Russert misled on Iraq intelligence, statements by Bush and Cheney on Iraq/9-11 link
SUMMARY: During an interview with Al Franken, Tim Russert objected to Franken's assertion that "[President] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney did explicitly link Iraq to 9-11 on several occasions, especially when speaking to the naïve Russert." In fact, Cheney twice directly linked Iraq to the 9-11 attacks while appearing on Russert's NBC program Meet the Press. Additionally, while Bush "never brought ... up" the purported Iraqi link to 9-11 during a 2004 Meet the Press interview, neither did Russert, who could have asked Bush to explain a letter he sent to Congress shortly after the start of the Iraq war, in which he explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11.
During an interview with liberal radio host and author Al Franken on the April 1 edition of CNBC's Tim Russert, Russert objected to Franken's assertion -- articulated in his book The Truth (with jokes) (Dutton Adult, 2005) -- that "[President] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney did explicitly link Iraq to 9-11 on several occasions, especially when speaking to the naïve Russert." Russert said Franken was being "very selective" in pointing to statements by Cheney linking Iraq and 9-11; in fact, Cheney twice directly linked Iraq to the 9-11 attacks while appearing on Russert's NBC program Meet the Press. Russert also asserted that Bush "never brought ... up" the purported Iraqi link to 9-11 during a 2004 Meet the Press interview -- but neither did Russert, who could have asked Bush to explain a letter he sent to Congress shortly after the start of the Iraq war, in which he explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11.
Russert's claim that Cheney never "explicitly linked" Iraq to 9-11 on Meet the Press is simply false. Although Russert argued that "five times I asked Cheney, 'Is there any direct linkage [between Iraq and 9-11]?'" and Cheney declined to assert such a linkage, Cheney did link Iraq to 9-11 during two appearances on Russert's NBC program, as Media Matters for America previously noted. When Franken noted one of the two instances, Russert maintained that what Cheney said was "not explicit," and that if Cheney ever did explicitly link Iraq to 9-11, it was "[n]ot to me." On that December 9, 2001, program, Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11," and the vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks.
Later in the interview, Franken identified the second instance in which Cheney explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11 on Meet the Press. On the September 14, 2003, edition of the NBC program, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "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." But even with that example, Russert took issue with Franken's citation of Cheney's remarks because of other Meet the Press appearances in which Cheney admitted that he did not have foolproof evidence of an Iraqi link to 9-11.
Additionally, Russert asserted that Bush "never brought ... up" the purported Iraqi link to 9-11 during his lone February 8, 2004, interview on Meet the Press, and later accused Franken of "tak[ing] a shot and say[ing], Bush and Cheney were explicit" in linking Iraq to 9-11, but that "Bush was never explicit."
It is not clear whether Russert meant that Bush was "never explicit" in linking Iraq and 9-11 at all, or whether he meant that Bush was "never explicit" in linking Iraq to 9-11 in his Meet the Press interview. Although it is true that Bush did not explicitly link Iraq an 9-11 during his Meet the Press interview, he did explicitly link Iraq to 9-11 in a March 21, 2003, letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and president pro tempore of the Senate, as Media Matters previously noted. In the letter, Bush stated that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries 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." Although this letter was publicly available nearly a year before Russert's Meet the Press interview with Bush, and Russert -- as he acknowledged in the Franken interview -- had previously asked Cheney whether Iraq was linked to 9-11 or Al Qaeda on Meet the Press (on September 16, 2001, and March 24, 2002), Russert did not take the opportunity to ask Bush about the letter. Franken cited the letter during his discussion with Russert, but Russert called Franken's citation of Bush's remarks "very selective."
Further, Russert's selective focus on Bush and Cheney's Meet the Press appearances overlooks numerous occasions (documented by Media Matters here) on which members of the Bush administration linked Iraq to the Al Qaeda organization, which carried out the 9-11 attacks. In its final report, the 9-11 Commission found, among other things, that Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, nor did it have any "collaborative relationship" with Al Qaeda, as the Bush administration had repeatedly asserted and implied.
From the April 1 edition of CNBC's Tim Russert:
RUSSERT: The name of the book is The Truth, and you had some fun with me in here.
