GMA's Cuomo let Snow claim unchallenged that "there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11"
On the April 30 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-anchor Chris Cuomo did not challenge White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's claim that "there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, and here), President Bush and other administration officials have frequently claimed a connection between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, including the specific assertion of such a link in a letter to Congress at the start of the war.
In discussing former CIA director George Tenet's April 29 interview on CBS' 60 Minutes -- in which Tenet claimed that prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9-11 or any operational act against America" -- Snow told Cuomo: "The fact is the president made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11." He added:
SNOW: So I'm afraid what's happened there is that George Tenet may have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people who may have had political motives in recent years, but there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11.
In fact, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have frequently tried to link September 11 to Saddam's Iraqi regime:
- Bush linked Iraq to September 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."
- In an October 7, 2002, speech, Bush stated:
BUSH: 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. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
- Cheney has repeatedly linked Iraq and the September 11 attacks. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, 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."
From the April 30 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
TENET [video clip]: We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with Al Qaeda for 9-11 or any operational act against America, period.
CUOMO: Well, there it is from the former CIA chief. Is he right, Tony? Is it time for the administration to come clean?
SNOW: Well, wait a minute, Chris. The president's been saying exactly that all along, so I don't know what the headline is. As a matter of fact, I can remember right after September 11 sitting here when I was a journalist -- some of your colleagues -- I believe Charlie Gibson may have been there at the time as well. The fact is the president made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11. So I'm afraid what's happened there is that George Tenet may have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people who may have had political motives in recent years, but there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11. So, yeah.
CUOMO: The implication is that the administration went to war for reasons that wound up not being genuine, according to Mr. Tenet. Now what we have is an atmosphere of pretty predominant distrust with the American people involved with respect to the war. As you know, over 60 percent of Americans believe the administration's information about the war is not accurate. Over half want a timetable for troops being returned. And now you've got the president getting a war funding bill. They say he's going to veto it. Is he out of touch, Tony?
Bigger Story
Tony Snow has returned while he continues his fight against Cancer, I wish him all the best.
I wish him well, too. He's still a liar.
Yes he is a liar. It has nothing to do with his cancer.
I wish him well in his battle against cancer, but not in his battle against the truth.
Of course there was anh effort to link Saddam to bin Laden. The Clinton administration did so in its 1998 indictment against bin Laden. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
That's what the attack on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was all about. William Cohen, Al Gore, et. al. continued to maintain that that attack was justified when they spoke before the 9/11 Commission.
Bin Laden himself linked 9/11 to Iraq when he said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation for the 500,000+ Iraqi children who died as a result of sanctions placed on Iraq. Of course, those sanctions were in place because Clinton said Iraq had WMD and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Did he start a war with that information?
He actually launched a unilateral, preemptive strike againsit Iraq in December 1998. So you think it's all right to kill 500,000+ Iraqi children as long as they're starved to death? What a humanitarian you are.
You'll find that some on here think mass murder is ok as long as the mass murderer has a D behind their name.
You'll also find that some on here are trolls who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
The checkerboard piece is one of them.
and your cult was constantly screaming that he was trying to cover up his BJ ... this even disgusted "liberal" Barbara Bush ...
Nice try, but no cigar. Clinton didn't invade Iraq; Cheney repeatedly implied the connection. Just a year ago, a majority of the troops in Iraq thought they were there to avenge 9/11. Did Clinton tell them this lie?
no, but by coincidence, it happens to be true that fox news is very popular with the troops.
That may be because it's the only network that does not attack the troops, e.g., accusing them of rape and murder even before there has been an investigation. Fox also refuses to air footage of terrorists killing our soldiers and Marines.
And, btw, the average soldier and Marine is far more knowledgeable concerning the situation in Iraq than the blowhard moonbats on this hate site.
YOU are such a moron. The only thing FOX does is feed you the koolaid you so prefer to factual reality. Rude, stupid and uninformed is no way to go through life kevin. Join us here on Planet Earth.
SOLON:
I have often challenged ill-informed moonbats such as you to prvoide an example of Fox News reporters presenting biased reports. Most of these airheads will point to Hannity, who, of course, is not a reporter.
