Cheney Chooses Chief Propagator of False Iraq-9/11 Link To Be Official Biographer
Cheney Chooses Chief Propagator of False Iraq-9/11 Link To Be Official Biographer
Vice President Cheney — “the man running the country” — is now working on an official biography.
But don’t hold out any hope that the biography will offer any revealing insight into “Dick Cheney’s dark, secretive mind-set.” The author of the book, according to U.S. News, will be Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes:
We hear that the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes is hot on the case and plans to publish a bio titled, naturally enough, Cheney as early as next spring. “I’m not a historian,” Hayes fesses up.
No, Hayes is not a historian. What are his qualifications? He’s a journalist who has cultivated close ties within the White House and has become the go-to source for insiders seeking to peddle false claims on Iraq. Here are some highlights of Hayes’ record:
1. This January, Cheney was asked by then-Fox News radio host Tony Snow, “Were there links to — between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?” Cheney answered, “Well, I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections.” Hayes wrote an article entitled “Dick Cheney Was Right” about the Vice President’s effort to connect Saddam to 9/11. But even President Bush said most recently that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11.
2. In 2003, Hayes declared “case closed” in an article purporting to show the links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cheney recommeneded it to the Rocky Mountain news as the premier source of information on the issue. (”[Y]ou ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago…That’s your best source of information.”) Hayes relied on a classified Defense Department memo produced by Douglas Feith. The Defense Department shot down Hayes’ article, stating the Feith memo was “not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.”
Each and every one of Hayes’ attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 have been thoroughly discredited, but he continues to push the argument. It’s quite fitting that Cheney chose him to be his official biographer.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I’ll be on the lookout for it at the Dollar Store.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWow…that’s gonna be a load of crap for sure.
I wonder if it will be revealed that GDUB is his puppet?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI’d call it HARRY POTTER AND THE NON-EXISTENT WMDs.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:09 pmSo Cheney hired a fiction writer to do his autobiography. That was probably a wise choice.
I wonder if Stephen Hayes will collaborate at all with Michael Crichton…now there’s a match made in heaven. ^_^
August 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pmIt pays to be a delusional right-wing shill.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm“DICK” would be a more appropriate title or,”What a Dick”.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pmI’d just like Hayes to be able to write the final chapter in the next pacemaking heartbeat.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm“Dickin’ Around” Bio-Fiction
August 28th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI wonder if he will sell more books than his daughter Mary did.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pmStephen Hayes’ investigative work, looking into the now-proven ties between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, has been superlative. He is a splended reporter, who has successfully dismantled the now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIt’ll be a biography told from George Bush’s perspective.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:19 pmIt will called “My Dick and Me”.
Still drinking early, Exley?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#11 Wayne….Another series win for the Blue and Orange.
Magic number is 18!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:25 pmTitles: Go F— Yourself
August 28th, 2006 at 3:26 pmShoot First, Ask No Questions
Presidential Puppetry Made Easy
Foolin’ With the Facts
A Tale of American Suckers
#13 Exley, I saw that! Yea!!!
Then I saw your post. Boooo!
I don’t have time to argue except to say that no one disputes that there were links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
It’s the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda were working closely together that has been thoroughly debunked. But I’ll let everyone else tell you why.
Go Mets! :)
August 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pmI am looking forward to listen to you later dear “DICK TRACY”.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:30 pmWhat if you wrote a book and no one read it?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHow long before it hits the NYT Top Ten Best Seller List for Fiction?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pmthe now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
You know you are being misleading here, Exley.
When you say “links” you establish more than just a meeting here and there, that had no follow-up and lead to no collaboration between Hussein’s Iraq and AlQaeda. “Some talks with no consequences” is a more appropriate term, and you know it.
Moreoever, by repeating it, you seem bent on re-making the myth that Iraq was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks, something we all know didn’t happen, but served to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the American public.
Why you insist on defending an administration that has ruined (almost) everything it has touched is beyond me.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pmExley
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pmNo one disputes that Saddam Hussein had links with Iraq - he was the dictator of that country! :) Seriously, the U.S. had links with Iraq, too - that does not prove a causal or operational link to 911.
#15 … Oops, an embarassing mistake on my part. Obviously the last sentence of my posting should read: “He is a splended reporter, who has successfully dismantled the now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
Thank you for catching that and giving me a chance to correct it.
I am VERY impressed with John Maine! Let’s go Mets!!!!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pmGee golly n gosh durn Beave, lemme do some modern isopsephia here and look into the magik Kristol Baal….
AEI+Hayes+Standard Weakly+Cheney= Organ grinding sock monkey’s
Wow, this gematria stuff really, really works!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pmThat should be: Seriously, the U.S. had links with Al Qaeda, too Shheezz
August 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#19 Gregor, I defend this administration when they are correct and I criticize them when they are wrong. In our discussion last evening regarding runaway federal domestic spending, I was QUITE harsh on the administration and the Republican Congress, as you recall.
But when it comes to the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the administration has been proven to be correct over and over again. Even the Chairman and Vice Chariman of the 9/11 Commission said the administration was correct when they said there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
I understand why so many people here want to close their eyes and stop their ears to the now-established link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. If they did otherwise, they would have to admit their opposition to the removal of Saddam Hussein was morally and intellectually indefensible.
But the facts are the facts — The link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda has been verified and validated over and oevr again. Those who oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein are entitled to their opinion. But they have to explain why they believe it made sense to leave in power a dictator who was linked with the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11. Those who claim to have supported military operations in Afghanistan but opposed military operations in Iraq need to explain their inconsistency.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pmeverything I say is a lie
August 28th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#21 Yes, we liberal Mets fans find him impressive, too. He’s definitely a keeper.
Gotta run. Enjoy battling the good folks here who simply want to point you in the direction of the truth. Please don’t hate them for that. They just don’t like seeing people proudly say incorrect things. bin Laden and Hussein did not get along and would not have wanted to work together, even toward a common enemy like the US. But I’ll let the others tell you the rest.
Have fun.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pm# 26 Wayne….Liberal, conservative..It doesn’t matter…As long as we are true to the orange and blue.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pmOh boy is this going to be good. Exley, Rumsfeld has connections to Sadam. Is he a “link”. I mean there’s pictures and everything. Saudi Arabia has tons of links to Al Qiada. Shouldn’t we be carpet bombing them by now?
Are you also applying for the job of Dick’s Biographer?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm(in a solemn voice) Yes. The Orange and Blue.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:48 pmAre we gonna have to have clearance to read it?
Not that I’d spend money on a book about a Dick, or bother reading it.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pmExley,
Given your logic we should have first invaded Saudi Arabia since they pretty much entirely finance al qaeda and since almost all of the 9/11 terrorists hail from there. So, how come we didn’t?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:51 pmhow will this great work of literature begin ? ” Once upon a time there was an evil empire……
August 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pmThe link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda has been verified and validated over and oevr again.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
And what I keep telling you is that, by using the word “link” you establish more than just a occasional contact, or talk. Someone else said that, from that perspective, even the US had “links” with AlQaeda, and Bin Laden. The word “link” implies some a connection, a working relationship -something Iraq did not have, anymore than the US did. We all know that now.
Pakistan has much stronger “links” than Hussein ever did. If that is the standard, I could say Pakistan has strong bonds to AlQaeda.
Also, “links” was the word the Bush administration used many times to imply Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Something we also know did not happen.
The use of that word is grossly misleading. You know that.
But they have to explain why they believe it made sense to leave in power a dictator who was linked with the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11
Than I will have to ask you to justify the fact that Pakistan has been left alone, even though they also have links to AlQaeda.
Hussein is guilty of may things. 9/11 is not one of them.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pmDID YOU HEAR???
Karr’s DNA not a match
August 28th, 2006 at 3:54 pmhttp://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/ci_4250517
what a surprise!!!
Correction. My post should read “Then I will have to ask you…”
I hate making mistakes like that…
August 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#32, #29…While I hold no love for the Saudis and find their’s a despicable regime, the fact is that the Saudi government provided no support to Al Qaeda (Unquestionably, many individual Saudis supported Bin Laden). Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia and is a sworn enemy of the House of Saud. In fact, one of the joint operations between Iraq and Al Qaeda were efforts against Saudi Arabia. If there was any indication that the Saudi government was linked with Al Qaeda, I certainly would approve of military action against Saudi Arabia.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pmApparently the VP & Mr. Hayers weren’t listening to the President in his press conference last week when he stated that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 911.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:02 pmStephen Hayes’ investigative work, looking into the now-proven ties between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, has been superlative. He is a splended reporter, who has successfully dismantled the now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
This post (even when the final reference to Iraq is changed to Al Qaida) seems like a joke. But apparently it isn’t. Some people simply can’t admit they were wrong about Bush, so they invent ever more twisted logic to feed their denial (think Friedman, Hitchens, and Exley).
August 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm#34…Gregor…First of all, I agree…I too hate making mistakes like that.
As for Pakistan, I agree that before 9/11 Pakistani intelligence seemed to have their fingerprints all over Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, after 9/11, whether through some epiphany by which they discovered the moral courage to oppose Al Qaeda (unlikely) OR because they were scared as Hell about what the U.S. would do to them should they fail to cooperate, the Pakistanis seem to have become valuable allies in the fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism. They have been very cooperative in working with the U.S. to capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders (including Khalid Sheik Mohammad)….So, whatever their motives, the Pakistanis are now helping us. That is why they were spared the fate of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. If after 9/11 Saddam had turned over a new leaf like the Pakistanis, he almost certainly would still be in power. But he did not. He opted to continue to play games of hide-and-seek with his WMD activities and continued to sponsor terrorism. As a result, today he is sitting in a jail cell.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmWaaaaaaaa
Waaaaaaaa
Waaaaaaaa
Is what the title should be. Thought there is some dispute whether it is to be classified as Fiction or Horror.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI seriously doubt Exley would be for military action against every nation with links to Bin Laden and Al-queda.
