Los Angeles Times's Tim Rutten is at it again. In an op-ed in today's paper (Wed. 8/6/08), Rutten buttresses a new book by author Ron Suskind and asserts that "Vice President Dick Cheney and his inner circle long have insisted" that Iraq was directly connected to the September 11 attacks.
Rutten's claim is an easy one to debunk. Here's Vice President Cheney in a Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert a mere five days after the September 11 attacks:
RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? [Sept. 11 attacks]
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Does it get any simpler than "No"?
Cheney's words also strike a major blow to a wild accusation in Suskind's new book. According to Politico's Mike Allen (and quoted by Rutten), Suskind claims, "The White House had concocted a fake letter [that] said that 9/11 ringleader [Mohamed] Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq."
There's a lot more that can be written about the media's wild claims about Vice President Cheney's public remarks before the Iraq War. I addressed this in a September 2006 post. NB's Brad Wilmouth also addressed the same issue in a November 2005 post.
Comments Policy
simple explanation
August 6, 2008 - 22:23 ET by candanceThere's quite a simple explanation to all this. Cheney obviously went back in time, re-recorded the interview (Russert was part of the ring wing media so he was more than happy to go along)and then cleverly made it appear like 7 year old footage to fit in seamlessly with the original.
Don't you people understand how conniving Darth Cheney really is?
/sarc
No, candance, what really
August 7, 2008 - 06:23 ET by motherbeltNo, candance, what really happened was that right after 9/11 they didn't have any evidence....it obviously took many months to manufacture it!
That depends on what the
August 6, 2008 - 22:26 ET by Clear thinkerThat depends on what the meaning of "no" is.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
right clear
August 6, 2008 - 22:55 ET by candanceYou see, if "no" means "yes" as in "positive, affirmative, happening right now," then my statement was correct.
But you look at "no" as meaning "not so much, negative, I don't think so" then my statement could be see as incorrect.
Evidence That People Are Getting It
August 6, 2008 - 22:32 ET by rammingspeedWe can never know the true reaction to all the claims by the MSM and their reaction to Ron Susskind's book. Or to any outlandish liberal claims because, of course, the MSM won't tell the truth about them.
Check out the #1 New York Times best seller - Obama Nation -that just came out. It's a truthful hit on Obama, and people are honing in on it. You have to trust the American people to come to the right conclusions; this is still a free country.
Yupper
August 7, 2008 - 07:52 ET by pbanks7And where is Bela Pelosi's book? As of 8:42 am on 8/7/08:
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,644 in Books.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
She's only sold 2700
August 7, 2008 - 08:05 ET by motherbeltShe's only sold 2700 copies!
And I'm betting a bunch of those bought by family and friends.
ROFL!
These liberals...they all have delusions of grandeur and think everyone is just dying to hear (read) what they have to say!
Get a load of this LAT headline: Pelosi Hopes New Book Is More Popular Than Congress
Um, no, Your Speakerness, it's not.
Pride goeth before a fall.
August 7, 2008 - 08:20 ET by Free ThinkerPride goeth before a fall. She is the modern day emperor with no clothes, a complete failure with no clue.
Free Thinker
August 7, 2008 - 08:26 ET by Cool ArrowI'd rather imagine Moms Mabley in the buff than Her Empressness Pelosi.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Thanks for that visual!
August 7, 2008 - 08:47 ET by Free ThinkerThanks for that visual!
Thanks for the link to Mom's
August 7, 2008 - 15:51 ET by CTCan't believe she's been gone since 1975.
More bluntly put...
August 7, 2008 - 08:28 ET by unkeeafA DUMBASS...
Well, we know for a fact
August 6, 2008 - 22:36 ET by RainsfordWell, we know for a fact that Iraq harbored terrorists who fled Afghanistan shortly after the invasion, so why is it so hard to believe that they would have turned a blind eye to a training camp focused on destroying the Saudis or the US? I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing came from a scenerio like that (well, if we KNOW they are going now, what would have stopped them from going 2 years ago), and the author decided to play it up as much as possible.
In any event, I welcome any member of the press to get face-to-face with an Iraqi child and tell them that their liberation was a terrible mistake.
Your geo-political
August 6, 2008 - 23:10 ET by flashkingYour geo-political ambitions and all this airy talk about freedom and democracy does not make a neighborhood in Iraq look anything like a Norman Rockwell painting.