You airheads are probably unaware of the fact that a higher percentage of CBS News viewers (33%) than Fox News viewers (24%) believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's the same CBS News that attempted to use bogus documents to get John "The Bactine Kid" Kerry elected president.
I have seen Fox NEWS claim that a videotape showed collusion between Ben Laden and Saddam even though IN the video he called Saddam an infidel and the Baathists socialists. That was PURE bias, I saw it myself as for the rest
Morons like you probably dont know that when Pew or PIPA polls people on what they know Fox viewers are consistantly the most uninformed
A recent Pew poll testing general political knowledge showed regular Fox viewers were the LEAST informed except for those who got their news from morning shows.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319
Also when tested on three key misperceptions about Iraq FOX viewers were MOST likely to be misinformed.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:YzrQtzlRFfwJ:www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf+Pew+four+misconceptions+about+Iraq+Fox+viewers+most+likely&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The table below shows this clearly. Listed are the breakouts of the sample according to
the frequency of the three key misperceptions (i.e. the beliefs that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved
of the US going to war with Iraq) and their primary news source. Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions— and were three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.
Why not do something useful take your two brain cells rub them together and see if you can start a fire.
I cited the PIPA poll above. Apparently, you cannot read.
What you did was cite ONE instance in the poll where Fox wasnt as bad as the network that was the SECOND worst offfender I linked to the entire poll which shows how abysmal FOX is at keeping their viewers actually informed or more accuratly how GOOD they are at misinforming their viewers. I also showed a more relevant part of the study than your weak cherry picked stat. For some reason the link didnt seem to go through
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fWzI-LYXynAJ:65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf+PIPA+poll+Fox+viewers+most+likely+to+have+misperception&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
I guess by bogus documents you mean the ones of questionable province whose CONTENT has been verified as authentic. Since we KNOW Bush has admitted himself making the time up. And that there would be no reason to make time up if he hadnt been AWOL in the first place.
I guess by bactine kid you are denigrating the service of a man who volunteered for the Navy and on his SECOND tour volunteered for swift boat duty. Who was awarded the Bronze star with a v for valor and a Siver star while Bush checked the DOES NOT VOLUNTEER box, didnt manage to complete his obligation and was stripped of his flying status for refusing to take his MANDATORY physical itself a deriliction of duty. You crybaby conservatives call a war hero's service into question, and the medals of all men who won them to gain cheap political points. Even when the Navy to this day stands behind them in service of a cowardly, hide in the National guard, wouldnt do his duty crybaby. You should be ashamed except of course wingnuts have no ability to feel shame.
That's the same CBS News that attempted to use bogus documents to get John "The Bactine Kid" Kerry elected president.
Okay, loudmouth. Prove it. I want you to prove both that CBS knowingly used bogus documents and that the purpose of doing so was to get Kerry elected. No dancing, no dodges, no "oh come on" bull.
Prove they knew the documents were faked. Not that they didn't check them carefully enough, because that's not what you said. Prove they knew. (You might also expound on why jackasses like you are so focused on whether the documents were faked and totally to the point of hyperbolic expressions of ennui uninterested in the fact that the contents were accurate.)
Prove that the purpose of the story was to help John Kerry get elected. No evasive mouthing of nonsensical right wing platitudes like "well, everybody knows CBS is liberal, so of course...." And no evasive claptrap like "well, they had to know it would help him." Again, that's not what you said. Prove it was the purpose.
Put up or shut up.
As for your slimy reference to "The Bactine Kid," that's just a really lame attempt at a schoolyard slam based on lies and liars so thoroughly discredited as to make anyone that refers to them either a boob, a tool, or both, a classic "useful idiot" incapable of recognizing fact among the tangle of wingnut talking points clanging around in their head.
"CBS knowingly used bogus documents and that the purpose of doing so was to get Kerry elected."
-----
THey did no such thing. The documents were never proven to be bogus. It was shown that it was impossible to get some of the characters that were typed on the documents at the time they were typed. Only that was wrong, as many people showed genuine documents typed on the same typewriters had those same characters.
The secretary who typed the bogus documents that weren't bogus said that the content of the documents used by CBS was exactly the content she had typed.
