Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Failing to Learn from History; the Neocon's are Back

host · 05-02-2006, 08:59 AM

In the Steve Colbert video thread, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2055690&postcount=42">ubertuber wrote</a>:

Quote:

Glad you're here abaya - it's always nice to have different faces.

Well, to be fair he didn't JUST say "I also saw a threat in Iraq." There was some other stuff about weapons and resistance to international inspections that characterized the threat he thought he saw. And that's actually how I remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Lots of talk about 9/11, Afghanistan, and terrorism. Next to that, lots of talk about Iraq and the somewhat valid issue of non-compliance with security council resolutions. I heard lots of people arguing that the administration claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11, but I never actually heard that claim from the administration outside of speculative contexts. [I'm now preparing myself for an onslaught of transcripts from host. Host, if that's going to happen, let me know and let's have it in a thread devoted to that topic.]......

so....we'll "fight" here....so we don't have to "fight" over there......

In addition to the lie that Cheney told Gloria Borger, documented in my preceding post, above.....concerning his earlier attempt to link 9/11 "mastermind", Mohammed Atta, with Iraq, there are the following:

Quote:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/30/Op..._Baghdad.shtml
F-bombs over Baghdad
Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials have developed a bad habit of giving ill-tempered responses to legitimate questions.
A Times Editorial
Published June 30, 2004

.....Cheney wasn't just having a bad day. He, President Bush and some other top administration officials have a bad habit of giving ill-tempered - and sometimes inaccurate - answers to fair questions.

For example, Cheney brusquely cut off CNBC reporter Gloria Borger during an interview earlier this month when she tried to question him about his earlier claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in April of 2001. The 9/11 commission concluded that no such meeting took place.

Borger: "Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed . . ."'

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Borger: "I think that is . . ."

Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was that the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that, nor have we been able to knock it down."

Here's what Cheney said to NBC's Tim Russert on Dec. 9, 2001: ". . . It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service. . . ."

and.....

Quote:

http://www.counterpunch.org/hans06262004.html
June 26 / 27, 2004
<H3>Once, They Were Sweethearts

Dick Cheney,
the New York Times and the Myth of the Iraq Connection to 9/11</H3>
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">By
DENNIS HANS
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Fans
of romance are disheartened to see Vice President Dick Cheney lash out
at his long-time sweetie pie, the New York Times, for allegedly distorting
the findings of the 9-11 Commission to make it appear that it had contradicted
statements by Cheney and his boss about the relationship between Saddam’s
Iraq and al Qaeda. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">It
seemed like only yesterday that Cheney and the Times strolled hand in
hand.
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Harken
back to the summer of 2002. In August, Cheney delivered a scary speech
about Saddam’s programs for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
A couple weeks later, on Sept. 8, New York Times reporters Judith Miller
and Michael Gordon wrote a lurid (and now discredited) tale about aluminum
tubes and other things that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/international/middleeast/08IRAQ.html?ei=5070&en=74381685954a6a81&ex=1088049600&pagewanted=print&position=top">
(Read the text of that NY Times story <a href="http://middleeastinfo.org/article.php?sid=1394">here.)</a>