OBL is a Frankenstein monster built by a joint USA/Saudi experiment to battle the evil of communism.
The Exleys who believe Saddam had any more culpability with Al-Queda then we did, are just deluding themselves.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:05 pmExley wrote
But when it comes to the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the administration has been proven to be correct over and over again.
My question to you is what do your small intestines look like today?
Stating lies and secretly subscribing to truthiness does not make a belief factual. I could do a dissertation on the BS your spewing. You are COMPLETELY wrong and wasting any time trying to educate you is clearly wasted…..your mind is already gone.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:09 pmExley -
Did you read the post? It has a link to the press conference where George Bush refutes your claims. You should check it out.
Sincerely,
bnye
August 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pmEven Democrat 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton defended Vice President Cheney and said he was correct when he said Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked:
“The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government,†Democratic vice-chairman Lee Hamilton told reporters. “We don’t disagree with that.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmLet’s attack somalia and saudi Arabia!!!!!!! And why not the state of alabama as well? I don’t like crosses in front of my house, you hear me!!!! Bad Decoration……..but good if you wanna make smores.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmLies are all the GOP ever had and now all they have are old lies because someone forgot to tell Cheney and the rest of the GOP how to make new lies. I guess the one children’s book that Bush has never read is “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
Paul Krugman writes about Bush’s broken promises one year after Katrina.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmTom Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:18 pmHe opted to continue to play games of hide-and-seek with his WMD activities and continued to sponsor terrorism.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
So now what you are saying is that he was a bad person and needed to be deposed, regardless of whether or not he was involved in the attack that justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In other words, 9/11 was a convenient excuse. If only the American public had been told just that before going into Iraq, so they could decide if Iraq was worth all the death and devastation.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:18 pmLee Hamilton: “I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that … So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.â€
And here is 9/11 Commissioner Jim Lehman:
“The President’s correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam’s intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that’s what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pmTom Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there.â€
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006
I put this in bold because jesus hates you.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:22 pmWhat are “shadowy” contacts? Sounds like doublespeak.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:24 pmok… we need a new thread, TP…
August 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pmthe “exley show” is on and it’s a re-run…
Exley is a Homo Ignoramus.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#52, No, Gregor, that is not what I saying. You are missing my point. Pakistan, like Saddam Hussein, met with, supported, collaborated with Al Qaeda pre-9/11. AFTER 9/11, the Pakistanis, knowing full well that the military of the United States was going to come crashing down on any regime that supported international Islamist terrorism (Al Qaeda, specifically, although not exclusively), turned over a new leaf and began cooperating with the U.S. and the West in the fights agains Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Thus, the Pakistani regime was spared the fate of the Taliban. Saddam Hussein, conversely, did not turn over a new leaf, and continued to deceive the world about his WMD programs and continued to assist terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda. Therefore, his regime, unlike the Pakistanis, was overthrown.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pmLosing is not appeasement
The neocons do not realize that force is a great weapon as long as it’s not used. They did not understand that once the U.S. embarked on a policy of force in Iraq, it risked more than its initial stake. Losing Iraq lost the U.S. prestige and credibility everywhere else in the region and wherever else it might be confronted. It strengthened Iran’s hand. It weakened Israel’s. Practically speaking, the American people and the military are much less likely and capable of underwriting another venture on the heels of a failed one.
Once an initial application of force goes wrong, as in Iraq, defeat and withdrawal begin to look like appeasement in the face of other threats, real or imagined. In other words, what seems like appeasement to the neocons now is a direct consequence of resorting to force in the first place and losing. A U.S. weakened by its missteps and unable to make good on its threats will indeed be more inclined to pull back. If it does, it won’t be appeasement. It will be the result of losses and seeking to stem further losses. This will not be the end of the world or Western civilization. It will, however, be attributable to the long-term (flawed) U.S. policy of trying to control the Middle East and to the specific neocon policies that included attacking Iraq, sanctions and threats against Iran, a diplomacy of pressure, and attacking Lebanon.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pm“Saddam Hussein, conversely, did not turn over a new leaf, and continued to deceive the world about his WMD programs ‘
Weird how no programs turned up, huh?
August 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pmRegarding item #1 by Faiz above:
Tony Snow asked about the demonstrated Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and Cheney reponded to that. The president responded to a question about the 9/11 attack.
There is no contradiction saying that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected, but not regarding that particular attack.
Does Faiz not have the capacity to understand the obvious distinction, or is he being dishonest about it?
August 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm59# It’s more like he’s trying to tell us that he’s mentally disabled in a subtle way…….
