Washington Post Editorial Board, Richard Perle Collude To Spin Pre-War Iraq Record
Washington Post Editorial Board, Richard Perle Collude To Spin Pre-War Iraq Record
Today, the Washington Post editorial board gave Iraq war architect Richard Perle a platform to offer a pathetic self-defense against the proof that he was focused on Iraq shortly after 9/11.
Perle responds to criticisms delivered by George Tenet — and reported by ThinkProgress — that he made public statements shortly after 9/11 advocating action against Iraq. Perle writes:
On “Meet the Press” last Sunday, Tenet argued that his version “seems to be corroborated” by a comment I made to columnist Robert D. Novak on Sept. 17 and a letter to President Bush that I signed, with 40 others, on Sept. 20. But my 10-word comment to Novak made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Neither did the letter to the president, which said that “any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”
Tenet insists on equating two statements that are not at all the same: that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11 — which I never said — and that removing Saddam Hussein before he could share chemical, biological or nuclear weapons with terrorists had become an urgent matter, which I did say.
While Perle does acknowledge the obvious — that he was advocating regime change in Iraq in the immediate days after 9/11 — he attempts to deceive the reader into believing that he never tried to link the two. He did. Here’s a piece of evidence he chose not to address in his op-ed: On 9/16/01, he said this on CNN:
Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden.
Watch it:
So Mr. Perle “made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11?” It’s just yet another attempt by Perle and Washington Post editorial board to deceive us.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
95 Responses to “Washington Post Editorial Board, Richard Perle Collude To Spin Pre-War Iraq Record”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You thought Lynn Cheneyfeedbacks were long? There are over 48 pages and counting. Not one single supporting comment. Proudly mine is placed at the bottom of page one (dan3)
It is hard to stomach the gross revisionism trip. However, it is refreshing to see HUNDREDS respond with educated informed feedback and b*tch slap him with the facts.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:44 pmDoes this mean someone actually read this piece of sh*t book
May 11th, 2007 at 9:46 pmC.T. we need your analysis
May 11th, 2007 at 9:46 pmAfter light refraction, it comes to me they are decieving only themselves.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pmWashington Post Editorial Board, Richard Perle Collude To Deceive Readers About Pre-War Iraq Claims
Faiz,
Colluded. Oy, that makes my teeth itch…
May 11th, 2007 at 9:50 pm“Liberal media” my ass!
May 11th, 2007 at 9:50 pmDoes this mean someone actually read this piece of sh*t book
Comment by Mr. President
Such is our great technology MP, even writers no longer read what they write.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:51 pmHey, I don’t read what I write either, I like this guy. He should work for the US government
May 11th, 2007 at 9:53 pmZooey, present tense is collude, no? I didn’t intend it to be past tense.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pmZooey, present tense is collude, no? I didn’t intend it to be past tense.
Comment by Faiz
I think it would be “Colludes.” :)
May 11th, 2007 at 9:59 pmOnce a liar, always a liar. We will never forget the Neocons and the media enablers !
May 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pmRead the WaPo comments posted on this article. I couldn’t find a single one that didn’t criticize Perle, the Washington Post, or both, often in very harsh terms. The Washington Post has ZERO credibility.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:02 pmActually: Faiz, if you wanted to say WP ed. and Perle collude, then you had it right.
You could have said Perle colludes with WP ed. if you wanted.
Subject-verb agreement boy, and you know dis
May 11th, 2007 at 10:03 pmZooey, present tense is collude, no? I didn’t intend it to be past tense.
Comment by Faiz — May 11, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
No! You’re right, Faiz.
Oy, second glass of wine. Sorry!
May 11th, 2007 at 10:05 pmNo problem Zooey. Thanks Mr. President. Always appreciate grammar feedback.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pmdon’t they ever get tired of lying? they sure do get confused.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pmClearly, this piece of S#*t is running scared and will tell ANY lie he thinks will salvage whatever scant, tattered remnants of credibility he can cling to in his own mind.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pmThey must think no one will do the research to call bullshit on their bullshit.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:11 pmWell, bullshit!
Comment by Faiz — May 11, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Then my work here is done, for now. Up, Up, and Away!!!!
May 11th, 2007 at 10:11 pmNo! You’re right, Faiz.
Oy, second glass of wine. Sorry!
Comment by Zooey — May 11, 2007 @ 10:05
VapidVagrant is going to be so jealous, Faiz never responds to her.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:13 pmVapidVagrant is going to be so jealous, Faiz never responds to her.
Comment by Shane
Faiz and I have something special between us…
May 11th, 2007 at 10:16 pmRichard Perle - you mean this Richard Perle?
http://lists.envirolink.org/ pipermail/ corporations/ 2003-August/ 000130.html
May 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pmHow does Ghost of Zooey like her steak? Medium?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pmSo Mr. Perle “made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11?â€
Posted by Faiz at 9:40 pm
That’s correct.
One would assume that if he had you would have quoted that instead of something else.
If he had you wouldn’t have to be trying to pass an out-of-context excerpt of a quote off as saying the complete opposite of what it does….
You say Perle is trying to deceive readers, yet you have portrayed this quote as saying the exact opposite of what is does in at least two posts, without providing either a source so people could check it, his full answer which clearly contradicts your portrayal of this or the question he was responding to.
So let’s not pretend spinning fiction as fact is something you’re opposed to.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pmOh this one is easier to read - Richard Perle needs to be one of the first against the wall - lying sob
http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/ archives/ individual/ 2004_01/ 003061.php
May 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pmHow does Ghost of Zooey like her steak? Medium?
Comment by RUCerious
Through the heart…..actually. :D
May 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pmSo, on the theory, which seems to be a valid one, that if you support terrorists and they then commit atrocities against Americans, you are responsible.
Fair enough, enter one Luis Posada Carilles…..
http://www.granma.cu/ ingles/ 2007/ mayo/ vier11/ The-secrets-that-Posada-Carriles-knows-will-come-to%20light-sooner-or-later.html
Oops.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:25 pmKilo, all the parts you bolded are reflected in his PNAC letter. What was unique about what he said on CNN was that he connected bin Laden to Iraq. That was the significant portion — and nothing you included in your bolded portion minimizes the fact that he was connecting Iraq to 9/11 quite explicitly.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pmPlease, I beg anyone to point out one (1) single individual in the whole group of scum called the administration that isn’t a congenital liar! Name one. Every goddamned one of them is a liar and, with the help of the major media outlets such as wapo, these liars are in the process of methodically destroying this country. go on, name one!
May 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pmTerryTurtle…
Charlies War…I was impressed how far back Perle’s ( and others) bull goes—same old same old
May 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pmRead the WaPo comments posted on this article. I couldn’t find a single one that didn’t criticize Perle, the Washington Post, or both, often in very harsh terms. The Washington Post has ZERO credibility.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 11, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Er… are you sure you want to go with that assessment ? Because that describes the comments page of practically every story ever run here.
You could get a bit more specific and say “can’t find one commenter who criticises them for lying about Saddam being behind 9/11″, but then the same would apply to the page you are posting on. An obvious lie by the author, followed by zero people criticising it (apart from myself, as usual).
Maybe another instance where you save up these complaints about the MSM and post them somewhere else. Just like the complaints about where WaPo runs a correction to a story, when you make these comments on a blog with a worse record all you are doing is making yourself look clueless.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:30 pmComment by Faiz — May 11, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
**SMACK!!**
Heh, sorry….
May 11th, 2007 at 10:31 pmBrit - fascinating shit, eh? And there’s old Ollie North right in there too. Maybe Perle can have his own TV show on Fox now - that’s the customary reward for someone who lies to the US Congress about sponsoring terrorists…
May 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pmZooey - how’d that last exam go?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pmit was all clinton’s fault.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pmZooey - how’d that last exam go?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Aced it. No problemo.
Thanks for asking!
May 11th, 2007 at 10:38 pmSo why are u a ghost….?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:40 pmSo why are u a ghost….?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
I committed suicide on the Coulter thread. Shhhh….
May 11th, 2007 at 10:46 pm#29 ~ If Franken comes out with the 2nd Edition of Lies and the Lying bastards who tell them, it’ll be 1300 pages.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:49 pm#31 Kilo, next time try to not drink before writing.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pmCoulter didn’t come on to someone in leather chaps and a spiked collar, did she?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pmThis is the same Richard Perle who spoke of a “George W. Bush Blvd.” in Baghdad some day. Guess that wishful thinking. Perle has the same blood on his hands as the other neocon war lovers.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pmCoulter didn’t come on to someone in leather chaps and a spiked collar, did she?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Oy….I have no more veins to open. What are you trying to do to me…?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:57 pmGhost of Zooey, try rattling your chains real loud!
May 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pmI committed suicide on the Coulter thread.
Worst nightmare… although there’s one to drive you to it..
Walked in at the wrong time, because that’s all kinds of wrong.
wrong wrong Reminds me of that Dr.John song is it..
Musta been the right place, wrong time..
Speaking of WRONG, how’s that pre-war assessment of Iraq look now? Plausibly deniable?
May 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pmCoulter didn’t come on to someone in leather chaps and a spiked collar, did she?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — May 11, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Thanks for that visual, not!
May 11th, 2007 at 11:02 pmMore imagination bleach anyone?
May 11th, 2007 at 11:05 pmSorry, Bob.
Boo!
May 11th, 2007 at 11:05 pmWasn’t mine - that was Unbelievable’s bedtime story from last night….
Mine was Karl Rove, brown shirt unbuttoned, tight leather jockstrap, cooing with pleasure as the fresh Brillo pads scrub his pasty white boy flesh pink….
May 11th, 2007 at 11:06 pmKilo, all the parts you bolded are reflected in his PNAC letter. What was unique about what he said on CNN was that he connected bin Laden to Iraq.
Don’t you mean connected Iraq to 9/11 ?
“”So Mr. Perle “made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11?†“”
That was the significant portion — and nothing you included in your bolded portion minimizes the fact that he was connecting Iraq to 9/11 quite explicitly.
Comment by Faiz — May 11, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Dont’ you mean connected Iraq to OBL ?
he connected bin Laden to Iraq
If I understand you correctly, think you just told me that nothing I just wrote about you portraying quotes about one thing as comments about something else, minimise the fact that you see no difference between the two.
I think we might have to pause and just recap how many “things” can be directly translated as “the 9/11 attacks”, since if you weren’t fking this up you would appear to have little complaint.
So we know OBL is in there. Hence it is accurate to say “Clinton tried to stop the 9/11 attacks with a cruise missile, but missed so he gave up.” Or “the 9/11 attacks built roads in Afghanistan with heavy machinery”.
And we know “state sponsor of terrorism” is in there. Hence any nation who has ever supported any flavour of terorrism of any group in the past was “behind 9/11″.
And we know anything mentioned in a sentence following a reference to the 9/11 attacks is also a claim that they were behind 9/11.
Anything else ? Why not go the “tar baby” route and just pretend that a commonly used reference for one thing is a reference to something completely different. How about pretending that “illegal immigrants” is a euphemism for terrorists with expired visas and pretend this is a reference to Mexico being behind 9/11.
Sure you won’t look credible and everyone will know you’re lying, but you get to accuse someone of suggesting someone other than al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Or just stop making crap up all together and trying to pass it off as fact. One of the two.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:09 pm#31 Kilo, next time try to not drink before writing.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 11, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Glad you got the point.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:12 pmKilo…. I see where you are going… so here’s one for your analytical mind:
Can you explain why 90% of US soldiers went to Iraq to ‘retaliate for Saddam’s role in 9-11′?
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
May 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pmGhost of Zooey, try rattling your chains real loud!
Comment by RUCerious
Chains? The pure have no chains.
Ok, I can’t keep a straight face…
May 11th, 2007 at 11:31 pmOh so I have to do this again eh?
So explain how Zogby (Feb 28th 2006) reported last year that 90% of US troops said they invaded Iraq because of ‘Saddam’s role in 9-11′ - Kilo - your analytical mind might help us get to the bottom of why that might be….
Go…
May 11th, 2007 at 11:34 pmKilo likes to write.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:37 pmJuan, approx 2.2 lbs of crap.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pm#50 More incoherence from Kilo.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:42 pmIf you happen to see Jerry, please say hi for me:)
May 11th, 2007 at 11:42 pmI’m sick of people claiming they never made any links to al qaeda/bin laden and iraq. during the lead up to the war, EVERY question regarding al qaeda or osama bin laden was followed by an answer about saddam or iraq. Some people never said it word for word, but if you go back to the records, they clearly answered the al qaeda questions with an iraq answer.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:43 pm#57 Yeah, I’m sick of it too. Kilo is a perfect case in point. Endless illogical semantic hair splitting to try to argue away what is totally obvious. 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, Saddam…it’s so easy when you have a cadre of dishonest supporters like Kilo to repeat it for you, then help you lie about having said it.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:46 pmThere’s Pearle days after 9/11, with sweet revenge on everybody’s mind saying Hussien and bin laden were tied.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:48 pm> If I understand you correctly, I think you just
> told me that nothing I just wrote about you
> portraying quotes about one thing
> as comments about something else,
> minimise the fact that you see no difference between the two.
Let me congratulate you on spitting out that convoluted bowel movement you call a sentence. That was probably the most cumbersome thing I’ve had to read since I put down my copy of the Federal Income Tax code…and about as informative as eavesdropping on a phone conversation between two mobsters who know the line is tapped…”are you saying I didn’t tell you about the thing and the guy who did the other thing and then told the other guy he saw me doing that first thing”?
Kilo, we’re dumb liberals here, would you mind keeping the length of your sentences down to the low double digits so we can follow you and your complex logical thought processed which are obviously the product of years of higher education?
Honestly, not only have you expressed your beleif with a truly rare and noteworthy ineloquence, but the beleif itself is a pretty foolish one at that. These guys, whether they ever came out and said “SADDAM WAS INVOLVED WITH 9-11″, they used every psychological trick, every single subtle psychological ploy conceivable to associate 9-11 and Iraq and thereby think that attacking iraq would be just retribution for 9-11.
Honestly, what they were trying to imply is so obvious, if you refuse to beleive it, I don’t think theres anything that would ever convince you. If I tell people “Kilo was kicked out of the military on a mental discharge. Even though its never been documented, people who get kicked out of the military on mental discharges are often child molesters. ” Its pretty apparent (to most people at least) that I’m implying your a child molester even though I havent come out and said it. Putting two names closely together in a sentence will often create an association in peoples minds even though none was directly stated. This is psychology 101, it works well especially on stupid people, which is the majority of people in the united states today.
But I suppose that when you’re trying to stick up for the veracity, integrity, and accuracy of the people who said “we know where the weapons are” “saddam has nuclear weapons”.. “we will be greeted with flowers” “iraq’s oil revenues will pay for its reconstruction”, things like reality and evidence arent really things you should take into account.
Oh, and woudl you do us a favor, please take a writing course from the local community college before you post here again, you know, so you can come down to our level and speak in a way us common folk can understand without us having to draw arrows on our computer screens trying to figure out what each of the pronouns you use to a stunning level of excess is referring to.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:53 pmOy Faiz, why are you removing my question about why US soldiers think they are in Iraq because of Saddam’s role in 9-11?
May 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pmLet me congratulate you on spitting out that convoluted bowel movement you call a sentence. That was probably the most cumbersome thing I’ve had to read since I put down my copy of the Federal Income Tax code… etc etc
Comment by Choclate Jesus loves anulingus — May 11, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Strange opening for a 2 or 3 dozen line post which doesn’t dispute what I’ve said.
I’m also a bit puzzled why you’d infer that making gross generalisations are okay about a topic where this is the sole complaint.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:22 amSo it’s okay to imply that Perle said Iraq was behind 9/11, even if he actually didn’t, because it’s generalisations like this that confuse idiots into supporting indefensible positions.
Wow. That sounds reasonable. Great stuff.
Kilo - your analytical mind can explain to us why 90% of US soldiers say they are in Iraq because of ‘Saddam’s role in 9-11′. (source is Zogby Feb 2006). Where did they get that idea? Any clue?
Faiz are you being a dick here for some reason?
May 12th, 2007 at 12:54 amStrange opening for a 2 or 3 dozen line post which doesn’t dispute what I’ve said.
Sorry, this is inaccurate. It should say “50+ lines without disputing what I’ve said”.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:40 amMy apologies for mischaracterising your comments about people posting rambling drivel.
#57 Yeah, I’m sick of it too. Kilo is a perfect case in point. Endless illogical semantic hair splitting to try to argue away what is totally obvious. 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, 9/11, Saddam,
Except I haven’t argued that. All I’ve done repeatedly across many, many TP articles is criticise inaccurate and misleading statements.
You realise I wouldn’t have to post at all if a single one of TP’s readers did this instead right ? You know, like you see on blogs that aren’t case studies in blind obedience to partisan talking points and spin.
Tell me when you’re sick of dozens of people chanting impeachment, 9/11 was an inside job, condaleeza rice is a slut, republicans should be killed etc in response to TP articles and I’ll take you seriously as someone who would like to see credibility brought to this blog as much as I do. Till then, won’t be because you’re not.
Do you think there’s a difference between the one guy on JawaReport or LGF that suggests all Iraqis are terrorists who deserved to be tortured and killed and the 100 subsequent posters, none of whom disagree with him or take him to task for saying it ?
If not, you realise that TP and all its readers endorse all the lies, hate and whackjob statements that appear here in exactly the same way.
But restrict yourself to complaining solely about me.
9/11, Saddam…it’s so easy when you have a cadre of dishonest supporters like Kilo to repeat it for you, then help you lie about having said it.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 11, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
And what Kind of supporter am I then, Mr Dislikes Dishonesty ?
I didn’t support the Iraq invasion, any of the arguements used to justify it then or since, any Iraq policy pre-2007, PNAC-style foreign policy goals, Bush getting elected either time, nor any Republican policy of any type in the past 7 years (apart from maybe earmarks transparency bills which I don’t know the source of).
So I’m that kind of supporter (of somebody unspecified) and you’re that kind of confused idiot who has no idea WTF you’re talking about.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:01 amYou;re the kind who’s such a partisan wingnut you won’t criticise or even mention inaccurate statements in plain text when you see them and will lie about those who do.
I’m happy with that state of affairs. You ?
People trying to wiggle out of accountablility for their actions always try to play word games. Kids do it all the time to try to get away with something.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:05 am>So it’s okay to imply that Perle said Iraq was behind 9/11, even if he >actually didn’t,
no no.. I’m not the one implying anything. Your getting closer though. I’m saying Perle necklace was the one implying a link between saddam and 9-11, creating associations that employ psychological mechanisms that he knows will make people draw the conclusion he wants.This kind of implied information also lets him later go back, and if it turns out, as it did, that he was wrong, very wrong, he can say “I never said that”. And people will argue semantics to say he didnt. Technically, no he didnt. Constructively, he did. Al-Queda attacked us on 9-11. Al-Queda are terrorists. Saddam supports terrorists. Technically, no, from these previous 3 statements you can’t draw the logical conclusion that Saddam was involved with 9-11. But logic is something that the average joe has never been accused of possesing to a signifigant degree.
> because it’s generalisations like this that confuse idiots into supporting
> indefensible positions.
right. maybe I dont give you enough credit, using generalizations to confuse idiots into supporting indefensible positions has pretty much been the standard MO of this administration. gereralizations like lumping every single person who has a beef with america and/or israel into the category of “terrorists”, thereby trying to imply that they are all somehow working together as a cohesive unit, which in fact, couldnt be further from the truth. I would argue that simply from a logistical standpoint, islam as a whole, in modern day, is an extremely dysfuntional religion (not an insult, just an observation), and that the more extreme the idealogy, the more dysfunctional it becomes. so the idea that radical islam is somehow capeable of putting all its petty intra-religious squabbles aside and forming a cohesive, well organized band of supervillians called “terrorists” is frankly the most absurd and assanine generalization that has ever existed in the modern world. i guess we agree on tactics kilo, we just disagree on whose using them on whom…
Wow. That sounds reasonable. Great stuff.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:01 amWhat we disagree on is that a MAJORITY of the American public believing that Saddam was behind 9/11 was the fault of a bunch of people who never said this instead of the American public.
Perle wasn’t saying that Iraq was behind 9/11 when he says that any retaliation for 9/11 must include an attack on Iraq. He was saying 9/11 happened and we’re going to invade Iraq. The same thing he would have been saying if 9/11 never happened. The same thing he was saying before 9/11. The same thing he would have said if it was Greenpeace activists who flew those planes.
If the next president is a Republican (stay with me here) who abolishes the estate tax, you don’t get to say that you were confused by platform he ran on visa vi the estate tax. Every Republican has always said they want to do this. Just like all the neocons have always said they want to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam.
At some point you need to ask yourself if 9/11 and the GWOT never happened, what would GWBush’s presidency have been known for.
The answer is the Iraq war.
Perhaps you see it as a reasonable complaint that Americans were “tricked” into believing that Saddam was behind 9/11 when nobody made this claim. That’s a cop out though and for me, hysterically implausible.
It also presumes that all will be well as long as the phenominally gullible American public never again encounter an administration that employs lies or spin. WTF you think the odds of that are.
You would make a better case that the public were deceived into believing Iraq had WMDs, as this claim was actually made. Still though, it was made using cartoons of box cars and came out of the blue with no apparent cause or link to 9/11. If Colin Powell had been seated beneath a huge banner reading “Diversion Accomplished” I personally don’t think it could have been any clearer what was going on.
But not the American public.
At some point you are going to need to accept that nobody convinced you Saddam was behind 9/11. They just convinced you that you weren’t done retaliating for 9/11 and needed some new brown people to blow up in a much more photogenic setting.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:45 amAnd here we are.
TROOPS LEFT IN IRAQ ARE FOR
language that gives U.S. military authority to protect “American diplomatic facilities and American citizens,” even if combat operations are ended, thus potentially using U.S. troops to protect American oil workers or companies pumping Iraq’s oil, be it from foreign insurgents or angry Iraqis.
“It’s a concern,” Woolsey said. “It should be debated, it should be out in the sunshine, what does it mean and how many of our troops would have to stay for just that reason?”
May 12th, 2007 at 5:39 amAnyone moaning that this question wasn’t posed to the candidates at the Democrat convention ?
May 12th, 2007 at 5:51 amIt is the policy of the frontrunner of the party tipped to take over Iraq from Bush.
Deceive us? If the Right can’t keep us deceived, they disappear.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:49 amFive US soldiers have been killed and three more reported missing near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
May 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am3393
May 12th, 2007 at 8:58 amthree more reported missing near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
These troops should be waterboarded they could save poor Iraqi lives
May 12th, 2007 at 9:01 amwonder if the troops can handle 2.5 minutes waterboarding like the CIA did to the Pakistani
May 12th, 2007 at 9:06 amKilo to say the Bush administration never tied Iraq to 9/11 is ludicrous or as you say ‘made that claim’. They might not have always said outright that there was a link, but they associated and implied it continually. So because they manipulated the public with their well-planned wordplay strategy, they get a free pass?
Having said that, Cheney ( I believe to this day) says there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. He doesn’t mince words. http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
Having said all that, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the neocons orchestrated 9/11. It just takes an open mind and an ability to think of yourself.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:45 amHe’s a mafia don. Look at him.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:26 amKilo to say the Bush administration never tied Iraq to 9/11 is ludicrous or as you say ‘made that claim’.
You’ve said something else is ludicrous in the same post you’ve told us 9/11 was an inside job.
They might not have always said outright that there was a link, but they associated and implied it continually. So because they manipulated the public with their well-planned wordplay strategy, they get a free pass?
They don’t get a free pass. That doesn’t change the fact though that you are to blame.
These were the same Republicans who will tell you without blinking that you are better off without medicare or that Alaskan reserves are better off with 700 oil wells drilled in them.
But when they not once told you Iraq was behind 9/11
The Iraq invasion was 18 months after 9/11. That’s 18 months of being told that OBL was behind 9/11, having that case unfolded over that time. 18 months of being given guarantees that Saddam had more WMDs than cold war Russia, but not once being told he was behind 9/11 even when the invasion was a lock.
What did you think the reason for that was ?
That they were scared of being sued for slander by Saddam on that one claim ?
Having said that, Cheney ( I believe to this day) says there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. He doesn’t mince words. http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
He also doesn’t mince reality with anything.
Are you now going to tell me Cheney was the man you placed all your faith in and got burned ?
Get the fk outta here.
Having said all that, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the neocons orchestrated 9/11. It just takes an open mind and an ability to think of yourself.
Comment by Dirk Neptune — May 12, 2007 @ 9:45 am
No, it takes a complete lack of ability to think for yourself.
Look where you are. You’re here in a thread talking about 1 of the 100% of necons who gained control of the WH, the pinnacle of power, who needed to completely and thoroughly discredit themselves in order to invade Iraq. That level of personal self immolation was required for them to turn their own plan into something that met their objectives. That’s the conspiracy theory.
Well if they orchestrated 9/11, the most obvious question would be why Saudis ?
Apart from the fact that they chose a country that was tied to the President, protected by the WH from scrutiny, and even though they provided OBL, the funding and the religious fundamentalism, received no punishment you’ve then got the problem of the hijackers.
If you are going to orchestrate 19 Sunnis crash planes into the WTC in order to provide a pretext for invading Iraq, which at least 2 necons do immediately after, you choose Saudi Sunnis instead of Iraqi Sunni Baathists why ?
You say it doesn’t take a genius to explain this so let’s start with you.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:25 amRemember Kilo, I said someone with an open mind. Obviously I wasn’t describing you.
Not sure what you mean when you say this:
“They don’t get a free pass. That doesn’t change the fact though that you are to blame.”
Now I’m to blame because they linked Iraq to 9/11? Do you ever think before you type stuff? Or for that matter - edit? You clearly have trouble expressing yourself - your proof is disjointed and your arguments are fuzzy. My point is that they purposely avoided directly linking Saddam to Iraq. They did it by implication and association. Why do you think to this day a large percentage of Fox News viewers still think Saddam was behind 9/11?
“Are you now going to tell me Cheney was the man you placed all your faith in and got burned ?”
I never said I placed my faith in Cheney. I just reported what he said and continues to say. Hate him or dislike him, no one can deny he’s an important mouthpiece of the Bush administration.
As for 9/11, I don’t expect to change your mind. There are many unanswered questions about that day that the Bush administration has made sure will never be officially answered. But since you’re so smart perhaps you can answer a question for me first…
Why were none of the hijacker’s names on the official passenger lists?
May 12th, 2007 at 11:58 amThe hijackers names were on the passenger lists of the airlines. You can read and see testimony from those who checked them onto the planes via the same systems every other passenger used.
But you’re not talking about those “official lists”. You’re talking about passenger lists released to the public following 9/11 which conspiracy theory websites refer to as “official” and “complete”.
There is a really obvious reason they weren’t on the lists that were released to the public for use in all those rememberence roll calls and TV tribute specials after 9/11. Everyone knows this immediately.
Likewise, why conspiracy theory websites cite these lists as being “the official passenger lists” when they clearly aren’t, anyone who looks at them can tell they aren’t, and they aren’t presented as such by anyone except conspiracy theorists is an answer everyone knows too.
If that’s that kind of unanswered question you’ve got you need to realise that these questions are only “unanswered” on the websites you’ve been reading because answering them ruins the story.
What other questions do you have about the hijackers ? I’m happy to answer every one you’ve got.
However if instead you’d like to make references to me being closed minded and “so smart” in another post where you dodge the issue completely we can go that route and I’ll turn you inside out.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pmYou couldn’ turn a pillow inside out.
But, all in all, your answer was pretty good. However I’ve yet to see a credidible official list that came directly from the airlines. There’s still many unanswered questions about those lists. Some of the ‘hijackers’ listed have turned up alive. One M.D. received the official autopsy list of flight 77 under the F.O.I.A. and no Arabs were listed. http://www.physics911.net/olmsted
Either way, I’m not disputing that there were hijackers on those planes. I’m questioning who hired them.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pmPsssst Faiz and Progs - Psssst…. I haste to be the bearer of BAD news but it is perfectly ethical for the WAPo to invite whoever they wish to opine away on their editorial page…….The”editorial” concept seems to escape you….
May 12th, 2007 at 4:36 pm#80 Comment by valiant venus — May 12, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Psssst Faiz and Progs - Psssst…. I haste to be the bearer of BAD news but it is perfectly ethical for the WAPo to invite whoever they wish to opine away on their editorial page…….Theâ€editorial†concept seems to escape you….
Psssst…ooooh are we whispering so the rest won’t hear us? How exciting! Glad no one else heard you. You are way out in left field with this post while the rest of your team is in the dugout. Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone. It will be our little secret. This is so exciting!
May 12th, 2007 at 8:09 pmRichard Perle should be povertized…
…then dropped in the middle of Baghdad…
…with his entire living, soulless bloodline…
May 12th, 2007 at 8:20 pmI’ve yet to see a credidible official list that came directly from the airlines.
That’ll be a reason not to refer to knowing what is and isn’t on it then.
So basically you “having an open mind” means you’re happy to repeat what you know are lies. Awesome.
There’s still many unanswered questions about those lists. Some of the ‘hijackers’ listed have turned up alive.
No they haven’t. This is possibly the lamest lie out there. It requires you to believe in the relevance of an article that was out of date within a couple of days back in 2001, and talk about it in 2007.
A few days after 9/11 the FBI released the names of the hijackers. As you would expect, when the US released it’s list of the most evil men on earth, others with the same names said “hey that’s me but I didn’t do it”. The BBC reported on this. Less than a week later the FBI released the photos of the hijackers and exactly zero people said “hey that’s me and I’m still alive”. Nothin but crickets.
Der Spiegel did a followup story about this and the Arabs who were the sources for these stories are suprised at how gullible the Americans are to be still talking about it. The Arabs, who engage in conspiracy theories like it’s a sport. They think you’re hysterical.
This is like if Russians told you that you’re drinking too much vodka. This is how crazy you look. Other crazies are saying “hey let’s not get batshit crazy here”.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:13 pmTrying again: Zogby reported that 90% of US soldiers said they were in Iraq because of ‘Saddam’s role in 9-11′ - Kilo care to comment on how they got that impression?
May 12th, 2007 at 11:53 pmPsst, Richard Perle penned the segment of the PNAC treatise about the need for an event like a “new Pearl Harbor” before the American people would accept wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strangely, that was only months before 9/11 gave the Bushites that very event.
The rats are deserting the ship and the corporate media are assisting them in their attempt to survive.
Here’s Perle’s PNAC connection -
TvNewsLIES exposed this a long time ago. But better late than never….
CLICK HERE
May 13th, 2007 at 12:40 amMajority of Iraq Lawmakers Seek Timetable for U.S. Exit
By KIRK SEMPLE — “New York Times”
Message to all Amerikkkans -
which part of fcuk don’t you understand?
May 13th, 2007 at 12:44 amWhat US soldiers in Iraq ?
Is it the same ones who got sent there to the lead the war on terror, who had it drilled into them that all Iraqis are terrorists, that they toss babies out of incubators, run rape rooms and poison their own people by the same institution who leads all world contenders in propoganda ?
Gee I dunno. Maybe in between propaganda sessions where they’re hyped up so they focus their need to kill brown people after 9/11 onto killing Iraqis, they caught an episode of Meet The Press where Perle was on.
“The military” really is like “the space program” to you folks isn’t it.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:46 am12 months to be precise. And not Afghanistan. And he turned out to be completely correct.
This would be the sinking ship of WH involvement in 9/11 that precisely zero people out of thousands involved have suggested they were a part of in the 6 years since.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:58 amAll boats are sinking in that same, completely bouyant way. All boat crews are fleeing in the same stationary, cohesive, unpaniced manner.
Psssst Faiz and Progs - Psssst…. I haste to be the bearer of BAD news but it is perfectly ethical for the WAPo to invite whoever(SIC–should be “whomever”) they wish to opine away on their editorial page……
Comment by vile venus
Please remember your own words before giving more unsolicited advice to Faiz, Amanda, etc. on what topics they should post on TP, dearie.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:57 amKiko. The link you supplied gives explanations for why two of the terrorists were wrongly presumed to be alive. Which is fine, I hope there are similar explanations for the others. I’m just looking for the truth here. However, as I said it’s really a non-issue, it matters little if identification mix-ups accorded. I’m eager to get to the bottom why certain things are thought to be an issue - when they really aren’t.
Obviously there’s no home video of Cheney hiring the terrorists. The neocons did it through the Pakistan ISI. (Check out 9/11 Press for Truth) The terrorists had no idea they were working for the U.S. government.
I’ve read The New Pearl Harbor, 9/11 Commission Distortions and Omissions and watched numerous videos about 9/11. I don’t take everything in the videos as gospel - as we all know often people are overzealous when they are trying to hammer through their point of view, but the overall conclusion is inescapable: 9/11 was an inside job. Read ‘The New Pearl Harbor’ for yourself. It might open your eyes. Then read 9/11 Commission Distortions and Omissions and you’ll see for yourself what a sham the 9/11 Commission was (or perhaps you’re already aware of that).
May 13th, 2007 at 8:55 amWhat kind of yellow journalism is this? “collude to spin,” and then one sentence later we see Washington Post just allowed this guy a rebuttal. I’d say that’s balanced, and anyway, the effect is they gave the guy plenty of rope to hang himself with. As Dirk said, it’s in the editorial column, and good editorial column policy “does not reflect the opinion of the editors.” That you complain about spin is both ironic and ludicrous. This is a clear case of the pot calling the enamel sink black. Criticize the writer and the article, but the WaPO is above reproach in this case, sorry.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pm