Please learn what you are talking about before you start spewing right wing talking points that have been debunked many times.
Please learn what you are talking about before you start spewing right wing talking points that have been debunked many times.
Uh, excuse me? Speaking of knowing what you're talking about, didn't you notice that it was Kevin1007 who made the claim about CBS and Kerry and I was demanding that the "loudmouth" prove it, that he "put up or shut up?" And that I said the content of the memo was accurate?
You usually write such useful posts. It's unfortunate that your attention apparently wandered in this case.
I think Wingnuts meant to reply to Kevin-O-Seven's asinine ramblings, and clicked on your post by mistake.
FOX doesn't attack our soldiers. It just wants them to die and get maimed for the greater glory of the Corporate Profit! It tells them LIES about how this war crime is about terrorism, not oil and war profiteering. It tells the folks lies back home about how those who want to stop this war crime are traitors and don't support the troops, we who want the killing and maiming to end. No, FOX doesn't attack our soldiers, it just wants them sent home in wheelchairs after having their legs and testicles blown off by an angry native so that Halliburton and ExxonMobil can make record profits next quarter.
Clinton said for two years that al Qaeda and Iraq were connected. William Cohen, Al Gore, et. al. continued to say so before the 9/11 Commission. Major media outlets made the same claim in 1999 and 2000. If anything, the Bush administration back-peddled from the Iraq-al Qaeda connection rhetoric used during the previous administration.
Their intelligence was telling them that there was a good chance that Saddam was big trouble.
But they didn't invade, did they?
They didn't ignore the info from the weapons inspectors, did they?
Face it, you ain't got diddly-squat, so you repeat bogus talking points. It doesn't matter one bit how many other people thought before 2003 that Saddam was dangerous. None of those people invaded Iraq, and Bush had on the spot information that debunked the false intelligence about Saddam. He gets no pass because others before him were wrong about Saddam. He invaded, not them.
Did you really just try to make the claim that Clinton in 98 tried to link Saddam with 9/11 which happened in 2001? Or is this just another desperate attempt to change the subject?
Yup, he really did just try that one. Amazing. This guy Kevin must be going for troll Rookie of the Year or something. Just today, on another thread, he tried to blame Clinton for 9/11. I guess he's just young, brain-numb, and full of dumb.
Actually, I just figured out that Tony Snowjob meant September 11. 1992.
kevin called me a liar several times on the "media matters" thread. he didn't like my remarks saying bush did nothing about the warnings in the summer of 2001.
Yes, I called you a liar. That's because you lied. The 9/11 Commission contradicts your statement. Even the August 6 PDB, which you moonbats continuously misrepresent, shows that intensive action against terrorism was taking place during the summer of 2001.
If you don't like being called a liar, don't lie.
if you don't like being proven wrong, don't be. from the 9-11 report [chapter 8, titled "the system was blinking red"] page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute." page 260: "he [bush] did not recall discussing the august 6 report with the attorney general or whether rice had done so." obviously there were investigations going on, but no one at the top cared enough to address the concerns. bush set the tone. the system was "blinking red" and bush went on vacation, held no meetings, and issued no orders.
Don't confuse Kevin with facts not contained in his talking points pamphlet.
I think Kevin is wrong on the 9/11 issue, however I think you "Mefirst" are a smearmonger and troublemaker. You have attacked me in the past and attacked other posters like Doris. You are as bad as the trolls that come on here to incite and cause trouble. It is sad that even when you may be right on an issue, you have no credibility because of your attacks on others on here that most do not like you and do not believe a word that comes out of your mouth anymore.
"you have no credibility because of your attacks on others on here that most do not like you and do not believe a word that comes out of your mouth anymore."
And you're who, again, to be speaking for "most"? Call the waaaaaaaaahmbulance.
If you don't like to be called out when you're wrong, like this knuckledragger Kevin and most conservatards, then know your facts and be prepared to defend your position with those facts. Otherwise, don't post here. Go somewhere else where they don't care about facts or reality.
Save the whining.
Well hater, I am not a conservatart. I can not stand Conservatives, I also know that most people on here do not like trolls and you and mefirst are trolls who seem to want to start trouble.
