See, they never lied, they simply implied. Beat around the bush, deny that there is evidence of a bush, then continue to beat around it.
On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said 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.”
And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC’s “Nightline,” White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in “a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.”
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.
“No, I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection,” he replied.
Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/17/sprj.irq.bush.ap/index.html
the most frightening thing is that americans thought saddam was involved in the attacks…
i never thought the gov’t was saying that myself – it always looked like a “friends of my enemy” argument if anything. which certainly can be considered beating around the GW.
I also don’t find it surprising that most Americans (7/10 according to a recent poll) see a connection between Saddam and 9/11. It requires deft understanding of regional politics to see why it wasn’t necessarily in Saddam’s interest to aid a fringe terrorist group. The fact that he’s no devout Muslim probably doesn’t increase his favor with Muslim extremists, either, but the American public doesn’t consider such troublesome details. 🙂
Oh yeah, George, what happened to those WMD?
stupid americans and evil shrubery
perfect timing, huh? with isabel readily covering front pages, this was but a side note…