Nobody ever said that Saddam did have anything to do with 9-11. That has NEVER been stated by the administration. The CIA, Russians, English, France, and others believed he had WMD's, not just Bush. In fact...Kerry said "if you don't think that Saddam is a grave national threat, then don't vote for me in '04". Bill Clinton thought he had WMD's.
Iraq violated 16 UN resolutions and would NOT allow weapon inspectors inside. By enforcing those resolutions, and going after terror camps inside Iraq...is that PUNKING America????
You can disagree with the war, or the strategy...but to assail the motives of Bush is not far, in my mind.
What you do say is true, that he never said Sadaam was linked to 9/11 specifically. However, there are multiple articles like this one, that paint a more complicated picture than just that factoid would have you believe:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html
The quote from this article that stands out most is as follows:
Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down.
That piece is from roughly four years ago, so I understand it's perspective is more dated than today, but the point remains. While Bush never said he was in on 9/11, he hardly tried to defeat the notion amongst the public that he was. I can't say it's black, and I can't say it's white, but their handling of the case to go to war looks pretty gray.
When Richard Clarke and George Tenet say that within days of the attacks, they were told by the higher ups from the the executive branch to find some link/dirt on Sadaam and Iraq... that's confusing to say the least. When we should be focusing on the guys who committed this atrocious act, why is it that the executive branch is worrying about pinning the tale on their own donkey, rather than the more informed one the CIA had in Al Qaeda?
The flow of intelligence should be from CIA to the Executive branch, not the other way around, which is the story these guys are telling. My point being, I tend to think that the motives for military action in Iraq are fair game. I certainly wasn't convinced of the threat they posed then, and by now, we all know that suspicions like mine were pretty well founded.
But that's my take on it, and you're entitled to yours as well.
