Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's Threat to the U.S.
The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.
September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't know." But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was involved. Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to be credible.
'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that , "There was no indication of resumed nuclear activities." And six months later on Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S. knew where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do you mean? You're talking about a country the size of California." Yet months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
You know, if we were talking about Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay and the rest of the Republican jihadists would have been falling all over themselves in paroxysms of righteous indignation. So why is no one demanding that Bush be impeached??