gave credence to Cheney’s warning</a>. That very morning, Cheney popped
up on Meet the Press and cited the Times story as further evidence of
Saddam’s nuclear obsession!
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">“There's
a story in the New York Times this morning — this is — I
don't — and I want to attribute the Times,” <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/meet.htm">said
Cheney</a>. “I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence
sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire,
and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through
this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build
a centrifuge.”
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Yes,
in 2002 Cheney and the Times were quite the item.
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">But
if you had been paying close attention, you already knew that. Cheney
and the Times first got together in 2001 — on the very story that’s
at the heart of the current spat: the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and
in particular, Iraq’s connection to 9-11.
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">In
the past few days Cheney has been trashed in the media — particularly
what passes for the “liberal” media — over an exchange
in a <a href="http://www.fair.org/views.html#borger">June 17, 2004 interview</a>
with CNBC’s Gloria Borger. Have a listen:
<blockquote>
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Borger:
Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned
him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty
well confirmed." 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Cheney:
No, I never said that. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Borger:
OK. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Cheney:
I never said that. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Borger:
I think that is... 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Cheney:
Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported
after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where
he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never
been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down,
we just don't know. 
</blockquote>
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Alas,
as many have now pointed out, Cheney did say what Borger said he had
said. Here’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/9-11_saddam_quotes.html">his
reply to Tim Russert</a> on the Dec. 9, 2001 Meet the Press: “it's
been pretty well confirmed that he [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.”
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">If
only Cheney had added, “I know the meeting has been confirmed
because the New York Times said so.” Why didn’t he? This
is pure speculation, but my guess is that back in 2001 Cheney simply
wasn’t ready to announce to the world that he and the Times were
sweethearts.
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Six
weeks before Cheney’s interview with Russert, in the Oct. 27,
2001 New York Times, the headline declared: “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/international/middleeast/27IRAQ.html?ei=5070&en=aa7f9f25e3f75bd8&ex=1064203200&pagewanted=print">Czechs
Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader</a>.”
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Alas,
there was one slight problem with the headline and the story, which
escaped the editors and the learning-disabled reporters, Patrick Tyler
and John Tagliabue: the Czechs didn’t “confirm” squat.
Rather, they SAID they had confirmed the meeting. That’s a huge
difference, one that would be obvious to a competent cub reporter —
but not to reporters and editors cut from the same gullible and/or servile
cloth as Judith Miller and Michael Gordon. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Littered
throughout the article are variations on the word “confirmed,”
but with nary a hint to the reader that nothing resembling confirmation
had been presented by the Czechs — no audio or video recordings;
no eyewitnesses, credible or otherwise; no visa or airline records indicating
Atta was in Prague when the purported meeting took place. U.S. and other
investigators had already turned up solid, tangible evidence of Atta’s
travels within the U.S. and around the globe, but neither they nor the
Czechs had yet to produce (and still haven’t) a paper trail for
Atta entering or exiting Prague in April 2001. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Nevertheless,
the Times reporters referred to the “official confirmation”
and “today’s confirmation.” They also wrote, “The
Czech authorities confirmed the meeting at a time of spirited debate
in the Bush administration over whether to extend the antiterrorism
military campaign now under way in Afghanistan to Iraq at some point
in the future.” 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">So
why did the Czechs “confirm” on Oct. 26 what they had previously
denied? Tyler and Tagliabue took off their “reporter” hats
and put on their “analyst” hats: “It was unclear what
prompted them to revise their conclusions, although it seemed possible
that American officials, concerned about the political implications
of Iraqi involvement in terror attacks, had put pressure on the Czechs
to keep quiet.” 
That may be the silliest sentence the Times has ever published. The
reporters were suggesting that the Czechs had succumbed to U.S. pressure
in the weeks they were denying a meeting had occurred, but then mustered
the courage to resist the pressure and go public on Oct. 26 with their
(empty) proclamation of “confirmation.” 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">To
fully appreciate the daftness of Tyler and Tagliabue’s reasoning,
bear in mind that back <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/20/international/europe/20PRAG.html?ei=5070&en=cccfd0190c390cb8&ex=1087790400&pagewanted=print">on
Oct. 20 Tagliabue had reported</a> at length on the Czechs’ inability
to confirm the swirling allegations of the meeting — and the advice
they had received from “Washington.” 
“Czech officials,” wrote Tagliabue, “say they do not
believe that Mohamed Atta, suspected of having led the attack on the
World Trade Center, met with any Iraqi officials during a brief stop