August 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pmGregor Samsa lying: “…whether or not he was involved in the attack that justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”
But no one ever justified the liberation of Iraq by claiming they were involved in the 9/11 attack.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#65….That is not entirely accurate. While no newly manufactured WMDs were found, the Duelfer Report turned up many ongoing WMD research development projects and concluded that Saddam Hussein was simply waiting to ride out the UN’s economic sanctions in order to gear up his WMD production again.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pmFun fact: Iraq was listed by the Clinton administration for eight years as a state sponsor of terrorism.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pmThe facts that Saddam had links to terrorist groups and continued to pursue WMD apparently does’t matter to most on the left.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:33 pmI gave up trying to understand why Americans need to lie and distort for bush a long time ago.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pmAgain, 9/11 Commissioner Jim Lehman:
“The President’s correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam’s intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that’s what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.â€
Clearly, after 9/11 and given this evidence, there was no way any responsible American leader — Democrat or Republican — could allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pmGo find Osama “PATRIOT”…………..
August 28th, 2006 at 4:36 pmHey, works for me. Stephen Hayes has no credibility, and Dickweed Cheney doesn’t either. Don’t have to buy the book, don’t have to read the book!
August 28th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThere was a great Daily Show clip where John Stewart was interviewing Hayes about his Iraq/9-11 fiction. At the end Stewart asked Hayes if his book was pretty much bullshit and Hayes had to noddingly agree. Maybe we’ll finally learn of Cheney’s ties to Saddam and 9-11. Even I might buy that for $5 over at Drudge or Newsmax.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:37 pmIt is the Demcorats, not the Republicans, who are spreading lies about WMD. The Democratic party cares more about winning elections than defending America.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:39 pmIn the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report, head inspector Charles Duelfer stated that, “there is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted.”
August 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm“pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise.”
LOL
I love convuluted bullshit that leads to war.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:43 pmBut no one ever justified the liberation of Iraq by claiming they were involved in the 9/11 attack.
w o w
that is an amazing piece of work, now…
when was that one invented? keep it in minds, folks…
August 28th, 2006 at 4:44 pmHey, where’s that troll list? Has someone added USA PATRIOT?
August 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pm9-11 was a Cheney/PNAC inside job and the #1 terrorist is
the fearmonger criminal regime in WashDC.
Clean up your own affairs at home before starting illegal wars and killing indiscriminately
August 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pminnocent people.
Wow, this is like H R Haldeman writing a biography of Nixon.
Talk about “fair and balanced”.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#89 Nah, he wasn’t a very good troll, so he’ll be left off.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pmExley and USA Patriot: you can spin and obfuscate all you want, but nothing will change the fact that this administration manipulated intelligence, wrongfully conflated Iraq with the 9-11 attack, lied to Congress and the american people and politicized foreign policy to wage a phony war of choice against a country which was no threat to us whatsoever. I don’t care what talking points you’ve gleaned from the RNC talking points factory. Most Americans understand what happened. We understand we’ve been lied to by deeply flawed people who have screwed things up horribly. We also understand that there is a minority of people in this country who must bow to authority no matter where it takes them. They must follow. They must defend power. 200 years ago people like you guys were called royalists.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:49 pmExley USA PATRIOT
August 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pmBy your warp logic the US should have invaded Reagan’s Pales Verde home he is the one that started the funding for mujahideen or even Bush I in Kennbunkport he is the guy who cut the funding of the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the Russians left.
Al-Qaeda did have a camp in Northern Iraq before the invasion. However, this camp was not in an area that Sadaam controlled since 1991. It was in an area protected by the coalition Air Force. WE PROTECTED Al-Qaeda from Sadaam.
Why would Sadaam have a relationship with Shiite Arabs (ne Al Qaeda), when he was a Sunni? The religious friction between the two elements is, and has existed for centuries.
Why does President Bush now admit that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11?
Because we were told lies over and over, some of us still believe them. Get the facts, we supported Sadaam until 1991, we sold him Helicopters with “crop dusting” attachments that were used to spray poisons, which we also supplied (Rumsfeld in ‘83). We played both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, selling missiles to Iran and poisonous gas to Iraq. We attacked a sovereign nation, Iraq, without provication, murdered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi’s. And we wonder why America is hated in the Middle East?
When Rumsfeld and Cheney ran out of targets to attack in Afghanistan, their thirst for blood led us into Iraq, a secular country where women had far more rights then than now.
Liberal or conservative, stop the name calling, we are Americans, and it is our obligation to fix what we have screwed up. We broke it, now we will pay for it. It is no wonder that Colin Powell wants nothing to do with this administration, he can see the legacy it will leave.
Anyone who thinks that the situation in the Middle East has improved and the war on terror is being won is DELUSIONAL. Every day in we create more terrorists, every day we ignore the plight of the Palestinians, we create more terrorists.
It is quite obvious that we are not wanted in Iraq, in fact, 91% of Iraqi’s in the latest poll want us out. I would posit that the people who want us to stay have heavy ties to the Bush administration, i.e. the rulers that we hand-picked.
