Gil Smart lies again, what a shocker

What Bush really said:

Q: What did Iraqi have to do with that?

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of ---- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a ---- Iraq ---- the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that ---- you know, defeat resentment ---- is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Now I said, going into Iraq, We've got to take these threats seriously before they full materialize. I saw a threat.

I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now the question is: How do we succeed in Iraq?

And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

So, taken in context, Bush did not say merely Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11. He just said that the government of Iraq did not order the attacks. (Please note the italicized exception.)

But did Iraq aid terrorists? Certainly. Was the threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists a reality? Of course.

Bush has always called this "a war on terror". It remains a "war on terror". Anyone that can't seem to grasp that concept would do us a big favor by moving to Canada, like they suggested they would do (and, of course, failed at that too).