Bush refutes claims over 9-11 commission findings

Producer: Felix Tan
First broadcast: 18 June 04, Radio Singapore International

The United States National Commission investigating the September 11th attacks has refuted all claims that there was an alliance between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda network.

However, US President George W. Bush has disputed the findings by the commission and has insisted that there had been numerous contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

But why is he so adamant that there is a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden s terror network?

Felix Tan put this question to Dr. Richard Devetak (RD) at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia:

RD: Well, the reason is very simple and it is because this goes directly to the question of George Bush s credibility and to the legitimacy of his case for war against Iraq. You would remember that the case that America put to the UN and to the world as to why it was urgent and necessary to fight against Iraq, shifted around from one reason to another. But certainly, there were very strong hints - right from the offset, given to the world from the White House - that Al Qaeda had some connection or contacts with Iraq. So, in order to make their case strong, they use as many different reasons and justifications as they could. But many of these we subsequently found out were flimsy - not only have we found out that there was in fact no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein s Iraq, but also that Iraq did not, in fact, possess the weapons of mass destruction that George Bush and Colin Powell, and not to mention Tony Blair and John Howard, tried to convince the world it did possess. So, for all those reasons, Bush is sticking to his guns because he knows that the legitimacy of the case he made for Iraq on these kinds of assertions and the more that they start to unravel, the more that his credibility begins to unravels.

President Bush said there were numerous contacts between Iraq and the terror network - that is between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda. How deep were these contacts or how deep were the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?

RD: That is a good question. Ultimately, it depends on what one means by contacts . I mean, it seems as if - from the conclusion reached by the 9-11 commission - that if there were any contacts, they were the most superficial kinds. It may have been the odd meeting here and there, but nothing substantial followed from that. The key point that is made by the 9-11 commission is that there were no substantial operation or connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So that means that despite the fact that the Bush administration hinted on many occasions that there could well have been some collaborations between Iraq and Al Qaeda before September 11th bombings, there were no evidence& they may have the occasional meetings or contacts, but nothing substantial and certainly no enduring ties.

The 9-11 Commission has also found that the 9-11 attacks were not orchestrated between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Doesn t this actually goes against George W. Bush s argument to go into Iraq in the first place then?

RD: That is right. The Bush administration actually used several different arguments at different points in time to justify the case for going to war against Iraq, they shifted around, perhaps because they were a little bit uneasy about the quality of the evidence themselves and that is why they were casting about, trying to find as many different reasons as they could. It turns out that very few are actually very strong or convincing cases. And that is because, as you said, and that the 9-11 Commission has concluded, contacts or connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq were quite really non-existent. And that would not come as any surprise to anyone because if you think about it, there is actually a conflict of interest. And a conflict of worldviews between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Osama has expressed his disenchantment with many rulers in the Middle East, not least of which is his criticism of Saddam Hussein s Iraq. And for Saddam Hussein, I mean, why would he be handing over the technology or the weapons to Al Qaeda when he knows that they may very well be used against him and his regime as well? So, there is no reason why one would assume that there has been any& well, I mean, no logical reasons for Iraq to collaborate with Al Qaeda.

George W. Bush kept insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda . Now that sounds flimsy to a certain extent, now what sort of implication will this have on the credibility of George W. Bush as a US President?

RD: Yes! You are right to say that the reasoning given by George Bush is& if, in fact, we can call it reasoning& because I mean it sounds to me a bit like saying& responding to a child who asked why the sky is blue and to say that well, the sky is blue because the sky is blue . There is actually no argument& there is no evidence being offered and that is the difficulties George Bush has. He cannot give any more evidence than that because it seems there isn t any and he does not have it at his fingertips. In terms of what this means for George Bush s credibility, well, certainly it cast some doubts over his reasoning faculties and his logic, perhaps. But that in itself is not going to win or lose an election for him, I think. Because one of the interesting thing about the American polity that it still seems that some 60 percent or more - depending on which polls you read - still believe that Saddam Hussein is behind the September 11th attacks. And some of these polls have been conducted as recently as April 2004. So, George Bush s credibility isn t, perhaps, been put on the line with many Americans even if it is being put on the line to the rest of the international public. Many people around the world, of course, right from the offset, remained unconvinced by the arguments of the Bush administration about the need to go to war against Iraq. But it is certainly from where I stand, I think it cast a huge shadow over his credibility, not because he has been misleading the public about the connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq; not just because he misled the world about Iraq s possession of weapons of mass destruction; but also because of his stubbornness now to accept that there is no evidence, no credible evidence to support his case. He is just standing by his decision and standing by those claims, even in the absence of any evidence.