White House Misrepresents 9/11 Report
White House Misrepresents 9/11 Report
White House spokesperson Trent Duffy was asked today about how President Bush felt about Cindy Sheehan and what plans he had for the American soldiers fighting in Iraq:
Q Does the President feel that over the last couple of days he’s made an effective and convincing case that Cindy Sheehan is misguided in her feelings about the war and what should happen to the troops?
Duffy responded by quoting the 9/11 Report, saying:
Well, first of all, the President has spoken continuously about the way he approaches this war, following September 11th, 2001. On September 14th, 2001, he stood at the National Cathedral and told all of America that this was going to be a very long and difficult war, and that there were going to be some very trying moments; but that because of what happened on 9/11, that we had to view the world in a different way.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission wrote all about this in chapter two. The name of that chapter is called, The Foundation of the New Terrorism. And the bipartisan commission members wrote about the U.S. reaction to terrorist acts overseas in the years leading up to 9/11. They reached a fundamental conclusion: When America takes a single step backwards in the face of terrorism overseas, it brings the terrorists 50 steps closer to our own shores.
That’s true: The second chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report is indeed named “The Foundation of the New Terrorism.” If the White House had read the actual chapter, however, they would have found the report actually shreds any White House attempts to equate Iraq with 9/11.
On page 66, for example, the report flatly states there was “no evidence” of any collaborative relationship between Saddam and 9/11 and no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with al Qaeda in “developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
(For more on what the 9/11 report actually says, here’s an online, bookmarked copy.)
Note to White House: Before you quote reports to back up bogus justifications, it would be wise to actually read them.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
White House can’r read, won’t read, unless it is about a pet goat.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:07 pmTAKE ACTION! TAKE ACTION! TAKE ACTION!
Howdy, folks. You may be aware of Monday’s poll that revealed Bush’s approval rating to have dropped to 36% from the 42% he garnered in July. Not only is this a new low for him, it’s lower than the 39% Nixon received in 1973 during the height of Watergate! But did you hear about this in your local paper or news broadcast? Probably not, since it has nothing to do with Natalee Holloway or Paris Hilton. It simply hasn’t registered with the mainstream media yet. BUT WE CAN FIX THAT! Listed below are the contact addresses for 36 major newspapers and news magazines. PLEASE COPY-AND-PASTE THESE INTO AN E-MAIL URGING THESE PUBLICATIONS TO REPORT ON THIS DRAMATIC DEVELOPMENT. You should include a brief message, or you might choose to paste the following:
***********************************************
On Monday, American Research Group, a reputable polling firm established in 1985, released a new poll of 1,100 Americans that pegs President Bush’s approval rating at only 36%, having dropped from 42% in July, revealing a major shift over the past month (link 1). Amazingly, Bush’s 36% rating falls below the 39% garnered by Richard Nixon in July 1973 during the Watergate scandal (link 2). I urge your publication to report on this highly newsworthy development as an important service to your readers. Thank you.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/08/08/opinion/09opart.1.ready.html
***********************************************
PLEASE NOTE: I’d suggest sending the e-mail to yourself, inserting the newspaper addresses in the “Blind/BCC†box. Add no attachments since newspaper editors will not open them. Include commas between e-mail addresses. And your e-mail service might allow no more than 10-20 recipients per message, so you may have to send up to three e-mails. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ACTIVISM!!!
letters@usnews.com, letters@time.com, letters@newsweek.com, letters@uniontrib.com, letters@sfchronicle.com, letters@latimes.com,
August 25th, 2005 at 4:19 pmletters@washpost.com, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, letters@newsday.com,
feedback@dallasnews.com, letters@suntimes.com, letter@globe.com, newstips@arizonarepublic.com, eletters@starledger.com, letters@freepress.com,
HeraldEd@herald.com, letters@RockyMountainNews.com, publiceditor@baltsun.com,
letters@ocregister.com, opinion@sacbee.com, letters@mercurynews.com,
letterstotheeditor@bostonherald.com, jsedit@journalsentinel.com,
openforum@denverpost.com,
letters@dispatch.com, opinion@seattletimes.com,
letters@post-dispatch.com, letters@kcstar.com,
newsroom@star-telegram.com, citydesk@express-news.net,
news@owh.com, letters@courant.com, letters@pilotonline.com, letters@reviewjournal.com, citydesk@chron.com,
Read? You’re kidding, right Christy? Georgie is going to keep on beating this dead horse until the bitter end. Not his bitter end, he has no concept of it, OURS.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:19 pmActually, I’m not sure if this guy is trying to imply a connection between Iraq and the attack on the World Trade Center. I think the “logic” they’re using might be more like this: Bad people attacked us on September eleventh. Since there are also bad people in Iraq, we can figure that those bad people will also attack us, unless we get them first.
