BBC’s Katty Kay: Cheney ‘Hoodwinked the American Public’ into Believing Saddam Hussein Behind 9/11
On Sunday’s syndicated Chris Matthews Show, panel member Katty Kay of the BBC claimed that Vice President Dick Cheney had convinced 70 percent of Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that he "hoodwinked the American public." Kay’s accusation came as host Matthews had turned the discussion to the topic of how President Obama might have handled the response to the 9/11 attacks differently than President Bush.
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post asserted that "there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded, and then they came." But, as previously documented by NewsBusters, before the 2003 invasion, varous news sources - some American, some from other countries - were already citing the governments of several countries as they reported that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq, not only was already in Iraq plotting attacks against targets in Europe, but that he already had an association with Osama bin Laden and had spent time in Afghanistan.
Kay then chimed in, as she suggested that Cheney had convinced most Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, although she seemed to mistakenly use the word "Iraq" instead of "9/11." Kay: "But the, sort of, political ‘extraordinaryness’ of the Bush administration was that Cheney managed to convince 70 percent of American people that Iraq was, that Saddam Hussein was directly behind Iraq and hoodwinked the American public."
Matthews responded: "In the polling, you’re right, it’s in the polling."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, November 7, syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Is there a difference between these fellows in terms of what to do after 9/11? Would Obama would have done what we’re doing now?
BOB WOODWARD, WASHINGTON POST: Well, certainly, Obama would not have gone into Iraq, and, of course, you know, Bush is right, they didn’t hit us again-
MATTHEWS: Is there a connection?
WOODWARD: No, there’s not, unfortunately. As we know, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded, and then they came.
KAY: But the, sort of, political "extraordinaryness" of the Bush administration was that Cheney managed to convince 70 percent of American people that Iraq was, that Saddam Hussein was directly behind Iraq (PRESUMABLY MEANT TO SAY "9/11" INSTEAD OF "IRAQ")
MATTHEWS: In the polling, you’re right, it’s in the polling.
KAY: -and hoodwinked the American public.
ANDREA MITCHELL: The other piece of it was that everyone in that inner circle in the foreign policy team and at the CIA, they felt that it was completely justified, and they had the same mindset that he has now, that he revealed to Matt Lauer. That was the ethos of that whole foreign policy team. And what you have in-
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I must be part of the 30%
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:54am.
I must be part of the 30% that thinks al-Qaeda was behind 9/11.
Bush funny like that...
Submitted by adamsmith on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:13am.
Bush was funny like that. Dick Cheney too. I don't remember either saying we were going into Iraq because of 9/11. Silly me this whole time thought I heard them say we were going in to enforce UN resolution 1441.....I learn something new from Progressives everyday. As soon as they shoot history down the old memory hole they have an all new history up in no time. Brilliant!!!
WTF is that idiot talking
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:24am.
WTF is that idiot talking about? What was Cheney doing, door to door sales on the subject? I was alive back then and I surely don't remember a lot of Cheney on television pushing that theory.
Now, if what she said is what she meant to say -that Saddam was behind Iraq- well, then I'd have to agree with her. Doesn't bode well for her intelligence level -or for the American public's if only 70% agree- but I gather she's not known for her high intellect.
But wait, how exactly was the American public hoodwinked?
Either Cheney was going door-to-door selling this theory that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks and managed to convince (hoodwink) 70% of the public, or Saddam actually was behind Iraq and Cheney managed to convince (hoodwink) 30% that someone else was in charge over there. Or maybe 9/11 never actually happened and Cheney was in charge of Iraq. Or maybe Cheney flew one of the planes and the man we think is Cheney is actually Paul McCartney. Cheney is the Walrus!
Okay, now I get it. She's a whip, that one.
Well, Saddam WAS behind Iraq.....
Submitted by merly1 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:25am.
We shouldnt put words into her mouth. I guess this shows Cheney wasnt all that powerful if only 70% of people believed Saddam was behind Iraq.........
Chatty Katty the batty BBC shill
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:33am.
Katty Kay represents a news organization that has investigated itself and discovered that it has a left-wing slant ... and admitted it.
That is a fact.
The sad thing about being left-wing is that you tend to repeat falsehoods and discredited talking points over and over regardless of whether they have been shown to be wrong or not.
These people are no longer about telling the news but in advancing an agenda.
Where Al Qaida WASN'T?
Submitted by Bill W. on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:46am.
I love the Left's line of reasoning on this.
So, according to them, prior to 9/11 Al-Qaeda was in Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Qatar, Bahrain, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Philippines, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, France, San Diego, Florida...but not in Iraq?
