Blitzer did not challenge Snow's false claim that Bush "never argued" that Saddam was involved in 9-11
On the May 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer did not challenge White House press secretary Tony Snow's claim that President Bush "never argued" that "somehow Saddam [Hussein] was involved in September 11th," nor his assertion that "[w]e've never made that argument." Blitzer also did not challenge Snow's suggestion that Al Qaeda had a "relationship" with Saddam and that the fact that "Abu Musab Al Zarqawi [was] on Iraqi soil" was evidence of such a connection. Yet as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here here, here, and here), President Bush and other administration officials have frequently claimed a connection between Saddam and the September 11, 2001, attacks, including the specific assertion of such a link in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. Moreover, neither the 9-11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, nor, more recently, a report from the Inspector General of the Defense Department found any evidence that Saddam ever had an "operational relationship" or cooperated with either Al Qaeda or Zarqawi.
Media Matters for America noted that on April 30, Snow made a similar claim that went unchallenged by Good Morning America co-anchor Chris Cuomo. Snow asserted that "there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11."
During the interview on The Situation Room, Blitzer noted that former CIA director George Tenet said in his new book At the Center of the Storm (HarperCollins) that "there was never any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda." Snow responded by suggesting that Zarqawi's presence on "Iraqi soil" demonstrated a relationship with the Iraqi government. Snow then claimed that neither Bush, nor his administration, ever linked Saddam to the attacks on September 11:
BLITZER: All right. In recent days, George Tenet in his new book says there was never any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda, and now we all know they've never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, two basic points justifying the war that clearly did not materialize.
SNOW: Well, let's take a look at both of them. Number one, it's interesting, people have done a number of things to try to parse Al Qaeda and the relationship with Saddam Hussein. You did have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Iraqi soil. And apparently [Abu Ayyub] Al Masri, the man that everybody is trying to get right now as the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was there also, at least in 2002.
But having said that, one of the things the president never argued -- a lot of people have attributed to him -- is that somehow Saddam was involved in September 11th. He wasn't. We've never made that argument.
However, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have frequently tried to link September 11 to Saddam's 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.
- 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."
Additionally, the 9-11 Commission found "no evidence" that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda "developed into a collaborative operational relationship," and a September 8 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." Also, on April 5, the inspector general of the Defense Department declassified a report that reviewed the pre-Iraq war intelligence gathering activities of the department's Office of Special Plans, run by then undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas J. Feith. While the report states that the actions of Feith's office were "inappropriate," it also reports that "[t]he Intelligence Community discounted conclusions about the high degree of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida," adding that it is "noteworthy" that the post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein and other former high ranking Iraqi government officials "as well as document exploitation by [the Defense Intelligence Agency] all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as The Washington Post reported.
From the May 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: All right. In recent days, George Tenet, in his new book, says there was never any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda, and now we all know they've never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, two basic points justifying the war that clearly did not materialize.
SNOW: Well, let's take a look at both of them. Number one, it's interesting, people have done a number of things to try to parse Al Qaeda and the relationship with Saddam Hussein. You did have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Iraqi soil. And apparently al-Masri, the man that everybody is trying to get right now as the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was there also, at least in 2002.
But having said that, one of the things the president never argued -- a lot of people have attributed to him -- is that somehow Saddam was involved in September 11th. He wasn't. We've never made that argument.
But let's face it. Saddam was part of the terror network. He was paying bounties to people who were killing Israelis. He was somebody who made it absolutely clear that he was going to try to do what he could to contribute to the terror network. That part remains unquestioned.
The second thing is, as far as weapons of mass destruction, one thing George Tenet does not argue is that intelligence at that time didn't show that there were weapons of mass destruction. Everybody agreed. Democrats went to the floor of the Senate and said, "There are weapons of mass destruction. We must not wait for the threat to be imminent. We must strike."
We had Democrats in the House of Representatives do it. We had members of both parties. So what's happening now is that people somehow are trying to attribute bad motives to an intelligence community, which worldwide had come to the conclusion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't, and that's one of the reasons why we've reformed the intelligence community.
