Is this sentence saying that Iraq is included in those antions, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that ocuured on Septemeber 11, 2001? Or is it saying that taking action against Iraq is authorized because this is an action against terroirst organzations?
Well, if you don’t mean to imply an Iraqi involvement in 9/11, there’s no need for the second half of the sentence.
Stuff about an unrelated subject:
It means he’s refusing to confirm or deny the exact authorizing factor for invading Iraq, but wants to assert that it’s not inconsistent with the stated goals. The inclusion of the 9/11 material may be meant to imply a connection, but cannot be said to definitely assert a connection. Remember, diplomacy is the art of saying nothing at great length.
Rhetorically, it’s putting three subjects in the same sentence (i.e., Iraq, terrorism, and 9/11), and assuming that you listeners will think there is a connection between them.
Logically, for the sentence to have semantic content, an implication is that Iraq is not a part of “international terrorists and terrorist organizations”, since if it was a part of that, thare would be no question that taking action against Iraq was taking action against terrorism. But the sentence is not saying that that: it’s saying that action against Irag is “consistent” with taking action against terrorism. Well yes – it’s also consistent with taking action against tobacco companies, and consistent with taking action against companies that pollute the atmosphere, and with a whole lot of other stuff that have nothing to do with Iraq.
So, semantically, if the sentence has any meaning, it is saying that Iraq has no necessary connection wiuth terrorism or with 9/11, but the US can attack it without an adverse affect on the War against Terrorism; but rhetorically, it is putting the whole thing together in such a convoluted way that many listeners will think there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Sticking to the actual statement, and not speculating on the political intention, it means that the attack on Iraq
Sorry about that - pilot error to my original reply.
The answer is the latter - an action against terrorist organizations.
The dependent clause “…including …September 11, 2001” modifies a larger concept - terror groups and nations. The meaning (at least my view) is to show not that Iraq is responsible for September 11, but that the Iraq war is part of a larger program against terror groups which of course would include Al Qaeda.
Try rephrasing it in a non-political sense something like “The use of informants is consistent with our actions against organized crime, including the Soprano family.”
Now for my speculation - Al Qaeda was mentioned to deflect the argument that the Iraqi war is a distraction from the war on terror/Al Qaeda. Bush’s view is that terrorists don’t exist separate from supporting nations, even if those nations didn’t participate directly in the attack. It points out the war on terror versus law enforcement terror approach.
In general, if you have a specific item in a dependent clause, the specific item does not outweigh or replace the original object referred to. For example, if some old rich millionaire dies, and his will says to divide his property among his heirs, including his 19 year old port star wife of three weeks, you would not give all the shekels to the bimbo, and totally disinherit his children, would you?
Let U = the United States and other countries,
F = the use of armed force against Iraq, and let N = the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations. Bush is claiming to have determined that it is possible for both
U engages in F and
U engages in N to be true. As an aside, he asserts that the set
{ x : x is a nation, organization, or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 }is a subset of
{ x : x is an international terrorist or terrorist organization }.
Note that Bush’s statement is not tautological under this interpretation. For example, it has the nontrivial consequence that the use of armed force against Iraq will not tie up our resources so much that we are unable to take some necessary action against some international terrorist organization.
A bit of context: when the Iraq war resolution was debated in October 2002, some claimed that starting a war in Iraq would detract from the Global War on Terrorism (which meant, to those people, the war against Al Qaeda, not a broader war against all terrorism everywhere).
To innoculate themselves against such charges, the supporters of the Iraq war resolution added two rather simple requirements. Before the President could use military force against Iraq, he had to send a letter to Congress stating that diplomacy had failed to solve the situation, and that the war against Iraq would not detract from the Global War on Terrorism. This was an attempt to take that argument away from the anti-Iraq war folks.
The terrible syntax of the President’s letter is actually the fault of Congress. The relevent part of the text of the 2002 war resolution is below:
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.