President Bush never claimed we invaded Iraq because Saddam had a role in 9/11. Indeed, he and the administration explicitly stated there was no evidence of any link.
What President Bush said, was that in light of what jihadi enemies could do to us with box cutters on 9/11, we cannot risk leaving wealthy, sick, thug dictators like Saddam in power when they might provide terrorists with WMD that could multiply the carnage a terrorist group could inflict on us.
Yet time and time again, despite the very clear statements by administration officials on this score, war opponents claimed that Bush inferred such a link and clouded the minds of the American public.
Our press continues to prove that as an institution it is inept. Case in point is the continuation of this false narrative of the pre-2003 debate over Iraq:
On Tuesday, recounting the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush again tied Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Independent reviews have long discredited any such link.
"After seeing the destruction of September 11th, we concluded that America could not afford to allow a regime with such a threatening and violent record to remain in the heart of the Middle East," Bush said. He said a coalition of nations acted to liberate Iraq.
Congratulations. Independent reviews discredited a claim that Bush did not make. Bravo.
What is with our press? The very quote from Bush that the article's author chose to use emphasizes what I laid out as the narrative, and not the claim the author makes in the article about what Bush said before the war. What is so hard about understanding this?
One can only hope that BDS will subside in the months ahead and our press will regain their ability to comprehend what they hear rather than shutting down their higher brain functions and silently screaming "Halliburton!" while they "debunk" presidential claims of Saddam-9/11 ties.
Hey, I've always been an optimist at heart.