BLITZER: The State Department, in its annual report yesterday, said that terrorism worldwide is up 25 percent this year as opposed to the previous year. It looks like the situation is not going in the right direction.
Media Matters is wrong on this. None of the examples that Media Matters provided proved that Bush argued that Saddam was involved in 9-11. He merely argued that Saddam harbored terrorists and was sympathetic to them. He never said that Saddam was involved in planning the events on 9-11. This is factually incorrect on Media Matters part.
Direct from Think Progress (not my words, direct c&p!): Here’s what the resolution authorizing force against Iraq said:
And Bush during his major Iraq policy speech, just prior to Congress’ vote on the Iraq authorization in Oct. 2002:
That's not surprising. Bush has always tried to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda. But that's not the same as linking Suddam to 9-11. Bush never linked Suddam to 9-11, but only linked Iraq to Al-Qaeda. If you want to argue that there is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, then go ahead. But that's not what this thread is about.
So, just who do you think "high level contacts that go back a decade" refers to if not Saddam or someone in his cabinet?
Again, he's linking Saddam to Al-Quaeda. He never linked Saddam to 9-11. He never said that Saddam actually helped Al-Quaeda orchestrate the 9-11 attacks. He would never make that assertion, because there is absolutely no evidence of that.
"He would never make that assertion, because there is absolutely no evidence of that."
LMAO!!!!
Pretty significant considering what's happened, don't you think?
What assertions did we get based on the "evidence" that the Bush regime did have?
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
"We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press." --
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
"We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
Unless I missed it, Bush still has yet to admit that he and his cronies were wrong about any of this. I have not yet seen any formal apology to the families of the soldiers that were killed, permanently wounded, or become mentally ill as a result of his incompetence. All he can do is deny, divert, and come up with new justification.
Or he can play with the train set his mother gave him for his birthday.
It's very simple, you see. It's kind of like arguing that automobiles, not man, are responsible for global warming. By the same logic, Bush can argue that Al Qaeda is connected to Iraq, but that doesn't mean that Saddam, who is the dictator of Iraq, is being connected to 9/11, which was carried out by Al Qaeda. See? It's easy if you park your brain at the door.
Ask Bill Clinton, he said he bombed a factory because Iraq had provided intelligence to Al Quaeda.
Do you get some sort of satisfaction by posting nothing but lies?
It was not an aspirin factory, and one of the strikes ordered by Clinton missed bin Laden by a matter of hours.
It was a factory as far as I understand it. Do you know something different? What Clinton did was wrong and outrageous, just not nearly as outrageous as starting a whole war based on a false pretext. That is, Clinton only bombed one factory on a flimsy pretext.
RINO
you aremistaken
True, he never said "Saddam," he said instead,"Iraq." He then goes about conflating the two so that the desired impression is received. Saddam is bad guy and Iraq may have been connected with 9/11. That's the message. That's why so many people have that impression.
He said that Iraq was harboring terrorists. He never said that Iraq was involved with planning or carrying out the 9-11 attacks. That's the difference that Media Matters doesn't seem to understand.
Yeah, but even in the excerpt of Bush's speech ALL the buzzwords were together. Saddam, Iraq, Al Queda, 9/11 practically all mentioned in one breath. If you think that even that simple juxtaposition of words doesn't give an impression of a relationship within a media consumer's mind, then I'm guessing that the very idea of "reading between the lines" is a concept far beyond your reckoning.
At the time we went to war with Iraq, we did not know if Iraq was involved with 9/11. MMFA's blather that Bush claimed that Saddam was the mastermind is just bunk. Al Quaeda had ties with Saddam, Saddam supported terrorism, and had been uncooperative and seeking to expand his wmd program. But at that time we really didn't know if there were ties to 9/11 and could not rule it out.
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11? CHENEY: “Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that—it’s been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
Pete, You didn't finish the quote, and the disclaimer in context is important;
"Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue we want to pursue"
"pretty well confirmed"
He also said he had no idea what the purpose was or what transpired.......why did you leave that out? That certainly does not say that Iraq was involved in 9/11 since the VP is saying there is no information on what happened in that "pretty well confirmed" meeting.
Yes, because Cheney probably is suggesting that they were arranging a bowling match.
Ya think? I guess it could have been if he had some "spare" time and wanted to knock down a few pins. Possibility.
tommy, once again backed up to his goal line, punts the ball.
It amazes me that people argue that the administration was "technically not lying". Bill Clinton was "technically not lying" when asked whether there "is" a relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky. Clinton said "no", which was "technically not lying" -- the relationship had ended earlier and "is" was interpreted self-servingly by Clinton as being used in the present tense. Nonetheless, it was the basis for Clinton's perjury because he obviously intended to deceive even though his answer may have been arguably truthful.
President Bush did the same thing, but on a much more important subject(IMO). Bush told the "truth", but he was being deliberately and blatantlydeceptive at the same time, which only becomes more obvious when you see how carefully he chose his words at the time.
I totally agree with you, and wish this point was raised more often.
Pretending to honor the truth when secretly trying to deceive people is even worse than outright lying!
The Republicans do this all the time. They lead their supporters to believe that they hate homosexuality, but look at how they protected Foley, a sexual predator, to help their cause. That's hypocrisy. They claimed that they would not be corrupt, but they became very corrupt in record time - absolute power corrupts absolutely! Pretending that they help support a Moral Majority, when it turns out that their leaders are a bunch of adulterers and drug abusers and bribe takers... Hypocrites.
wink, wink, nudge, nudge
"At the time we went to war with Iraq, we did not know if Iraq was involved with 9/11."
-----
It was 18 months later. We knew for a fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Just as we do now.
Did you even bother reading the letter from the president to the speaker of the house?
"I have also determined 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, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Rino is indeed correct here, I have never seen or heard Bush directly link Saddam to 9/11. He may have conflated all sorts of diabolical forces at work to attack us on 9/11, but he has never said that Saddam was directly involved.......because there has never been any evidence to support that whatsoever.
So you don't even think it was strongly implied by this administration?
The thread specifically states "involved", not some implied involvement.......Bush has never said that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Bush and Co made the case for war with the American public by linking 9/11 to Iraq. Everyone knows this, they knew what they were doing.
Again, another false statement without any documentation. If you can find a speech by Bush where he said Iraq helped plan or carry out the attacks on 9-11, I'll take back everything I've said.
Rino
I will give you that, I never saw the connection as being serious on either side. In my mind the war was sold on WMD. I also do not believe the administration pushed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 , I took VP Cheneys words on Meet the Press on 9/16/01.
you took them where?
Of course. This administration was far too clever to say anything that was an outright lie. They were very careful about their words as Tony Snow well knows. The administration took great pains to mention Saddam, Iraq, Al Qaida and 9-11 together as often as possible. (There are literally scores of examples of this BTW) Intelligent people saw what the members of the Bush Administration were doing and realized it was all puffery. It worked like a charm on the rabble apparently by the often cited opinion polls at the time which asked if the respondents believed Iraq/Saddam was behind 9-11.
This doesn't mean the administration should get a pass on this for avoiding an obvious lie. To the contrary. Their apparently blatant intention was to deceive, so no technicality will suffice at getting them off of the hook here. MMFA could have worded this article more precisely, but there is no doubt at all what the administration did here. They should be roundly condemned for it.
Rhino your statement is false. Read the letter from the president to the speaker of the house before you keep spouting this non-sense. It was attached as part of the MMFA story, which you obviously didn't bother reading before you came here to blindly defend the President.
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11? CHENEY: “Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that—it’s been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
See my earlier post for the entire quote, in context.
"pretty well confirmed"
so tommy, all cheney meant to say was that atta and the iraqi agent might have had tea and cookies. nothing more sinister than that?
Whatever point he was trying to make aswering a QUESTION about 9/11 with the statement about Atta and Prague what he said was an outright lie. It was NOT pretty well confirmed in fact the FBI was saying they were pretty sure they knew where Atta was during this time and he wasnt in Prague. It was way more that questionable and not anywhere NEAR confirmed
Of course he never said it outright Tommy,
Even Bush isn't that dumb? Bush and Cheney merely wanted to link Iraq with Al-Quaida in the public's mind. They figured that would be good enough to get what they wanted: War with Iraq.
Now they bear the responsibility for this fiasco: over 3,000 U.S soldiers dead and 25,000 maimed, and no end in sight. ... Oh, I forgot, they're Republicans, they don't take responsibility for anything, but they sure as hell can lie, can't they?
Our reputation in tatters, and our fine military decimated.
If he never said it, then he never said it.......and this is misinformation on the part of MMFA for putting this thread here.
based on tommy's posts, one could think he's a game playing idiot. i don't know, it hasn't been proven, but if you look at....... i mean i'm not saying it, it's going to take further study....
Oh it gets better.
Are you stalking him? We all know that any comments from Tommy from more then a day ago are off limits.
Oh I know. It's creepy.
Of course, in this case he posted those two blatantly contradictory sentiments on the same day.
Right. And the dodge here, used by Bush and the Bushie poster above, is that the words "Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the planning and execution of the attacks of 9/11" were never used.
Of course, if 50% of Americans believe SH was responsible, I guess that's as open to debate as Intelligent Design.
More topics for debate;
New Mexico: State or foreign country?
Nuclear: pronounced Noo-klee-er or Nook-yul-er?
GW Bush: Dim preppy or badass cowboy?
And to get an idea of who will be forcing the debate, check this survey
So, because some in the public are ill-informed about this, and dozens of other issues, then Bush is to blame for a link he never directly made? Wow, that's rich.
Interesting interpretation, Tommy. crazy interesting.
Yeah. How on earth did all of those people misunderstand all of those administration speeches mentioning Saddam, Al Qaida, 9-11 and Iraq within milliseconds of each other. How could anyone possibly get the misguided impression that they weren't at all somehow related?
How could anyone possibly blame the President for doing that? So unfair. I mean -- it isn't like the President really wanted people to believe something self-serving he knew to be untrue.
I'm dissapointed Tommy.
Do you honestly believe that Bush and Cheney did not purposely link 9/11 to Iraq to get the public on board for this war?
Again. This has been explained over and over. Bush never linked Saddam to 9-11. There's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. Case closed.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.
President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.
They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.
We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
We don't know.
Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.
Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.
[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
Keep trying, nothing yet....
Did you even bother reading the letter from the president to the speaker of the house?
"I have also determined 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, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
it's very clear. bush mentions one country only, iraq, and then directly links them to who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9-11 attacks. tommy, as usual, ignores the evidence in front of his face and moves on to the next post.
It's kind of sad to continue making false arguments when the evidence is right in front your face.
Tommy,
I think if you take the argument too literally, you miss what the administration was pretty obviously trying to do. They wanted to create a false impression without technically lying. That is blatant deceit. They do not deserve a pass for it.
Hey, Monk, Rino said "case closed" before you posted all of that.That means it doesn't count.
If you can show us a speech either made at the time saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11, either strategically or in the planning of it, then we will all share that disappointment.
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11? CHENEY: “Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that—it’s been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
Cheney simply said it was a possibility. At the time it was a possibility. Nobody knew for sure whether or not Saddam was involved with 9-11. But saying that something is possible is different from arguing that it is a certainty that Saddam was involved in 9-11. It was also Cheney and not Bush. This thread is about Bush.
"pretty well confirmed"
"pretty well confirmed that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague"
Right. "Pretty well confirmed" that Atta went to Prague. Not that Atta actually talked to Suddam about the 9-11 attack plans. As Tommy poster earlier:
Cheney: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue we want to pursue"
How many times do we have to respond and debunk this out of context post, Pete? This is like the third time you've posted it and you still leave out the ending disclaimer and it's context.
Why?
why don't you explain then tommy. if cheney was not trying to link iraq to one of the 9-11 hijackers, what was he doing? your explanation?
