Critics of President Bush have repeatedly and consistently attempted to claim that his administration didn't do enough to dispel the notion that Saddam Hussein had a connection to the 9/11 attacks. Stephen Taylor from Poliblogger presents an excellent summary of the logic used in this line of reasoning:
I heard several critics of the administration (one was Juan Williams, though there were others) use this logic yesterday:
1) Public opinion polls show that a vast majority of Americans thought that Saddam had ties to the 911 attacks,
2) The Bush administration did explicitly say there were no Sadam/911 ties, but they did say that there were al Qaeda-Saddam ties,
3) Therefore, the Bush administration might as well have said that Saddam was responsible for 911, and despite saying that he wasn't, they propagated the idea he was. As a result, the 911 Commission preliminary report that says that there was no Saddam/911 ties utterly repudiates the administration and basically nullifies all utterances about Saddam and al Qaeda
Q.E.D.
Not only is the logic twisted, to listen to many who employ it they conflate Saddam/911 ties with Saddam/al Qaeda ties, which is simply not the same thing. Further, anyone paying attention knew that we weren't going to war with Saddam to punish him for his role in 911.
I especially agree with Stephen's last point. If most people really believed that we were going to war in Iraq because of Saddam’s connection to 9/11 then we should be able to find such arguments in the archives of prominent warbloggers. Since these bloggers often followed the arguments surrounding the war rather closely, we should expect to find this was a hot topic for discussion. The fact that no one on the Left has been able to present such posts appears to suggest that this wasn’t as dominant a theme as they would have us believe.
An even more telling indicator, however, is the polling data for the upcoming election. If it’s true that the majority of Americans thought Bush had claimed a connection between Saddam and 9/11, then we should expect to see a public backlash against the President based on the 9/11 Commission's recent findings.
What is more likely to happen, however, is that instead of discrediting Bush, this issue will harm the credibility of his critics. Take, for example, last week’s NYT’s editorial:
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
But after the chairman of the 9/11 commission came out and said that there was evidence of a link, the NYT’s had to clarify their point:
Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion — only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.
In other words, the NYT is claiming that the Administration wasn’t explicitly dishonest – but that they’re going to stick with trying to leave that impression anyway. Once again, let me give a word of advice to the Bush’s critics: stop claiming that he’s intentionally being dishonest. You can say he’s stupid, you can say he’s misinformed, you can say just about anything you want. But when you try to pin the “dishonesty” label on him you undermine your own credibility.
Since you can’t logically disprove a negative, the non-existence of links between al Queda and Iraq cannot be proven. We could all look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions based on the weight we give to certain facts. Arriving at different assessments is not a matter of honesty but of judgment.
The same goes for claims that the links were not “substantial” or “important.” In my opinion, the benefit of the doubt does not go to the terrorists. Since we can never have perfect knowledge about the motives and intentions of terrorists, we must make decisions based upon our best judgment. The issue of how “substantial” or “important” a connection is can only be made after the fact. One of the primary justifications for the 9/11 Commission is to find out what failures of intelligence had occurred because some evidence was not deemed to be sufficiently important.
When Saddam amassed his troops on the border with Kuwait in the early ‘90s, the State Department sent an envoy to meet with the dictator. After the meeting the official reported that Saddam was bluffing and had no intention of invading a sovereign country. Obviously, someone made an error in judgement.
If the President had ignored this intelligence report we might have been able to avert the first Gulf War. But he didn’t. He trusted the intelligence he had available and made a decision based upon that knowledge. Now his son is in a position where he has had to do the same. While it is valid to disagree with Bush’s decision, one thing is certainly clear: he made a decision based upon his best judgement. That’s not called dishonesty. It’s called leadership.
(Hat tip: Jim Miller)
Good grief. What do they thing we are, dolts and morons? I would like to see a second question answered in that poll: Why do you think Sadam and al Qaeda worked together on 911? I'll wager a very small margin would say "Because the president sez so!". I would also like to see the demographics for this poll-set.
'he made a decision based upon his best judgement. That’s not called dishonesty. It’s called leadership. '
well that lets you get away with just about anything then doesn't it?
i'm sure when clinton was having sex with monica it was his best jugement at the time too (accoring to the little brain, not the big one)
when does this administration become accountable for starting a needless war and wasting lives, american and otherwise?
But I'm wondering what we will do with the assertions over the weekend from Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. He said that his intelligence services had substantial and reliable information that Hussein was planning attacks against America and its servicemembers around the world. He maintained that Russia stood firmly against the invasion, but, were you President Bush, what was there to do? Nothing? And let the impeachment hearings kick off, under the auspices that he HAD received reliable intelligence, and he ignored it? Or invade? Or discount Russian intel completely?
Hard to know.
Joe
"If most people really believed that we were going to war in Iraq because of Saddam’s connection to 9/11 then we should be able to find such arguments in the archives of prominent warbloggers."
Huh? Why in the world should this be true? Are most people "prominent warbloggers"? Do most "prominent warbloggers" get all of their information from local TV news?
This "argument" is a complete non-sequitur.
"when you try to pin the “dishonesty” label on him you undermine your own credibility."
If you say so. The pin seems to be sticking better and better these days, if you ask me. Most importantly, Bush's credibility is (once again) the issue, as it should be. Because he is not credible, not as a leader of a great country.
"While it is valid to disagree with Bush’s decision, one thing is certainly clear: he made a decision based upon his best judgement. That’s not called dishonesty. It’s called leadership."
I don't doubt that he used his "best" judgment. Unfortunately for him, all the evidence shows that his "best" judgment is what a lot of us consider "poor" judgment: too much reliance on others to interpret data, a refusal to listen to information which is inconsistent with a closely held belief, too much emphasis on loyalty and not enough criticism of incompetence, an inability to admit mistakes, and a refusal to accept responsibility for the consequences of those mistakes.
Because Bush is in FACT the LEADER of the United States, I do hold him responsible for the statements of his closest administration officials and his press secretary, i.e., for the overall "plan" of polemic attack which the administration engages in 24/7. If Bush wanted to show the country how intelligent, honest and skilled his decision-making abilities are, he would appeared before the 9/11 commission by himself, under oath. Instead, he brought Dick Cheney to hold his hand. And you know what? George's buddy Dick is also a liar, "big time":
Transcript, CNBC’s “Capital Report,” June 17, 2004
Gloria Borger: “Well, let’s get to Mohammed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was quote, “pretty well confirmed.”
Vice President Cheney: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.
Transcript, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” December 9, 2001.
Vice-President Cheney: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.”