he made in Prague last year. The officials said they had been asked
by Washington to comb their records to determine whether Mr. Atta met
with an Iraqi diplomat or agent here. They said they had told the United
States they found no evidence of any such meeting.”
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Given
the sequence — the Czechs at first deny, then confirm —
and given the absence of tangible evidence when they did “confirm,”
one might wonder if the Czechs’ “confirmation,” rather
than the earlier denials, was the product of pressure (or bribes, cajoling
or begging) from U.S. officials or Prague-based CIA personnel. Not Tyler
and Tagliabue.
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">In
any event, the Oct. 27, 2001 story — and the failure of Tyler
and Tagliabue to express skepticism or require the Czechs to put up
or shut up — played a key role in creating the myth of the “Prague
Connection.” It allowed proponents of the Connection to either
pretend or genuinely believe that the meeting definitely took place,
which provided them the basis to speculate that Atta may have discussed
the planned attacks with an Iraqi agent, and if Atta did, then there
was a good chance that Saddam was aware of — and maybe in on —
the 9-11 attacks. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Thus,
the Times enabled Cheney, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney,
its own William Safire and other pundits and talking heads to spread
this myth, which partly explains why as late as August 2003, 69 percent
of the American people thought that Saddam was “somewhat likely”
or “very likely” to have been “personally involved”
in the 9-11 terrorist attacks (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer">according
to this Washington Post poll</a>). 
The Times was not the only enabler. Consider the case of the bird-brained
Buffalo blowhard, Tim Russert. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Back
on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney didn’t offer his “pretty well confirmed”
comment out of the blue. He was responding to a question that Russert
prefaced with quotes. First, Russert reminded Cheney that on Sept. 16,
“five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether
there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you
said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want
to get you to react to.” Next, Russert read from two articles,
the first of which was the Times Oct. 27 story. (According to the transcript,
Russert didn’t mention the Times. A tape of the show would reveal
if the quote and the source was displayed on the screen as Russert read
it.) Russert’s standards are revealed by the fact that he thought
it important to share with viewers the second quote, from a warmonger
with little credibility on Iraq (James Woolsey) published at a place
with even less credibility (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/9-11_saddam_quotes.html">the
oped page of the Wall Street Journal</a>). As for the Times article,
Russert read the lead sentence:
<blockquote>
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">"The
Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer
met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized
hijackings and mass killings were carried out." 
</blockquote>
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Next,
Russert recited Woolsey’s reckless ramblings about what Iraqi
defectors and other sources had to say about an alleged Baghdad training
camp for terrorist hijackers. Russert then asked Cheney, “Do you
still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September
11?” 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Why
do I call Russert “the bird-brained Buffalo blowhard”? He
interviewed Cheney on December 9. The Times story appeared October 27.
The Czechs didn’t produce any evidence in October. Nor in November.
Nor in the first nine days of December. A person billing himself as
a “journalist” might have begun to get curious. Not Li’l
Russ. Not the chip off of Big Russ’s block. 
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">Consider
CNBC’s (and U.S. News and World Report’s) Borger. She had
Cheney’s 2001 quote, yet when he denied that he had said what
Borger KNEW he said, she let it slide. Granted, her spinelessness in
2004 played no role in spreading the Prague Connection fable in 2001-03,
but it is indicative of her, well, spinelessness.
<p align="3D" margin-left:="margin-left:" 40%;="40%;" margin-right:="margin-right:" 5%;background-color:="Lightgoldenrodyellow;" margin-bottom:="margin-bottom:" 2em;="2em;" padding:="padding:" 1em;="1em;" border:="border:" groove="2pt;font-family:" palatino="palatino" linotype,="linotype," new="New" century="Century" schoolbook,serif="Schoolbook,serif" justify="justify">In
my view, people like Borger, Russert, Tyler and Tagliabue have important
media jobs not in spite of their incompetence and servility but BECAUSE
of those qualities, which never go out of style. There’s always
a place in the corporate media for “journalists” who know
how to stay on the good side of powerful people who have the blessing
of the permanent Washington establishment.
Dennis Hans is a freelance writer who has taught American Foreign Policy at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg. His essays have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald and a host of places online. He can be reached at HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu

The cardinal "sin" is the 9/11 hijacking "ringleader" met with Saddam's intelligence officer, just 5 months before 9/11...blah...blah...blah story that Cheney said, on television, was "pretty much confirmed"....when it wasn't...and he knew it wasn't.

The followup by the "lap dog" press, imprinting this story in the minds of the American people, only added to the travesty. Without Cheney's "pretty much confirmed", comment, this would not have been a "center piece" indictment of Saddam's complicity.

Cheney is obviously aware of this, and that is confirmed by the curious risk he took....denying his own, previous televised statement, in a more recent televised statement, when he responded to CNBC reporter Gloria Borger's question. If it wasn't damning to admit that he told Russert that it "was pretty much confirmed", why would he risk telling such a blatant lie, to Borger?