Cheney was still USING IT TO MARKET THE WAR. The whole thing was, in fact, UNCONFIRMED, not "pretty" and not "well". It came from a source that had a reputation for being unreliable. The whole thing was a WAS A BULL**** TALKING POINT among many used to convince the masses.
Pretty well confirmed that Atta met with ANYONE in Prague is an outright lie.
Yeah he was in Prague in 1994 and 2000 the meeting was suposed to be April 9 2001 The FBI doesnt believe it Atta was anywhere NEAR Prague at THAT time
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1594
The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on April 11, where he and Shehhi leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida. We cannot confirm that he placed those calls. But there are no U.S. records indicating that Atta departed the country during this period. Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab. They have also reviewed pictures from the area near the Iraqi embassy and have not discovered photos of anyone who looked like Atta. No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.
Before 9/11 many in the world believe that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
Imagine the 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one horror like none we have known. George H. W. Bush 1/28/2003
When Bill Clinton disputed the word "is" I'll bet you said he's just trying to cover his a**. Take to same preference with Bush and 9/11. Each and every one of you know that Bush used the trauma of 9/11 to wage his war with Iraq. He used the 9/11 reference constantly along with those supposed "wmd's and mushroom clouds" to, if not outright say that 9/11 and Saddam were linked then to say they were connected simply because they were "terrorists".
He's to blame for a link he implied...strongly...again and again and again.
It looks like the situation is not going in the right direction
Wow, now I know why Blitzer gets paid the big bucks...
Yes, I believe an appropriate response is...
No sh*t, Sherlock!
OK, so bush (lowercase intentional) and his handlers can IMPLY, INSINUATE, CONFLATE, INTIMATE, INFER, HINT AT, ALLUDE TO, OR DELICATELY SUGGEST that Iraq (and by virtue of association, it's leader) was connected to those who attacked us on 9/11 and that's why we have to attack them, but since he never actuall SAID THE WORDS "Saddam planned 9/11" then we are simply speculating.
OK, you've warmed up on us, now you can go peddle that crap to the bush 30%.
"but since he never actuall SAID THE WORDS "Saddam planned 9/11" then we are simply speculating"
No, you're simply false.
Are you ****ing kinding me. How dishonest can you be. OF
Interesting that the Soros -to -MMFA connect the dots crowd seems completely amnesiac and literal about this issue.
And who would be in that connect the dots crowd you're referring to? Can you show me one post I did to accept that connection?
Tommy, if you're not in that crowd, then I wasn't talking about you.
TOmorrow will get a statement saying that they never said that they knew for certain that there were WMDs. Tommy And Go pick convenient times to be so litteral.
As a politician, never make a statement you may have to deny. Instead, imply, imply imply.
"Hey Bob, I'm not saying your a pedophile or anything, but I did tell the police that theres a pretty good chance they might be able to find some Kiddie porn on your computer."
Media Matters for America noted that on April 30, Snow made a similar claim that went unchallenged by Good Morning America co-anchor Chris Cuomo. Snow asserted that "there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11."
Clearly Snow is lying because an attempt has been to link Saddam Hussein to 9-11 through Al Qaeda (guilt by association) as the common medium as documented by others, Tommy and Rino are just limiting their arguments to the title alone while ignoring the substance. I'll say that this all boils down to your definition of involvement/involved and how it is being used. It is a (wisely chosen) generic term which could be used to mean direct (no 3rd party) or in-direct (read: guilt by association with a third party) based on qualifier(s) used and/or the context of which it was invoked.
wazup with all these f*ckin italics!
This is nonsense.
Rhino Hunter and others who insist that Bush never tried to connect Saddam and 9/11 are hiding behind semantics and word games. It's totally dishonest, and they know it.
No, Bush and Cheney did not literally connect all the dots, but they made very strong implications that they believed Iraq was involved in 9/11. Deny it all you want, but it doesn't change a thing. Do you think it was an accident that Bush so often combined 9/11 and Iraq in the same speeches? GMAFB.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-sekoff/state-of-the-union-911-_b_14724.html
Yeah Nerzog,
Apparently, when conservatives can't seem to muster the audacity to lie, then,
They pull out the Thesaurus, start playing word games, and dance around on the head of a pin.