FRANKEN: Yes.
RUSSERT: I'm going to ask you, if you've made a mistake, you'll correct it.
FRANKEN: Yes, absolutely.
RUSSERT: All right.
FRANKEN: In the paperback.
RUSSERT: OK. That's fine. That's fair enough.
FRANKEN: Yeah, yeah.
RUSSERT: So, it says here, page 48: "So Bush and Cheney did explicitly link Iraq to 9-11 on several occasions, especially when speaking to the naï -- to the naïve Russert." OK?
FRANKEN: Yes.
RUSSERT: You will not find anywhere George Bush linking Iraq to September 11th speaking to me. Guaranteed.
FRANKEN: What precedes it?
RUSSERT: That's the -- that's the paragraph.
FRANKEN: That was -- seems to be a conclusion of something. I mean, you know, I --
RUSSERT: "Bush made it official in his letter to Congress," but -- but I interviewed him once. Never -- never brought it up.
FRANKEN: OK, well, then I will correct it, but let me - -let me --
RUSSERT: OK, and I al --
FRANKEN: -- let me see the book. Can I see where --
RUSSERT: Sure, sure, sure. But also let me -- on Cheney, and this is -- this is -- this is interesting, because I think it's -- I think it's what Democrats and Republicans do.
FRANKEN: Mm-hmm.
RUSSERT: It's very selective.
FRANKEN: Yeah.
RUSSERT: The -- I interviewed Cheney the -- three days -- five days after September 11th. Let me just go through it, I'll give you a chance. Here it is. "Do you have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Straight-out no.
FRANKEN: Right.
RUSSERT: OK? The next time I interviewed him, because I was intrigued by this --
FRANKEN: Mm-hmm.
RUSSERT: -- I said, "The last time we were on you said no. What can you -- you know now there's been evidence of this meeting with the -- the -- in Prague of the -- of the agents."
FRANKEN: And he said it was --
RUSSERT: "What -- what we now --"
FRANKEN: Pretty well confirmed, right?
RUSSERT: "-- has developed since you and I talked was a report, it's been pretty well confirmed that he went to Prague, but what transpired there, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue we want to pursue." There's no linkage between --
FRANKEN: And he said -- first of all he said --
RUSSERT: Let me--let me just --
FRANKEN: -- it was pretty well confirmed --
RUSSERT: Let me just --
FRANKEN: We all know what this is about, though.
RUSSERT: Let me just finish.
FRANKEN: This is about Mohamed Atta meeting with Iraqi security --
RUSSERT: I know, this has been a --
FRANKEN: -- going to Prague.
RUSSERT: But again, this is explicitly linking. "With respect to the connections to Al Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection." That's March 24th [2002], because I asked him again.
FRANKEN: Right.
RUSSERT: I said, peop -- the American public believes this, and -- and I want to know specifically. Then I played the tape again on September 8th, 2002, where you said no. "Has anything changed?" "I'm not here to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for September 11th. I can't say that. On the other hand," we did the interview and he goes through and talks about -- about --
FRANKEN: On the other hand --
RUSSERT: But it's not -- it's not -- again, it's not explicit. And so --
FRANKEN: The explicit link is saying --
RUSSERT: So here -- here's -- here's -- here's what I want to say, and then I'll give you a chance to talk about this. It's interesting to me.
FRANKEN: Mm-hmm.
RUSSERT: Then we come -- come back to this particular comment. "Saddam has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11th, 2001." Now, is that linkage?
FRANKEN: No, I'm not saying that he -- when pressed or at times didn't admit that he didn't have proof, because he didn't have proof, but he said that it has been pretty well confirmed that Mohamed Atta went to Prague. Now, that -- that was all about this whole thing The Weekly Standard was running, and you know this, that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence, case closed. Remember, that's what The Weekly Standard said.
RUSSERT: But that's not what Cheney or Bush said to me.
FRANKEN: And what about Bush, Cheney saying --
RUSSERT: And just so you know, the last person I read who said this --
MFRANKEN: Yeah.
RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton.
FRANKEN: Who said what?
