Wednesday :: Sep 17, 2003

Bush Backtrack on Saddam/9-11 Link Creates Legal Problem


by Steve

With both Rummy and now Bush walking away from their claims that Saddam was involved in 9-11, it is worthwhile to remind the media what exactly Bush has said in justifying the Iraq invasion.

As I noted in this very blog on the day Bush authorized the invasion under the requirements of the congressional resolution, this is exactly what Bush said in writing to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear 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

But today, Bush says that:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.

Excuse me, but doesn’t this mean he lied to comply with the provisions of PL 107-243? And is that not an impeachable offense?

Bush lied to Congress to get us into a war, and he now admits it.

Steve :: 2:00 PM :: Comments (78) :: Digg It!