I hate to tell you that your little gambit about questioning a child about whether his "liberation was a terrible mistake" is silly.
If you ask a 13 year old Iraqi amputee -- who's been playing soccer since he was 5 and now watches from a wheel chair -- if all of your grand ideas and theories about his future make him want to kiss your a** for liberating him, what do you think he might tell you?
Let's say the terrorists chopped off his legs right before they savaged his mother and took the left hand of his baby sister -- Let's say that happened because his father translated a couple news articles for the Americans. I'm sure that kid's gonna grow up strong and tell any damn New York Times commie-pinko where to shove it if they ask him in their ironic, smirking way if his liberation was worth it.
Yeah, little John Mohamed Wayne is gonna tell those dirty liberals that he and his three sons George Hussein Bush 1 2 & 3 would love to re-live the entire heroic episode over again.
give us a break flash
August 6, 2008 - 23:18 ET by candanceWe heard all the very same hysterics about people behind the Iron Curtain back in the 80s - how they were content with their lives just fine, how they didn't appreciate the US making things harder for them, etc. Then the wall came down and we saw just how thankful the folks in eastern Europe were.
It was the argument used against involvement in WW2 and - no, wait, come to think of it, lefties never used that argument against Clinton's invasion of the Balkans. Funny.
It's not hysteria. You are
August 6, 2008 - 23:23 ET by flashkingIt's not hysteria. You are thinking about this in terms of the forest and I see the trees.
My hypothetical little boy doesn't give a fig about all you grand talk about the global strategies.
flashking
August 6, 2008 - 23:45 ET by MrShyThis is NOT diminishing what hypothetical boy -- who you are soooooo concerned about, halfway around the world, when there are millions of boys like him from so may unfortunate circumstances -- went through, and you KNOW it:
"My hypothetical little boy doesn't give a fig about all you grand talk about the global strategies. "
You are Exhibit A of the stupid, passive, liberal way of thinking. Do you care at all that millions of others DO give a fig about the sort of grand, visionary talk Candance and leaders like Bush espouse?
You bet we're talking about the forest, and we're doing all we can to preserve every tree we can.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
From Wikipedia: The total
August 7, 2008 - 08:31 ET by motherbeltFrom Wikipedia:
The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was
roughly 72 million people, making it the deadliest, and most
destructive war in human history.
So, flash, what do you think? Should we have let Hitler take over the world?
the left is in a very bad historic position now
August 7, 2008 - 13:06 ET by TruthMongerflash sees this soccer kid as a handy crutch for his tremendously guilty conscience - we've see this move before - the "concern" for the victims of war (never had any concern for them under Hussein's brutal opression however)
like the rest of the pro-Hussein crowd he's is now personally and politically invested in completely miserable Iraqi failure - he's on the lookout for anything that can be fabricated into his pro-Hussein vindication - same deal with the MSM
GWB and conservatives are invested in iraqi freedom
OMG flash
August 6, 2008 - 23:56 ET by candanceCould you be more obtuse??
My hypothetical little boy doesn't give a fig about all you grand talk about the global strategies.
Read my post above, and slower this time. We were given the exact same mantra in the 80s how individual people in the USSR (the poor little boy on the street) didn't put much stock in Reagan's grandiose idea to suffocate the Soviet government. Then all the sudden we saw lots of these little people climbing on the wall with hammers and shovels to tear it apart with their hands.
So don't sit there and tell me big political ideas have little consequence in the real world.
Republicans see the forest because they know that "change you can believe in" starts at the top - for the express purpose of helping all those little trees with an affliction they all have in common.
You'd rather pluck the weeds from one tree at a time while a major bacteria spreads like wildfire.
candance
August 7, 2008 - 00:08 ET by MrShyPerfectly said.
Flashking is THE quintessential lib, using "bleeding heart" guilt tactic crap, making us out to not care about the "individual" when this -- or any well-meaning country -- works to dismantle poisonous nations from the top down, which is the only way it can be done.
Your last line is perfect, especially. And we both made the point (or we're tirelessly trying to) regarding the lib's concern for every single tree, while not giving a "fig" about the forest (see my post above...)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
one more point
August 7, 2008 - 00:24 ET by candanceIn case flash tries to deny the left's love affair for the USSR, I'd like to supply Shy with this.
