March 19, 2003
THIS is the official reason for the invasion???
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House:
March 18, 2003Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Don’t believe it? It’s on the White House site — which I won’t link from here, but you can copy & paste the URL (minus the spaces) into your browser if you need proof:
www . whitehouse . gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
Now…
THIS is Mr. Bush’s official reason for his invasion?
Repeat after me, America:
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Got it? No? Then I’ll let Ted Rall explain it:
Now it’s official: most Americans are idiots.Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN’s poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials — a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA — but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11. Despite their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality, not even the Bush Administration’s most fervent hawks deny that the secular dictator of Iraq is a mortal enemy of the Islamist extremists of Al Qaeda. No mainstream media outlet has ever reported otherwise.
So why do these pinheads think such a thing?
Simple: the official Bushie pretexts given for launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq don’t stick. If Saddam was going to launch nukes or anthrax missiles in our direction, he would have done so during the last dozen years, while American warplanes were pulverizing his military installations with weekly bombing raids. …
Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America’s role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators — as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan…
Sure, we’re about to begin killing innocent men, women and children over in Iraq. It’s not self-defense, so let’s just call it “vengeance for 9-11.” Does that work for you? Great. Osama’s gotta be laughing like a hyena now that the heat’s off. …
Win or lose, Iraq will probably be Bush’s Waterloo. …
As always, however, the fools will save us from themselves. The 51 percent who currently believe what is patently false will ultimately conclude that they were duped by Bush (though it’s not really true). … And they’ll have lots of time to think about it, what with not having a job and all.
Filed under: George W. Bush, Iraq, September 11
