they were making last winter and spring.

[3rdpath]

yep, this reeks of pre-election posturing.

this administration has taken the technique of "implication" to a new level. just where did the majority of the public get the idea that iraq was involved in 9/11? i suspect that many quotes from bush, rummy and rice are gonna surface that implicate indirectly( and maybe directly) iraq's supposed involvement in 9/11.

might as well get it all aired out now so it'll lose steam before the real campaigning begins. it's no coincidence that rummy and bush are both taking trips to the public confessional...the quicker they can make it an historical footnote, the cleaner the re-election slate...

i personally don't think it's gonna work.