No valid responses , just personal attacks. You fit the bill.
"no valid responses"? hmm, he calls me a liar", and i don't respond with names, but quotes from the 9-11 report. who exactly did i "smear"? i think it's your troll status that's in question.
I'm former military intelligence and have two degrees, so drop the nonsense about being young and stupid.
Yes, I do hold Clinton responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation for Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq. Clinton dismantled much of our intelligence capability, put Deutsch in charge of the CIA and later pardoned him, put and Tenet in at the CIA. The 9/11 pilots also entered this country on Clinton's watch. In the months prior to the end of the Clinton administration, its national security principals talked much more about the threat posed by Iraq and national missile defense than they did terrorism, even to the point of failing to take action after al Qaeda blew up the USS Cole in October 2000. (The moonbat response to the Cole incident is Clinton didn't know who blew up the Cole. That's nonsense. Everyone knew al Qaeda was responsible. In any case, confirmation was not needed. We already knew al Qaeda blew up our embassies in August 1998. That was justification enough to go after al Qaeda after the Cole had been hit two years later.)
condi rice to the 9-11 commission on 4-8-04: "i do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the cole.." also: "on an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the [al qaeda] network. clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." cnn.com, 8-7-2000 headline: "albright stumps to save her budget". in the story: "but the [republican led] senate bill would cut $137 million earmarked for security upgrades overseas."
That was dishonest on your part. Rice was not talking about the Clinton administration striking back at al Qaeda. Obviously, more than three months had already passed by the time Bush was sworn in. Action should have been done immediately after the attack.
everything you don't like is dishonest. 9-11 report page 174: "president clinton was deeply concerned about bin ladin." page 101: "during 1995 and 1996, president clinton devoted considerable time to seeking cooperation from other nations in denying sanctuary to terrorists." "when announcing his national security team after being reelected in 1996, president clinton mentioned terrorism first in a list of several challenges facing the country." and then there was bush. clinton and newt gingrich jointly appointed the hart-rudman commission to recommend anti-terrorism policy for the country. that report was presented to bush, who promptly threw it in the trash and announced that cheney would be in charge of a group addressing counterterrorism concerns. that group never held a meeting.
If that was justification to go, after the Cole incident ... then why did Bush (and the so-called liberal media) not bother going after bin Laden? I mean, I saw an article in the Akron Beacon Journal in Feb 2001 that bin Laden was known to be tied in with that ... and Bush ignored it and wanted to go after Iraq ...
So you don't see our relationship with Israel and massive military build-up in the Persian Gulf since the 1980's to be the main cause of 9/11, but the Clinton administration? I guess you flunk strategic intelligence analysis then.
Ah, another Col Roy????
"I'm former military intelligence and have two degrees, so drop the nonsense about being young and stupid." -Kevin
I'm sorry you seem to have such a problem with facts. You should learn that when you come here, a lot of us like to read. So when you quote something, we usually have the info already or have easy access to it.
Oh WWAAHHHH, another crybaby conservative snivelling that we treat him the way he treats us. We shouldnt call YOU stupid but its ok for you to call us moonbats, airheads, uninformed moonbats and the like? Get over it you are a moron peddling propaganda and spin.
Kevin1007, it seems like you are really committed to what you believe, which is admirable!
Unfortunately, from your posts I surmise that you are so blinded by your beliefs that opening your mind to a different perspective, that the real truths escape your study. (It afflicts both sides, and is rarely a positive thing).
Why not argue out the reasons why Bush and Cheney fabricated links, the strength of relationships, and the general reasoning for going to war? Just to explore the other side...
We can all benefit from understanding, calm, and patience in this time of heightened politically charged news and developments, and I hope you'll be open to pondering the alternative views.
You can't read very well, can you? I said the Clinton administration in 1998 said al Qaeda dn Iraq were cooperating on the production on weapons. I provided a link to their indictment against bin Laden. It's basic English.
Oh, I read very well. I just forgot you were so stupid I had to polish the POINT and shove it under your nose. Topic about Saddam and 9/11. Troll shamelessly change subject. Clinton gone for six years. Him Thomas Jefferson compared to Chimpy McShortbus. YOU MORON.
