thinkprogress.org — White House Press Secretary Tony Snow insisted Saddam that had a "relationship" because Zarqawi was in the country. Snow refused to "go into the vagaries of the Senate report." This is the equivalent of saying that the United States government had a "relationship" with unibomber Ted Kaczynski because he was "operating" in the US.
Sep 12, 2006 View in Crawl 4
hasbeenSep 12, 2006
Popdmb --my comment wasn't directed at you.
fancypantsczSep 12, 2006
I really wish this particular Snow report was available to us all BEFORE we invaded Iraq. Regardless of what was actually said or not said, the fact remains that many people were misled. I don't think the white house knows all that much more about the Sadam/Zarqawi ‘relationship’ now than they did before the war. A statement such as this would not have promoted Bush's case for war and that is why it was not made.We were intentionally misled into an impossible war by the Bush and the media. I could be wrong here but I don’t recall anyone even asking the administration such direct questions about Sadam/Zarqawi.Throw your television out onto the street on November 1st and if you want to take that extra step, spray-paint it with the word Impeach.
grendelboogieSep 12, 2006
Absolutely correct; thanks for finding the quote.
craigjSep 12, 2006
"Isn't difference in the title description that the US was unaware of the Unibomber, while Saddam had full knowledge of Zarqawi and Al-Qaida operations in Iraq?"Yes, and that is an significant distinction, if true.
meadow113Sep 13, 2006
Can I get a source that the Clinton Administration officials asserted a far more material relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam in 1998? A credible one?
Closed AccountSep 13, 2006
it is difffernt except saddam had no control over the kurdish region he was in due to the first gulf war.
hawkeye17Sep 13, 2006
Wash. Post report in 2005 showing a drastic increase in Terrorist acts since 2001 Bobski the Blind.<a class="user" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html</a>
bobskiSep 13, 2006
Terrorist attacks != extremist Islamic fundalmentalistsThanks for playing, try again next time.
meadow113Sep 14, 2006
Secondguesser:You give it up. Clinton stoped making the allegation that couldn't be proven, team Bush continues doing it.
meadow113Sep 16, 2006
Clinton didn't a low level appointee did.
secondguesserSep 22, 2006
Yet that low-level appointee filed the suit on behalf of the Clinton Administration (and the thus the US Government). Legally speaking, the Clinton Administration is accountable for that.
secondguesserSep 22, 2006
Batswag, a presence alone does not indicate a relationship. Bush may have been aware of Al Qaeda operatives working in the US, but they were doing so in an attempt to attack the US. It's not like Bush gave them safe harbor.Al Qaeda was in Iraq, according to an assertion by the Clinton administration, and had reached an agreement to work together with Iraq in order to attack the US. That's a relationship.
girwenJun 27, 2008
this crap is almost two years old time to bury old news and get on with impeachment!