Same story, new decade.
candance, What a great day
August 7, 2008 - 00:53 ET by upcountrywaterNov 12 1989 good home video
Another 1989 ABC clip great song 1:30 to 1:53;
"This Is The day That The Lord Has Made" .. Sung in German. Hows that.
Gotta chap that ABC lefty announcers arse. LOL
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
But you have to remember
August 7, 2008 - 06:28 ET by motherbeltBut you have to remember that liberals like flashking operate on the premise "if it saves one life it's worth it."
Not to diminish the value of one life, but taken to its extreme, we should have surrendered to the Soviet Union years ago. Any time force is exerted, the victims should concede so as to avoid a war. Because nothing is worth dying for.
extreme
August 7, 2008 - 07:18 ET by AgnosticTaken to the extreme would the case of DDT:
Let millions die so we can have healthy bird eggs. In the end even that was a lie.
that rubrik has cost millions of dead
August 7, 2008 - 15:22 ET by wizardjrSome of the classics were all the weenies that pushed gun confiscation and gave us Washington DC and lately England and Australia. People who use that phrase deliberately close their ears and eyes to 'opportunity cost'.
For those of you from Rio Linda, opportunity cost is what you lose by taking route A instead for route B (politically speaking).
In the case of gun confiscation, it seems like a natural law that the criminals go hog wild shortly thereafter. Australian armed house invasions shot through the roof (pardon the pun). Murders and armed violence in London are out of control. Heck, the shot a journalist dead on her front porch for goodness sakes.
In the case of AIDS we squandered billions looking for a cure to something that goes away if you are monogomous and don't do intravenous drugs. Duh! Instead thousands, perhaps millions have died of diseases we could have cured or stopped with that money. Hell, we could have fed starving people and saved more than we've saved for AIDS.
As always the Law Of Unintended Consequences jumps right up every time the libtards push their airheaded ideas into the real world.
Your hypothetical boy is
August 7, 2008 - 08:08 ET by pbanks7Your hypothetical boy is hype! You pretend to care more about a single fig tree, and completely disregard the millions of liberated people. There is your forest.
You obviously have never been to Iraq. My son was. His verdict was: 60% of them were extremely happy were were there, 30% didn't care one way or the other, and 10% didn't want us there (Isn't the pro-Saddam Sunni population about 10%?). Maybe it was all the people touching him, and/or telling him "I love you," in distinct English, that gave him that impression.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
You cannot act
August 7, 2008 - 09:43 ET by BDYou cannot act strategically if you only "See the trees."
Moaning about the evil done by our enemies and then blaming us for it is insane.
gotta see both -
August 7, 2008 - 13:10 ET by TruthMongergotta see both - accurately
conservatives know well how to tend the forests properly - short and long term
really pisses off the left - blind jealousy basically...
If you ask another little
August 7, 2008 - 05:35 ET by dmntd1If you ask another little boy if the war was worth it, if losing his papa, his uncle, his brother was worth it, maybe losing his own leg to gangrene after getting a .50 ball through it, he might also agree that it was worth the liberation. Afterall, I doubt he'd still rather be on that plantation, pickin cotton for his owner!
Freedom is worth fighting for. Whether it's your freedom, the freedom of your countrymen, or the freedom of strangers.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
flash, like it or not, it
August 7, 2008 - 09:12 ET by bassndudeflash, like it or not, it is a cold hard fact of life, that the 13 yo kid would rather live in a place where he wont have to worry about his mother being yanked off the street and fed to the tigers after the rulers of his country get tired of her. Or his dad thrown into prision and killed at the whim of said ruler. For that he will sit in the wheel chair.
It is evident you have never spoken to, been to or exposed to a liberated people. You have no idea what your talking about. Your putting your ignorant words into an idea you concived in your "little" mind.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"No" is such a complicated
August 6, 2008 - 22:51 ET by ckc1227"No" is such a complicated answer. I mean, who knows what he really meant when he said no? It could be taken any number of different ways. Clearly he was being ambiguous for a reason. I think we all know what that reason was.
A page from the liberal
August 6, 2008 - 23:24 ET by jdhawkA page from the liberal play book:
Start a lie in the blogosphere.
See if said lie gains traction in the drive by media
Drive by media starts carrying the "story"
Editorials all over the country are written substantiating the "claims" and vilifying the perpertrators
Books are published that are said to be "blockbusters" about said lie.
More interviews, stories, and editorials constantly repeating the lie.