True Statement
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:55am.
Actually, if you look into the facts, she's right. Al-Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq while Saddam was in power, as Saddam wasn't willing to give up any of his power and had serious conflicts with Bin Laden. However, point one is that Saddam was probably even worse than Al-Qaeda in many ways - namely being a sovereign state engaged in and/or actively supporting world-wide terrorism. Being a sovereign nation permitted Saddam to purchase weapons and conduct research (such as bio and nuclear) that was unavailable to Al-Qaeda. Once Saddam was removed, OF COURSE Al-Qaeda moved in to fill the vacuum.
Second point is that if Cheney "hoodwinked" the public, he did so using intelligence information that both our congress and foreign powers, such as Britain, had also reviewed and bought off on. Look at the voting record and find me more than a handful of congress-critters, of either stripe, that didn't publicly state (and vote for) removing Saddam through military action. The same goes for the coalitions formed to invade Iraq. The only nations against said military action were those with massive financial ties to the Hussein regime, including many individuals in the UN.
Are liberals so out of touch and so out of ideas that they have to keep beating and beating such a thoroughly discredited dead horse?
And how about that 300 grand
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:37pm.
And how about that 300 grand to Zawahiri? The only "serious conflictss" Saddam might have had were with a lack of returns on his investment.Good Points, But...
Submitted by Bill W. on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:22pm.
I stand by the logic of my refuation simply because, when necessary, I get to use it and watch their head spin...
In 1998 they were at the University of Arizona too!
Submitted by Ole_Sarge on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:04pm.
As well as several cells in the District of Columbia region, the New York City Region, the Los Angeles Basin and down to San Diego. Many college campuses that had a number of students from Islamic Republics HAD a few active memberd of Al Qaida as well.
Heck! There was (may still be) a cell very active in the early 1990s right outside Langley AFB, the location of Headquarters Tactical Air Command/Air Combat Command, less than a half mile from the communications transmitters, and less than an eighth of a mile from the gate! (Those that don't know, there is a Mosque in the area just south of the base on Tide Mill Rd.)
During my military career, I received many a briefing about various groups that seek to overthrow the elected government of the United States through violent means. It wasn't just the Islamic groups either. What I remember was then being told about folks "targeting" military members for human intelligence value, and also serious attempts to convert these military members to Islam.
Whom was targeted? Mostly young men and women of African or Hispanic ancestry with the line ... "your ancestors were once Muslims too."
Really, the original threat they posed was that of "spying and intelligence gathering." It was only AFTER incidents like the two embassies being blown-up, as well as the attack on the USS Cole that we started to see the "violence" this group was doing. There were more incidents, that the U.S. and other Western Governments DID NOT PAY ATTENTION TOO.
Exactly.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:24pm.
Exactly.
Handling It
Submitted by xraynova on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:52am.
"...Matthews had turned the discussion to the topic of how President Obama might have handled the response to the 9/11 attacks differently than President Bush."Sitting down with muslim terrorists over slurpies, will not convince them to cease their jihad against the Western "infidels."
Unfortunately, obama believes his only enemies exist among Republicans & the Tea Party.
Really?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:58am.
I guess the video of Osama bin Laden praising his people for 9/11 didn't mean a thing?
-Jon
What was it Stephen Hawking wrote?
Submitted by Iowa Boy on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:21am.
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
These knuckleheads thing we're idiots?
Just because you "don't believe" does not make it less true
Submitted by Ole_Sarge on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:43am.
The obsurity of it! As a woman of FAITH in Christianity, and with some "strict" moral guidelines that finds much of what prevades the greater society to be "of Satan" (like many Muslims do) I am LESS afraid of the Muslims, than I am of Despotic Atheists!
People who have no moral grounding, that are ruled by animal instinct than reason, that are selfish, and self-centered, where unless you are of value 'to them' you are less than garbage... Then, yes, I am less afraid of a peoples that do not share my understanding of G-d, than of those that deny there is G-d.
Like many of the 52 that died last Sunday/Monday in Baghdad, at the Church of Our Lady of Salvation were Martyrs to the faith, I am a little fearful of the method to be used, not not afraid to die for my faith.
What are you willing to die for?
Make no mistake, the clash of civilizations has been ongoing and we are into yet another bloody phase of the LONG WAR. Our ancestors would be horrified at what we allowed under tthe guise of "getting along." Just as those that wish us dead have studied our laws and our society and use that knowledge AGAINST us.