What's nonsense is this whole implication argument, by most likely the same defenders of Bill Clinton when his "is", "is" parsing idiocy was used.
The fact is that Bush may have selectively used evidence to support this war and put the best possible face on the reasons for invasion, but he did not argue that Iraq was ever responsible for 9/11. That is an undeniable fact.
So, you will allow then that Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman because you can argue that oral sex isn't sex, right? Did you read the highlighted part of the leader to the speaker of the house that is about post #21? So, Bush has to say, overtly, "Saddam ordered 9/11" for him to make a connection?
Why do so many of our brave men and women think they are fighting in Iraq? The clear majority, as of a few years ago, think they are fighting there to avenge 9/11! Why would they think this? Are you calling them ignorant or did our President give them that perception? C'mon people!
Polls from just over a year ago showed that about 90% of our troops thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Everyone who thinks that they just came to that conclusion on their own please raise your hand.
the only fact in evidence is you are a fool;
and every other instance MMFA and others have posted in responce that you ignore like the coward you are keeps on proving what you really are.
What's nonsense is this whole implication argument, by most likely the same defenders of Bill Clinton when his "is", "is" parsing idiocy was used.
Prove it!
(You can't? Didn't think so. In any event, your point is irrelevant.)
"What's nonsense is this whole implication argument, by most likely the same defenders of Bill Clinton when his "is", "is" parsing idiocy was used." --tommy
I find it absolutely stunning that you would seem to condemn Bill Clinton for doing precisely what President Bush has done with regards to Iraq/9-11 connections.
Clinton was technically telling the truth by his reasoning, but it was an obvious attempt at deception. Why do you allow President Bush to get a pass for doing the exact same thing?
If the President's intent was to deceive (as it should be pretty obvious to you by now), then why do you call Clinton a parser, but not Bush? Interesting.
Here's a couple of interesting stories
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,887439,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
I see that Rhino is retreating to the "Cheney said it, not Bush" defense.
This from Bush: "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida, in the Sudan."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/
See? It's so simple. They didn't connect Saddam directly to 9/11, only to the organization that carried out 9/11. Plausible deniability while still planting the connection in people's minds. It has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.
Tommy is apparently not familiar with the fact that arguments can be either explicit or implied. MMFA's assertion is that Bush did argue that Saddam and 9/11 were linked. There's alot of evidence for an implied argument. Tommy even admits to this "conflation."
In other words, Tommy's criticism of MMFA on this one is wrong.
<>Hello all, Remember that those who ignore history are doomed to repreat it. Consequently, if we fail to force these scoundrels to face the Truth and Justice necessary to end such evil, similar scenarios are guaranteed to occur again and again in the future. The pivotal import of Yellow Cake, False Flags, & "Big Time" Evil Remember that those who ignore history are doomed to repreat it. Consequently, if we fail to force these scoundrels to face the truth and justice necessary to end such evil, this scenario is guaranteed to occur again in the future. The combination of George Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm, Eisner & Royce's The Italian Letter and the books and research of many others in recent years now provides enough of a foundation for everyone to finally discern that 9:11 was a "false flag" operation against both the American public and the Muslim world. Likewise, the uncanny synchronicity of Al Qaeda's videos and other activities perfectly timed to reinforce and support the Bush/Cheney administration's political needs coupled with the actions of the Bush admin actually serving to strengthen Al Qaeda's position, now makes perfect sense. The apparent mistakes and chaos that have characterized the Iraq war, the easily prevented resurgence of the Taliban, and permitting Bin Laden to escape Tora Bora to a safe haven in Pakistan all fit the same pattern. It's hard to maintain a state of continuous war if you allow your made-to-order enemies to be defeated too early. It is likewise hard to remain a "war president" if your wars end too soon! The letterhead used to forge the "Yellowcake letter" that was then used to help "sell" the Iraq war was stolen in Rome on 1/1/2001, more than nine months before 9:11 and before Little W. became president. Consequently, the use of the "Yellow-Cake Lie" was obviously discussed and planned before then! The import of this fact is that the Niger embassy in Rome was burglarized, before Bush became president, to lay the groundwork for the web of deception used to sell the Iraq War, after 9:11. More importantly, it is highly unlikely that the Iraq war could ever have been sold to the American public, without something like 9:11 happening first. Any excuses of other uses for the stolen letterhead are laughable since the letterhead burglary would have been pointless, without 9:11. This evidences foreknowledge of those attacks, a full nine months before they occurred, among other things!
<><>[link to forgingnewparadigms.blogspot.com<]
I just realized the problem. Conservatives don't like thinking in shades of gray...everything has to be black and white. That's why words like "imply" have no meaning for them.
Not so, I am a big fan of pearl gray, dove gray, silver gray, blue gray, and charcoal gray.......and it looks smashing with black and white if it's worn right.
Flirting With Truths
For the first time, Wolf Blitzer appears to be flirting with the truth. All be it a very important truth, but he only walked up to the door with the truth. I would like to see him ask some of the "framing the issue questions" like:
1. Do you think we should of pulled out of Iraq after there were no WMDs?
2. We have executed Saddam for crimes against humanity; do you think, given the fact well over 1 million Iraqis have died for things we have found to be untrue or "made to fit the policy", George W Bush should suffer the same faith?
3. Why is President Bush's actions not scene as the crime it is? Does the American people have the stomach to "connect the dots?"
In a conversation I had with my 10 year hold yesterday, he ask me:" Daddy, if Saddam was hanged for killing all those people, Bush don't get the same thing for what he done."
My son's question was profound in a deeper sense then just his logical train of thought. In one way, he was saying America is overlooking murder. Logically, when we found out that the information was made to fit the policy, and to some degree, have witnesses and physical proof to show just that.
Sometimes I get caught up in the who did this. Or, will this bill pass or not ? Suddenly, I am reminded of the ugly denial knot in my stomach. I know very will I would be a assessary to a capital crime if I were to knowing kill someone who I knew had no write to die. Yes that right die.
Joseph
Well, at least its good to see that Tony Snow is feeling better & back to work deceiving the American people.
Did Not Skip a Beat
It was almost like he never left. He failed badly in trying to make the case too much proof existed for the lame run up to war in an interview with Wolf Blizzer today. I am sorry he has cancer, but I wish he would take his lies back to the hospital he was discharged from. His lies are just as sick as he was.
Joseph
A couple things:
1) How does Tony Snow sleep at night?
2) I need to print this out and show my friends how (supposed) rational people can claim that Bush never said Saddam had a hand in 9/11. The fact that people actually believe this is maddening, sad, and unbelievable.
3) Not that there should be anyway, but how is there any remaining argument after reading this:
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."?
There are such silly arguments being used in this post. Kinda like this one:
Bob hates ALL black people.
Barack Obama is black.
I never said Bob hates Barack Obama.
So, what did we learn:
Conservatives think that our troops are misguided if they think they are fighting in Iraq to avenge 9/11. They think so little of them that they think the President and Vice President did nothing to further this notion. Who misguided them then?
We also learned that implied arguments don't work with conservatives. For some to be real, there must be no hinting, no actions done, just pure explicit verbatim explanation or whatever the speaker is saying is only to be taken at face value. Conservatives don't play word games. The push poll in South Carolina about whether voters would vote for McCain knowing he may have fathered a black baby was not an insinuation that McCain had indeed fathered a black baby, but an honest question about how voters would feel in that situation, correct? I see how it is now. They are immune to lies and always are straightforward with the American people and there are no hidden meanings in what they say or imply. For a conservative to mean what he or she says, he or she must say it in no uncertain terms. Example: Strom Thurmond never said he was a racist, but he ran on a segregation platform so therefore he was not racist, but felt the races should be seperated based on traits or qualities known only to him, right? Likewise, when people voted for him, they only felt the same way, right?