SOLON:
If you think Clinton has been gone for six years, you can't be that sharp. He never left. The reason Clinton's record of inaction on terrorism is relevant today is because his wife is working to revise that record so she can become the future president. If you moonbats thought Clinton did such a good job vis-a-vis terrorism, why do you get upset when the topic is broached?
Compared to you I am a laser. Is president Clinton the same person as his wife? No, they are two DIFFERENT people. So are you claiming Clinton is STILL president? No he isnt he hasnt been for six years. Try to find someone to explain the concept for you. BUSH has been president for the last six years. Robert Oakley, that is the guy described as Reagans antiterrorism Czar said about Clintons anti terrorism efforts. Overall I give him high marks my only problem is his obsession with Ben Laden. That was before 9/11 which seems to show that his only criticism was off the mark. So lets see. Who gets more credibility here. The guy who headed up Rayguns terrorism effort or some guy on a website who CLAIMS intelligence credentials. Bush was DEEP into operation ignore terrorism. He did make a photo op terrorism task force in April of 01. Then it NEVER MET until after 9/11. But you want to blame Clinton. because he didnt do ENOUGH. It might be true he didnt do enough but shortbus Bush didnt do ANYTHING.
Kevin-O-Seven is exhibiting familiar characteristics...total reliance on tired old talking points, straw man arguments, perpetual chest thumping...I have to wonder if he is our good friend Col. Roy Campbell resurrected.
they have a quick expiration date. all their talking points get refuted and then it's time for a new name.
"Him Thomas Jefferson compared to Chimpy McShortbus. YOU MORON."
Classic. Did you study English under Prof. Tarzan or Prof. Tonto?
Tough for me when I have to talk down to a level a moron like you has SOME chance of understanding. I guess the six year old you usually use to explain the posts to you is on vacation. That is the best I can do trying to communicate with you since you obviously lack a functioning cerbral cortex. Rent a brain, get back to us.
Yes, good excuse to explain away your poor English. Think any of the moonbats bought it?
Quite the Torie, aren't you? A King's Man, a loyalist thru and thru, to the bitter end. God Save the Unitard!
One thing's for certain- you continue to make our points for us. Keep on posting this stuff, guy- nobody will vote R for the next 100 years. Rethugs will become Whigs- irrelevant, a historical footnote.
"IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!!!"
You people are such a joke, and you seemingly don't even know it. Sad, really.
Any of them reading your bilge will immediatly see what a moron you are and understand it perfectly.
Guess what? Clinton lied about Iraq a lot, too.
But what was the credible information available to the Bush administration when they were pushing the case for war with Iraq based on the WMD argument? For example:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intelligence/index.html
Also, stating that Bin Laden himself linked his organization to the Hussein regime by implying that he was taking up cause on the behalf of the nation it was controlling is not a particularly strong argument. Bin Laden, after all, also stated that he conducted the 9/11 attacks on behalf of Saudi Arabia due to the deployment of American troops there following the first Gulf War. Therefore, under the logic that by espousing solidarity with a group, Bin Laden has affiliated himself with it in a tactile sense, the U.S. could also proclaim need for forceful regime change in Saudi Arabia.
"Bin Laden, after all, also stated that he conducted the 9/11 attacks on behalf of Saudi Arabia due to the deployment of American troops there following the first Gulf War. Therefore, under the logic that by espousing solidarity with a group, Bin Laden has affiliated himself with it in a tactile sense, the U.S. could also proclaim need for forceful regime change in Saudi Arabia."
Oops, someone forgot why U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. They were there to enforce UN Security Council resolutions against IRAQ. Think, man.
someone forgot why U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War
A complete non-answer. You wanted to justify "regime change" in Iraq by saying that bin Laden said he was acting on behalf of Iraq. By that same logic, you could justify "regime change" in Saudi Arabia since bin Laden also claimed to be acting on the Saudis' behalf. Not surprisingly, you ignored that inconvenient fact.
What's really bizarre about all this is that you've been flailing and floundering, desperately trying to prove a connection between Iraq and bin Laden - that is, to prove the very thing Tony Snow denied the White House had ever asserted. So what are you saying? Is Tony Snow lying? Or was the White House populated by doofuses? (Not that those are mutually exclusive.)
And let's get something straight: Bill Clinton is irrelevant to this conversation except to make me wonder yet again why the wingnuts always want to discuss foreign policy as if the Bush administration never existed. The invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, not 1992, 1996, or 1998. What the Clinton administration may or may not have believed about al-Qaeda and Iraq is irrelevant. In fact, what the Bush administration believed about those matters in 2001 or even most of 2002 is irrelevant.
What's relevant is if there was any reason to believe in the fall of 2002, in the spring of 2003, if there was or had been a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda or 9/11. And the answer to that is no. All caps, italicized, bold face, underlined. And period.
Think, man
Regarding that, my advice to you is to speak not of what you know not.
Actually, most were there to train the Saudi military in all the US weaponry they buy from us. There is still an ongoing training mission in the country. As for use of Saudi airfields, the no-fly zones were not under any UN resolution. They were technically acts of war against Iraq committed unilaterally by the US and UK. We would use short bombing campaigns to TERRORIZE the Iraqi regime into certain political decisions....and to waste some ordnance so the war industries could get a few new contracts.
Again, strategic intelligence analysis. It all points to crimes against peace and humanity on the part of the US and UK for the sole purpose of corporate profit. Saudis assisted because with the Iraq fields limited to a certain output, oil prices would go up, which they did, and the Saudi princes raked in the cash. This is why the US would not allow the sanctions to be lifted and the Iraqi oil fields to go fully back online.
I don't think I made myself entirely clear when I made the second part of my first comment concerning Saudi Arabia. I was actually attempting to comment on this:
Bin Laden himself linked 9/11 to Iraq when he said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation for the 500,000+ Iraqi children who died as a result of sanctions placed on Iraq. Of course, those sanctions were in place because Clinton said Iraq had WMD and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
I took this comment about Bin Laden linking 9/11 to the sanctions on Iraq as your implying that there was a case for Iraq being complicit to the attrocities that Al Qaeda was responsible for on 9/11 simply because Bin Laden had stated Iraqi suffering as a Casus Belli.
I wanted to illustrate that merely because a madman like Bin Laden insinuates that he is connected to a people, nation, etc. because of his twisted notion of idealism, it does not categorically imply that the goverment in control of that people or nation supports his actions (in the sense of providing actual materiel support, not in the sense of merely approving of the idea of an attack on the U.S.). Bin Laden gave three reasons for his 9/11 attack - the sanctions imposed on Iraq, as you have said, the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as I mentioned, and also America's unreserved support for Israel in regards to territory they have had in dispute with the Palestian people.
My point was that if you were trying to establish a connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11 based on Bin Laden's feeling of concordance with Iraq, that, by such thinking, one might also be able to come to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia (and, indeed, the Palestinian government) were linked to 9/11 as well.
I think LARRYE may have already commented pertaining to this, but I felt I should probably explain myself better personally as well.
The liberals should be happy with this war since it stopped the horrible sanctions against the Saddam regime. You can't sanction Iraq, it's wrong. You can't remove Saddam, it's wrong. And the left wonders why people mock their intestinal fortitude.
you probably wonder why we mock your incoherent posts.
And LH, as usual, you spew your invective and then dance off like the Karl Rove clone you are ("don't touch me!").
You can't kill people in foreign lands on a whim. It's not only wrong, it's EVIL.
Tony 'I say what I want' Snow probably is his own counter-argument because I know Fox *News* aired the prez and vice-prez saying all that crap constantly when he was there...
You'd think with what the man is going through in his personal life he'd come around and quit as the Whitehouse liar and cheif. No wonder he's not worried about chemo, lying for Bush and Co. must have far worse side effects
What's the going price for a conscience these days?
Wow...! I am so happy that Tony Snow is finally admitting that the majority of Republican voters who re-elected Bush in 2004, and who believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, are a bunch of uneducated, misinformed, kunckle-draggers who are probably too stupid to even be allowed to vote. But, Golly-gee-whiz! I wonder where all those people got that silly notion that Saddam was behind 9/11. Uhh... maybe they saw Dick Cheney on Meet The Press.
I think that would have made a beautiful followup question: Where did all these people, including most of our military, get this wrong-headed notion?
Eventually, moonbat liberals get around to attacking those in uniform. I get the impression that Nerzog is a pimply nerd who can't do a single pull up. JSCOTT is undoubtedly in the same category.
Do you have to work hard to be so stupid, is it a gift, or are you just lying. Anyone that can read knows the attack was on Darth Cheney for lying and the press for uncritically passing those lies on.
I'll bet Goerge W. Bush can do more pushups than any of them... and that qualifies him for what exactly, the Senior Olympics? Certainly not the Presidency...
Who says a uniform makes a person immune from criticism? What does a set of clothes have to do with someone's competency or sanity? History is replete with morons and lunatics in uniform, American history no exception. Most of our generals are chosen for their political affiliations and how well they support pork projects. They're so incompetent that they've sat in Afghanistan for five full years without any signs of progress, allowing the Taliban to control two full provinces where they have regrouped and begun to reassert control over neighbouring provinces. Meanwhile, our generals do NOTHING about it.
There's a lot of men walking around this country with stars on thars who haven't a freaking clue how to fight a successful war. And it shows.
Kevin thinks that noting that the troops have been lied to is an attack on the troops. With analytical skills like that, I seriously doubt that he ever worked in "intelligence". Odd that a former "intelligence officer" speaks exclusively in Rush Limbaugh talking points.
People like kevin1007 would claim that the public was fooled by Clinton because he tried to take care of the ObL threat in 1998 ... which hypocrites like K1007 said was "wagging the dog" to cover up a dalliance ... and that morons like K1007 were saying that Clinton couldn't tell the truth to save the Earth ... and now idjits like K1007 are using the "Clinton saw a threat" as absolute evidence ... come on, K1007? Which is it? Clinton couldn't tell the truth, but he was totally honest? (I'm dumbing it down to your level ... absolute black and white, yes or no, off or on, zero or one ...)
Wow this thread is full of "Sandbox Kids" if you don't stop it I will tell your parents!!! :-)
Start with yours. They're right upstairs from you. At some point you really should move out of the basement.
For a prime example, see Kevin 1007, above.
The President maybe, but not the rest of his administration.
Watch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2ZKcgTCZbg
You get the feeling that Kevin1007 stored that story on his desktop for 5 years waiting for the opportunity to use it...
Why can't neocons ever take responsibility for anything? What a bunch of infants.
"Why can't neocons ever take responsibility for anything?"
Megalomania...
And they wonder why they are polling where they are!
The American people may be stupid - but not that stupid.
They are so desperate they can't even plausibly lie anymore - the plausable has been worn out - all that's left is the outrageous.
TONY, TONY, TONY, still full of BALONEY.
Next they'll try to convince us that there is no Santa Claus.
I linked to this very section of that letter just the other day in another discussion.
That letter, right after the invasion, was very dishonest. The Bush Adminstration is consistently dishonest, and another way they were dishonest is the way they tried to link Saddam to 9/11. There was no link, there was no evidence of a collaborative link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden even before the 9/11 commission told us there was no link. It was invented by Cheney et al.
"There was no link, there was no evidence of a collaborative link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden even before the 9/11 commission told us there was no link. It was invented by Cheney et al."
Not true. William Cohen, Al Gore, et. al. told the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant was justified. The justification they used in 1998 was their claim that al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating on weapons productions (VX) at that plant.
Kevin:
You know it, I know it, and the fans all know it. There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. The Clinton era indictment and the attack on the suspected chemical plant had nothing to do later on with 9/11.
Further, the president and especially the vice president, either through direct language or ambiguous locutions (such as the president's juxtaposition of Iraq and a clause about countries whose actions supported the 9/11 attacks), encouraged the idea that invading Iraq somehow was going to help us stop the folks who committed 9/11.
The administration's case for going to war was sloppy at best (tons of rotten assumptions and neocon ignoring of the preponderance of expert intelligence) and criminally dishonest at worst. Read David Corn's book Hubris, or The Assassin's Gate, or Fiasco, or Richard Clarke's book, or virtually any well researched book on the topic. Jeez, read ANY Molly Ivins column before this mindless war started. Or any Jessica Mathews article on the subject. This was crazy from the start. Or ask yourself how in the heck Sadam went from being well contained and essentially no threat (Powell and Rice, 2001) to the No. 1 target in the war on terror.
The administration was less than honest in getting us into this war, insanely negligent in not planning for its aftermath (or letting Defense ignore all the planning State and others had done), and horribly incompetent in executing most things in Iraq after Sadam's government fell. The torture and the dishonest statements about the secret surveillance haven't helped, either.
Look, I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Reagan once, and Bush Sr. once. But there is simply no excuse for virtually everything this administration has done. The deceit, the secrecy, the torture, the incompetence, the "Patriot Act" and the waste are all just sickening.
So, Kevin, until you either agree with everything I am saying, or actually disprove it, please refrain from posting on this site, or callling people names, or any of the other unpleasant, shameful stuff you are doing here rather routinely. You say you are former military (intelligence, no less). If that's true, start acting with some honor.
Kevin was an agent for U.N.C.L.E., and he has the little plastic badge to prove it.
But they lied. They were trying to cover up a screw-up. Just because they SAID there was a link doesn't mean it existed. The admin lied it's arse off trying to say that the strike on Khartoum was legit, because the BBC was on the scene immediately, pointing out that we just blew up a camel medicine factory.
I still remember them telling us they had sand with traces of nerve gas in it...and the BBC showing a factory in a paved industrial complex with NO sand in sight.
Thank the Goddess for foreign news sources that report facts and don't just parrot the official US government excuses.
Wow this thread is full of "Sandbox Kids" if you don't stop it I will tell your parents!!! :-)
Let us get back to Snow’s implication that Bush has been denying any connection between Saddam and 9/11 since January of 2002 (or possibly September 2001). As emphasized in the original MM article, it clearly depends on the narrow misleading restatement of the issue into a question of whether Saddam somehow directly ordered the attacks himself. Analysis at that level, intentionally ignoring any other attempts by the administration to link Iraq to bin Laden, demonstrates that the denial is meaningless.As far as furthering that impression by broader falsehoods, we might want to celebrate the fourth anniversary of the “Mission Accomplished” photo-op carnival by noting that in his speech Buch said:“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”Happy Mission Accomplished to the President and all of his loyal attack dogs, including Mr. Snow!
It's just more clever parsing from the masters of clever parsing. If they were half as good at governing as they are at propagandizing, we would be in pretty good shape by now. The Bush Administration lied to us and they lied to the troops about Saddam Hussein and who knows what else. Every layer of the onion peeled back reveals ever more dishonesty and corruption. No amount of verbal gymnastics from apologists like Kevin007 will change that. All he can do is babble "Yeah, but.....CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!"
The only question remaining is whether or not they'll be held accountable for their immense crimes. Judging from the recent performance of our illustrious "free press", it looks doubtful.
I agree that holding our breath for the press is not going to work. And I still wonder why one of Mario's sons ever went to work for Fox. But what amazes me more is how trolls like Kevin007 have enough time to post as much as they post! I would need to be independently wealthy or have someone paying me to be a professional troll in order to spew that much misinformation. Hmm, ... I wonder?
"but there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11."
*SPIT**Blink*
My response to Mr. Snow's comment is very inappropriate for a gentleman who's just been through treatment for a very serious disease, but I will go so far as to say that maybe he needs to take a little more recovery time.
Tony Snow is apparently trying to to take a "letter of the law" approach in regards to what the Bush administration has said on its official standing on Saddam and 9/11 as opposed to what the administration has attempted to imply. This approach has actually been tried before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
Eric A. Blair would, no doubt, appreciate the subtleties of such doublespeakesque tactics.
Also, contrast Mr. Snow's statements here with Dana Perino's statements not so long ago to Helen Thomas:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/911-perino-iraq/
It seems the old Bush team strategy of invoking 9/11 whenever a hard question pertaining to Iraq and security is posed and then later insisting that any association with Iraq and 9/11 is conjecture on the part of the press is going to be in use for the foreseeable future, ad nauseam.