The problem is: We, and the government of Iraq do not have the balls to go after armed militias. These groups (al-Sadr) hold the real power in Iraq, and will after we finally leave. If (I guess I should say when) we or Isreal attack Iran, these groups will retaliate against the 138,000 troops we have in Iraq. If you think it is bad now, just wait. The majority of people in Iraq have extremely close ties to Iran through their religion. It is not going to change. Instead of establishing a “democracy” in Iraq, we have had a hand in establishing a religious based republic with strong ties to Iran.
Yeah, President Bush has done a great job. A leader who gets amusement by passing gas when he meets new staffers, a real class act. Out a classified CIA operative in a time of war, and worse yet, a the CIA operative whose job was to monitor WMD activity in Iran, and keep Iran from getting needed materials for nuclear weaponry. I can’t wait for the Democratic Congress to start the investigations. Impeach the Decider.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pmExley is trying to parse away the truth. Like Lady Macbeth, he can’t, no matter how hard he tries, and it is driving him insane. Just like the rest of the neocons.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmIn February 1999, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan.
But Richard Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.
If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden’s “entire network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service,†and the U.S. would never be able to find him.
So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-national-security adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, “armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.â€
The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that “Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmThe title of this book should be
TITLE: “Never Enough Wealth, Greed, Crime, Lies, and Death”.
SUBTITLE : “How to Bring About A New World Order And Profit By Overthrowing The United States Government”.
Cheney is a war criminal and a traitor who is most likely the ground zero mole who helped facilitate the 911 attacks for the Globalists. 911 was an inside job against our fellow countrymen.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmBill Irwin: “WE PROTECTED Al-Qaeda from Sadaam.”
Actually, it was the Bush administration alone which was responsible for this. The pentagon offered Bush three separate opportunities to kill al Zarqawi. Each time, the Bush administration turned them down because they thought killing him would undercut their political rational for invasion. This was reported in 2003 by the Washington Post, who had access to the Pentagon report.
Bottom line: the Bush administration refused to kill a terrorist for domestic political reasons. That terrorist went on to personally behead to Americans and kill hundreds of Iraqis.
Why hasn’t the Bush administration paid a political price for this disaster? I guess you’d have to ask the “liberal media.”
August 28th, 2006 at 4:57 pmThis passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”
9/11 Commission Report
August 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pmI wonder if Hayes will have the sacrifices of young virgin children with the vice president rolling around on the floor in their blood and entrails in his book.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pmExley, a hundred years from now, history books will still be referring to this fiasco in Iraq as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history. Watching people like you doctor quotes, selectively site incomplete passages, torture logic and examination in order to continue a painful defense of this debacle is getting more and more pathetic. Doesn’t there come a time for you to admit what most of us have known for a long time: the war in Iraq was a terrible, terrible mistake. It didn’t make us any safer. Indeed, it has made us more vulnerable. What exactly are you defending here?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:02 pmA thought just occurred to me - to bad that Dr. Seuss is no longer with us, that way Cheney could pick him to ghost it and W would be able to read it.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:02 pmI am really irritated at this whole link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda. There was no link. Saddam did everything he could to eradicate the very hint of Al-Quaeda ever getting a foothold. Why? Because dictators hate to share the power. Saddam was up there on Al-Quaeda’s list because he stomped on them with both feet. And yet, its out there that they were working together? Next thing your going to tell me is that Rove and Cheney were awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in Operation Anaconda. What’s arabic for fat chance?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pmDarn,
Must be a slow news day for you guys to post this boring crap and attempt to scare the crap out of the poor people of New Orleans with that bogus “hurricane might hit New Orleans” even though we could go to any other site in the world and see it was heading toward Florida. Sadly, it is just a baby hurricane at best. Not even news IMO.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:05 pm“Sadly, it is just a baby hurricane at best.”
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:07 pmThis biography will be great. Especially the part where John Kerry storms into Cheney’s office demanding we surrender to al Qaeda. It was at that point when Cheney definitely did not try to link Iraq to 9/11.
Also the early chapters tell how Cheney got draft deferments so he could secretly fight behind enemy lines, single handedly taking out Mao, Stalin, and Hitler’s ghost in a dramatic bar fight.
The book will end with a triumphant Cheney as grand marshall in a ticker tape parade through Baghdad, waving to thousands of grateful Iraqis in a new dawn of freedom.
The bibliography and footnotes will disprove global warming.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#105…All facts to the contrary, right?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:10 pm#106 - Roger_Roger,
August 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmI live in Florida and people are buying bottled water and topping off their tanks like there is no tommorrow. I reved up my full house generator just to be sure that it was still in working order. It’s all relative. Sorry about this OT, but these dumb and insane Neocons get to me.
#110 You mean the fact that the only al Qaeda affiliated group in Iraq was fighting against Saddam, right?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmRoger_Roger
Not only was that stupid i think this is the wrong thread
August 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmRoger,
I must disagree with you.
A slow news day is this heading I saw @ Raw Story:
Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the Devil, says Vatican exorcist
August 28th, 2006 at 5:13 pmRoger_Roger from the National Hurricane Center Advisory at 200 AM EDT SUN AUG 27 2006
AND THE SOUTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO…SHOULD
MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF ERNESTO.
Saddly, you have no clue as to facts and the timing of those facts.
Why don’t you call the National Hurricane Center and tell them to stop scaring the people of New Orleans.
Of course, Roger_Roger is a post and run NEOCON.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm105,
Saddam is a baathist- leader of a secular party, in other words. So, all things considered, the only thing he really had in common with Osama was a hatred of America. And there are a lot more useful people who hated America- like the Taliban for instance- than a deranged dictator who was effectively powerless on the international stage.
As it happens, I don’t think that the war would have been justified even if Saddam was supporting Osama. The only real grounds that offers are in terms of revenge, and for preventing more terrorist acts from occuring. Revenge is obviously a stupid motive for war- otherwise there would never be any peace full stop- while destroying Saddam to stop terrorist acts seems a little improbable. Is a full scale invasion of a country and destruction of its infrastructure really the best way to stop the government supplying terrorists with money? If it is the only way perhaps it would justify the war, but that does seem rather unlikely.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pmI’m sure that it’ll be a real page-turner. I wonder on which page he’ll admit to outing Plame? Will there be a chapter where he talks about shooting a guy on the face?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
FIELDING: This is before the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the administration indicted Osama bin Laden. And the indictment, which was unsealed a few months later, reads, “al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”
So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that’s referenced in it?
FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don’t have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don’t have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.
We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.
We did understand from people, including al-Fadl — and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can’t tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago — that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn’t work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn’t work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there — which al Qaeda left in the summer of ‘96 or spring ‘96 — there were efforts to work on joint — you know, acquiring weapons.
FITZGERALD: Clearly, al Qaeda worked with the Sudan in getting those weapons in the national defense force there and the intelligence service. There were indications that al-Fadl had heard from others that Iran was involved. And they also had heard that Iraq was involved.
The clearest account from al-Fadl as a Sudanese was that he had dealt directly with the Sudanese intelligence service, so we had first-hand knowledge of that.
We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent. And then we had information from al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of al Qaeda.
We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together.
That’s my piece of what I know. I don’t represent to know everything else, so I can’t tell you, well, what we’ve learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.
Testimony of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald before 9/11 Commission — June 16, 2004.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#100 How many American lives are worth ’speculation’ Exley? How many Iraqi’s?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pmthe now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Well, of course there is: Saddam Hussein was Iraq´s dictator president.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmWe didn’t invade Sudan Exley, and perhaps you should look up the word ‘antipathy’.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmSo Exley, are you saying we should have invaded Sudan instead of Iraq?
Or not fighting each other is the same as working together? That puts many many countries on the to-invade list.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pmYou should FEAR Nancy Pelosi!!!! She said so afterall. I know I get scared just looking at her. Honestly, is she even a real person? Her skin has to be fake. It looks like plastic!!!!
Just one more stupid boring storry since there isn’t any real news today.
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1376213,00.html
August 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pmExley
You post states there was no connection. Another Troll contradicts themselves go figure.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pmRoger_Roger
you have nothing to add so go away
August 28th, 2006 at 5:23 pmRoger_Roger, You need a brain implant.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:23 pmIn 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism: “If Iraq’s Saddam Hussein decides to use terrorists to attack the continental United States, he would likely turn to bin Laden’s al Qaeda. al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals including Iraqi chemical groups, weapons experts, and others capable of helping to develop weapons of mass destruction. al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda’s well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A46525-2004Jun16.html
So, again. as we see, the U.S. government in 1999, during the Clinton administration, was concerned about cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
As stated earlier, after 9/11, no responsible American president — Republican or Democrat — could have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:25 pmSudan does not have a lot of oil. Therefor they are safe from US invasion.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:25 pmHaven’t you damaged yourself enough Exley?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:26 pm“administration was concerned” does not equate to full blown “cooperation.” Do you not understand that?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmExley, You should get in line with Roger_Roger. (see my post 127)
August 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmBut they have to explain why they believe it made sense to leave in power a dictator who was linked with the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11.
Comment by exley
There is proven links between CIA and AlQaeda. Why the US hasnt bombed the CIA quarters, exley? Why the US hasnt bombed Rumsfeld for shaking hands with a deplorable, nefarious dictator as Saddam, exley? Because, at that time, they (Saddam and Alqaeda) were buying weapons from US. Again, I think you are a well-spirited guy but, as usual you speak out of emotion and patriotism.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmPlease explain why our government officials stopped flying commercial in August of 2001?
Please explain why nothing was done to increase airport security after the memo “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US” was given to the President.
Please explain why when President Bush was told that “We are under attack” by Andrew Card in a classroom of children that he sat there for another 6 minutes and did NOTHING?
Please explain why, when we had a chance to attack and kill Zarqwawi (in a camp we protected from Sadaam) in 2001-2003 that we did not because it would undermine the plans to attack Iraq?
Please explain why there were NO WMD’s, just as we were told by Scott Ritter, and by the UN Inspectors? There were no active WMD programs since 1991, to say that Sadaam was waiting for the UN sanctions to expire before re-constituting his WMD programs is supposition. Did this information come from our great pool of exiles supplied by Chalabi?
Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. On 9/11 15 of the radical Wahabbiist Muslim hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, where Wahabbi Muslimism is still taught.
Why do we not prosecute those in the Saudi Royal Family that provided partial funding for the 9/11 attack?
When GW Bush was President of the Texas Rangers his drinking and drug escapades were well known to the players (i.e. Raphael Palmiero quote: “Am I worried about my drug use? Hell, our President (GWB President of the Rangers) does more than all of us.” Bush is a recovering alcoholic and drug user, and his actions and decisions reflect his past lifestyle. To blindly back him and not question his administration is an insult to your intelligence.
Learn the facts, if Clinton was impeached for lying about fellatio in a deposition, then certainly Bush deserves the same treatment for what he has done.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:29 pmBut no one ever justified the liberation of Iraq by claiming they were involved in the 9/11 attack.
Comment by USA PATRIOT — August 28, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Wrong. Here is an excerpt from the authorisation for use of military force against Iraq of 2002:
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.
The invasion was justified because Hussein’s regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The resolution mentions exactly that. The Wikipedia has a very concise entry that explains it all: Iraq Resolution
Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor from 2003, about a week before the invasion:
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
And I am the one who is lying?
It must really hurt you to realise all the things you were told were not true. So much that you have to blame me of lying when I point that out.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:29 pmWasn’t Saddams Iraq a secular state? I just can’t see how Osama and Saddam could have got it together considering how different their world views are.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pm#10 “…there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.” Comment by Exley…ROFLMAO!
August 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pmmujahideen changed there name to Alqaeda.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pm#134 - Juan C,
August 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pm“out of emotion and patriotism” is a double inuendo. By “out” did you mean “empty” or “full”?
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that “Saudi opposition figure” bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. “The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We’re currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location,” it states.
(Editor’s Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states “Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.)
ABC News March 23, 2006
August 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pmHow appropriate for the cheif author of Iraq misinformation to write of the magnificence of Cheney. The joke will ultimately be on Cheney–just like the disaster that is Iraq.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pmpossible title:
“I SUCK, DICK”
August 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pmThis document is handwritten and has no official seal
Good one Exley I think you need to move to the front on the line for that brain implant.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:37 pmBy “out†did you mean “empty†or “full�
Comment by WaltTheMan — August 28, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
As far as I know, Walt, speak out is a phrasal verb. And I tried to say that he was speaking out…and then…with emotion oh…was that wrong? What I meant is that Exley´s bottomline argument is USA is the greatest country in the world. Good. As if 95.5% of the rest of the world cares.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pmSaddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents ShowBY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that “Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States.” Mr. Kerrey said he believed America’s understanding of the deposed tyrant’s relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.
Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.
The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.
The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission’s final conclusion in 2004, that there were no “operational” ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden’s request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.
“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerrey said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”
August 28th, 2006 at 5:41 pmMr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda.”
Brain implant?
Will stem cell research do that to?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:42 pmExley
the NYSUN
What a hoot. Stop now I’m lauphing so hard at you its not healthy
August 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pmWhat will it take to cause the liberal-progressive advocates and politicians to recognize that by focusing on their favorite issues, they are only stirring around the symptoms. The foundation threat to the United States is due to an underlying corporate government. That secret government’s survival is their only goal that depends on corporate MSM support, and public apathy and ignorance to continue to erode our remaining freedoms.
Because of the corporocracy under which we now writhe, the capitalist myths are dead. It is just that the public can’t figure out where the stench is coming from.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pmWho will dare say it?
…if Clinton was impeached for lying about fellatio in a deposition, then certainly Bush deserves the same treatment for what he has done.
Comment by Bill Irwin — August 28, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
except dubya hasn’t been asked, so he hasn’t had to lie about how he’s screwing us all…
August 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pmBob Kerry? The one who allowed both Bush and Cheney to testify without being under oath? That Bob Kerry? Ha, Ha, Ha, . . .
August 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pmWell, now that I have once again shown that the myth held by so many of the left that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no connections with eachother has been thoroughly discredited through my rather impressive recitation of the facts, news articles, the 9/11 Commission Report, testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Research Service, and interviews with 9/11 Commissioners, I bid you all a good evening…and I accept your retraction of your new-disproven canards.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pmExley,
Evidentally you do not believe your Supreme Ruler
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.
The unprovoked attack on Iraq was a disaster. We took a country that had no ties to Iran, killed over 100,000 innocents, installed a government to our liking, which now has closer ties to Iran than the U.S. Yeah, we’ve done a good thing.
Debate all you want about your claims of al-Qaeda and Sadaam. The relationship makes no sense, Sadaam is a secular Baathist Sunni, Osama is a ultra-religious Wahabbist Shiite, the two do not mix.
