On the eve of Bush's coveted war with Iraq, and he's still inventing new rationales? (CNN story here)
"United States government personnel operating in Iraq may discover information through Iraqi government documents and interviews with detained Iraqi officials that would identify individuals currently in the United States and abroad who are linked to terrorist organizations."
Of course, inventing new justifications didn't stop Bush from trotting out the same, tired, discredited accusations...
The presidential letter said the Constitution gives the president authority 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 Sept. 11, 2001."
White House spokesman Sean McCormack said the language refers to the administration's belief that there are links ties between al-Qaida and Iraq, and that Bush was not accusing Iraq of being involved in the attacks.
Bush has said he has no proof that Iraq was linked to the 2001 strikes.
And, I might add, scanty evidence of any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda--certainly weaker evidence of ties between them than other nations that aren't being threatened with unprovoked attack. While the acknowledgement of any direct proof is welcome, this statement perpetuates--indeed, is intended to perpetuate--a mistaken public perception of linkage between Iraq and 9/11 that the Administration has encouraged rather than refuted.
While the Administration's new-found candor about the costs are welcome, they are--to borrow one of Bush's favorite phrases--too little, too late. I can't help but wonder what effect on the public perception Bush's belated acknowledgement of the inevitable costs of war might have had.