RUSSERT: The last quote I just read. Hillary Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11th." Now, that's not explicit linkage, but it --
FRANKEN: It's close.
RUSSERT: It's close. It's very similar --
FRANKEN: Yeah, she shouldn't have said that.
RUSSERT: But it's quite striking.
[...]
FRANKEN: What I'm saying is, he also said that, and I'll bet you it's right before that part of the thing in the book --
RUSSERT: In the book?
FRANKEN: -- I -- didn't he say that we are getting them right at the nexus of where 9-11 came from?
RUSSERT: Did Bush say that?
FRANKEN: No. Cheney did.
RUSSERT: Not to me.
FRANKEN: Well, let me see what I said right before it.
RUSSERT: All right. All right. We're going to get a correction in the paperback. I'm -- I'm fine by this. This is fun.
FRANKEN: Especially the -- on several occasions -- especially -- OK, "Cheney told the wide-eyed"--"Cheney told the wide-eyed Russert what success in Iraq would mean. '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.' " How come when you were going through your own transcripts you didn't find that? And that's what led into this, Tim.
RUSSERT: No, no, no.
FRANKEN: J'accuse. J'accuse.
RUSSERT: Quite.
FRANKEN: Look, that's what -- and I said Bush made it official in his letter to Congress on the eve of the war, he concluded that attacking Iraq was quote, "consistent with the United States and other countries" -- and admittedly this isn't on your show -- consis --
RUSSERT: J'accuse! J'accuse.
FRANKEN: J'accuse. J'accuse.
RUSSERT: The fact -- the fact is, it's very selective.
FRANKEN: But you were equally selective.
RUSSERT: Five -- five times I asked Cheney, "Is there any direct linkage?" Why wouldn't you say that?
FRANKEN: But -- but wait a minute.
RUSSERT: Instead you take a shot and say, Bush and Cheney were explicit. Bush was never explicit, and five times Russert was explicit with Cheney.
FRANKEN: But here he's absolutely explicit here. Listen to this again, everybody. Where's the camera?
RUSSERT: All right, we're going to -- we're going to take a break. We're going to take a break. We'll be right back. We'll be right back.
Al, do not put a correction in the paperback version of the book because that would be a lie.
Russert is full of it.
"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. "
End of story.
It sounds like Russert is prepared to defend to the death, charges that the President and Vice President intentionally misled the American People into believing that Iraq and 9-11 were related.
And he seems to be highly motivated to do this, because he was called "naive" by Franken.
And he seems almost as upset at being called "naive", as are the American People at being misled and lied to.
Well, I guess it's his job, to quibble personally about being called "naive", and in the process to defend the Administration.
Whatever.
As for linking a foreign government to the attacks of September 11, 2001, all the lies and all the implications and all the false reports all boil down to just two words:
SAUDI ARABIA
Cheney was upset the first Bush didn't finish off Saddam Hussein in 1991, and there was friction. That is why Cheney was so hellbent on being vice president in 1999 when he saw the chance GW could win. Cheney wanted to finish off the first iraq war and 9-11 fell like mannah from heaven on their laps. History will record this war and the consequences are totally their responsibility I don't know what the next president can do.
About time someone tried to combat the arrogant Russert.
It wasnt explicit! Thats not the Bush/Cheney style. Instead they would toss out an idea, dance around with it a little, and then say that they just dont know. This was done several times by them in the leadup to the war. Right wing radio and press carried it from there. Then the Bush administration claims immunity because even though they mentioned these things, they never fully confirmed it. It was all innuendo!
I completely agree. It seems that Russert's major objection is the word explicit. He uses that distinction to ignore everything that Franken says. I wish Franken had made the point that pervades his book, that these people incite fear with innuendo so they aren't accountable when it's shown to be false.
We whom were skeptical about the run-up to war were for the most part convinced to support the policy at the very last moment by Colin Powell, a man whom nearly had his choose of being a candidate on either party’s ticket, we now know we were betrayed for having a hero’s worship for a hero turned scoundrel.
We are wounded not just because of our disappointment in Powell, but that we dropped our instinctive guard to believe him in the first place. We whom believed that Bush/Cheney were not the kind of men whom deserved to lead a nation into war.