Move on to an argument where you have concrete proof, suppositions and guesses do not make a very solid backing.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pmExley,
I never promised they would be nice to you about it, Exley, but they did tell you where you went wrong. As for the Saudis and their possible sponsorship of al Qaeda, I seem to recall that the Senate investigated this and then redacted 28 pages mentioning the Royal Saudi Family.
Help me out, friends. Am I confusing that report with something else? The one with the 28-pages about the Saudis redacted at the WH’s request. Wasn’t that a report about the 9-11 attacks, or was that report something else? If something else, then please accept my apologies for the error.
In either case, Exley, the Mets Magic Number is down to 18, and that’s all that matters for the next few weeks. Then the election. That’s important, too.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:59 pmDid anyone else notice that Feith leaked a classified document to another Bushista? Will the Prez be enraged by this leak, and order in the FBI? I would hate to think that the endless hypocrisy/duplicity has resulted in apathy. Feith should be prosecuted; unless, of course, the CIC “declassified” it retroactively, again.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:03 pmpossible title: A DICK WITHOUT BALLS.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pmWayne,
August 28th, 2006 at 6:11 pmYou are correct. The Bush family does not want the American public to realize that there are those in the Saudi Royal Family affiliated with Osama, so close that they provided monetary assistance to 9/11 highjackers. The problem is that Presidents GWB and GHWB are very close to the royal family, and do not want to embarrass them.
All this over our military base in Saudi Arabia, which Bin-laden sees as implicent support for the Hard-line monarchy. When will we learn, treat others as you would want to be treated.
#166 and the follow-up for when the Dems take back the WH:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pmA Ball Without Dick
#167 Bill Irwin,
Even I, an avowed atheist, try to live by the motto “Treat others as you would like them to treat you.” It’s such a good motto that maybe that’s why it’s known as “The Golden Rule”. For someone who claims to have accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, our President sure doesn’t seem to care for this motto.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:14 pmHow about:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:17 pmDICK, It’s Not Just My Name
thoroughly discredited through my rather impressive recitation of the facts,
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
You are having a debate with no opponents. In other words, you debunked a strawman of your own making. Those connections and links you speak of were known.
What is being disputed -and this is how you set up your strawman- is whether those links and connections between Iraq and AlQaeda translated into a working, collaborative relationship leading up to the 9/11 attacks. You know they did not. Those they never went beyond fleeting contacts and talks. All your quotes show exactly that, and do not amount to a solid casus belli against Hussein’s regime. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat.
If you really wanted to have an honest debate, you’d drop the words “links” and “connections” and use better expressions like “talks with no consequences”, or “discussions that did not evolve into coordination”. You know that the Bush administration used those words to mean collaboration and complicity in 9/11 to sell the invasion to the American public. Stop setting up a strawman.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:18 pmHow about:
DICK, It’s Not Just My Name
Comment by Bill Irwin — August 28, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
I like that. How about:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pmDICK, It’s Not Just My Name, It’s What I Do
Wrong. Here is an excerpt from the authorisation for use of military force against Iraq of 2002:
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.
The invasion was justified because Hussein’s regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The resolution mentions exactly that.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — August 28, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
Gregor - I agree that the administration did everything possible to create the impression that Iraq was involved in 911… but they did it in such a way that they could not be technically called out for having said they were.
Take for instance the statement above… they are very careful to parse apart international terrorists and those that attacked us on 911. Technically they classify the 911 highjackers as a subset of the international terrorist community separate from the larger community that Saddam belongs to.
To me this very careful parsing is even more incriminating… it shows that they never really believed that there was a connection and that is why they so carefully crafted their wording.
If they really thought there was a connection they wouldn’t have so intentionally vague.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:34 pmA better title would be: How I Made George My Bitch
August 28th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#150 - Juan C,
August 28th, 2006 at 6:53 pmThe word “out” has nuances in the English langunge. “out of fuel” means you are running on empty. “out of Africa” explains an origin. “out of pity” describes an emotion. “out of patriotism” can mean either the lack of patriotism of the support of patriotism. “out of emotion” is less ambigious but can be construed either way.
If they really thought there was a connection they wouldn’t have so intentionally vague.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — August 28, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
I agree. Absolutely. Nobody in the Bush administration (that I can recall) came out and said “Hussein was involved knee-deep in 9/11″ or anything like that. They were always very careful with their wording. But they invariably had the words “9/11″, “Iraq”, and “terrorism” strung together in the same sentences. See my link to the Christian Science Monitor article.
After months of hearing statements like those, the only conclusion anyone could draw is that Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why mention him at all if not? Same for the resolution, why bring up 9/11 in a resolution about Iraq if the two events were unrelated?
Pres Bush et al relentessly insinuated a relationhsip. They put all the words together and left it up to the American public to make the inference. It worked.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pmWe know that there won’t be any truths written in that biography. Maybe Dick’s book will have the same success as his daughter’s book.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:00 pmYeah - there was a link between AlQaeda and Saddam… Saddam HATED AlQaeda. It’s the same link between myself and traitor Rove. I hate traitor Rove.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:05 pm