It wasn’t exactly Plato or Freud, but it’s tough to argue with the reasoning President Bush gave for his continued assertions of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam:
“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda”
Let’s take the reasoned argument one step further. Let’s pretend for a moment that there was in fact some kind of distant connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda terrorists. Wouldn’t the next logical question have to be how that relationship compares in terms of scale and danger with the relationship between Al Qaeda and other countries in the region? For example, could Bush and Cheney safely make the same assertions about some of our allies in the Gulf? Doesn’t pretty much every country in that part of the world have some “connections” to terrorist groups?
Bush also challenged the notion that the recent 9-11 panel report contradicts the administration’s own assertions: “This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There’s numerous contacts between the two.”
Now, I’m sure you all remember the many speeches in which, knowing there was some confusion brewing in the minds of the American public, Bush explained in very clear terms that there was absolutely no link between Saddam and 9-11. Oh wait a second. I guess those clear explanations on that topic didn’t actually start until, well, today.