It’s a batshit argument either way, of course. Only a real psychopath goes on a killing spree because somebody might be a threat to him someday.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:21 pmBy that token, I should have an argument to just blow the crap out of anyone one of the American Taliban. That’s food for thought.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:24 pmI guess Trent couldn’t use the words to describe how W really feels about Ms. Sheehan. I’m not afraid:
“I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,†Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!â€
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml
I wonder when the meltdown will happen and will it be public? Can I buy a ticket?
Theresa
August 25th, 2005 at 4:27 pmAs someone who has utter contempt for the Bush administration I hope I get to see a public meltdown, but having visited the capitol hill blue page I’m guessing it’s credibility as a legit news source lays somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:35 pmI wouldn’t put much faith in anything from Capitol Hill Blue.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:39 pmWe’ve already seen one public melt down. When Shubuhya walked off the stage when questioned about his relationship with Kenny Boy Lay. I think that was the first time he publically displayed his disdain for the American public. Unless you count all those condescending smirks he gives when asked hard questions.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:40 pm#7, Yes, I doubt the credibility of Capitol Hill as a news source, but it sure is grand to see something in print of the mental instability of our CiC. I just might have to pick up Dr. Justin Frank’s book, Bush on the Couch, referenced in the article though. I’ve heard about this book for a while and it intrigues me.
Theresa
August 25th, 2005 at 4:50 pmBush has wrapped every one of his agendas in the terrible events of 9/11 and shoved it down the throat of a shocked and concilliatory public. It is nice to see that his BS isn’t sticking as well as it used to, though based upon some of the typical neo-con debates/insults posted at this site, the eyes of some don’t open as easily as others.
August 25th, 2005 at 5:12 pmThe thing that BushCo has proven time and again
August 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pmis that they can say ANYTHING , the
echo chamber “slimes and defends” and the issue
goes away. Once the truth is irrefutable, it
is just ignored.
It is a great deal, really.
The BOLDER the lie, the better.
Ah yes, King George is going to keep on beating that dead horse until it burps and then shits all over his fake cowboy boots.
August 25th, 2005 at 6:09 pmAh yes, King George is going to keep on beating that dead horse until it burps and then shits all over his fake cowboy boots.
August 25th, 2005 at 6:09 pmAh yes, King George is going to keep on beating that dead horse until it burps and then shits all over his fake cowboy boots.
August 25th, 2005 at 6:09 pmAh yes, King George is going to keep on beating that dead horse until it burps and then shits all over his fake cowboy boots.
August 25th, 2005 at 6:09 pmWe heard you the first three times.
August 25th, 2005 at 6:39 pmThe WH is doing what it always does — it is misrepresenting the 9/11 report because many people haven’t read it, and therefore they can continue to mislead the nation into falling for their spin.
August 25th, 2005 at 7:08 pmMarie, Samuel Butler once said it best:
“Any fool can tell the truth, but it takes a man of some sense to know how to lie well.”
Bush, as we know, hasn’t got any sense—only Rove.
August 25th, 2005 at 7:23 pmFORT QUALL’S VIBRANT GHOST COMMUNITY
http://buzz.nationalreview.com/073868.asp
THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!
August 25th, 2005 at 7:24 pmCheck out the three photos of the pro-war “Fort Qualls” at the National Review site above. Notice anything missing? Such as…oh, I dunno…how about people? Quite the rally ya got goin’ on there, Bushies! Who’d you limit the invitation list to, ghosts? “Everyone is welcome to attend our Fort Qualls rally, so long as you’re a ghost, invisible, or were never born.” These hillbillies couldn’t successfully pull off a birthday party.
Pablo, I was hoping you could enlighten us on ‘the man in the street’s’ response to Pat ‘No I didn’t say that’ Robertson’s reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine across all lands south of the Rio Grande…
August 25th, 2005 at 7:46 pmThe clif notes version of the 9-11 commission conveniently does not hi-lite the OBL-Saddam links that the Clinton and Bush administrations were concerned with. Like this from Richard Clarke:
August 25th, 2005 at 8:33 pmIf Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote
Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually
impossible†to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even
this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s]
intel[ligence service] is in bed with†Bin Ladin and would warn him that the
United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that
knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.†Though told also
by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in
Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile
had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight
never occurred.
Steed. U2s don’t bomb. They are high altitude
August 25th, 2005 at 8:59 pmrecon. What are you smoking?
While talking about 9/11, Bush said: “What our enemies have begun, we will finish.” And network reporting helpfully explained that “he had the Iraqi leader in mind.” The absence of evidence didn’t seem to matter much. Repeated countless times, such slick media maneuvers were able to convince a hefty chunk of the U.S. population that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:02 pmhey Steed, notice Clarke said IF. moron.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:03 pmAre we STILL talking about OBL and Saddam?
August 25th, 2005 at 9:05 pmDoes anyone really believe that anymore?
I think it was OBL and space aliens helped
by Hillary and Jane Fonda.
Oh, I know it is true because I heard
August 25th, 2005 at 9:13 pmit through my tin-foil hat from the bomb
shelter.
