The President Explains How He Misled the Country

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
There it is in a nutshell: We didn't say he ordered the attacks, we just said he came from "a part of the world" that had "so much hatred" that "people came and killed three thousand of our citizens."

In Monday's press conference, President Bush explained exactly how his administration misled people into believing Iraq was connected to 9/11. All you had to do was listen to him (which I know isn't that easy often times).

The parts of the conference that the press has been focusing on are when the president said there was no WMD in Iraq and Saddam had no connection to 9/11. But actually that's not quite what he said. At one point Bush said:

"Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."

He also said no one in his administration had suggested that Saddam Hussein had ordered the attack.

But right before those statements, the president said:

"Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment, so much hatred that three ... that people came and killed three thousand of our citizens."

There it is in a nutshell: We didn't say he ordered the attacks, we just said he came from "a part of the world" that had "so much hatred" that "people came and killed three thousand of our citizens."

First of all, the part of the world he's referring to is actually Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where a great majority of the 9/11 attackers were from. But those countries are our allies, which proved very inconvenient for the wars we wanted to start. So, they tricked people into believing it was Iraq instead.

Now they say they never claimed Iraq ordered the attacks - just that they were from that "part of the world." Could you imagine if Roosevelt hit China after Pearl Harbor? And his excuse was, "The Pearl Harbor attackers came from that part of the world."

That is almost exactly what Bush has done here.

Other than being hideously misleading, this "part of the world" excuse is also flat out racist. The Al Qaeda guys were Arab Muslims, the Iraqis are Arab Muslims - good enough. There is absolutely nothing else that connects 9/11 and Iraq and it is a great discredit to our country that we have not been able to see through that for all this time simply because some of the people in Iraq are the same ethnicity as the 9/11 attackers.

Of course, as all racists do, we have also maligned the wrong people. Iraq is mainly Shiite and they are not the same religious sect as Al Qaeda. In fact, they are mortal enemies. The Kurds in northern Iraq aren't even Arabs. And the Sunnis who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein were secular and hence the direct opponents of Al Qaeda.

Why were these painfully obvious points not made when Dick Cheney said all the way back on August of 2003:

"If we're successful in Iraq... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Why has no one in the press challenged this awful "geographic base" argument for so long? Will someone ask the president what they mean by "geographic base" or "that part of the world"?

I'd at least like to thank the president for clarifying this week how exactly they manipulated words and phrases to get the American people to believe Iraq was connected to 9/11, while claiming they never did any such thing.

PS - Here's the audio of President Bush's press conference where he made these statements and our analysis of his statements.

< Soft Power: Iranians 1, US -2 | Turks and Jerks: Weigh in on Macaca-mania and the NSA Spying case >
 Display:
And the Sunnis who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein were secular and hence the direct opponents of Al Qaeda.

Why was the secular regime always building huge mosques?  Why did Saddam have a Koran written in his blood? Let's not get carried away with the Saddam was secular meme. He used religion to manipulate his subjects just like the other Islamofascists in the Middle East.

by Twba on 08/23/2006 05:24:43 AM EST


There is a big difference between a religiously motivated terrorist, and a despot using religion to politically distract and manipulate his country.  Terrorists are willing to sacrifice their very lives to murder for their cause, while Saddam is a megalomaniac who will do what is necessary to cover his own ass.  Saddam was an issue, but no more so than North Korea or Darfur, and not directly related to the "war on terror".

by Buddha Bubba on 08/23/2006 09:16:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Saddam was an issue, but no more so than North Korea or Darfur, and not directly related to the "war on terror"."
 

Saddam is about to meet the hangman. He is no longer an issue. The governing party in Iraq is now a close ally with America. The governing party in Afghanistan is now a close ally with America.

by KenTX on 08/23/2006 11:04:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Saddam is about to meet the hangman. He is no longer an issue. The governing party in Iraq is now a close ally with America. The governing party in Afghanistan is now a close ally with America."

Are we having the same conversation?  The issue is not whether or not Saddam is an issue anymore, (or that we have an alliance with a government struggling to control Iraq), but whether or not attacking Iraq had (or should have had) anything to do with the "war on terror".

If by "see how this works" you mean:  "Of course it had nothing to do with terrorism, but by making weak, passing connections to 9-11, it helped ensure more people supported the war against Iraq", then I see what you mean.

by Buddha Bubba on 08/23/2006 01:30:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Saddam is seeking to reinforce his grip on power by wrapping the mantle of Islam around his rule. Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party was once an avowedly secular movement and fought Islamic extremists with unparalleled ferocity.

Yet Saddam has launched a "faith campaign", designed to prop up his regime with appeals to the Muslim faithful. Senior Ba'athists have begun learning the Koran by heart, religious instruction has been stepped up in schools and many ulemas, Islamic scholars, receive official funding.

The most visible part of the campaign is the mosque-building boom in Baghdad. The Mother of All Battles mosque was completed on April 28 last year, Saddam's 64th birthday. Among the items on display is a large plaque, at least 10ft long, bearing his signature. [LINK]

by Twba on 08/23/2006 05:30:51 AM EST


These sounds like last resort tactics of a desperate man to me.  With the retoric ramping up from the US it sounds as if saddam was doing anything to maintain power, gain allies and prepare for the inevitable invasion. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/23/2006 07:49:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Saddam had begun his faith based strategy long before the invasion was imminent. If he was willing to spend exorbitant sums on construction of mosques, is it far-fetched to assume that he was capable of conspiring with islamists to attack his sworn enemy that had humiliated him years earlier?

by Twba on 08/23/2006 07:01:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The number of words in your post is "666"? Coincidence or a sign from the other side? I might not sleep tonight!

by MountainMan on 08/23/2006 12:35:40 PM EST


 Display: