Snow Slams Gore’s Book, Says It Should Be ‘Reprinted’ Because It Calls Out Bush’s ‘Deception’
Snow Slams Gore’s Book, Says It Should Be ‘Reprinted’ Because It Calls Out Bush’s ‘Deception’
In his new book The Assault on Reason, Al Gore wrote that Bush’s efforts to connect Iraq to 9/11 were an example of the administration’s willful “deception” of the public:
When the administration is told specifically and repeatedly by the most authoritative sources that there is no linkage, but then in spite of the best evidence continues to make bold and confident assertions to the American people that leave the impression with 70 percent of the country that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda and was primarily responsible for the 9/11 attack, this can only be labeled deception. [p.108]
This afternoon, White House press secretary Tony Snow took issue with this passage. “[Bush] has never tried to make” the connection between Iraq and 9/11, Snow said. “And what [Gore] is doing, it’s been tried by a lot of other people, which is to take something the president hasn’t said, expose it as a, quote, lie, and then beat him up for it. … The president’s been straight about the intel.”
Snow attacked Gore’s book, saying, “I don’t know if they’re going to do a reprinting of the book to try to get the facts straight. The fact-checkers may have to take a look at it.” He added, “These are highly complex publishing issues and I can’t be an expert on them.” Watch it:
To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.
More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.
UPDATE: In a conference call this afternoon, Vice President Gore responded to Snow’s attack, saying: “Unlike the President’s State of the Union address, this book was actually fact checked.”
Transcript:
QUESTION: Could I have one more Al Gore book quote?
The president deceived the public by suggesting that Iraq was involved in 9/11. He says when the administration continued to, quote, make bold and confident assertions that leave the impression with 70 percent of the country that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaida and was primarily responsible for the 9/11 attack, this can only be labeled deception.
SNOW: Unfortunately, the vice president probably has been listening to people who have deliberately misled him.
The president has made it clear over and over and over that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and September 11th. And, again, from my own personal experience, when we would go in the day of the State of the Union address, the State of the Union address in 2002, I guess, or 2003, the question arose, Do you think that Saddam’s linked to September 11th? The president said, No, we have no intelligence to link Saddam directly to September 11th.
So he has never tried to make that tie.
And what the vice president is doing, it’s been tried by a lot of other people, which is to take something the president hasn’t said, expose it as a, quote, lie, and then beat him up for it.
The president told the truth. So I don’t know. Perhaps — I don’t know if they’re going to do a reprinting of the book to try to get the facts straight. The fact-checkers may have to take a look at it. These are highly complex publishing issues and I can’t be an expert on them.
QUESTION: Tony, you also realize Mr. Cheney had talked about an operational link perhaps between Al Qaida and Saddam, talked about Mohammed Atta having a meeting.
SNOW: Right. But that’s an entirely separate issue from the quote that was read.
QUESTION: Some people don’t view it as a separate issue if it contributes to a view in the general public that there was some Iraq tie to 9/11.
SNOW: Well, yes, you had Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Iraqi soil. You had reports that there were, in fact, Al Qaida members on Iraqi soil before the war began. That’s in the intel that you saw before the war.
Again, I think what happens is the people are trying to, you know — if at first you don’t succeed, try to figure out another angle by which you can go after the president, where everybody saw the same intel and at least in those early days after September 11th, they all basically agreed to what they had seen. The president’s been straight about the intel.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“These are highly complex publishing issues and I can’t be an expert on them.â€
Here, let me fix that typo:
“These are highly complex truth and honesty issues and I can’t be an expert on them.â€
There. That’s better.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pmWow, I took the headline to mean that Snow wanted more books printed because it pointed out Bush’s deception. Not that he wanted re-prints with that passage ‘corrected’.
Also:
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 pmCaption Contest
“I Am Not A Crook”
Been sayin’ this long before we attacked. Also, predicted he would launch us into a war in the middle-east before he even got the first nomination. Heck, even my peanuts knew it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pmBush did not make the connection..!! But how many times Bush said that the people we are fighting in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pmBush repeatdly said..If we don’t fight them there(in Iraq)..we will fight them overhere…Is there any surprise why still a large percentage of the people think Saddam was behind 9/11.
Impeach!
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pmAnyone get the sense that the WH (and the GOP in general) are extremely fearful of a Gore candidacy?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pmIs Phoney Snow channeling Nixon? Or is he just effing crazy? or both?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm‘Snow attacked Gore’s book, saying, “I don’t know if they’re going to do a reprinting of the book to try to get the facts straight. The fact-checkers may have to take a look at it.‒
Then we should have a recall of every book by those propagandists Coultergeist, BillO, and Hannity if there should be a “reprinting of the book to try to get the facts straight” cause we all KNOW how diligent they are with getting facts straight. The book by that fascist DeLay too.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pmThat was funny, Squeg – -
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmsorry, I just had to do the Jimmy Carter thing.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmI really would like some of whatever drug Tony Snow is on. It must be fun living in what every fantasy land he is living in these days.
I was a little worried about Snow when he returned to work because stress is really bad for any illness. But, I realize now he has no stress because he has no heart, he has no conscience and he has no soul. So, he can lie with impunity and still sleep at night. It’s a nice trick but not one I would want to try. I value my integrity and soul to highly.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 pmTony is not a fooling us. He’s ill.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pmtrueblue
That was funny, Squeg – -
Thanks, but you should know better than to encourage me. Don’t feed the trolls and the such.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pmAl should call Tony and thank him for the publicity – for as well all know, the neocons want the stuff they are told that they can’t have, or is bad for them…
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pmHow many ‘fact-checkers’ will it take to disabuse ourselves of the mountains of deception this admin has created?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:15 pmFour years ago today, bush fell off his bike and bruised his nise.. lets all have a moment of silence and pray god gets it right this time
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm“Then we should have a recall of every book by those propagandists Coultergeist, BillO”
Actually, I learned something interesting about the publishing world the other day. Do you know how Billo and Coultergeist get on the “best sellers list”? That list is based on how many books are sold. Now, it doesn’t discriminate between the pallets of books bought by Borders or the individual books purchased by you at the book store. Now, if Borders returns pallets of books, those are deducted from the amount sold. Well, what happens with authors like these is that Republican groups buy pallets of their books through a wholesaler (thereby getting the wholesale price) and that helps put the authors in the “best seller” category. Then, they either sell the books for pennies on the dollar, give them away or, finally, they destroy pallets of books. I know about this because I talked to a guy who worked at a company that shreds books for major publishers and others. When the books come in from the publisher (having been returned), those are books that didn’t count as “sold”. But when the shred the pallets of books that come in from second parties (like Republican groups), those are books that are still out there as being “sold”. It’s a scam pure and simple.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pmBush talk late 2001 to early 2003:
911 blah blah blah Saddam blah blah blah 911 blah blah blah Saddam 911 blah blah blah Saddam blah blah blah 911 blah blah blah Saddam 911 blah blah blah Saddam blah blah blah 911 blah blah blah Saddam 911 blah blah blah Saddam blah blah blah 911 blah blah blah Saddam
Only a complete moron would think Bush was trying to assoicate 911 with Saddam Hussein…
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 pmSqueg –
You are a semi-troll.
Sometimes I feel you don’t believe half of what you say.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 pmYou just like to get us riled up.
Everyone seems to miss the incredibly precise parsing of words in the Iraq war power resolution. The key word in all this is: “including”. If you interpret the passage taken directly from the resolution you understand that the administration was given authority to “…take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations…” This means Iraq, and possibly Iran and Syria. The rest of that sentence makes it read as if we were only authorizing military action against “those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.†The inclusion of the comma after the word “organizations”, followed by the word “including” makes it clear that in fact military action actually has been authorized against any government that sponsored terorists, whether or not they were themselves directly involved in 9-11.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:20 pmCaption:
“We’re telling you the (finger-quote) truth(end finger-quote).”
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:20 pmGEROGE BUSH SAID
Saddam Hussein protect terrorists including members of Al Queda
Listen to his voice on neil Young , Impeach the president
THATS WHAT HE SAID
http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/
Listen to him
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:20 pmVerily, the whole right-wing thing is a fraud from start to finish.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pmHow long with The White House continue to try to push this load of bullshit on the American public? Of course Bush tried to connect the Iraq War with 9/11. He did it in many ways and on many occasions. WHAT A BUNCH OF LYING COWARDS.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pmKatie, that is great info on the books. Thanks.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pmThe prophet Gore has spoken!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 pmUntil the media starts calling these folks on these lies, they are going to keep repeating them.
Cheney is an absolute master at this. He will appear on Russert and other programs and repeat OLD lies time and time again. Then the moderators will just sit there and smile and nod their heads.
It isn’t as if this is a new allegation with Bush.
When Tony Snow said this, why didn’t the same reporter, or another call him on it?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 pmSaddam Hussein protect terrorists including members of Al Queda
A true statement.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmgoodnight patrick
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pmThese comments on Gore from a guy who while he was still broadcasting on his FOX radio show said that we HAD found WMD, and that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. All that was discredited at the time, yet Snow advocated for them as a talk radio personality
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pmMy favorite part…
“Unfortunately, the vice president probably has been listening to people who have deliberately misled him.”
Like you have to rely on others to have personally heard the administration linking Al Queda and Iraq. Unfortunately for Snow and company we have a little thing called video.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pmWow, my copy of the book arrived in the mail this morning. I can’t wait to dive into it now! Finally somebody calling these guys on their lies and manipulations! Now if someone could just light a fire under Congress and get them to do their job (as in serve the people of this nation, and support and defend the Constitution)!
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pmUnfortunately for Snow and company we have a little thing called video.
And it killed the radio star.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pmPatrick1 has his head up his butt and he likes it there.
A true statement.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 pmES, tony is capable of snowing the video
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 pmSaddam Hussein protect terrorists including members of Al Queda . . . by allowing them to hide in his country and operate within it . . . JUST LIKE BUSH.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 pmTony Snow = asshat
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pmHow this paragraph (extracted fromm th 2003 State of the Union Address):
“And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.’
fails to link Saddam to Al Qaida, and thus to 911, eludes me. Tony is splitting hairs.
link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/index.html
Search on “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists”
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pmFurther more. . .
To assert that Iraq had WMD and AL Qaeda ties, Snow used “open soucre” intelligence analysts, and I’m not talking about the prestigious Jane’s World Army’s either. I am talking about people that spout their “findings” on short wave radio shows that also put forward theories about how “giants” secretly rule the world (it’s in the Bible).
I can not believe that this guy is White House press secretary. He barely belongs on AM radio.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pmIn case TP eats my post proving Tony Snow is a liar using the words directly from the mouth of George Bush, here is a link to the source material where Bush links Iraq to Al Queda.
These liars cannot be left to stand unchallenged. Where is the press?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pmSaddam Hussein protect terrorists including members of Al Queda
A true statement.
Comment by Patrick1
Tell Tony Snow.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 pmSaddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al queda
Thats what Bush said
WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm“I don’t know if they’re going to do a reprinting of the book to try to get the facts straight.” …..wait let’s just pile them up and have a book burning.”
- Tony Snow
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pmFrom George Tenet’s Book “More Than Enough Evidence”.
What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa’ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi’s operations in northeastern Iraq.
More al-Qa’ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa’ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad’s best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi’s camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs. Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?
Yussef Dardiri is better known by most as one Abu Ayyub al-Masri
Gore should stick to religion.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:41 pmExcellent link there Gorn by any other name – guess the reporter should have had that one printed out for him before he asked the question – then he could just point and quote for old Snowjob there.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:41 pmPatrick1 Big Prick
sorry NOT True
Bush said – - Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Queda
SIMPLY A LIE TO TRY MAKE A CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND 911 – THE PEOPLE FELL FOR IT – CONGRESS KNEW THE TRUTH BUT WHERE COMPLICIT IN TRYING TO STEAL OIL –
Thats the deception
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pmJune 16, 2004: ”At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there,” said David Kay, former head of the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ‘‘But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.”
”Cheney’s speech is evidence-free,” Kay said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pmRe: #7. I think Phoney Snow is channeling Baghdad Bob.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pmCheney knew the Niger uranium story was false. True statement.
Dick Cheney used scare tactics two weeks before the last presidential election. True statement.
The Bush administration ignored the military minds calling for larger troops before the invasion of Iraq. True Statement.
Bush wants us to give his “chance a plan to work”. True statement and quote from the dumb one.
We conquered the Nazi’s in less time than it will take to round up a few dead enders. True Statement.
This is fun Patrick1. Thanks for getting back to the truth.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm“[Bush] has never tried to make†the connection between Iraq and 9/11, Snow said.
“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.” – George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) – BushOnIraq.com
“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” – President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) – Whitehouse.gov
“I think they’re both equally important, and they’re both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We’ve got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm.” – President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) – Whitehouse.gov
“This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He’s a threat.” – Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) – Whitehouse.gov
“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” – President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) – BushOnIraq.gov
“He’s had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.” – Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) – BushOnIraq.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pmHonorable American Senators and Congresspeople, Greetings:
You may or may not be aware that a poll was conducted by MSNBC on May 21st 2007, asking all Americans if Bush’s actions warrant Impeachment. Of nearly one half-million responses, fully 89%
of We, The American People answered Yes, Impeachment Is Warranted. By this broad reckoning, somewhere between 85% and 90% of Americans do now fully understand and agree with what many of us realized well before the theft of both our 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections: that Cheney and Bush do not represent American values or ideals, that Cheney and Bush do not uphold either our American Constitution nor any rule of law which does not redound to what Cheney and Bush percieve to be their own interests and that of the multinational oil, weapons, nuclear, prison, media and other conglomerates to whom Cheney and Bush owe their true allegiance, in direct violation of their solemn Oath, and that neither Cheney or Bush nor their supporters or enablers have, can, intend to, or will do anything other than continue to divide, prey upon and sunder the very fabric of our beloved Nation, a nation which despite many blunders, more than any other has endevoured to advanced the cause of national and human Freedom for over 225 years; our beloved nation which defeated the nazi menace only 65 years ago. You must now act to uphold the most cherished values of all mankind.
While America has not always acted in the highest of interests, we have always at least tried to do so, yet now America has been led by lies into the darkest and most treacherous of directions by Cheney, Bush, and their globalist henchmen. When, exactly, do you intend to put a stop to this? Or do you? Because if you do not only listen, but also take all immediate action to exert and to advance the expressed will of We, The People of the United States of America by actually doing what you also have sworn your solemn Oath to do; namely
to Protect, Defend, Preserve and Uphold our American Constitution, Nation, and Flag against all enemies both foreign and domestic, then you as well can no longer, and indeed should no longer be considered by anyone as anything but directly complicit in these outrageously illegal, immoral, unconscionable and utterly intolerable
depredations of everything which America has always and will always represent.
Our brave American armed forces have been stretched to the limit by these cowardly traitors who themselves repeatedly and deliberately avoided service in a war which they claimed to support, our American economy and jobs have been decimated, our social services, infrastructure and environment have been gutted and
polluted to benefit these amoral criminals, our Constitutional rights have been repeatedly trampled, our courts and legal systems have been directed against us, there is no Justice as our very Department Of Justice itself has been hijacked to advance the political and financial interests of the wealthiest 5%, and not even the wealthiest 5% of Americans per se, although they indeed have profited at the direct expense of everyone else, but rather these policys which you however wittingly have encouraged and allowed to continue most often helped the predatory interests of globalist corporatist thieves, who so far from owing or paying any allegience to our American interests, principles or ideals, rather intend to destroy America,
eliminate our borders, decimate our health, safety and welfare, and are on their way to doing so as they have deviously planned at least since 1750 and now openly boast in their misbegotten arrogance.
These criminals have operated to implant millions of people with heinously illegal radio devices, to perpetrate mind control, directed energy and eugenics crimes against Americans using the resources of our government itself, plotted to arrogate all wealth and resources to themselves according to profoundly unamerican and despicably inhuman “values”, deliberately subverted our Free Press and fraudulently manipulated our Fair Elections to conduct these violations of all moral, ethical and legal bounds. Is this the legacy which you intend to leave? Is this allowable for you because for the moment you have rights, you have money, you have the life and freedom which America still promises to everyone, but now only delivers to those willing to sacrifice their honor and principles in exchange for the trappings of wealth and a power most often excersised to the detriment of their neighbor? Your legislative records and your words do not necessarily indicate that this is the case, but it is now more than six years past time for your deeds, not merely your words, to convey your most sincere answer to these questions.
If you fail us, history will remember you with those who called themselves Americans but whose actions betrayed their true identity. Should you further abrogate your obligations to faithfully execute your solemn sworn Oath of duty to uphold our American Constitution at this critical hour in our beloved nations history by immediately bringing both Articles and Proceeedings of Impeachment against both Cheney and Bush, and by seeing to it that they and their aiders and abbetors are brought to the very same Justice which they so eagerly prescribe for others, yet have not and do not themselves abide by in any measure, then you will have participated in by allowing perhaps the greatest crime ever commited against your own nation and
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pmworld. In that event we neither shall nor can be any countrymen of yours.
“[Bush] has never tried to make†the connection between Iraq and 9/11, Snow said.
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” – President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) – Whitehouse.gov
“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” – President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) – Whitehouse.gov
“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” – President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003) – Whitehouse.gov
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” – President’s Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm“Saddam Hussein protect terrorists including members of Al Queda”
Saddam is deceased, Einstein.
“A true statement.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 22, 2007 @ 4:25 pm”
Then you’ll have proof?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm“Wow, I took the headline to mean that Snow wanted more books printed because it pointed out Bush’s deception. Not that he wanted re-prints with that passage ‘corrected’.”
Comment by squegeebooo — May 22, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Yeah, yet another misleading TP headline.
“Al should call Tony and thank him for the publicity – for as well all know, the neocons want the stuff they are told that they can’t have, or is bad for them…”
Comment by unbelievable — May 22, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Isn’t it mostly lefties that are for drug use and promiscuity?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm“[Bush] has never tried to make†the connection between Iraq and 9/11, Snow said.
“He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” – President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” – President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” – President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm“[Bush] has never tried to make†the connection between Iraq and 9/11, Snow said.
(Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 – November 04.)
OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
“This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”
OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
“He’s got connections with al Qaeda.”
OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
“This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks.”
NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
“We know he’s got ties with al Qaeda.”
NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
“We know that he’s had connections with al Qaeda.”
NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
“He’s had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”
NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
“We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”
NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
“This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”
NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
“This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections.”
NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
“He’s had contacts with al Qaeda.”
NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm“This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda.”
Tony Snow is a paid lier,with our tax money.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pmPatrick:
Zarqawi’s operations in northeastern Iraq = REGION NOT CONTROLLED BY SADDAM, dumbass.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pmUnfortunately, the vice president probably has been listening to people who have deliberately misled him.
Which vice president is Gore talking about? Gore or Cheney?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pmPatrick1. Looks like “gorn by any other name” has sufficiently bitch-slapped you. Bwaahahahaha!
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:47 pmDeception. Lies. TREASON against the USA.
Bush has committed ALL of these and MORE.
See YOU in hell my TREASONOUS followers (cause I’LL be THERE),
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
“Now if someone could just light a fire under Congress and get them to do their job (as in serve the people of this nation, and support and defend the Constitution)!
Comment by JG — May 22, 2007 @ 4:30 pm”
You mean like this:
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Congressional Democrats plan to send to President Bush a war-spending bill without a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, two Democratic leadership aides tell CNN.
The bill is expected to include benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to achieve. The bill is also expected to require the president to provide numerous reports to Congress before August 2007 on the Iraqi government’s progress, the aides said.
If the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks, the aides said, reconstruction funds could be cut. The bill may also allow the president to waive the penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks if he feels they are necessary.”
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/withdrawal-timetable-dropped-from-war.html
I didn’t think you did… it’s digusting…
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pmI guess since Bush doesn’t read he is unaware of the written documented evidence of his (in)direct reference and Cheney’s direct reference to Iraq being involved in the 9/11 attack and its being used as a pretense for invading Iraq.
And, since when will any author rewrite something they documented just because it is not showing the targeted subject in a positive light?
Sounds as if we live in Nazi Germany?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pmTenet, in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002, reported that the intelligence community had accumulated “solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm#60
Yep, simply disgusting. Once again, the dictator gets his way. What a lame Congress. And to think I thought there just might be hope for justice and a return to our constitutional democracy when the Democrats gained control of Congress. I think everyone was duped on that one.
LAME DEMOCRATS!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pmBush Said – - Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Queda
IM SICK FED UP POSTING THE PROOF ONCE AGAIN HERE IT IS
listen to Neil young then click on Impeach the president
http://streamos.wbr.com/download/wbr/neilyoung/052506/ny_impeach-doc_v4_700.wmv
LISTEN HALF WAY THOUGH THE SONG ——————-
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm#62. They why did your boy Bush (aka “The Idiot President”) state that Al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
You’re own evidence has been called out as false by Idiot Boy Bush!!
LOL!
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pmRemember the old Eddie Murphy routine where his girl says she saw him coming out of another woman’s apartment at 5am?
He says, “wasn’t me” …
And she says, “but I saw you–you were wearing the jacket I gave you for Christmas,” …
He says, “wasn’t me” …
She screams, “I saw you come out of her apartment at 5am wearing the jacket I gave you for Christmas, get in your car and drive away!” …
And he says, “wasn’t me” …
Then she pauses for a second and says, “well, maybe it wasn’t him…”
I think this what Tony Snow is trying to go for here on behalf of old G.W. …
uh, …. good luck with that, Tony ….
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:55 pmPatrick,
Even if true, who the “F” care about “contacts” – heck Ronald Reagan had “contacts” with Commies and the Iranians in the 80’s! It’s “operational ties” that are what matters, dumbass.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pmThe Bush Administration never said that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were connected to the 9/11 attacks.
The 70% figure is a contrived statistic.
Al Gore is a nut and a liar.
And you folks are dangerously stupid.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pmWhy, the Pope has never been Catholic. And no, bears don’t sh!t in the woods.
Any other questions?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pmWow Patrick1. 20+ quotes showing Bush was linking Saddam to Al Qiada and 9/11 and you come back with???? The already debunked Tenet. And only one quote at that.
Open your eyes man (?)
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm“Isn’t it mostly lefties that are for drug use and promiscuity?
Comment by zxz — May 22, 2007 @ 4:44 pm”
There’s a vast difference between use and abuse, and between accepting human sexual desires as natural and pedophelia.
Liberals generally don’t think marijuana is any worse than alcohol in managed quantities, and that sex between consenting adult is their business. It’s why we don’t go overboard from denial, and so many neocons are routinely busted with excessive quantities of hardcore drugs and for perverted sex.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm#68: You must be a moron. Did you read the multitude of quotes earlier in this thread? Maybe you could have your mommy read you the big words.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pmAnd you, Ringo, are a republican shill.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:01 pm“Sounds as if we live in Nazi Germany?
Comment by Hypocrisy — May 22, 2007 @ 4:49 pm”
The parallels are eerie… If you replace ‘Hitler’ references in the timeline of Nazi take over of Germany with ‘Bush’, it’s the same story… Hitler was just more adept at his take-over.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 pmunbelievable,
“…and so many neocons are routinely busted with excessive quantities of hardcore drugs and for perverted sex.”
—————————————-
Which “neocons” would you be referring to?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 pmThinkProgress today: “Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.”
White House Press Conference January 31 2003:
“Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
The invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, two months after this statement.
Thinkprogress has gotten its facts wrong. The President has consistently stated — both before and after the invasion of Iraq — there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
I trust Thinkprogress will correct its erroneous assertion.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm#69
Tony Baloney
You are either telepathic or a really fast typer …
Either way, excellent 1 minute response to “Ringo’s” nonsense.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm“Tenet (said blah blah blah).†patrick1
Wow, imagine an administration stooge telling the story the administration told them to tell.
(1) Bush, Cheney, et al still propagated with full gusto the idea that there was an Iraq-911 connection, as an excuse to invade.
(2) Tony Snow is a fugging liar for saying otherwise.
(3) Even if Tenet was correct, the mere appearance of an Al Queda linked person in Iraq hardly justifies full scale invasion, overthrow of the government, the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, the destruction of a national infrastructure, the creation of thousands of new militants, and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Bush regime is morally bankrupt. Tony Snow is morally bankrupt. Patrick1 is morally bankrupt.
Patrick1, do you have anything of actual substance to offer? Because your talking points are stale and impotent.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pmMr. Snow’s drugs must be working. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, more so, have never tired of linking al Qaeda and Iraq. It was a fundamental part of their 2004 re-election platform and remains a staple in their canned speeches to carefully controlled supporters.
Mr. Snow might as well say that there are no gaps in Mr. Gonzales’ memory or White House e-mail records, or that the US is disinterested in Iraq’s oil. Mr. Snow’s Newspeak would captivate even Mr. Orwell, who would then excoriate it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pmRingo, pull your head out of your ass and read the quotes. Quotes are exact words from people. ‘They are used as evidence when one flip flops.
You want to argue something at least come with your brain engaged. Now you just sound stooooopid.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm“And to think I thought there just might be hope for justice and a return to our constitutional democracy when the Democrats gained control of Congress. I think everyone was duped on that one.
Comment by Hypocrisy — May 22, 2007 @ 4:52 pm”
Heart breaking, because it seemed that they were finally standing up to the mental midget on his golden throne… Ugh.
I’m going to learn to speak Dutch.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pm54 – nice one thanks
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmhellinabucket,
I don’t have the time to read through this thread. Why don’t you just provide me with an example or two of any member of the Bush Administration saying that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were behind the attacks on 9/11.
Please do….with links, of course.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm“Which “neocons†would you be referring to?
Comment by Ringo — May 22, 2007 @ 5:02 pm”
Here’s a good start:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmIt is nothing but lies and mind games while they rob the treasury.
Will the neocons conveniently let another 9/11 happen for this:
Bush Anoints Himself as the Ensurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency ?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmHiB,
In none of those quotes from Bush does he assert Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Saying that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda is not the same thing as saying Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
As I show in the post above, Bush was saying even before the invasion of Iraq that he was not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm“[Bush] has never tried to make†the connection between Iraq and 9/11″
And anyone remember this golden oldie? “We’ve never been ’stay the course’.”
Just unbelievable.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm81 – I’m going to learn to speak Dutch……not so easy as you might think
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:10 pmExley, saying one can’t make that claim and saying there is no link isn’t the same and you know that. You used to be better than that. tsk, tsk, tsk.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:11 pmWho committed the acts on 9/11?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pmDont you just love it when Al comes out telling the truth?? It will be so nice having someone honest in the White House again, beginning on January 20, 2009.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pmIn none of those quotes from Bush does he assert Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Saying that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda is not the same thing as saying Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
As I show in the post above, Bush was saying even before the invasion of Iraq that he was not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Comment by Exley — May 22, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
You’re absolutely right, Exley. Bush certainly cannot be held to account for the impression his words were crafted to impart, as long as he didn’t say the actual exact words that would show him as a liar.
The fact that over 70% of Americans got the impression that Saddam was involved in 9/11 from listening to the President talk about the contacts between Iraq and al Quaeda not his responsibility.
Nice low bar you’ve set there.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pmThinkprogress has gotten its facts wrong. The President has consistently stated — both before and after the invasion of Iraq — there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Exley
This is the kind of self-serving disingenuous lies conducted by “Slick Willy” that used to drive the moralist Republicans into an outrage. “It depends on what the definition of is is.”
Anybody with functioning neurons realize that all of the thunder talk about Iraq and Hussein leading up to the war, with near-proximity references to 911, Al Queda, “shadowy terrorist networks”, and Osama bin Laden, was obviously and clearly done with the intent of linking all of these things together. That Bush may never have said “Hussein conspired to fly airplanes into the WTC” is incredibly disingenuous.
Instead of Slick Willy lying about a BJ, we have Slick Bush and Slick Dick (sounds like porn stars) lying about epic levels of death and destruction. And Slick Tony, Slick Patrick1, Slick Ringo, and Slick Exely backpedaling to cover it up.
Boys, your party is almost over. Enjoy your final 18 months.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pmHiB,
The Jan. 31, 2003 statement from Bush shows he was very careful in his language and never said Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm“not so easy as you might think
Comment by Tobey Tall — May 22, 2007 @ 5:10 pm”
Lack of ease has never stopped me before… Besides, Bush is giving me an incentive.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pmSaddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pm“Who committed the acts on 9/11?”
Who are you asking, HiB?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pmThe latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that’s not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly.
The Des Moines Register survey has former North Carolina Senator John Edwards solidly in first. Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That’s about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.
In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) with 23 percent.
Clinton musters a mere 21 percent — down significantly from her position in several previous polls — to secure the No. 3 position
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070520/cm_thenation/45197223
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pmAs I show in the post above, Bush was saying even before the invasion of Iraq that he was not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Comment by Exley
And he wasn’t saying it wasn’t.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pmYou’ll do Exley. Who committed the acts on 9/11?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pmOkay, HiB…I’ll play along:
“Who committed the acts on 9/11?”
Al Qaeda terrorists.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm#98
“the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that’s not the worst of it.”
Sorry, but I look at this developement as (relatively) good news.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 pmHillary is not the leader we are going to need in the next 16 to 20 years.
“Who committed the acts on 9/11?â€
Who are you asking, HiB? Exley
He’s asking YOU, you idiot! Bush linked Iraq to Al Queda, a group few ordinary Americans had ever heard of before 911. A group that committed the 911 attack.
Bush connects Iraq to Al Queda, to shadowy terrorist networks (TM), etc.
Who committed the acts of 911? Al Queda. Who is linked to Al Queda? Iraq and Hussein. What implications were intended by the avalanche of propaganda being catapulted by Bush, Cheney, and the neocon team?
Do you have an honest bone in your pathetic body? You can’t really be this stupid, can you? Can you?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmunbelievable,
Other than Foley and Strom Thurmond, I’ve never heard of any of those people….and I believe Thurmond was a Democrat at the time he had sex with a teenager.
And, none of those people are neocons…You said “so many neocons are routinely busted with excessive quantities of hardcore drugs and for perverted sex.â€
I’ll agree with you that many evangelicals are nutty but, come on, one could just as easily compile a similar list of obscure Democrat perverts.
And Timothy McVeigh?…Pleeeze.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pmLet me try that one again: Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pmgorn, stated it so much better than I.
You, Exley, wish not to make that connection. For whatever reason I won’t understand. But I, and others, are tired of seeing this country hijacked by the fearmongers.
Don’t believe it, that’s your right. It’s still the truth.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pmGorn,
Relax…Just because I pointed out that none of your quotes supported the canard that Bush said Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks and in fact he specifically said he was not making that claim does not mean you should take your frustrations out on me….
Just do better research next time.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm“Sorry, but I look at this developement as (relatively) good news.”
So did I :)
We’ve been discussing how no one we know supports Hillary, but yet the nationwide polls show her as the front runner. In keeping with that sunning discussion, I thought this information would be of interest.
“Hillary is not the leader we are going to need in the next 16 to 20 years.
Comment by heyzeus — May 22, 2007 @ 5:23 pm”
That person is Al Gore and I wish he’d get in the race…
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pmHow can Snow honestly sit there and pretend this administration made no link between Saddam and 9/11????
How stupid do they think we are?
This is just like how they claimed “we never said Iraq was an imminent threat”. Yeah RIGHT. You talked about mushroom clouds, mobile bio weapon labs, buying enriched uranium in Africa in order to make nukes. GIVE ME A BREAK.
These guys are the worst liars in HISTORY along with being the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm“gorn, stated it so much better than I.”
Yeah…He admitted he had no evidence to support the canard that Bush ever said Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Once again: Jan. 31, 2003, almost two months before the invasion of Iraq:
“Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.â€
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 pmOther than Foley and Strom Thurmond, I’ve never heard of any of those people….and I believe Thurmond was a Democrat at the time he had sex with a teenager.”
Doesn’t make them any less real. Especially not to their victims.
“And, none of those people are neocons…You said “so many neocons are routinely busted with excessive quantities of hardcore drugs and for perverted sex.—
Funny, you haven’t heard of any of them, but you do know that none of these people you’ve ever heard of are not neocons… Shouldn’t you have to know a person before you can know his affliation?
Besides, are you defending neocons?
“I’ll agree with you that many evangelicals are nutty but, come on, one could just as easily compile a similar list of obscure Democrat perverts.”
Then step up and have at it. I’m guessing so such list exists eitherbecause it does not exist or because your side isn’t bright enough to assemble one. Wow us and be the first…
“And Timothy McVeigh?…Pleeeze.
Comment by Ringo — May 22, 2007 @ 5:25 pm”
He was one of yours. You owned him. The don’t get much more conservative Christian gun-loving than Timmy’s kind.
Though, Gore Vidal had a three year correspondence with him and said that he was simply a product of his nurture. No kidding.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 pmComment by Exley — May 22, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Do you understand the concept of juxtaposition? If you don’t I include a link below
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/juxtaposition
Bush used this tactic so much in the build up to Iraq. Anyone who was slightly switched on saw through it. You can always rely on some useful idiots mind….
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 pmWhat is the infatuation the right has with Sen. Clinton? This love with her has been going on since Bill Clinton, took office! What I see is a buch of men with the “Mommy Complex”,worried almost to death about Sen. Clinton is, or is not going to do!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 pmNeal Boortz has the rest of his life pinned to what Ms. Clinton is or isn’t going to do. The world would have been a better place if she hadn’t decided to run,Boortz was going to retire if she didn’t run! Here’s a 62 year old galoot calling her “Thunderthighs,or the HildaBeast” almost daily on his gabfest about himself!
Poor Britney, Cavatuo,Gibson Sean an Rush,wouldn’t have anything to whine about daily! Shucks almost forget, Mr. Loofah,Billie-Boy!
Can anyone tell me what the infatuation with Sen. Clinton is?
#102, Maybe Hayseed or what is it, Heyzeus, could tell me?
Once again: Jan. 31, 2003, almost two months before the invasion of Iraq:
“Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.â€
Comment by Exley — May 22, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Perhaps your claim of innocence on the President’s part might carry more weight if, instead of saying “I can’t make that claim,” he had said, “No, there is no link direct or otherwise between Saddam Hussein and the men who attacked us on September the 11th.”
See the difference? One is an unequivocal denial of belief in something, and the other isn’t. You’re comfortable with the one that isn’t.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pmWhere is it when he regrets anyone in his administration making the links? Where is when he admonishes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others for the incorrect links made?
He couldn’t make the claim but stood quietly by when others under him did. They just did it on their own?
Charles Manson was convicted of murder but didn’t commit the crime.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm#110
Exley
Regarding your ” One question for you both” quote … who is the other person being asked the question?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pmExlax:
Relax…
The hell I will relax. You and your ilk have brought this country to the brink, and have done untold damage in Iraq. Relaxing is what allowed your pinhead leader to rise to power in the first place. Relaxing is what allowed him to stay there for a second term.
Just because I pointed out that none of your quotes supported the canard that Bush said Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks
Stop right there, buttcrust. Nobody, anywhere, said that Bush claimed Iraq was “involved in the 9/11 attacks”. What we said is that Bush linked Iraq to 911, and yes he most certainly did. In the same paragraph of the same speech, to talk about Iraq and 911, and to link Iraq to Al Queda, is providing a link (slickly stated) between Iraq and 911. Not the 911 attack precisely, but the 911 state of mind. The 911 state of mind was what provided the implicit authority of the American people to conduct military actions. Bush, quite intentionally, exploited that mindset to justify an invasion he and his neocon handlers had in mind all along. Bush said “I have political capital and I’m going to use it.” And he did. He called out his “axis of evil”, and pursued his course of belligerence accordingly. He projected clearly what he intended to do, and then he did it.
Stop pretending that any of this is a “canard”. You aren’t fooling anybody who isn’t already a fool.
Just do better research next time.
Yes, those pesky direct quotes can be so uncomfortable, can’t they?
Is this the best you can do, Exlax?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pmwho said atta met with iraqi intelligence officials in prague, czech republic just months before 9/11. gore didn’t say that, bush/cheney did. so quit lying exley, ringo, etc. the weekly standard published that crap at the behest of cheney. bush is responsible for what his vice president does when it comes to cooking up phony baloney intelligence.
so you guys go jump in a lake or something. ledeen, cheney, bush, rumsfeld etc. all led the american public to believe that there was a “connection”. in fact, that handjob stephen hayes at the weekly stundard wrote an effing book about it!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pmTo keep from going insane, I’m going to pretend this is a campaigning strategy:
Dear (my real name),
In the months following the release of An Inconvenient Truth, I began to focus on why our democracy has been so slow to deal with the climate crisis. The unwillingness to solve this problem is not only the result of a lack of political will, but it has also been caused by the emergence of a new political environment dangerously hostile to reason, knowledge, and facts. In the long-term, this poses a threat to the very basis of American democracy: the ability of a well-informed citizenry to use the rule of reason to hold government accountable.
When George Bush launched his preemptive war in Iraq, more than 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorists who caused 9-11. After the 2004 election, when asked what stuck in their minds about the campaign, voters in Ohio named two ads playing to the fears of terrorism paid for by the Bush Campaign. One pattern that has held true since 2001 is that this White House is less interested in openness and truth than any previous administration.
We are facing so many long-term challenges, from the climate crisis and the war in Iraq to health care and social welfare. To solve these problems and move forward we need to reverse the damage done to our democracy. We have little time to waste.
My goal in The Assault on Reason is to explore why our public forum now welcomes the enemies of reason. More importantly, the book focuses on what we can do together, individually and collectively, to restore the rule of reason to our democracy.
My team will be emailing those of you who live in the cities that I will visit for book signings. I hope that I’ll have the chance to see you in person.
I’ll be back in touch soon.
Thank You,
Al Gore
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm#116, TrueStory,
Tony Blair. It was a joint press conference with Bush and Blair.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 pmunbelievable,
“Funny, you haven’t heard of any of them, but you do know that none of these people you’ve ever heard of are not neocons… Shouldn’t you have to know a person before you can know his affliation?”
——————————————————————————–
Neocons make up a small percentage of Republicans (maybe 15%) and most are quite well known.
————————————————————————
“Besides, are you defending neocons? ”
————————————————————-
Yes, I am.
Gotta go….Never should have ventured into this cesspool in the first place.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmThinkprogress has gotten its facts wrong. The President has consistently stated — both before and after the invasion of Iraq — there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
I trust Thinkprogress will correct its erroneous assertion.
Comment by Exley
This is so utterly dishonest that I hardly know where to start. Bush and his staff consistently conflated Saddam and Al Qaeda, and had made it abundantly clear that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Without specifically saying that Saddam ordered the attack, they were able to make it obvious to the American public that the distinction was of no importance: Saddam=Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda=9/11. Therefore, Saddam=9/11.
Read this: http://tinyurl.com/on1q
The BBC went to the trouble of gathering many of the relevant quotations in one place. Including this quotation from Dick Cheney, in reference to the invasion of Iraq:
“We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who’ve had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
How direct a linkage do you need?
They knew damn well that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but they used every oratorical trick in the book to convince the American public that he did. And they succeeded. To suggest that they were doing otherwise is incredibly disingenous.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pmComment by gummitch — May 22, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Stop telling the truth gummitch. It means nothing because they are creating their own reality.
Exley will never have the balls to admit he’s wrong.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm“the connection” by stephen f. hayes, last person to do a print interview with cheney, iirc. available for 1.20 used at amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6099458-3278409?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179870697&sr=8-1
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pmExley won’t change his mind but I thank all who place the links and quotes. with so much to remember on the spins of these fearmongers it’s good to see the flames of disscontent is growing.
The country hasn’t come to a boil yet but the faithful haven’t let is cool off.
thanks again.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm“Neocons make up a small percentage of Republicans (maybe 15%) and most are quite well known.”
The operative word being Republicans…
But you can’t know them all…
“Yes, I am.”
Why?
“Gotta go….Never should have ventured into this cesspool in the first place.
Comment by Ringo — May 22, 2007 @ 5:44 pm”
The only thing stinking around here is you.
I see you couldn’t compose a list of Democratic pedophiles… No surprise.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmwho said atta met with iraqi intelligence in czech republic summer of 2001? WHO? Ledeen, cheney, rumsfelf, and bush.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmUKBristolDave – the unfortunate thing for wingnuts like Exley, is the internet retains those incriminating quotes…
Yeah, that doesn’t say Saddam was behind 9/11 – does it?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmUnbelievable that was quite a list of Repukian Perverts, dang…..was expected though. Guess that shuts up Ringo…thank goodness.
Hating the Repukian Perverts daily
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pmledeen, cheney, rumsfeld, and bush are all neocons who fed phony baloney intelligence to serial liar stephen hayes at the weakly standard which was then put out through fox news.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pmHeh…I love this hasty retreat so many people are making here (such as Gorn and UKBristolDave)…
First, they try to claim that Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11….Then, after they are unable to find any quote along those lines and I have provided a link to a press conference in which Bush expressly states that he is not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11, Gorn and UK start trying to cover themselves by writing things like, “Well…umm…errr…Maybe they never said it, but…umm…they..implied it! Yeah, that’s it! Implied….and juxtaposed! You hear me? Juxtaposed!”
Hilarious. Look, you folks (including you, ThinkProgress) got your facts wrong. Just admit it, move on, and do a better job of research next time.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm” it’s been tried by a lot of other people, which is to take something the president hasn’t said, expose it as a, quote, lie, and then beat him up for it. …”
Sort of like what the right did to Gore when they falsely claimed he said he invented the internet.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmWorth repeating:
The fact that over 70% of Americans got the impression that Saddam was involved in 9/11 from listening to the President talk about the contacts between Iraq and al Quaeda not his responsibility.
Nice low bar you’ve set there.
Comment by KRank — May 22, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Thanks for taking the time to post those quotes Gorn.
And BrianS – when you say “these guys are the worst liars in HISTORY” do you mean:
a) that they can’t lie very well or
b) that THEY FREAKING LIE CONSTANTLY!
If you answered “b” then I completely agree with you! When we get the troops home we should put them all to work sorting through all their lies and getting to the bottom of all of the corruption. That should keep them busy for a couple of decades!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pmever heard of stephen hayes, exley? you’ve probably got a “book” or two of his on your shelf, i’ll bet. who do you think the anonymous sources were who fed serial liar hayes all his phony facts? cheney, ledeen, rumsfeld, and bush.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pmnotice how each of the spokesliars is getting more and more like a cartoon character? they can’t make up answers for the questions, and nothing like the truth is acceptable. so we get answers like this. the facts are wrong. we don’t like the truth, so change the facts and reprint the story with our “new” facts.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pmgoodbye america, hello oceania
“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.” – George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) – BushOnIraq.com
“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” – President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) – Whitehouse.gov
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm“I think they’re both equally important, and they’re both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We’ve got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm.” – President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) – Whitehouse.gov
“This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He’s a threat.” – Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) – Whitehouse.gov
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” – President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) – BushOnIraq.gov
“He’s had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.” – Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) – BushOnIraq.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” – President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) – Whitehouse.gov
“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” – President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) – Whitehouse.gov
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” – President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003) – Whitehouse.gov
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” – President’s Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm“He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” – President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” – President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” – President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) – BushOnIraq.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmUPDATE: In a conference call with bloggers today, Vice President Gore responded to Snow’s attack, saying: “Unlike the President’s State of the Union address, this book was actually fact checked.â€
SMACKDOWN!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmLet’s look at a couple of quotes for the nitwit Exlax.
Exlax claims that Bush never said Iraq committed the 911 attack, and points out that Bush stated prior to the Iraq invasion that he could not definitely blame Iraq directly.
Read Bush’s words from the famous Mission Accomplished speech:
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on.”
Excuse me, is this not a DIRECT LINK? It does not say that Saddam flew the airplane, but it says that kicking Iraq’s ass was justified based on the 911 attacks.
“That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions.”
Who are “they”? This is a speech ABOUT IRAQ, so one can easily draw the conclusion that Bush must be referring to Iraqis.
“They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
They have failed, because our mission is accomplished and we’ve beaten Iraq.
While we’re at it, here’s another post-invasion quote, this one from Cheney:
“If we’re successful in Iraq … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” – Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)
Gee, what can he mean? “The Base” is what Al Queda means in Arabic. “Most especially on 911″. What can that mean? In the same sentence with Iraq. If we succeed in Iraq we strike a major blow against those who brought us 911.
Huh? No, no connection being made there. Not direct blaming, no. That would require having some nads, and as we know, Dick and the Chimp are sniveling cowards who have to lie behind weasel words and innuendo.
Keep letting the manure drip out, Exlax.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmHilarious. Look, you folks (including you, ThinkProgress) got your facts wrong. Just admit it, move on, and do a better job of research next time.
Comment by Exley
What’s hilarious is you calling the kettle black. The Bush administration made a concerted and deliberate effort to tie Saddam to 9/11. You can parse that one until you’re blue in the face, but the facts remain. Part of the problem may be that it’s so unusual to see them succeed at anything, given the astonishing level of incompetence, but when it comes to deceit, they’re pretty good.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmCome on Exley, I posted several direct quotes from Bush and Cheney where they conflate and assign Al Qaeda and 9/11 either directly or indirectly to Iraq…
You lose, little child…
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmsaying: “Unlike the President’s State of the Union address, this book was actually fact checked.â€
SMACKDOWN!
Comment by SKdeA — May 22, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Yeah, it’s how I feel when I have to respond to Exley, Osama Ben Venus or the rest of the wingnuttery…
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:06 pmWhat is it?
Patrickin1 stranded on an ice flow.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pmBut SKdeA – the president can’t be held accountable for his speech! He has people who do that for him!
/sarcasm
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm*sigh* No one is denying that Bush linked Iraq and Al Qaeda.
What Bush never did was claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not once.
Saying that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda is not tantamount to saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Here’s an analogy: U.S. and French intelligence services are linked. They have worked together, shared information, etc.
In 1985, French intelligence agents blew up and sunk the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warriror, killing one person.
Now, you can correctly say the U.S. in linked with French intelligence services. But that is NOT the same as saying the U.S. was involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pmHeh…I love this hasty retreat so many people are making here (such as Gorn and UKBristolDave)…
First, they try to claim that Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11…
Exlax, you are a coward and a liar. I never made a claim that Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Show the quote, or admit you are a liar. My posting was to show that Tony Snow was lying when he said Bush never made a connection.
Bush made the connection. Cheney made the connection. Over and over and over and over again.
It is YOU who tried to change the conversation from a connection or a link to a direct statement of personal responsibility.
YOU set up a strawman. WE did not fall for it.
What a simpering liar you are.
Back to the latrine, exlax.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pmTobey Tall, unbelievable,
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmI did not find Dutch that hard. It is akin to German in many of its words, but absorbs English in the way things are pronounced and described. The Dutch are less prone to develop super compound words – the Germans tend to use complete sentences to construct nouns, the Dutch are into adjectives and adverbs.
Comment by Exley — May 22, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Sorry Exley, I was having a chat with a couple of mates.
Your point is?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmNow, you can correctly say the U.S. in linked with French intelligence services. But that is NOT the same as saying the U.S. was involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior.
Comment by Exley
Your analogy is absurd. The President, Vice President, Secretary of State, et al are not on television every night urging the invasion of France and repeated, over and over, that France is the center of the very terrorism that caused 9/11.
“We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who’ve had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.â€
There is no distinction between “the terrorists” Al Qaeda and “the terrorists” Iraq.
Do you think that 69% of Americans believed the link existed because they’re just stupid, or is it more plausible that they were the subject of a targeted campaign?
Your dishonesty here is really creepy, Exley.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pm#120
Exley
Yeah … that’s what I thought.
The one where this other question came more in the form of a statement …
QUESTION: Mr. President, an account of the White House after 9-11 says that you ordered invasion plans for Iraq six days after Sept. 11 _ Bob Woodward’s account.
Is that the case that you have always intended war on Iraq and that international diplomacy is a charade in this case?
Exley ??? !!!!
Six Days After ? Six Days After?
And from that point on, Exley, you don’t think he set out to “sell” this war to a traumatized American public by pressing the Iraq/Al Qeada/9-11 inference as many times as he could?
“I can’t make that claim” is a far cry from “No, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.”
“Many (in the 101st Airborne Division) had an inchoate conviction that this deployment (to Iraq) was somehow linked to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, a delusion encouraged by this nation’s leadership.”
From “In the Company of Soldiers” – Rick Atkinson
So I guess Bush’s “very fine parsing” was lost on Atkinson – a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and many of the members of the 101st Airborne. And 70% of the American public.
But, hey … these things just tend to “happen” … for “no reason.”
Sheesh.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pmCNN poll, September 14-15, 2001:
Iraq:
Great deal – 42%
Moderate amount – 32%
A little – 9%
Total – 83%
CNN poll, September 13, 2001:
Very likely – 34%
Somewhat likely – 44%
Total – 78%
So, Al Gore, are you sure that Americans got this idea from the Bush administration??? If so, then how did they come up with this notion before they had even claimed Osama was behind it?
This propaganda has been trotted out by Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson, and just about every other liberal dupe out there. Figure it out people – Americans have thought it was Saddam all along because he hated us and we bombed his country at the end of 1998! It’s not too friggin hard to figure out!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pmWhen it comes down to it Exley, we are all proved wrong at some point in our life. I know I’ve been proved wrong. However, it takes a man to admit that they have been proved wrong.
Are you a man Exley?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:23 pmHey, Exley, how the hell are ya? You know that I have to disagree with you on this one, I’m with VVGFU. But it’s nice to see you anyway!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmHere’s an analogy: U.S. and French intelligence services are linked. They have worked together, shared information, etc.
In 1985, French intelligence agents blew up and sunk the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warriror, killing one person. – Exlax
Uh-huh. Let’s complete the analogy.
Because US and French intelligence services have spoken to each other, Britain justified an invasion and occupation of the United States and the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of Americans because the French blew up the Greenpeace ship.
Oh, and if the we’re going to be complete, US and France would have to also be mortal enemies, like Hussein and bin Laden.
Your story gets weaker every time you open that sphincter you call a mouth, Exlax.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmFigure it out people – Americans have thought it was Saddam all along because he hated us and we bombed his country at the end of 1998! It’s not too friggin hard to figure out!!
Comment by DreamCrusher — May 22, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Lots of countries hate America nowadays: you gonna bomb the shit out of them too? By your logic, this eventuality is only a matter of time.
Brilliant ideology…sheesh.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm#154 UK, I am more the willing to admit when I am wrong. I have done so here at this site many times….It just happens in this case, I am not wrong.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pmxenon,
You’re a moron. You’re not even on the right page. We weren’t arguing what rationale to use in bombing countries. Go back up and read it again, genius.
Oh, and yes, I know you thought you could get away with a strawman. Nice try, fool.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pmI am more the willing to admit when I am wrong. I have done so here at this site many times….It just happens in this case, I am not wrong. – Exlax
Liar and coward.
Liar because you created a new argument (Bush said Iraq was responsible for 911) in place of the real discussion (the Bush propaganda campaign promoted a link between Iraq and 911).
Coward because you can’t face truth and admit your error.
Slink away, you fecal ooze.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 pmexley, you can come up with one quote where the chimp said there was no connction to 9/11 yet there is mound of quotes where the chimp connects iraq to 9/11. it’s simple advertisement time, exley. how much time (or words) was spent telling the american people iraq was not involved in 9/11 and how much time was spent telling the public iraq was involved in 9/11? I may be wrong but did the chimp never claimed in a speech there was no connection. he only would state there wasn’t a conection when asked directly by the press. to say the chimp wasn’t trying to connect iraq to 9/11 is completely deceitful, exley
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm“he only would state there wasn’t a conection when asked directly by the press.”
He didn’t even do that. He only implied he couldn’t say for sure there was a direct connection. Very weak.
“to say the chimp wasn’t trying to connect iraq to 9/11 is completely deceitful, exley”
Clear and plain truth, which is why Exlax will continue to deny it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pmExlax, so you don’t believe this says Iraq was involved in 911?
This quote implicates Iraq in 9/11 – pure and simple…
Poor Exlax, another false claim shot down. But he’s too cowardly to admit it. But don’t worry Exlax, it’s always my pleasure to educate you! You need so much education, it’s a constantly rewarding experience to show you exactly how little you know…
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pmOne of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror – George W. Bush
Message to Al Gore, you shouldn’t have listened to “people who are trying to mislead you”, such as the President of the United States.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pmI seem to remember the Clinton administration telling us about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Oh yes, it goes like this…
Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, August 25 1998 on the al Shifa-al Qaeda-Iraq connection:
Q: Ambassador Pickering, do you know of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX?
PICKERING: Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company’s history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq’s VX program.
And another…
Ambassador Bill Richardson, in an appearance on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,†on August 30, 1998.
“We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor–chemical precursor at the site,†said Richardson. “Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation–the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation–a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan’s leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you’ve got a pretty clear cut case.â€
And another…
Richard Clarke writes in his book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror about the Iraqi VX found at al Shifa by the CIA:
EMPTA is a compound that had been used as a prime ingredient in Iraqi nerve gas. It had no other known use, nor had any other nation employed EMPTA to our knowledge for any purpose.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm#154
Nice try.
Osama Bin Laden’s name had not been introduced as an option two days after 9-11. And Bin Laden was not nearly a household name like Saddam was. I’m sure you remember that we went to war against Saddam in 1990.
Once it was known that Bin Laden and the Taliban/AQ were responsible – the polls changed and young men and women enlisted in the Armed Services to go to Afghanistan and fight THE TALIBAN — NOT SADDAM.
The Saddam / 9-11 inference was crafted by Bush and the administration all the way up to early 2003.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pmRe: post #165
Sorry.
Meant #153 – by “dream crusher”
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 pmYou lost me, memphis minnie. If I follow that convoluted discussion, it suggests that possibly both Iraq and Al Queda might have used the same intermediary munitions source. I’m not sure what that proves. Both Hussein and bin Laden had support from the US at one time or another too.
What I’m looking for here is the justification for a full-up invasion and occupation of Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and the expenditure of billions of dollars, with no end in sight.
It would not be sellable base on the quotes in your post. That’s why the Bush regime had to gen up a much more sinister collection of propaganda slogans to make it stick well enough based on the prevailing mood of the nation at the time.
These pre-911 quotes you give seem to suggest that we needed to keep a vigilant eye on Hussein and we needed to infiltrate Al Queda. Both of these objectives were lost on the Bush regime, who took their eye off of Al Queda (both leading up to 911 and after the Afghanistan invasion), and ignored the successful containment of Saddam in favor of an invasion and occupation.
Sorry if I miss your point, but that’s the way I read it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pmF*CK BUSH
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pmBush on Iraq – Al Qaeda – 9/11 Links:
“It [Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
President Bush, March 17, 2003.
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
President Bush, May 1, 2003.
“I would tell them [families of fallen soldiers] the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war against those who caused the deaths on 9/11 is necessary.”
President Bush, October 22, 2004.
“We went to war [in Iraq] because we were attacked.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pmPresident Bush, June 18, 2005.
#141 covered this but the paragraphs from the speech are out of sequence. It is even more damning when read in context:
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.
In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a Special Operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.
From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al Qaeda’s senior operatives have been captured or killed.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
Now connect the dots.
Para. 1 Iraq – 9/11 – 19 terrorists and their allies
Para. 2 Taliban
Para. 3 al Qaeda killers
Para. 4 Iraq – ally of al Qaeda – terrorist funding – terrorist network – Iraq regime
Para. 5 9/11 – war
The logical key is Para 1. terrorists and their allies and Para 4. Iraq was an al Qaeda ally. The only logical way this does not constitute a link between Iraq and al Qaeda is if Iraq became an ally after 9/11 or if al Qeada did not attack on 9/11.
Which is more believable?
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pmWould Snow like to take that yellow band off his arm already?
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pmOkay, in conclusion – the point of Exley, and some of the others, is that 70% of the American people thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11 because of the random barking of neighborhood dogs all across America.
Bush and his administration apparently had nothing to do with that 70% thing.
I see.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmYep, as opposed to coordinated barking by White House dogs.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pmUh, you’re missing some dots. Try this one.
Washington Post, Jan 23 1999
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure†that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pmHere, have another dot.
Newsweek, Jan 1999
Here’s what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas – assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer. U.S. intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests – and enemies – in common. Both men want U.S. military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington’s role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK. He says “any American who pays taxes to his government” is a legitimate target.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pmmemphis minnie, VV, or whatever, you’re barking and nobody is listening.
Your VX story means nothing.
Your best source for a connection is a vacuous newsweek article.
It doesn’t matter – either there is a link or there isn’t. If you prove there was one, you only prove Snow to be a traitor to Bush for claiming that Bush made no claims of a link. Why is Snow working overtime to say that Bush did not link Iraq to 911 if there really was a link?
Answer is simple – there is as less of a link between Saddam and bin Laden than between US and Saddam and between US and bin Laden.
The only real link is White House propaganda.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 pmWell we were only going to take out the bad guy and that could have been done with one bullet.Or he could have easily been arrested.Everyone knows that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 pmBut no,we had to destroy a country and “rebuild” with companies already set-up to fill all the needs of the growing mess and the military needs as well.Or at least make it look that way.Or at least take the money for saying they are doing that.Or, at least taking the money.
Don’t foget where tony comes from.He has had years of less than truth practice.
With this much money involved becoming robotic is the easiest part.
His check comes in the same envelope as his script ya know.
BTW: for some time it has been a known fact over $5 trillion or more is in the ground there.
#180
Memphis Minnie
Put your “dots” away.
Allow me to introduce you to Peter Bergen, the journalist known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997 and a journalist who specializes in terrorism.
The following is all from PeterBergen.com
(Exley, you should tag along as well.)
III. BIN LADEN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
Following the 9/11 attacks, the American public became convinced that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in league.
By February 2003, on the eve of hostilities in Iraq, more than two-thirds of Americans believed that Saddam was implicated in 9/11, and a majority continue to believe that Saddam either contributed “substantial” support to al-Qaeda or was behind 9/11, *** despite the fact that there is no evidence for those views. ***
It is hardly surprising that the American public believes that there was an al-Qaeda / Saddam alliance, since Bush-administration officials ***constantly touted that supposed alliance as a pressing reason to go to war against Iraq.***
In September 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said there was “bulletproof” evidence of an Iraq / al-Qaeda connection.
In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said, “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”
*** However, the historical record demonstrates that bin Laden has, in fact, been a passionate OPPONENT of Saddam Hussein for more than a decade and a half especially ever since Saddam invaded Kuwait, in 1990. ***
—————————————
Osama bin Laden in 1999:
“A year before Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf.
No one believed me.
I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.”
———————————-
Khaled Batarfi recalls talking to Osama bin Laden on the subject of Saddam:
Osama bin Laden said, “This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.
—————————————
In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, Osama bin Laden released an audiotape in which he implied that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the *** gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim. ***
————————————–
In addition, Minnie, it was the Islamic Fundamentalists from Iran who tried to de-stabilize Saddam’s grip on Iraq soon after Saddam came to power in Iraq in 1979.
The Iranians felt they had the numbers (i.e., the predominatly Shia population in Iraq) and sponsored trouble.
Saddam responded with a “pre-emptive” strike to get Iran to back off. Iran did not to back off and they fought for 8 years (1980 – 1988) in what was known as the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq lost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people.
Saddam didn’t even get one year under his belt before he had to fight a brutal 8 year war with the Islamic Fundamentalists from Iran.
So you really think Saddam was going to do a deal with an Islamic Fundamentalist? Especially an Islamic Fundamentalist who doesn’t like him?
An Islamic Fundamentalist like Osama bin Laden?
You have no dots.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 ammemphis minnie. Your point is pathetic. Clinton didn’t attack a defenseless nation…Bush did. Congrats!!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 amMemphis Minnie
Put your “dots” away.
Allow me to introduce you to Peter Bergen, the journalist known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997 and a journalist who specializes in terrorism.
The following is all from PeterBergen.com
III. BIN LADEN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
Following the 9/11 attacks, the American public became convinced that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in league.
By February 2003, on the eve of hostilities in Iraq, more than two-thirds of Americans believed that Saddam was implicated in 9/11, and a majority continue to believe that Saddam either contributed “substantial” support to al-Qaeda or was behind 9/11, *** despite the fact that there is no evidence for those views. ***
It is hardly surprising that the American public believes that there was an al-Qaeda / Saddam alliance, since Bush-administration officials constantly touted that supposed alliance as a pressing reason to go to war against Iraq.
In September 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said there was “bulletproof” evidence of an Iraq / al-Qaeda connection.
In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said, “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”
*** However, the historical record demonstrates that bin Laden has, in fact, been a passionate OPPONENT of Saddam Hussein for more than a decade and a half especially ever since Saddam invaded Kuwait, in 1990.
—————————————
Osama bin Laden in 1999:
“A year before Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf.
No one believed me.
I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.”
———————————-
Khaled Batarfi recalls talking to bin Laden on the subject of Saddam:
bin Laden said, “This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.
—————————————
In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he implied that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the *** gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim. ***
————————————–
In addition, Minnie, it was the Islamic Fundamentalists from Iran who tried to de-stabilize Saddam’s grip on Iraq soon after Saddam came to power in Iraq.
The Iranians felt they had the numbers (i.e., the predominately Shia population in Iraq) and sponsored trouble.
Saddam responded with a “pre-emptive” strike to get Iran to back off. Iran did not to back off and they fought for 8 years in what was known as the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq lost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people.
So you really think Saddam was going to do a deal with an Islamic Fundamentalist ? Especially an Islamic Fundamentalist who doesn’t like him?
An Islamic Fundamentalist like Osama bin Laden?
You have no dots.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 amtp
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 amIMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW – IMPEACH NOW -
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 am1 2
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 amMemphis Minnie
Put your “dots” away.
Allow me to introduce you to Peter Bergen, the journalist known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997 and a journalist who specializes in terrorism.
The following is from PeterBergen.com
————————
————————
III. BIN LADEN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
Following the 9/11 attacks, the American public became convinced that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in league.
By February 2003, on the eve of hostilities in Iraq, more than two-thirds of Americans believed that Saddam was implicated in 9/11, and a majority continue to believe that Saddam either contributed “substantial” support to al-Qaeda or was behind 9/11, *** despite the fact that there is no evidence for those views. ***
It is hardly surprising that the American public believes that there was an al-Qaeda / Saddam alliance, since Bush-administration officials constantly touted that supposed alliance as a pressing reason to go to war against Iraq.
In September 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said there was “bulletproof” evidence of an Iraq / al-Qaeda connection.
In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said, “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”
*** However, the historical record demonstrates that bin Laden has, in fact, been a passionate OPPONENT of Saddam Hussein for more than a decade and a half especially ever since Saddam invaded Kuwait, in 1990.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 am(More from PeterBergen.com)
Osama bin Laden in 1999:
“A year before Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf.
No one believed me.
I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.”
———————————-
Khaled Batarfi recalls talking to bin Laden on the subject of Saddam:
bin Laden said, “This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.
—————————————
In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he implied that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the *** gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim. ***
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 amtest
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:12 amOsama bin Laden in 1999:
“A year before Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf.
No one believed me.
I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.”
———————————-
Khaled Batarfi recalls talking to bin Laden on the subject of Saddam:
bin Laden said, “This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.
—————————————
In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he implied that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the *** gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim. ***
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 amTP … your posting mechanism needs some attention …
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 am(More from PeterBergen.com)
————————————–
Osama bin Laden in 1999:
“A year before Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf.
No one believed me.
I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.”
———————————-
Khaled Batarfi recalls talking to bin Laden on the subject of Saddam:
bin Laden said, “This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.
—————————————
In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he implied that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the *** gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim. ***
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 amIn addition, Minnie ….
it was the Islamic Fundamentalists from Iran who tried to de-stabilize Saddam’s grip on Iraq soon after Saddam came to power in Iraq.
The Iranians felt they had the numbers (i.e., the predominatly Shia population in Iraq) and sponsored trouble.
Saddam responded with a “pre-emptive” strike to get Iran to back off. Iran did not to back off and they fought for 8 years in what was known as the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq lost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people.
So you really think Saddam was going to do a deal with an Islamic Fundamentalist ? Especially an Islamic Fundamentalist who doesn’t like him?
An Islamic Fundamentalist like Osama bin Laden?
You have no dots.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 amTP … never mind the comment about the posting mechanism needing attention. The problem was on my end.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 amA little more insight re: Osama and Saddam from PeterBergen.com
———————————
Osama bin Laden in 1999:
“A year before Saddam Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf.
No one believed me.
I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.”
———————————-
Khaled Batarfi recalls talking to Osama bin Laden on the subject of Saddam:
Osama bin Laden said, “This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.
—————————————
In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he implied that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the *** gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim. ***
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 amThere is a LOT of disinformation on Hussein’s links to al Qaeda and you guys are rightfully upset about that but there were members of Hussein’s regime who were and still are working with and for al Qaeda (I’ve written about this for http://www.regimeofterror.com based on four years of research).
There were also members of al Qaeda who were arrested by Hussein’s regime and there are countless examples of Baathists and Hussein loyalists who have been fighting al Qaeda in Iraq RIGHT NOW. Groups such as the 1920’s Brigades and others are taking the fight to al Qaeda in Iraq and exemplify the split in the Baath party about working with Islamic militants, though some Baathists chose a different path (cooperation).
I understand this it outside the conventional wisdom or may be viewed as a defacto attempt to excuse the invasion of Iraq, but it’s not. Thanks for inviting me in to your guys excellent blog and I look forward to the ongoing education here.
Mark of http://www.regimeofterror.com
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 amReaders.
Sorry for all of the duplicate posts.
The posts were either disappearring or not showing up for a long time after being sent.
Maybe a combination of problems on my end and problems at TP.
Again, sorry.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 amWhat a gang of liars hereabouts. Lately, i frequently see a herd of you buffoons trotting out the same puppy chow, rooted in a fundamental mental
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 amdisorder. The best parallel is going to a discussion on how to ride a bicycle with everybody sitting around in lawn chairs, waving their hands and nodding their
empty heads at each other, no bikes in site! Sha.
Mark,
Thanks for the interesting info.
I will check out your links a bit later in the day.
Before I do – a few questions, just assuming for now that I won’t have any argument with your assertions once I read them …
1. Do you think Saddam was aware that his underlings dealing with AQ?
2. Do you think Bush was aware that Saddam was aware that his underlings were dealing with AQ?
3. Assuming the answer to the first two is “yes” – do you think that the invasion of March 2003 was the best way to address this?
This gets a bit “off topic” in the sense that Question #3 gets to the “others thought Saddam was a threat, too …” argument. It seems that things move at such a glacial pace on this subject – we won’t be talking about all of the ALTERNATIVE military options we could have persued against Saddam (if it was proven to be necessary) until 5 years from now.
For example, the Northern “No Fly” zone had pretty much allowed the Kurds to create a “semi-autonomous” state. Could this have been used as a friendly base for Special Forces operations? Or a mix of Special Ops and Conventional Ops? Maybe, maybe not. But these are options that should have won or lost out in robust debate – not a pre-determined “pie in the sky” “mono-rail” type of a strategy. We also controlled the Southern skies. Could we have pressed this advantage and persued alternatives that would have avoided being bogged down in an occupation?
Once you strip away all of the partisan bickering and barbs, the readers of this site – if I can take the liberty of speaking for all – side with Gore in his general assertion that the Bush administration was pushing (or not correcting) the most dire arguments involving Saddam to justify not only the pre-emptive striking of another nation, but also the pre-emptive OCCUPATION of another nation.
Bush needed a lot of juice in his argument to justify that and he tried to get it by frequently tapping the Saddam/AQ/Mushroom Cloud well – which was well primed given the pysche of Americans after 9-11.
Looking forward to reviewing your site a bit later.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 am#177,
I got a great chuckle out of that one. I thought of the animation 101 Dalmatiens where they heard about the puppy kidnappings from the dogs barking across the English countryside.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 amSeems to me there were “Al Qaida” on American soil before the attacks too. So is Tony Snow saying that there is a link between Al Qaida and the Bush administration?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 am#202
ENV
You know, I wrote that post with obvious sarcasm.
But after being out in my backyard and having the pitbull next door not only inform me that you had responded to my post, but also telling me precisely what to say in response — I may have to start taking Exley’s arguments a bit more seriously …
It’s true ENV … the neighborhood dogs … they have their own agendas …
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amMore dots…
NPR Radio, Feb 1999
“It appears that Osama bin Laden has abandoned his base in southern Afghanistan. Bin Laden is the Saudi millionaire the US holds responsible for bombing US embassies in Africa last summer. The attacks left hundreds dead. The US indicted bin Laden in connection with the bombings and is offering a $5 million reward for his capture. Afghanistan has provided him with sanctuary, but it’s not clear where he is now. NPR’s Mike Shuster reports. ”
SHUSTER: Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one US government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden’s fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.
Mr. GEORGE TENET (Director, CIA): One of my greatest concerns, Mr. Chairman, is the serious prospect that bin Laden or another terrorist might use chemical or biological weapons. Bin Laden’s organization is just one of a dozen terrorist groups that have expressed an interest in or have sought chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents. Bin Laden, for example, has called on the acquisition of these weapons as, quote, “a religious duty” and noted that, quote, “How we use them is up to us.”
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 amUsually people with deathly illnesses such as that of Tony Snow, interest themselves in getting their priorities straight…really straight before it’s too late. But his loyalty to George Bush supercedes everything…even a sojourn in the place of the Evil One. Now that’s courage!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 amCannistraro?
In the big picture, what did Cannistaro think about attacking Iraq because of Saddam’s alledged terror activities?
(And by terror activities I mean against the U.S. or Europe … I am aware of the stories that he may have funded suicide bombings in Israel at $25 to $40K per bomber … I am not talking about that)
September 2002
“Is there any confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? No,†[Washington Post, 9/10/2002]
October, 2002
Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA.†[Guardian, 10/9/2002]
“They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it. And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can’t get him to say what they want on Iraq.†[Washington Post, 10/25/2002]
November 2002
The hawks are not getting evidence of al-Qaeda/Iraq ties “from the CIA because the CIA, to its credit, is telling it the way they see it, which is what they should be doing, describing the world as it is, not as policy-makers wish it to be, or hope it to be, but as it is.†[CBC News, 11/1/2002]
Citing Cannistraro does not support your point, it actually discredits it.
No dots for you.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pmI posted a response, but looks like it got lost.
I’ll be patient this time and wait for it to show up.
Yo, TP a little help with the postings ! :-)
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmAl Gore is on tape saying identical things about Iraq and Saddam. Hmmmm….either the former Veep is a congenital liar or is suffering from early Alzheimers…..pooor thing.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm#209
No dots for you, either.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmoops …
Meant #208 “VV” – not #209.
:-)
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmWell, well, well, Mr. Snow, you are the Master spinner as usual.
When you leave this Administration in 2008 maybe you could go back to FOX and get your own show titled Snow’s SPIN Zone.
I am aware that you were not part of the Bush Administration in 2003, but you were on the air and you should know better than spin this story. Honesty is a virtue that you appear to be pushing to the limits.
Here is a link to a Christian Science Monitor article of March 14, 2003 in which they refer to President Bush’s press conference of the previous week which focused almost solely on Iraq. The CSM said that the Pres. mentioned Sept. 11 eight times and he referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Quoting the CSM article, “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.”
….. skipped several paragraphs….
“Polling data show that right after Sept 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.”
The link to this article is http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
Tony, I do not know how you can sleep at night stretching the truth. Thank God for the internet where we can search stuff the Administration (The Pres, the VP, Condi, Rumsfeld, et al.) have said but have sort-of-kinda forgotten that they said it. So it is our job as citizens to remind this Administration that not only did they stretch the truth the first time but they are doing it again. Shame, shame.
The sad commentary on this is we have lost over 3,000 brave military, over another 1,000 coalition troops and contractors, tens of thousands of injured troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens – all supposedly to replace a dictator, but we all know it was for OIL, don’t we?
One could ask, where did the citizens get this misconception about Iraq and Saddam from – pray tell. Well they got it from all the Republican administration and Pentagon and State Department bobble heads that read off the same script to deceive the American public.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pmIf lying causes cancer, Tony Snow is doomed.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pmSorry to see Tony back. I much preferred my lies to be delivered by the blond hottie. I think she was just as good at spinning as Tony and a much more pleasant visage. After all if what presidential candidates do with their hair is important, why not press secretaries?
May 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pmTony Snow should be ashamed of himself for continually lying to
June 21st, 2007 at 9:11 pmthe American people.It doesn’t matter if the subject is Iraq,
amnesty or any number of issues. Much like Al Gore lying about
global warming. He saw A way to use this subject to control us
for some to be seen reason and at the same time make a
fortune off of fools willing to give money for a to be named
entity that will surely do great work for mankind.
Where do you suppose these multiple millions or possibly
billions of dollars will really end up going?