ubertuber

host,

You seriously just posted the same article for a second time without saying anything new about it. I'm referring to the msnbc.com article about the Vice Presidential debates.

Here I quote from your second article. New Clue Fails to Explain Iraq Role in Sept. 11 Attack
I'm skipping the Abramoff and classification stuff, but I'll comment there in the end of this post.
From the whitehouse.gov transcript of President Bush's interview with President Uribe of Colombia you might have done better to post this snippet (below). However, this STILL isn't a claim that Iraq was responsible for (or even aware of) the 9/11 attacks. He's saying that since we were shocked by those attacks we've learned that we have to proactively address threats to our national security (which they then tried to show Iraq was through the whole WMD debate). This is like me seeing a car accident and resolving to tell my mother I love her because she might die unexpectedly as well. That's not me saying that she'll die in a car accident - just that a lesson learned from one event can be proactively applied to similar situations.
I won't quote your information from the State of the Union speech - you've narrowed it down pretty well. However, once again this is not an assertion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It's a fear that next time could be worse, if Iraq DID assist terrorist organisations.

The radio address is probably the best link you used. It is an example of President Bush himself asserting that there have been past links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. However, these claims range over a decade and while specific, never mention the 9/11 attacks or even Osama bin Laden. Hang on to this for a second, because it'll be part of the end of this post.

Following that, you've got Bush's letter to Congress, which states that disarming Iraq is "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)."

I'll admit. This is pretty darn close to what I was asking about. Here's the thing (and I know I sound like I'm splitting hairs - I'm sorry, please bear with me). This letter asserts that disarming Iraq is consistent with...including those nations... The words "consistent" and "including" are key, as they allow the interpretation that, once again, Iraq is similar to agents that prosecuted the 9/11 attacks without being those agents. You're right in that this instance is hard to take in other ways. However, this letter was written at the beginning of hostilities with Iraq, not during the time that the Bush administration was trying to drum up support for the war - so it can't be part of the public idea that the Bush administration claims that Iraq was linked to 9/11 in ways other than being a lesson to learn from.

Which brings me to your Christian Science Monitor article... This article explicitly makes the point that I'm suspecting. That the Bush administration DID NOT make claims that Iraq had any involvement with the WTC/Pentagon attacks of 9/11/2001. In fact, even in the transcripts and articles that you've posted, there are several explicit claims to the contrary. However, there are numerous (if not tons) of instances in which administration officials mention 9/11 and Iraq in close proximity to each other. That's hardly surprising since Bush and his administration seem to sincerely believe that after 9/11 we find ourselves in a new world. They link those attacks to virtually every issue in international and domestic politics. Further, there's a repeated idea that we should invade Iraq because 9/11 taught us to proactively engage these sorts of threats before it's too late. In abstract, this isn't such a bad lesson to have learned from September 11th. On the other hand, extrapolating that to Iraq and determining that Saddam Hussein represented the most significant threat to US interests seems to be quite a leap. Of course that's a topic for another thread.

So am I correct in concluding that there are not clear and repeated instances of Bush administration officials publicly claiming that Iraq had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks? I see a broad attempt to link the sense of danger we felt after 9/11 to Iraq. I remember many critics of this policy complaining that the Bush administration had made these claims - and I didn't remember hearing them. Of course (as you're probably realizing now), I'm an unusually literally-minded person. The list of quotes at the end of Smooth's article support my memory, and my literally minded interpretation.

Smooth's article probably states this more concisely than you or I could. (Thanks Smooth - I'd like to hear your thoughts when you're not too tired.)
Finally, and I'm trying to be gentle here... Once again, I had to wade through lots and lots of quoted and linked material that is unrelated to the topic at hand. I know Abramoff and Cheney are your pet issues, but there's nothing here related to Congress, classification, lobbying, energy commissions, or any of the other myriad links you included. Your points could have been made with about 3 links where you used more than a dozen. I'm assuming you provide such voluminous documentation because you want us to read it... That would be both more likely and more rewarding if these links were chosen more selectively. I know I'd appreciate it if you'd just think about this.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam