Talk:Jim Wilkinson

According to Bush spokesman Jim Wilkinson (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Letters, July 1, 2004), "President Bush is on record saying we have no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks."

See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/180209_ltrs1.html

If so, Bush is either contradicting himself or was misleading Congress when, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, March 19, 2003, Bush sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, stating, in relevant part:

"I determine that ... Public Law 107-243 ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002") is consistent with the United States ... continuing to take the necessary actions against ... those nations ... who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

If "we have no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks," how did Bush determine that attacking Iraq was consistent with taking "actions against ... those nations ... who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?"

Charlie Burrow Indianola, Washington cburrow@ix.netcom.com