If not Bin Laden, then it was some other; but bloody fingerprints on funds DID track back to Iraq AND Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia. To cut Iran off, by conquering Iraq and Afghanistan and having Pakistan as well... That's just doing the bidding of the Saudi people, supporting the Sunni over the Shi'a branch. Most of the time it's one against the other, only rarely do both 'unite' against the "other" (all non-Muslims)
Saddam, a nominal Muslim, did much to fan the flames between Sunni and Shi'a within his borders, but was much enamored with recovering the glory of ancient Persia, with or without the help of co-religious.
Much of the MSM is lacking the historical context of the reign of Saddam, as well as paying attention to the "arrangements" he (or his inner circle) made.
Woodward should know better
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:55am.
Shouldn't Bob Woodward know better? Can't someone read the transcipts?
On September 16, 2001, Tim Russert asked Dick Cheney directly:
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
During an interview on September 10, 2006, TIm Russert was vehemently trying to prove he had 'hoodwinked the American public.'
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We've never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Dick Cheney said, "So you've got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there's a connection."
How many times does Dick Cheney have to come out and say there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11?
Yep.
Submitted by krendler on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:28pm.
And I can remember Russert interviewing Cheney much later, towards the end of the Bush administration, again on this very point, accusing Cheney of misleading the American publich. Strangely, Russert proceeded to show TWO clips of Cheney from previous appearances on MTP (one being the one you cite) where Cheney stated, in no uncertain terms, the there was no link between Saddam and 9/11.
So who's being dishonest in this matter? Dick Cheney, or these "journalists"?
And yet,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:36pm.
Cheney, that Magnificient B*****D, managed to convince Jawn Kary, Bill Clinton, Algore, Jimmah, the Intelligence services of Russia, Germany, Poland, GB, France, and other countries, and liberals, too numerous to mention, that Iraq had WMD's. He did that before 9-11, and before Saddam was given his choice of remaining or being deposed? Man, that guy is just to Machiavellian for mere mortals.
Brad, I think you misspelled her name...
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:17pm.
Shouldn't it be "Catty" Kay? ;-)
Alternate nom de plume's are
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:40pm.
Alternate nom de plume's are "Cat Box Kay" or "Kitty Litter Kay" since she's full of poop.
I've NEVER seen the poll...
Submitted by krendler on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:24pm.
that suggests 70% of the public believed Iraq and Saddam were behind 9-11. A completely preposterous suggestion. I personally don't know anyone who believes that.
And, btw, Cheney and the amin never said or implied Saddam was invovled in 9-11. The said loudly and repeatedly that it was the work of bin laden and al qaida.
These imbeciles in the media think if they say something often enough it's true.
Tell The Truth
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:30pm.
Has anyone in mainstream media , who loves to make these kind of claims, ever taken the time to read Osama Bin Laden's own declarations of war? Are they so invested in trying to preserve Bill Clinton's failed containment policies, the heart of their liberal ideology, that they are willing to look past the reality of Osama's own stated reasoning for attacking this country on 9-11 or other attacks all around the world?
I guess what I am wondering out loud is if they are intentionally in denial or if they are really that oblivious. Can you say Abu NIdal? Yeah, he shot himself in the head 7 times didn't he?
Besides, Bush said clearly and openly that WE will decide where WE fight this war that was foisted upon us. (No there are not two wars, there is one war, a diferent kind of war on many fronts - some seen and some unseen) When Bill Clinton came to office, Saddam was a worldwide problem. When he left, he remained that worldwide problem. The same cannot be said about Bush. Period. This is the point mainstream media wants ignored. For it demonstrates the failure of their own ideology and the success of one they despise.
Another thing the media doesn't like to talk about -
Wile Saddam remained, suicide/homicide bombings were happening just about daily within Israel. After Saddam's removal, those bombings came to an abrupt halt. Whodathunkit? Look how nearly 500 binary chemical munitions found is ignored by media. Shameful it is.
This isn't the war on 9-11. This is the war on terrorists - all of them - and the course is "one by one". 9-11 is an example of terrorism, not the definition of it. There is the REAL hoodwink and it is still being undertaken by the likes of the very people this article is about.
As they keep winking, more and more people are seeing who has been lying all along. As media's approval numbers continue their freefall, W's are rising. Of this, there can be no doubt because it is happening no matter what they "report" or not.
Does any right-of-center folk watch the Chris Matthews Show?
Submitted by Conservator on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:40pm.
This show is the worse on Sunday. You rarely find a conservative appearing with Matthews - just 4 leftist applauding their political wisdom and laughing at their sophomoric jokes.