Those whom made the argument that Iraq had no ability to project their power because of a decade U.N. sanctions & No-Fly Zones, felt the disaster on the nearing horizon. We were bullied into silence, ridiculed, and made to feel as though we were traitors for not joining in lock step.
I warned friends that a draft would be needed by the Summer of 2004, I told people that we could not deploy our National Guard & Reserves for this kind of occupation for long without the military screaming for new recruits. I never believed that the Congress and Pentagon would stand by while our glorious military would be allowed to dwindle this way. I just never believed 2004 would pass with this administration still in power and at war without a draft.
I was a sailor in the USN from ’77 to ’83 when much of this time we spent either in the Mediterranean off the shores of Lebanon, or Libya or in the Indian Ocean or in the Persian Gulf. After Reagan deployed the Marines to Beirut with orders to sit still for the snipers, but don’t shoot! In short order they bomb us in our barely secured Embassy killing 253 Marines. We had no clear objective and this showed the Arab world weakness for our resolve to deal with their brand of conflict.
We could have had bases on the Arab Peninsula with enough troops to deter any idea of premptive attack, the Turks in our camp, and Iran as a reluctant, but genuine ally in any effort against Saddam, had we just waited, taken our time while closing the noose on him simultaneously. We would have had the kind of resources needed to make Afghanistan a secure state, an example for the world to admire, with Osama on a spit; instead on TV taunting us.
We would have had Saddam bottled up like never before, as well as a World standing eagerly by to help us with the defeating of Terrorists networks worldwide, and yes, Saddam too!. We would have had the kind of financial and military support in a REAL coalition that Desert Storm had, with our Treasury still in tack. Instead our nation is nearly bankrupt, with a drained military, not to mention the huge brain drain in the government since the Republicans took complete power.
If we had Democratic leadership, we would be the natural leader of the world’s democracies, as we should, instead of a diminished democracy feared by our allies, despised by all whom could, and would have been our willing allies.
We would still have surpluses instead of record deficits, the stronger, healthier military, and the love and respect of our allies. We would be a stronger, healthier, respected America we should be, instead of the Republican shame we live with today.
We read now that the Shia’s are evacuating Sunni neighborhoods, and villages, and Sunni’s doing likewise in Shia neighborhoods. We read the streets are alive with the sale of weapons to both sides. Where are our troops?? In the middle! Thank you to the Republican righteous rule, on a race to the End of Days.
Save Democracy, Vote for a Democrat. We may not have another chance to turn this disastrous tide again!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Success in Iraq would mean '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.'
Parse this and it IS very explicit. He clearly stated Iraq was the geographic base of the terrorists on 9-11.
This exchange is PRICELESS:
FRANKEN: But here he's absolutely explicit here. Listen to this again, everybody. Where's the camera?
RUSSERT: All right, we're going to -- we're going to take a break. We're going to take a break. We'll be right back. We'll be right back.
What we didn't get to see, after the cameras cut away, was Russert shoving his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA!!! I'M NOT LISTENING!!! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!!"
cheney says iraq is the "geographic base" of the terrorists who hit us on 9-11. sorry timmy, can't unring a bell no matter how many times you try.
I watched part of this interview where Russert was arguing with Al Franken about the Democrats. Everytime Russert would bring up that most of the the Deomcrats voted to go to war (which isn't true there was never declaration of war resolution in Congress) Franken would always respond they voted, as both sides did, with information falsely given to them by the Bush administration and members of the Pentagon, which in most cases has been proven. Everytime Franken said that Russert defended his boy Bush and brushed the comments away as partisan bickering. The thing that amazes me the most these last 6 years is that everytime the Republicans and their apologists are caught with their pants down their first response is to attack, then deny, then attack again. No one is this corrupted party seems to be able to say, "You know what? I was wrong and I want to apologize." If they did that most Americans would forgive them, this is a very forgiving country, but hardly any Repugs seem willing to ever admit to being wrong
Ekimsitruc wrote: " No one is this corrupted party seems to be able to say, "You know what? I was wrong and I want to apologize." If they did that most Americans would forgive them, this is a very forgiving country, but hardly any Repugs seem willing to ever admit to being wrong"
So the arguement is that if the Republicans apologize that they will win over the American public? First of all, they haven't apologized in the past, and they are now the more powerful (by a lot) party in our nation. I think they see staying mum as advantageous. Secondly, I assume by Ekimsitruc's "Repugs" remark that he doesn't like Republicans, so it sounds to me like people who want to have ammunition against the Republicans are calling for them to apologize. In fact, if they were to accept responsibility, the Democrats would definitely use such an admission to their advantage. There is no honor in politics (on either side.) Thus, unless there is a much larger cry from the public for the Republican party to take responsibility for mismanagement and misinformation, there will be no advantage to owning up (especially if the wool can be pulled over the collective eyes of the media.)
Right wing pundits and politicians slam the "liberal media" 24/7, and how do the media react? With constant stories asking themselves, "Are we biased?"
Al Franken calls Russert naive, and he springs into action, jumping all over Franken. Why doesn't he ever do that to any right wing critics?
This reminds me of that scene from A Few Good Men when Kiefer Sutherland says he specifically ordered the men not to harm Santiago right before he passes along the code red order from Colonal Jessup privately to two soldiers.
If the President and the Vice President did not explicitly say that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Quaeda and 9/11, then where would 67% of Fox News viewers, 46% of CNN viewers and only 16% of NPR viewers get that idea?????
Where did would that idea come from? Was the President/Vice President misleading us? Was the President/Vice President misleading the media? Was the media misleading us? Someone put that idea in our heads. And some people STILL believe it.
Explicitly.
Starwheel nails it!
That it wasn't explicit doesn't matter. The administration -- and everyone in it is up to their eyeballs in innuendo/insinuation/intimation/implication [or any other synonym you'd like to use] for linking Iraq/Saddam to 9-11/WMD/terrorism/threat to the US.
Slice it any way you want. They were not a threat to us. They were contained. They did not participate in 9-11.
In fact, for the 'high and mighty', one might include that they had less to do with 9-11 than we did with the Iran-Iraq war.
What that conversation shows is how picking the fly dung out of the black pepper works when there are flies relieving themselves at the same time. Another good expression that matches the situation is "trying to corner a crook in a round room." They, the Bush gang said everything but no to the extent that the average person heard yes even though the answer was no. If the answer is no then what are we doing in Iraq? Haliburton needs the business? The army needs live testing? The media needs something exciting to report? The undertaker has a surplus of caskets?
Vote the abortion issue and get an abortion for a government.
NBC is certainly making it big in the White House. They now have two fulltime Bush PR executives on their payroll. It is particularly sad when Timmy spends so much time defending the Rethugs. I guest he just got a big pay rise. What wont some people do for money!
NBC is owned by General Electric. Their (GE) interest was in getting the contracts for rebuilding Iraq. They're pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts from the US government to help rebuild Iraq. I hardly would expect them to admit that they were misleading in their coverage and did not present both sides of the argument.
Kind of funny when people get up in arms about the idea that someone on an ABC station might be reviewing Disney movies and therefore give a slant in favor .. If I recall, that was actually kind of a pretty big story! But apparently the same can't be said when it comes to war and securing the rights to multi-million dollar contracts built on the lies of the government. And who gets to make it all happen? Not the media elite. Not the politicians. The soldiers on the frontlines, fighting so a fat cat can get even fatter.
It's disgusting.
As for the topic of whether or not there was an explicit link.. I don't think there even needs to be one anymore. The American public has been brainwashed into fearing Arabs. What does a neocon (e.g., David Horowitz) do when faced with a leftist (e.g., Noam Chomsky)? Depict them as an Arab! It's all you need to do to scare the public at large. (I hope the irony of David Horowitz using a racial stereotype is not lost on anyone.)
It actually occurs more often than you'd think. Want to scare people and make your opponent look evil? Photoshop typical Arab dress on them. And when the "PC Police" get upset, just tell 'em, "Hey, it's the Arabs fault for letting themselves look bad in the first place!"
I realize I kind of went off on a tangent there. But I feel it's important to understand the mindset of the far right. When you have people like Pat Robertson going on TV and saying that all Muslims are Satanic, and you see how heavily these groups influence Republican politics.. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that a great deal of these Christian Coalition-types would immediately equate all Muslims with terrorism. And while I personally wouldn't consider Saddam a Muslim, as much as I wouldn't consider Bush a Christian, the general public doesn't have any understanding of religion outside of what they were raised to believe.
Which made Tim angrier, being called naive or being described as wide-eyed? It's simply amazing that any serious journalist would try to posit that Bush/Cheney didn't make the connection between Saddam and 9/11.
And is anyone else tired of Russert reading from newspapers/ books as he sets up his questions? I used to think that it was almost scholarly. Now, it's just tiresome. It comes across as Russert being to lazy to compose comprehensive questions of his own.
Mass mind thinking is stronger than any drug known to man. The press in general except for a few bright lights goes through the motions of interviews with no real passion for the truth. That would make all the difference. It appears that these television reporters schmooze with the politicians & don't care whether they are conveying accurate information and serving the public trust.
Russert refuses to put the neo-cons feet to the fire...he thinks he's asking "tough questions" but when Bush/Cheney/etc dance around there's no real follow through. No coming back with accurate information.
And he gets offended when someone calls him on it. Have others here noticed that it's the comedians that seem to be doing all the real reporting of news these days?
'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.'
Yeah, now that links 911 with the Iraq war! Weak!!!!!!!
is a bleep up. All the doubletalk in the world won't change the record. Now the question that will be answered come Nobember is have the voters got the message yet. How many bleep ups does it take before they start noticing the doubletalk. Someone has to translate it into a language people can understand. Of course when that is done the doubletalkers doubletalk that. Everyting was yes except the word. How dare you put word in Chaney's mouth.
9-11 was NOT the administration's fault just like it's not the driver's fault the bus ran off the road. You surely don't expect the one in charge to shoulder any of the responsibility for what happened. Now, "go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" Bush's response that is consistent with his before the fact handling of 9-11 that could have been prevented. Like Condi said, they didn't have a clue, all busy with the big war plans for Iraq and couldn't be bothered with reports an attack was imminent.
Did Bush let 9-11 happen to justify the war he was already planning in Iraq or is he just plain stupid?
The best part about it was when Tim claimed Franken was selective. Of course, Russert was selective in not picking the time Cheney said this:
"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."
If that is not explicit enough for Russert I wonder what is?
Intelligent minds can differ over whether Bush and Cheny's comments were "explicit", so if Russert must hang his hat on that word, so be it. I wonder what he things the definition of the word "is" is. Anyway, rather than quibble, I wonder if Russert would have been happier if Franken had said Bush and Cheny deliberately and falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 and Russert never once confronted either of them on it.
As the evidence has shown Iraq was completely entwined with The Islamic terrorists all through the late 90's, if not before, operating training camps and providing financing for terrorism all over the world. This is the truth that none of you will admit. It ties sadaam together with al-qaida and many other terrorists. He is known to have given sanctuary to al-qaida fighters from afghanistan before we invaded. He undoubtedly gave monies that we sent to iraq for humanitarian purposes through the un to terrorist orgs. worldwide. The president has always said this is a war on terrorism and all who support them, nothing less, nothing more. That we would find and destroy them wherever they are and congress agreed so here we are. It helps not one whit that all you people can do is complain like a bunch of teenagers. Islamic terrorism simply must be defeated.
Your post was a bunch of long-ago debunked RNC talking points. Good try though.
Really? Iraq was intertwined with terrorists? Then why did George Tenet say the CIA had no evidence of ANY Iraqi involvement in international terrorism for a decade the last terrorist dealing they link Iraq with was trying to kill President Bush sr in 93. Its the same with all the rest of your spewing. DEBUNKED long ago as every regular here knows. IF you want to play in this league you really need to step up your game.
Liberpublican, you are the one who sounds like a teenager--a smitten one.
"As the evidence has shown ..." Present your evidence.
"This is the truth ..." Why? Because you say so?
"He is known to have ..." Known by whom? Again, show us the evidence.
I'll bet you still believe there were WMD--right?