A movie is made to perpertuate the lie beyond the present generation.
The lie has long become "fact."
All that awaits are "history" books to be rewritten . . .
Dave - Rutten missed even more ...
August 7, 2008 - 00:56 ET by Gary HallDave - how clean can the evidence get? "No!" Unbelievable!
Rutten missed one more ... right in his own home paper. He stated about Suskind's book:
However, had he bothered - or had his editors demanded corrections - right there on page A-13 in today's LA Times (the same paper) is a reprint from the Washinton Post, in which it is stated:
Too bad they - all three - denied it - so much for "adequate sourcing."Time for a nightcap. (;~/ gary
Yes ...
August 7, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Dave PierreGreat catch, Gary! Thanks. I hope others read this.
+_+_+_+
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken
Lame is really Lame....
August 7, 2008 - 01:11 ET by ScrapironThe Lame Stream Media wouldn't know or accept the truth if it bit them on the arse. They have too much invested in they're lies to ever admit 90% of what they broadcast and print is lies. Well the WaPo did get their front page 25% correct when they tried to slam McCain and ended up slamming the wonder boy, Hussein. They have been caught and are dying faster than a speeding bullet. Someone just keeps pouring gas on the fire and burning their butts big time. Hussein O is the wonder boy because even 75% of the democrat are 'wondering' who trotted out the fool. I know as many democrats as republicans and don't know 'one' that will say they're voting for the wonder boy, most say they'll stay home. Looks like the election may end up with a 2 to 1 vote. McCain and his wife will vote McCain. Hussein will vote for himself and his big mouth racist wife will stay home. BWAHAHAHAHA
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Well
August 7, 2008 - 01:31 ET by well99Let see.Chaney said no.So according to dictionary.com that means (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)
If you have any more questions about what no means.Feel free to visit your local library.
You twit.
August 7, 2008 - 06:50 ET by FoolicanCheney didn't say no.
He said "know!" That means he and the White House supposedly "knew" that Al-Qaeda and 9/11 were connected to Iraq and Hussein. But he lied, and so people died, and now we have an illegal war on our hands that's destroying the United States as well as the rest of the world.
ah, the mantras - like
August 7, 2008 - 13:14 ET by TruthMongerah, the mantras - like snowflakes - no two ever exactly alike
Look Fool
August 7, 2008 - 14:52 ET by well99What part of No dont you understand?You can lie all you want.Be my guest but he said no.I know you think because you believe it is true it must be.Reality check that aint the way it is.Go back to worshipping your pet rock.
Fool... Are you being
August 7, 2008 - 15:01 ET by bigtimerFool...
Are you being serious..or are you just being sarcastic?
...sure hope it's the latter.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Do I really have to do
August 7, 2008 - 07:34 ET by JasonCDo I really have to do this? I'm not going to give you a bunch of emotionally coercive malarky about limbless Iraqi children, just cold hard evidence of how ridiculous all of this is. Yep, Cheney denied a connection five days after 9/11. Fall of 2003, however, was a different story. Really, what is it with the right defending Cheney lately? It reminds me of Coulter's book where she not only defends Joe McCarthy, but rewrites him as a great patriot. It's like the mentality is "Well we want to vindicate some figure who's been maligned by the left; ah, f**k it, let's go with the most blatantly corrupt one we can think of!" I suppose the sheer audacity is such that your political opponents will spend so much time stuttering over it - "Really? They're defending him?" - that they won't be able to mount an effective comeback. Perhaps it works.
I know you people remember as well as I do how often Bush & Cheney linked Iraq with 9/11, both literally as in "Atta met with Iraqi intelligence" and through the slippery rhetoric implying that we have to go fight in Iraq because "9/11 changed everything."
Whatever, here are the links:
http://www.freerepub...
http://www.commondre...
http://www.youtube.c...
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Repeating the lie often enough
August 7, 2008 - 08:20 ET by pbanks7Repeating the lie often enough certainly worked on you:
It's easy to find the lie in the McCarthy issue. The left shows the House Unamerican Affairs Committee grinding Hollywood stars. Senator Joe McCarthy was a Senator, duh, not a member of the House.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
Did I say one damn word
August 7, 2008 - 08:53 ET by JasonCDid I say one damn word about HUAC? McCarthy was the figurehead of the let's-smoke-out-the-commies witch hunt of the 50s. In a time of complete and utter Cold War paranoia, he STILL managed to go so far over the top and run roughshod over so many people that his (discredited) antics got him censured by the senate. I know the right loves to pretend that the fact that he was in the senate and not the house makes all that go away, but it does not. HUAC was not the end-all be-all of McCarthyism, just one facet of it.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Jason ...
August 7, 2008 - 09:30 ET by Dave PierreSorry, but your links debunk your own claim. In the fall of 2003, Cheney told the public, "We just don't know" of any connection.
I also addressed this in my September 2006 post (linked in my article above).
Thanks.
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken
DP: "There's overwhelming
August 7, 2008 - 10:58 ET by JasonCDP:
"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda
and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an
established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
"Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror."
President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President
Bush 9/25/02
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming . . . It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts,
high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence
officials." -Cheney, 6/18/04
How's that? Better? I won't pretend that Bush/Cheney were doggedly claiming, as ironclad fact, that Saddam and OBL formed an unholy alliance. I don't even think, like many liberal conspriacy theorists, that they were 'lying', necessarily. However, to take Cheney's statement of "No" from 9/16/01 and hold it up as evidence that the administration never tried to claim such a link as a pretext for war is, frankly, beyond ludicrous.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Jason - I don't see anything in those quotes that say
August 7, 2008 - 11:06 ET by Dee BunkIraq was connected to 9/11. Bush and Cheney and most of the media (with their own stories that had nothing to do with the administration) all agreed he had ties to terror.
Jason ...
August 7, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Dave PierreDeeBunk is correct. Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda and connecting Iraq to the actual 9/11 attacks are two entirely separate issues. As we've shown, Cheney did not campaign that Iraq was directly behind the 9/11 attacks.
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken
Dee and DP: What
August 7, 2008 - 11:34 ET by JasonCDee and DP:
What percentage of American citizens had even heard of al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden before 9/11? Not a whole lot. Both of them are indelibly seared into Americans' minds as "Responsible for 9/11". What were these connections made for if not to instill an association between Iraq and 9/11?
I completely understand your argument here, but I see it not as something that puts Cheney et al in the clear so much as a demonstration of their cagey rhetorical skills. While you may be literally correct that suggesting these connections and suggesting connections to the 9/11 attacks are two completely different things, I believe it is naive to discount what the administration was, transparently in my opinion, trying to accomplish. I fully accept that this is not something I can prove, that it is simply my own reading of the rhetoric. But I nonetheless remain unconvinced of your argument.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
aw c'mon Jason
August 7, 2008 - 12:05 ET by candanceYour response is basically "evidence schmevidence, we all know what he really meant."
While it's true that most Americans found out about Al Qaeda after 9/11, we were explicitly told that they were responsible for the Cole attack, the 93 bombing, and the US embassies.
And oops, look what I found, as far back as 1999 the MSM was all over bin Laden.
Hm..so almost three years before 9/11 the media actively named bin Laden as a threat to America, and Bill Clinton specifically named his minions in Afghanistan as a gang of terrorists as far back as 98.
So it sounds like the government was warning America about bin Laden for several years...but since most Americans were too lazy to pay attention, it's Bush's fault they couldn't think of anything but 9/11.
Nice logic there.
Candance: The crucial
August 7, 2008 - 12:17 ET by JasonCCandance:
The crucial step that you miss in your essentially airtight analysis is the relentless alignment of al-Qaeda with Iraq. No doubt OBL should have been paid more careful attention by the Clinton and Bush (Sr.) administrations, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the rhetorical sleigh-of-hand in which invading Iraq was presented as a logical step in the WoT which was galvanized and redefined on 9/11/01. To claim that 9/11 was not exploited for P.R. purposes concerning Iraq simply based on what you've posted here is like taking Clinton's word for it that he didn't inhale or that he really truly didn't think fellatio counted as sex. It's giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has gone out of his way to not deserve it.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Jason - there is and was lots of evidence of terrorist
August 7, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Dee Bunkconnections including Iraq. It gets tiring going over and over them but luckily Free Stinker has kept a list. You can scroll down to the terrorists connection section.
Iraq terrorist connections
what else was Bush supposed to do?
August 7, 2008 - 12:36 ET by candanceBush was using a sleight of hand to indirectly blame 9/11 on Saddam? Um no. Bush's point was "look, Al Qaeda's been attacking us for nearly a decade now - will we please wake up and pay attention?"
Saddam was also alleged to fund suicide bombers in Israel and had been known to threaten his neighbors like Kuwait. Bush presented America with a litany of reasons why Saddam was a bad guy - and topped it off with "remember Al Qaeda, the group that declared jihad against America? Saddam is in bed with them too."
Again you keep implying that Bush secretly used Al Qaeda as some kind of code for 9/11. That's as tedious as saying FDR linked the Nazis to the Japanese, so he lied about Hitler planning Pearl Harbor. You're simply putting words in Bush's mouth.
candance...
August 7, 2008 - 12:49 ET by JerBush's point was "look, Al Qaeda's been attacking us for nearly a decade now - will we please wake up and pay attention?"
Help me out. What time frame are you referring to here--pre or post-9/11?
Jer
*purses lips and glares at Jer*
August 7, 2008 - 13:34 ET by candanceWe discussed this down below and I told you how I felt about intelligence before Sept.
What would you have him do? Pretend 9/11 never happened? In your eyes, Bush mentions 9/11 once and there you have "proof" that he was taking advantage of it.
Instead of being thankful that our government finally got off its lazy duff to find bin Laden, you're splitting hairs over Bush using "secret codes" and "sleights of hand" to directly connect two indirect things, even in the face of an abundance of alternative reasons.
In other words, you're dismissing an entire forest because you percieve a flaw in one particular tree.
PS - I'm off to work now, so if I don't respond then fear not about me hiding. I'll hit you back tonight.
Hold on candance...call in
August 7, 2008 - 13:48 ET by JerHold on candance...call in and tell them you're running late.
I just asked a simple question. I honestly wasn't sure from reading your statement to which time period you had in mind. You can answer in 2 seconds.
Jer
edit. I'm splitting hairs and referring to secret codes and sleight of hand. What the heck are you talking about?
nevermind Jer
August 7, 2008 - 20:30 ET by candanceI was deep in a convo with Jason and thought you were taking his side. If your post had nothing to do with Jason's argument then pay no mind.
As to your question, I was specifically talking about post-9/11 and agree that our government let us down to some degree.
Clarification appreciated.
August 7, 2008 - 20:35 ET by JerClarification appreciated.
Jer
Just about everybody dropped the ball before 9/11
August 7, 2008 - 12:44 ET by JerJust about everybody dropped the ball before 9/11, candance--both Clinton and Bush, our intelligence services, congress and the media. There were too few sounding the alarm bells, and fewer still who were listening.
The media certainly deserve no plaudits. Remember, in the weeks and months leading up to 9/11, it was Condit 24/7.
Jer
agreed Jer
August 7, 2008 - 12:48 ET by candanceI fully agree that bin Laden should have been taken more seriously way before Sept 2001.
But in the words of Alton Brown, "that's another show."
My aim in this discussion is only to relay that bin Laden was identified as a threat above and beyond 9/11.
Jason - that was the media - not the Bush admin that did that
August 7, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Dee Bunkthere was story after story (which all stopped once they decided to blame everything on Bush) of terrorists training camps (including Salman Pac in Iraq)
Lourie Mylroie (a Clinton Campaign adviser) wrote a book before Sept 11 called "Study of Revenge" which detailed Iraq connections to the 1993 attacks.
The media footage of Salman Pac and other things came from before Sept 11 and were just replayed over and over afterwards.
I know you've bought this "lie" thing hook line and sinker from the Dem talking points but there is no basis for it. If anything, the Bush admin didn't do enough to discredit the medias bogus attacks on him using the medias own stories. We now know that Scott McClellan was a complete moron and Bush should have never left him in his job. Had Ari Fleisher or Tony Snow been in his position, the press may never have got away with it. Well that 's not true - they could still get away with it but some would have been embarrassed enough by their hypocrisy to stop the drum beat.
Dee...Laurie Mylroie has
August 7, 2008 - 12:34 ET by JerDee...Laurie Mylroie has been seriously discredited and much of her confabulation--particularly about Saddam and ties to the 1993 WTC bombing--exposed as sheer poppycock.
Jer
Jer - where and by who?
August 7, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Dee BunkThere is quite a bit of actual documents and evidence in her book. Are those people saying she forged the documents?
I should add that the accuracy isn't central to my point anyway
August 7, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Dee Bunkbut I don't believe the documents she used were forged.
My point is that people other than the Bush administration including the media and people with Clinton ties had been touting the connections. If all of these things they touted were false then that isn't Bush's fault.
I don't think the things they touted were false, they are just conveniently forgotten now that the talking points are "Bush lied"
Jer...Try reading "The
August 7, 2008 - 12:43 ET by bigtimerJer...
Try reading "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis ...
People who don't like people like Mylroie, Davis, or Miller, of course discredit them.
Some of us out here new about al Qaeda and related groups before 9-11.
Some other people have an agenda to knock down other people if they happen to have proof or connections ect to the enemies of our country....especially the leftists in the world...there are just as many bad, or leftists in Depts. like the FBI, CIA, State Dept., Justice Dept. ect. let alone political parties parties...who both stick their fingers in the wind deciding where and what to do depending on what their own pollsters say, instead of the defense of this country.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt...Al Qaeda was obviously
August 7, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Jerbt...Al Qaeda was obviously well-known prior to 9/11--no argument there. I do know that Mylroie has made herculean efforts to tie Saddam to the '93 WTC bombing, but I think almost nobody in either administration, or in our security agencies--regardless of ideology--takes those claims seriously.
Jer
Jer, Just read Jayna's
August 7, 2008 - 13:12 ET by bigtimerJer,
Just read Jayna's book...it is quite the eye-opener.
You have to follow it closely....You would learn a lot.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Cheney loved making false and/or dubious 9/11-Iraq links
August 7, 2008 - 08:22 ET by blogonatorFive days after 9/11 Cheney may have said one thing, but it's well documented that the Bush administration was looking for an excuse to overthrow Saddam even before 9/11. Once he had that bogus Atta-Prague meeting connection, he beat that drum relentlessly. For this post to claim "VP Cheney's Own Words Debunk LAT's Rutten, Suskind Book" is straight up absurd.
Hey ...
August 7, 2008 - 09:32 ET by Dave PierreI address the whole Atta-Prague issue in my September 2006 post (linked at the end of my article above). I hope you check it out.
Thanks.
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken
You really should read you
August 7, 2008 - 08:29 ET by general companyYou really should read you own links.
RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
CHENEY: We don't know
Cheney's speculation of eveidence found, is NOT admiting a connection.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Oh, please. We never would
August 7, 2008 - 08:41 ET by JasonCOh, please. We never would have gone to war without 9/11 as an emotion/fear fulcrum. Are you seriously denying that Cheney et al invoked an Iraq/al-Qaeda relationship to drum up support? It was all there in black and white for basically all of 2002-03. Yeah, OK, Cheney says "We don't know" here. Look at the surrounding context and follow-up statements. And how about Cheney's nifty trick of leaking "intelligence" to the Times and then citing the Times as evidence!
And you all hate NYT so much; they helped sell the Iraq War!
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
9/11 "drummed up" it's own
August 7, 2008 - 09:00 ET by TruthMonger9/11 "drummed up" it's own support my friend:)
the NYT - like the rest of the MSM - did it's best to help Hussein
revisionism won't work on us - we sat through the whole process
17 UN SC resolutions had been violated by Hussein
only the first one was enough to justify his removal
your welcome BTW
The only people thinking
August 7, 2008 - 09:21 ET by general companyThe only people thinking there was a connection, were the one listening to the MSM who was busy trying to get the WH to admit to one. Those of us that were paying attention (including you I would bet) never heard the WH admit to a connection.
Their were many other reasons for invading Iraq, for better or worst. This simply wasnt one of them.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Gee, you convinced
August 7, 2008 - 08:38 ET by contraryGee, you convinced me...
And all it took was a you tube video, and two links to sites I've never heard of before. You should be Chief Prosecutor.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
I'm not interested in
August 7, 2008 - 08:48 ET by JasonCI'm not interested in convincing you of anything, nor in prosecuting anybody. Just in pointing out the absolute lunacy of this story. One word that Cheney said five days after 9/11 debunks a years-long story about carefully linking that even to Iraq, come hell or high water? It's insane; the worst, most irresponsible sort of reverse-muckraking armchair-journalism that consistently passes for trenchancy on this site. My links are meant only to point out that citing Cheney's one-word response on one show proves absolutely nothing given the bigger picture. Without the spectre of 9/11, Americans would never have approved of a full-scale invasion of Iraq.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."