What came after
Sixty words of war powers, and the link to Saddam Hussein that was never there
RECORD / AT A GLANCE
False
False that Iraq was behind 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee found no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or knew about the attacks, and that the reported Atta meeting in Prague never happened. President Bush said in 2003 there was no evidence Saddam was involved. The wars that followed are documented, and their cost is enormous.
THE EVENTS / THE INVESTIGATION / THE STORY
18 Sep 2001
Congress authorizes force against those responsible for the attacks.
6 Sep 2003
A Washington Post poll finds 69% think it likely Saddam was personally involved.
17 Sep 2003
Bush says “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.”
Sep 2006
The Senate Intelligence Committee publishes its postwar findings on Iraq and terrorism.
READ THE FILE
The law behind two decades of war.
What the intelligence said before and after the war.
The think-tank line quoted as a motive.
Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗
WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE
5 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.
A poll weeks before Bush’s statement found 69% thought it likely.
Who says it: The poll.
Brown’s Costs of War project estimates more than 940,000 direct violent deaths.
Who says it: Costs of War.
The line is real, but in context it predicts that change would be slow without a shock. It is not a plan.
Who says it: Theorists.
The Senate Intelligence Committee found no credible information Iraq was involved; Bush said there was no evidence.
Who says it: Polls in 2003 found many believed it.
The Senate committee found postwar evidence confirmed “no such meeting occurred.”
Who says it: Some U.S. officials in 2001–02.
OPEN THE RECORD
Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.
Sixty words of authority still used for operations decades later.
Estimates over 940,000 people killed by direct post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan, 2001–2023.
Its postwar findings say Saddam was distrustful of al Qaeda and refused its requests for support. Postwar findings (Conclusion 7; scanned, read by OCR): no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of 9/11; the Atta–Prague meeting did not occur; Saddam distrusted al Qaeda.
The hijackers in San Diego and Florida, Bayoumi and Thumairy, Atta’s alleged Prague trip, transit through Iran, flight schools and the final preparations.
Bush: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.”
The Washington Post poll that found most Americans thought Saddam was likely involved.
The think-tank report with the “new Pearl Harbor” line, quoted in full context.
News account of Bush’s statement and Cheney’s earlier remarks.
Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.
Reader comments
On X
Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.
Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.
The law behind two decades of war.
Public Law 107-40, passed a week after the attacks, authorizes the use of armed forces “against those responsible for the recent attacks.” [1]
Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that more than 940,000 people were killed by direct violence in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan from 2001 to 2023. [2]
What we can’t tell you. Death tolls in war zones are estimates and the project’s methods are its own.
What the intelligence said before and after the war.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2006 postwar report concluded that postwar information supported prewar assessments “that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa’ida strike.” It found Saddam Hussein “distrustful of al-Qa’ida” and that he refused its requests for help. [1]
The most cited lead was a Czech report that Mohamed Atta met the Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed al-Ani in Prague in 2001. The committee found postwar evidence confirmed “no such meeting occurred”; al-Ani said he had never heard of Atta until after 9/11. [1] The 9/11 Commission had also doubted it. [2]
In September 2003 President Bush said, “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th,” while maintaining Saddam had al Qaeda ties. [3] Weeks earlier, a poll found 69% of Americans thought it likely Saddam was personally involved. [4]
What we can’t tell you. The Senate report’s scanned text was read by OCR.
Its postwar findings say Saddam was distrustful of al Qaeda and refused its requests for support. Postwar findings (Conclusion 7; scanned, read by OCR): no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of 9/11; the Atta–Prague meeting did not occur; Saddam distrusted al Qaeda.
The hijackers in San Diego and Florida, Bayoumi and Thumairy, Atta’s alleged Prague trip, transit through Iran, flight schools and the final preparations.
Bush: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.”
The Washington Post poll that found most Americans thought Saddam was likely involved.
The think-tank line quoted as a motive.
A September 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century said military transformation was likely to be slow “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” [1] People cite it as proof of motive. In context it is a prediction about how slowly defense policy changes without a shock. It is not a plan, and it says nothing about who might cause such an event.
What we can’t tell you. A motive, even if real, is not evidence of an act.
The think-tank report with the “new Pearl Harbor” line, quoted in full context.
Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.