Steed, do you know what else the 9/11 Omission Report conveniently left out? TONS of facts that implicate your leader for being inept and complicit.you just dont care right? its all politics right? WRONG,wake up you sheep.read David Ray Griffins 9/11 Commossion Report:Omissions and Distortions. if you have the balls.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:14 pmafterthought, its not my fault you believe in the conspiracy theory that is the 9/11 Commision Report.some people like you are just way too trusting of your government and their motives and capabilities.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:16 pmHey C,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:18 pmI don’t have much faith in teh document as it
was a partisan adventure in whitewash.
What I don’t believe is that OBL and Saddam
had anything really going on.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
U-2 Dragon Lady
The United States Air Force U-2 Dragon Lady
Description
Role High altitude reconnaissance
Crew one
Dimensions
Length 62 ft 9 in (R model) 19.1 m
Wingspan 103 ft (R) 30.9 m
Height 16 ft 1 in (R) 4.8 m
Wing area 1,000 ft² 92.9 m²
Weights
Empty 14,990 lb (R) 6,800 kg
Loaded
Maximum take-off 41,000 lb (R) 18,600 kg
Powerplant
Engines One Pratt & Whitney J75-P-13B engine; one General Electric F-118-101 engine
Thrust 17,000 lbf 76 kN
Performance
Maximum speed 510 mph (R) 821 km/h
Combat range 3,500 mi (R) 5,633 km
Ferry range
Service ceiling > 70,000 ft
(R model 90,000 ft) > 21,212 m
(R 27,432 m)
Rate of climb
Armament
Guns none
Bombs none none
The U-2 is a single-seat, single-engine, high-altitude Surveillance aircraft flown by the United States Air Force. It provides continuous day and night, high-altitude (70,000 ft, 21,000 m plus), all-weather surveillance of an area in direct support of U.S. and allied ground and air forces. It also provides critical intelligence to decision makers through all phases of conflict, including peacetime indications and warnings, crises, operations other than war, and major theater war. The aircraft also are used for electronic sensor research and development, satellite calibration, and satellite data validation.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:20 pmClinton has all the missing white women and he brought down the WTC with his enormous woody.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:25 pm#32. C, I thought it was a misunderestimation
August 25th, 2005 at 9:29 pmas I THOUGHT we were saying the same thing.
#33, I actually laughed out loud.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:30 pmThanks.
actually, Clinton placed explosives in the towers to bring them down.he also ordered the missile strike on the pentagon.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:34 pmThe newly released 9-11 inquiry states that some high level CIA operatives are on the chopping block. Peter Goss has some firing to do. Congress wants the confidential inquiry to be released to the public. That means there is some real facts that need to be hidden or the Bushie admin. wouldn’t be trying so hard to keep the report out of the public.
The Pentagon (Rummy)is to blame for 9-11 and Able Danger proves it.
I saw a video clip of a tall building that was on fire last night. Guess what, it didn’t collapse like the towers did.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:34 pmMarie nailed it:
“The WH is doing what it always does — it is misrepresenting the 9/11 report because many people haven’t read it, and therefore they can continue to mislead the nation into falling for their spin.”
The above Think Progress report, while justified in its outrage at bald-faced lies, misses this point entirely. Instead of wondering “how can they lie so outrageously?” we should be wondering “how can we expose this as a PR battle?” The truth is slowly sinking in, but it’s takin its time.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:00 pmDuffy is essentially saying, “OK, the war was a mistake, but we can’t take any steps back” without actually saying “mistake”
August 26th, 2005 at 9:59 ami urge all of you to read 9/11 Commission Report:Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin.you’ll see how much of a farce the real report is.its laughable.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:14 amhey C-, you get an F in reading. Where in the section of the 9-11 report that I posted does it say anything about a U-2 bombing mission? Nowhere. And you call me a moron?? Typical paranoid response. Bwahahahahahahahaha!
August 26th, 2005 at 12:04 pmI do believe SOMEONE in the Bush Whitehouse read the 9/11 Commission Report. I think however that they just purposefully misrepresented it knowing that no one in the mainstream media would call them on it.
Am I wrong, HAS anyone brought this up on any of the Networks?
August 26th, 2005 at 2:35 pmwhere did i mention anything about a U-2 bombing mission? what the hell are you on?i think your confusing me with somebody else you jackass.
August 26th, 2005 at 2:53 pmMy apologies C+, I have other disagreements with you but my reply should have been directed to afterthought.
August 26th, 2005 at 2:58 pmCreamy Goodness? WTF?
August 26th, 2005 at 7:46 pmoh well, its more original than my name i guess.haha
August 26th, 2005 at 7:47 pmI’m surprised no one knows where my names come from.
August 26th, 2005 at 7:51 pmstop wining lift wing nutes bush is great bush is great bush is great thank you bush is great bush is great kiss off you ass kole
March 16th, 2006 at 11:15 pmFree Weights Experts
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm