Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-28-2005, 12:00 PM   #41 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
on what possible basis do you say that, alansmithee?
because you do not like the article?
because you object for some reason to truthout as a source for anything?
because you object to its content?
because you object a priori to sydney blumenthal?
where is the problem with linking cheney in bushworld to cheney under nixon?
what is the problem with looking at the history of the neoconservative movement in general?
on what possible basis could you object to viewing contemporary tendencies in neocon politics/ideology in a historical context?
I don't care for the article because I find it inaccurate and light on meaningful content. And there is no problem with linking Cheney to the Nixon Administration. But if you allow for that, you must also allow for comparisons to be drawn to the Clinton Administration, the Carter Administration, the Regan Administration, et al. You can't just cherry pick where you want to draw comparisions from if they are valid. But liberals like to opperate like Clinton (honestly, the only meaningful Dem pres since FDR) operated under some sort of separated from time bubble, where he should be immune to any negative associations. My only point is that if you want to make some comparisons, don't get angered when another equally valid but less flattering association is made.

Quote:
if there is an analytic argument to be made about cheney's particular views within the neocon movement in general that links them to potentially authoritarian outcomes, on what basis could you possible object to the fact of that argument?

if you disagree, then fire away--but you are not simply disagreeing--you, like ustwo and the other sorry examples of conservative denial you see on this sad sad thread--are trying to make the argument go away as such.
what are your motives?
i do not see anything coherent in your accusation about ad hominem...i do not see anything considered in your attempts to dismiss concerns that folk who disagree with you politically might have about cheney or any other far right ideologue....all i see is yet another attempt to deal with dissonance by looking to erase it.
Again, if actual discussion is wanted, I would be all for it. But this thread is the equivalent of asking "So, when did you quit beating your wife?". And when people came to say they aren't wife beaters, the were met with "So, you're a liar and a wifebeater now?". When the whole premise isn't to discuss Cheney, but for people to fling one-sided attacks, many who don't think Cheney some mix of Satan and Hitler might not bother trying to debate/discuss when they know any valid arguments will be disregarded anyway.

Quote:
and if there is something pathological in this thread, it can be found in this refusal to engage on the part of conservatives, this refusal to think about dissonant information, this refusal to even consider that the right might not have a monopoly on framing legitimate questions, legitimate ways of interpreting information, legitimate politics in general.

this is a recurrent feature of "interactions" with conservatives on topics they do not like and/or cannot control across this forum.

once again, for folk who talk about personal responsibility, it seems that most conservatives have a really hard time with applying the idea to themselves, not to mention actually taking personal responsibility, even discursively---in this case,it is pretty bloody obvious that the problem with this thread lay in the right's reaction to it, which is simply a part of the general pattern of conservative refusal of serious discussion except in those situation where the frame of reference matches with thier own. this pattern reeks of narcissism, frankly---which follows from its basically infantile motivations. a closed world in which only conservatives get to talk. anything that strays too far gets shouted down--a tactic that assume the cumulative weight of many flinstone voices outweighs the total lack of content of each individual voice.
Again, it's about starting with a ridiculous/weighted premise, and expecting everyone to fall into line and stick with that view. It has nothing to do with ignoring anything, or denial. There was no desire for discussion, what was wanted was attack. And in that, this thread was a ringing success. And I personally find your claim that conservatives are narcissistic to be amusing and very ironic, especially when it is seen that liberals will rarely even concede that there can be another viewpoint on issues.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 12:57 PM   #42 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But this thread is the equivalent of asking "So, when did you quit beating your wife?"
Is it great minds or weak minds that think alike?

I was going to post the same thing but I don't think the analogy isn't quite correct.

"So, when did you quit beating your wife?" is a loaded question while this was really a case of begging the question.

We were asked to concede that Cheney was some sort of evil powermonger bent on total power before we could answer the question posed. Without that concession the question was meaningless.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 04:12 PM   #43 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
alansmithee:

i did not see anything so onesided in the article that it merits the kind of response from you--but then again i am not in a position where defending cheney is a matter of preserving my political identity---and since it is not de rigeur for me, i have no problem with considering fundamental critiques of his kind of politics.

the conservative set here could have handled this whole thing differently, you know: any one of you could easily have advanced counterarguments that refuted the op characterization of cheney--but you didnt.
you could have tried to point to other material that presented what you regard as a more balanced image of him and his politics--but you didnt.
you could have gone after the historical component of piece, and that from a number of angles--but you didnt.
you could even have tried to mount a defense of cheney---but you didnt.

instead, it was sophomoric idiocy time, food fight time blah blah blah.
it is strange that this kind of idiocy seems to pass for legitimate argument in conservativeland.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 05:13 PM   #44 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
The "form" of discussion that attacks the source, and mysteriously devines the topic author's intentions is so old and overused that it seems unworthy of the time taken to respond to it.

My "intentions" are so foreign to Ustwo and Alansmithee that they must resort to projecting their own intentions. They have no inclination toward intellectual curiousity, and cannot conceive of the possibility that someone else would be so inclined. There must be some sort of comfort in protecting a very narrow world view.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 05:21 PM   #45 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
alansmithee:

i did not see anything so onesided in the article that it merits the kind of response from you--but then again i am not in a position where defending cheney is a matter of preserving my political identity---and since it is not de rigeur for me, i have no problem with considering fundamental critiques of his kind of politics.
You couldn't be further from the truth. My "political identity" isn't tied up in Cheney. I could name any number of things that I think he is wrong about, or has done wrong. What I don't see a purpose for is taking one-sided potshots and putting forth faulty arguements.

Quote:
the conservative set here could have handled this whole thing differently, you know: any one of you could easily have advanced counterarguments that refuted the op characterization of cheney--but you didnt.
you could have tried to point to other material that presented what you regard as a more balanced image of him and his politics--but you didnt.
you could have gone after the historical component of piece, and that from a number of angles--but you didnt.
you could even have tried to mount a defense of cheney---but you didnt.
Again, it's because the whole thread and op-ed that started it wasn't worthy of a true rebuttal. I also wouldn't bother putting up a logical, well-thought out rebuttal if someone claimed the moon landing was fake, or that the earth is flat. To even bother to do so gives more credit than is warranted. There was no desire to debate the particular merits of Cheney or his politics, the point was for the liberals to pile on conservatives (yet again).

Quote:
instead, it was sophomoric idiocy time, food fight time blah blah blah.
it is strange that this kind of idiocy seems to pass for legitimate argument in conservativeland.
Sure, it was sophmoric. But it was intentional, as opposed to the unintentional humor and self-important idiocy of the op-ed piece and the OP. When serious discussion is warranted (or desired) I have no doubt that it can and will come about (as it has many times before by both the board's liberals and conservatives). But just like in this thread http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97611 liberals totally were dismissive and mocking of the OP, because they felt it wasn't deserving of a real answer. This thread is nothing but the other side of the coin. And I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing-hopefully it leads to more actual debate instead of just wanting to pile on one side or the other.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 05:40 PM   #46 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
What I find amazing is that the Right wing posters find fault and attack the work and the posters, yet never offer substance and complain about how the topic is soooooo boring or done to death or whatever.... yet they keep posting.

Which is it guys, if the posts aren't worthy then why post anything..... or are the posts worthy and you just can't seem to argue the points. If you have legitimate differing views air them. Instead we get attacks and told how stupid the article is, and subject changes...... hmmmmm why must they post if they can't add anything constructive?

I think Host's exposing Drudge is very worthy, yet there is silence......
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 07:43 PM   #47 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
Which is it guys, if the posts aren't worthy then why post anything..... or are the posts worthy and you just can't seem to argue the points. If you have legitimate differing views air them. Instead we get attacks and told how stupid the article is, and subject changes...... hmmmmm why must they post if they can't add anything constructive?
Why? I'll tell you why.

The first time Bush = Hitler was issued we decimated that argument with facts.
The next time we did as well.
Same again.
Then again.
Then we'd see Bush and Hitler in the same sentence and we'd stop reading, cause we know everything they're going to say already.

Then yall pulled out stupid stuff, like how Bush sounds stupid speaking on his own and how he needs writers.
Then yall pulled out more stuff like how Bush wanted questions in advance so he doesnt sound stupid and needs to speak frankly.

Then it was Bush causes hurricanes and more crap.

Have you ever seen anyone on the Right start up threads about how Kerry = Hitler? No. We dont do it because it's stupid, indefensible, and it's a waste of time.

You want to know why we stop reading your posts all the way through? Because people post 18 different sources driving on about inane items.

Now dont take this wrong, it's not a personal attack on anyone. Host backs up his arguments completely. I respect him for taking the time, it's great for a debate, perfect for a thesis. However I'll pull out that same example, when he attacks someone for doing the exact same thing using polar arguments on how he's supposed to do the other... what's the point in reading it.

Whats the point in reading something from truthout? Do you read all of Coulter's last book? I didnt. Why not? The same reason I'll never pay to see a Moore film, 13 half truths dont make a full one.
Seaver is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 08:11 PM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The "form" of discussion that attacks the source, and mysteriously devines the topic author's intentions is so old and overused that it seems unworthy of the time taken to respond to it.

My "intentions" are so foreign to Ustwo and Alansmithee that they must resort to projecting their own intentions. They have no inclination toward intellectual curiousity, and cannot conceive of the possibility that someone else would be so inclined. There must be some sort of comfort in protecting a very narrow world view.
I wouldn't know, but a narrow world view seems to do just fine for most liberals. And intellectual curiosity doesn't entail simply spreading your ideology. It usually starts without having your conclusions already drawn. But I guess it's only intellectual if a liberal says it, right
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 08:49 PM   #49 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The "form" of discussion that attacks the source, and mysteriously devines the topic author's intentions is so old and overused that it seems unworthy of the time taken to respond to it.

My "intentions" are so foreign to Ustwo and Alansmithee that they must resort to projecting their own intentions. They have no inclination toward intellectual curiousity, and cannot conceive of the possibility that someone else would be so inclined. There must be some sort of comfort in protecting a very narrow world view.
Elphaba I find it sort of sad that you can't even see the mistake you made in your original post.

It is one of those dreaded 'logical fallacies'.

This was your question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The discussion point that I would like to engage is whether or not you believe that Cheney has harmed the Bush presidency in perpetuating what he learned in the Nixon presidency?
Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.


Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.


This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list. This isn’t a scholarly work, but a hit piece. Yes this is attacking the source but it is the source YOU gave as a starting point for discussion. You were begging the question, you gave us assumptions to accept to begin answering your question.

Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?

What your “intentions” were is irrelevant, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we can not know your intent any more than we can know what Cheney learned 30 odd years ago, we can only know what you gave us, and what you gave us was bankrupt of potential.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 09:01 PM   #50 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Yawn.... Show me a discussion other than your rubber stamp replies. Refute the article with another, do *anything* that takes a moment of effort to participate in a positive manner. I have not seen that yet from you, so I'm off to more important things. Ahh, yes! Time to clean the toilet.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 11:00 PM   #51 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
....Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.


Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.


This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list.
Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?
Research does wonders for a truly curious mind.........
Quote:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy <b>Richard Cheney</b>) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.

The documents include President Ford's handwritten notation on his first legislative briefing document after succeeding President Nixon in August 1974, that "a veto [of the FOIA bill] presents problems. How serious are our objections?" White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974, "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor."

On November 20, 1974, the House of Representatives voted to <b>override Ford's veto by a margin of 371 to 31;</b> on November 21, <b>the Senate followed suit by a 65 to 27 vote,</b> giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.[i]

Footnotes

[i] Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.
One thing you are right about, ustwo, is that there is much that we cannot know for certain. Bush and Cheney have worked O.T., to insure that!
Quote:
http://hnn.us/comments/10377.html
24 March 2003)

<h3>1. REP. OSE INTRODUCES BILL TO REVOKE PRA EXECUTIVE ORDER
On 27 March 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) along with a bi-partisan group of
seven other members of the House Committee on Government Reform, introduced
legislation (H.R.1493) that revokes President George Bush's Executive Order
13233 of November 2001. That order, "Further Implementation of the
Presidential Records Act" imposed new procedures and restrictions on the
implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).</h3>

This is one of the shortest and simplest bills on record -- under 100
words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. REVOCATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. Executive Order number 13233, dated
November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 56025), shall have no force or effect, and
Executive Order number 12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Reg. 3403) shall
apply by its terms."

In his floor statement introducing the bill
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/h032703.html) Ose stated that Bush EO
"is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with
NARA's codified implementing regulations." Furthermore, it "violates not
only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It
undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government
operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and
its confidence in our government."
[quote]
Quote:
http://www.smh-hq.org/gazette/volumes/142/ncc.html
BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER

On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information" (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See "Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates" -- NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).

The announcement of the president's signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as "advance damage control." <b>The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001.</b>

Around 7:00 pm on 25 March, copies of the signed EO were released to select members of the Washington press corps. Recipients were connected via conference call to a "senior administration official" who provided a background briefing on the condition of anonymity (see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/03/wh032503.html). Because of copy deadlines, <b>the timing of the briefing made it difficult for reporters to consult experts in disclosure and government secrecy who could provide meaningful comment. Also, because the president was scheduled to be on the road the next day, no routine press briefing was anticipated, making it impossible for reporters to pose timely on-the-record questions to administration officials.</b> Nevertheless, hastily put-together yet generally accurate articles appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times, and over major news wires such as the Associated Press. Feature stories also were broadcast on National Public Radio, Pacifica radio, and through other non-print media outlets. Regardless of the "advance damage control," reporters are expected to ask administration officials probing questions during the next regularly scheduled White House press briefing this Friday morning.

The new EO retains the essential provision of the Clinton order -- automatic declassification of federal agency records after 25 years -- but with some notable caveats. In general, the government now has more discretion to keep information classified indefinitely, especially if it falls within a broad new definition of "national security." ........
Quote:
http://www.archivists.org/statements...in2.asp?prnt=y
Statement for the Record on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States

July 22, 2004

Although the Society of American Archivists (SAA) would have preferred a process in which we were permitted to testify at the hearing regarding the appointment of Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States we thank the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for the opportunity to comment. The choice of a qualified nominee to become the Archivist of the United States is an important decision that ultimately benefits all Americans by ensuring that our history will be preserved and that our citizens will be able to hold their government accountable for its actions and decisions through the careful and impartial management of the records of government.

To that end, we express our intent to cooperate with Professor Weinstein and to work with him if he is appointed Archivist of the United States.

However, we also wish to convey again the strong reservations that the Society of American Archivists and thirty other archives, history, and library organizations have expressed about the manner in which this nomination was made. As noted in a Statement developed by SAA, the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, and the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (issued shortly after the April 8, 2004, announcement of Professor Weinstein’s nomination), Congress created the National Archives and Records Administration—and the position of Archivist of the United States—to be both independent and non-partisan. In the National Archives Act (Public Law 98-497), Congress intended that filling the position of Archivist of the United States should involve an open process, with consultation with appropriate professional organizations that could speak from knowledge and experience concerning the qualifications of nominees. Attached are copies of the “Statement on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States”(including the names of the organizations that supported it), as well as “Joint Statement on Selection Criteria for the Archivist of the United States” and “Joint Statement on Questions to Ask the Nominee for Archivist of the United States.” We ask that these documents be entered into the permanent record of these hearings.

<b>It is our view that this nomination was undertaken outside both the letter and the spirit of the law.</b> We believe that the evidence is clear that the White House effectively removed John Carlin when it asked him for a letter of resignation in December 2003 after having already identified a replacement in the fall of that year. <b>It is within the power of the President to remove the Archivist, but if he takes this action, the law calls for him to provide Congress with an explanation of his reasons for doing so. To date, no such explanation has been provided.</b> We hope that the Committee will ask the White House to fulfill its obligation under the law rather than create another precedent that erodes the power and authority of the United States Congress.

We also hope that the Committee will begin working with interested professional associations to establish a more formal procedure that can be used for future nominations. Development in advance of a list of qualifications and other considerations would make the process smoother and ensure that the Archivist position does not become politicized.

Let us be clear: We do not believe that the manner in which the nomination has been handled reflects negatively on Professor Weinstein or his interest in this position. But we do believe that the failure to follow the process outlined in law threatens the tradition of independence and non-partisanship that enables the Archivist of the United States to fulfill his obligations effectively to the benefit of all Americans.
roachboy....how long do you predict that it will be until these folks adopt a policy of airbrushing out, the faces of people in official photos who have offended our "leaders"?
host is offline  
Old 11-28-2005, 11:26 PM   #52 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo

P.S. Laura Ingram is a hottie.
I fell in love with her when she told Lanny Davis on national TV that his defense of the Clinton administration was "the biggest pile of crap [she'd] ever heard."

But I'm certain the Dems are celebrating that she's been diagnosed with breast cancer.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 06:02 AM   #53 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
she's been diagnosed with breast cancer.
I did not know that.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:36 PM   #54 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Yawn.... Show me a discussion other than your rubber stamp replies. Refute the article with another, do *anything* that takes a moment of effort to participate in a positive manner. I have not seen that yet from you, so I'm off to more important things. Ahh, yes! Time to clean the toilet.
Elphaba despite what some people think, posting partisan links is not a discussion. Posting one in support of Cheney is no more valid than you posting yours. It doesn't change that you based this entire dicussion on an obvious logical fallacy and the apparent lack of understand of this on your part makes any discussion pointless. You have added nothing to your own discussion, you yourself did not answer your own question.

If you can show me where my analysis of your post was incorrect please do so, otherwise do not expect others to waste their time debating an illogical question.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:45 PM   #55 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief of staff) is in the news again, stepping up his attack on Cheney, essentially implying that Cheney is guilty of war crimes for authorizing the torture of prisoners held in the "war on terror."

Basically he's saying that Cheney used the power of his office to permit Rumsfield to create a directive that suspended the Geneva Conventions on torture for U.S. prisoners of war.

Stansfield Turner also attacked Cheney today for the same reason.

Not a good time to be Dick Cheney. Was there ever a good time?


Quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051129...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

LONDON (AFP) - A senior aide to former US Secretary of State
Colin Powell repeated his attacks against US Vice-President
Dick Cheney, appearing to suggest he should face war crimes charges.

Powell's former chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson accused Cheney of ignoring a decision by President George W. Bush's on the treatment of prisoners held in the "war on terror".

Asked in a BBC radio interview if Bush's right-hand man could be accused of war crimes, he replied: "It's an interesting question. Certainly, it's a domestic crime to advocate terror.

"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well."

Wilkerson's comments appear to go further than earlier this month when he spoke out on US National Public Radio and in an address on US foreign policy to the Washington-based think-tank the New America Foundation in October.

Then, he alleged Cheney's office was responsible for directives which led to US soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He claimed he had traced a trail of memos and directives authorising questionable detention practices up through the current US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office directly to Cheney's staff.

Cheney and Rumsfeld operated a "cabal" that hijacked US foreign and military policy, he alleged.

On Tuesday, Wilkerson told the BBC that Powell and other White House "doves" argued upholding the Geneva Conventions against torture, in compliance with a 2002 memo from Bush.

But he said opponents "essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions", leading to a compromise from Bush that "Geneva would in fact govern all but Al-Qaeda and an Al-Qaeda lookalike detainees".

"What I'm saying is that, under the vice-president's protection, the secretary of defence (Rumsfeld) moved out to do what they wanted in the first place, even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise," he added.

Wilkerson said he blamed Cheney "pretty fairly and squarely" for prisoner abuse and post-war planning for Iraq.

"I look at the relationship between Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld as being one that produced these two failures in particular, and I see that the president is not holding either of them accountable... so I have to lay some blame at his feet, too," he added.

Admiral Stansfield Turner, a former Central Intelligence Agency director during the 1970s, has also attacked Cheney, branding him a "vice-president for torture".

Turner told Britain's ITV1 television on Monday that the US deputy leader was damaging his country's reputation by overseeing policies of torture against suspected terrorists to extract information.

The White House denies the allegation but Turner said: "We have crossed the line into dangerous territory. I am embarrassed that the USA has a vice-president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible."

He added: "He (Cheney) advocates torture, what else is it? I just don't understand how a man in that position can take such a stance."
raveneye is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:57 PM   #56 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
If you can show me where my analysis of your post was incorrect please do so, otherwise do not expect others to waste their time debating an illogical question.

Post 56, and there seems to be plenty of discussion.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 02:19 PM   #57 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Wilkerson made another comment that goes to Cheney's desire to enlarge the power of the presidency, an objective he also held during the Nixon administration:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112905Z.shtml

Quote:
Ex-Powell Aide Criticizes Detainee Effort
The Associated Press

Monday 28 November 2005

Washington - A top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees arose from White House and Pentagon officials who argued that "the President of the United States is all-powerful" and the Geneva Conventions irrelevant.

In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

On the question of detainees picked up in Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror, Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument within his administration. Abuse of prisoners, and even the deaths of some who had been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised the U.S. image abroad and undermined support for the Iraq war.

Cheney's office, Rumsfeld aides and others argued "that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkerson said.

On the other side were Powell, others at the State Department and top military brass, and occasionally Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, Wilkerson said.

Powell raised frequent and loud objections, his former aide said, once yelling into a telephone at Rumsfeld: "Donald, don't you understand what you are doing to our image?"

Wilkerson said Bush tried to work out a compromise in 2001 and 2002 that recognized that the war on terrorism was different from past wars and required greater flexibility in handling prisoners who don't belong to an enemy state or follow the rules themselves.

Bush's stated policy, which was heatedly criticized by civil liberties and legal groups at the time, was defensible, Wilkerson said. But it was undermined almost immediately in practice, he said.

In the field, the United States followed the policies of hard-liners who wanted essentially unchecked ability to detain and harshly interrogate prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, Wilkerson said.

Wilkerson, who left government with Powell in January, said he is now somewhat estranged from his former boss. He worked for Powell for 16 years. Wilkerson became a surprise critic of the Iraq war-planning effort and other administration decisions this fall, and he has said his Powell did not put him up to it.

On Iraq, Wilkerson said Powell may have had doubts about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but was convinced by then-CIA Director George Tenet and others that the intelligence behind the push toward war was sound.

He said Powell now generally believes it was a good idea to remove Saddam from power but may not agree with either the timing or execution of the war.

"What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.

Powell was widely regarded as a dove to Cheney's and Rumsfeld's hawks, but he made a forceful case for war before the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, a month before the invasion. At one point, he said Saddam possessed mobile labs to make weapons of mass destruction, but they have not been found.

Wilkerson said the CIA and other agencies allowed mishandled and bogus information to underpin that speech and the administration case for war.

He said he has almost, but not quite, concluded that Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence and looked only at what supported their case for war.

A newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002 said that an al-Qaida military instructor was probably misleading his interrogators about training that the terror group's members received from Iraq on chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi reportedly recanted his statements in January 2004.

A presidential intelligence commission also has dissected how spy agencies handled an Iraqi refugee who was a German intelligence source. Code-named Curveball, this man, a leading source on Iraq's purported mobile biological weapons labs, was found to be a fabricator and alcoholic.

Wilkerson also said he did not disclose to Bob Woodward that administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, joining the growing list of past and current Bush administration officials who have denied being the Washington Post reporter's source.
Checks and balances are necessary and I can't imagine anyone arguing for an imperial presidency, but appears to be Cheney's goal. I found Wilkerson's comments regarding Bush's detachment from the details very interesting, too.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were allowed to do pretty much anything they pleased.

As I stated in the OP, I believe these two have brought great harm to the presidency. Sadly, Bush must share some of the blame for allowing it to happen.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 09:58 AM   #58 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Here's a transcript of the Wilkerson interview from the BBC's website.

I notice that not all the quotes in Elphaba's post above are in this transcript, so it must have left out some details. I underlined the interviewer's questions and comments in the quotes.

Note that in this interview Wilkerson points out that there were two separate decision-making processes that were independent of each other, and that the process that Cheney was in control of ultimately became policy. That is very similar to Blumenthal's description of the two intelligence teams, the real one and the propaganda one controlled by Cheney during the Nixon administration.

Also: note that Wilkerson was initially sceptical of the idea that Cheney (and of course Bush by default) used intelligence as propaganda in the runup to the Iraq war, but with subsequent revelations about how the intelligence was used and obtained, he seems to have shifted his position and now is concerned that intelligence was "cherry-picked" to support policy.

On torture: it was interesting to see that one of the pieces of information used to defend a connection between Iraq and 9/11 was a "forced" confession from an AQ member; i.e. a confession obtained using non-Geneva techniques, which by definition are torture. We don't know what those techniques were, however; those responsible apparently aren't telling.

That confession was later recanted. I think using torture to obtain information that you want to hear, to support going to war, and then treating that information as credible intelligence is just revolting, in my humble opinion.

Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4481092.stm

Transcript of Wilkerson interview
Col Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, was interviewed by Carolyn Quinn for the BBC's R4 Today programme. Here is a transcript of the interview.

I asked Colonel Wilkerson why he felt the post-war planning had been so inadequate.

The post-invasion planning for Iraq was handled, in my opinion, in this alternative decision-making process which, in this case, constituted the vice-president and the secretary of defence and certain people in the defence department who did the "post invasion planning", which was as inept and incompetent as perhaps any planning anyone has ever done.

It consisted of largely sending Jay Garner and his organisation to sit in Kuwait until the military forces had moved into Baghdad, and then going to Baghdad and other places in Iraq with no other purpose than to deliver a little humanitarian assistance, perhaps deal with some oil-field fires, put Ahmed Chalabi or some other similar Iraqi in charge and leave.

This was not only inept and incompetent, it was day-dreaming of the most unfortunate type and ever since that failed we've been in a pick-up game - a pick-up game that's cost us over 2,000 American KIAs [killed in action]and almost a division's worth of casualties.

Now you call this alternative decision-making as a process and you seem to be laying the blame pretty fairly and squarely at the door of Dick Cheney. Am I correct in assuming that?

Well in the two decision-making processes into which I had the most insight - the detainee abuse issue and this issue of post-invasion planning for Iraq - I lay the blame squarely at his feet.

I look at the relationship between Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld as being one that produced these two failures in particular and I see that the president is not holding either of them accountable, or at least up to this point he is not, and so I have to lay some blame at his feet too.

But you're talking about the abuse - the alleged abuse - by American forces aren't you?

I am, and I concluded that we had had an impassioned debate in the statutory process. And in that debate, two sides had participated: one that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions and the other which said no, Geneva should prevail and the president walked right down the middle.

He made a decision that Geneva would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees. Any other prisoners of course would be governed by traditional methods, international law, Geneva and so forth.

Who was calling for doing away with all the normal practices if you like?

Who is right now very publicly lobbying the congress of the United States, advocating the use of terror? The vice-president of the United States.

There was a presidential memo ordering that detainees be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions that forbid torture. Are you saying that Dick Cheney ordered that to be ignored?

Well my critics have said that the president's continuing phrase in what you just quoted, "consistent with military necessity", was an out, under which almost anything could be done.

If I'm a soldier in the field - I'm an NCO [non-commissioned officer ] or I'm a private or a corporal - and I need to shoot even a detainee who might be threatening to kill one of my buddies or even me then I can do that.

It does not mean that I can go into a darkened cell with a detainee shackled with his hands above his head to the wall and beat him so that eventually he dies, and the army coroner declares it homicide, and two years later when the army quits obfuscating and throwing obstacles in the way of the investigations, people are actually punished for having murdered two individuals in Bagram, Afghanistan in December 2002.

And there were more than 70 such deaths - questionable deaths - of detainees under US supervision when I left the state department and I have people who are now telling me that the death toll was up to around 90.

And that question of detainee abuse - are you saying that the implicit message allowing it to happen was sanctioned by Dick Cheney - it came from his office?

Well you see two sides of this debate in the statutory process. You see the side represented by Colin Powell, Will Taft, all arguing for Geneva.

You see the other side represented by Yoo, John Yoo from the Department of Justice, Alberto Gonzales - you see the other side being argued by them and you see the president compromising.

Then you see the secretary of defence moving out in his own memorandum to act as if the side that declared everything open, free and anything goes, actually being what's implemented.

And so what I'm saying is, under the vice-president's protection, the secretary of defence moved out to do what they wanted to do in the first place even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise.

It is quite difficult to believe though that Colin Powell wasn't aware of what was going on - if this alternative decision-making process was happening as you say - why didn't he do something?

Well you don't know that it's happening.

If what you say is correct, in your view, is Dick Cheney then guilty of a war crime?

Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is - for whatever it's worth - an international crime as well.

You've got also John Kerry recently accusing President Bush of orchestrating one of the great acts of deception in American history, and saying that flawed intelligence was manipulated to fit a political agenda. Now Colin Powell would be tarred with that same brush wouldn't he? Did he feel that he had correct information about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction when he outlined the case against Saddam?

He certainly did and so did I. I was intimately involved in that process and to this point I have more or less defended the administration.

I have basically been supportive of the administration's point that it was simply fooled - that the intelligence community, including the UK, Germany, France, Jordan - other countries that confirmed what we had in our intelligence package, yet we were all just fooled.

Lately, I'm growing increasingly concerned because two things have just happened here that really make me wonder.

And the one is the questioning of Sheikh al-Libby where his confessions were obtained through interrogation techniques other than those authorised by Geneva.

It led Colin Powell to say at the UN on 5 February 2003 that there were some pretty substantive contacts between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. And we now know that al-Libby's forced confession has been recanted and we know - we're pretty sure that it was invalid.

But more important than that, we know that there was a defence intelligence agency dissent on that testimony even before Colin Powell made his presentation. We never heard about that.

Follow that up with Curveball, and the fact that the Germans now say they told our CIA well before Colin Powell gave his presentation that Curveball - the source to the biological mobile laboratories - was lying and was not a trustworthy source. And then you begin to speculate, you begin to wonder was this intelligence spun; was it politicised; was it cherry-picked; did in fact the American people get fooled - I am beginning to have my concerns.
raveneye is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 06:44 AM   #59 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Hot off the presses today, here's an interesting article right on target on the thread topic, in the London Financial Times by Catherine Daniel.

She doesn't focus as much as Blumenthal on the Nixon administration, but instead points to Cheney's experience in the Ford, Reagan, Bush I administrations, particularly his role as the minority chair of the Iran-contra committee. For Cheney, Iran-contra was simply a matter of the executive exercising its legitimate power against the illegitimate runaway power of Congress.

And his recent intransigence on the torture issue is very revealing in demonstrating his belief that the power of the president's office transcends international law and ethics.

Quote:
(no link available)

The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)

December 14, 2005 Wednesday
London Edition 1

SECTION: THE AMERICAS; Pg. 12

LENGTH: 1275 words

HEADLINE: Cheney leads fight for presidential power. Caroline Daniel argues that the vice-president's efforts to prevent Congress from outlawing torture should be seen as a battle in the war over executive muscle

BYLINE: By CAROLINE DANIEL

Dick Cheney used to be portrayed in cartoons as the ventriloquist of the administration, his hand inserted into a George W. Bush puppet. Now the cartoons of the vice-president have a darker tone, with his hands controlling various instruments of torture.

The image reflects his dominant role in efforts to prevent Congress from outlawing the use of any interrogation methods deemed to be cruel, inhumane or degrading. After he lobbied senators to dismiss the amendment a Washington Post editorial dubbed him: "Vice-President for Torture".

Mr Cheney's advocacy, however, is best understood not as a defence of torture but as a key battle in the war over presidential power. His views of executive power were forged during the US retreat from Vietnam at a time of congressional assertiveness on foreign policy. After September 11 2001 he saw a chance to implement ideas about expansive executive power that he had long embraced and swing the pendulum back towards the president.

In an ABC interview in January 2002, Mr Cheney set out his philosophy: "In 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. One of the things that I feel an obligation on - and I know the president does too - is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them."

His interest in the issue can be traced to his formative political years as chief of staff to President Gerald Ford from 1975. His promotion came amid growing public unease over Vietnam. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, forcing the president explicitly to consult and report back to them when committing troops overseas. In 1974 the Church committee flexed its authority over intelligence activities, sparked by revulsion against CIA dirty tricks in the 1960s and 1970s.

"He saw the power of the presidency emasculated under his watch, particularly with the inability to stay the course in Vietnam," says Vin Weber, a Republican strategist who has known him for 25 years. "He's been determined to reverse this ever since from the energy taskforce to national security. I believe the current issue is less about the value of torture than about an imperative to preserve and strengthen the presidency."

Even as a congressman, Mr Cheney's loyalties lay with the White House. According to Congressional Quarterly, in 1981, 83 per cent of his votes backed Ronald Reagan, and in 1982, it was 87 per cent, making him the second strongest supporter in the House. His instincts were reinforced by Iran-Contra. The scandal was caused in part by Reagan's efforts to get around a congressional prohibition on giving aid to the Nicaraguan Contras by using the proceeds of secret arms sales to Iran. Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, says Mr Cheney's role as minority chair of the Iran-Contra committee crystallised his views. "The minority report is a sophisticated analysis of the separation of powers and Dick Cheney's staff wrote that section."

One conclusion of the minority report, published in 1987, was that Iran-Contra could be traced to a boundless view of congressional power in the 1970s, and the "state of political guerilla warfare over foreign policy between the legislative and executive branches."

Elected in the wake of Iran-Contra, George H.W. Bush led a deliberate, co-ordinated effort to redraw the lines between the different branches of government. Dick Cheney, as his defence secretary, griped about reporting requirements to Congress, and in 1989 set out his own ideas in a paper to the AEI, called "Congressional Over-reaching in Foreign Policy". He denounced presidential paralysis by congressional indecision. "When Congress steps beyond its capacities, it takes traits that can be helpful to collective deliberation and turns them into a harmful blend of vacillation, credit claiming, blame avoidance and indecision," he warned. "The presidency in contrast, was designed as a one-person office to insure it would be ready for action. Its major characteristics, to use the language of Federalist No.70, were to be 'decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch'."

George W. Bush continued the strategy of his father. Mr Cheney has led the charge. The first sign was in 2001 when he refused to give the names of advisers to his energy taskforce to Congress. His aim was to establish a right to confidential consultations, using legal trench warfare to set precedents that will outlast his term in office.

It is in the "war on terror" that the administration has been most vigorous and successful in reclaiming authority in foreign policy. It marked an astute recognition that congressional power tends to be greatest at times of peace and presidential power at times of war.

A key player has been David Addington, who got to know Mr Cheney in the 1980s when he worked as a lawyer for the CIA and the congressional intelligence committee. The two men shared the same views of Iran-Contra. He became Pentagon general counsel under Mr Cheney and later his legal counsel. Mr Addington helped draft a controversial August 2002 Justice Department memo that redefined torture so narrowly that it seemed to permit the abuse of detainees and also noted that the president could legally order torture in his role as commander in chief.

In spite of the damage to the US international image over torture claims, Mr Cheney has shown no signs of backing down. The priority he places on these legal issues rather than quick political payoffs was shown when he picked Mr Addington as his new chief of staff when the incumbent was indicted for his role in the CIA leak case.

This defiant public image on issues such as torture and Iraq has come at a price. His approval ratings slumped to 19 per cent in a CBS News poll. "Cheney has become an obvious target, and he wears the bulls-eye very well to anti-war critics and those concerned with torture," says Paul Light, a professor at New York University. "He is a vice-president in reverse. In the past vice-presidents, who become players become more powerful over time. Dick Cheney started not as a junkyard dog but as a father-figure, a mentor."

Part of his insouciance comes from the fact that he is unusually free to speak his mind. He has no plans to stand for president, so feels no need to court popular or congressional approval. He sees himself as accountable to the president. "He has got into a bubble," says Professor James Thurber of American University. "It is all about building coalitions and he doesn't seem to be thinking as he was in the first six months of the first term about congressional liaison."

There are few signs that Mr Bush is distancing himself from his closest and most powerful counsellors. Yet there are dangers that his effort to expand executive power could be jeopardised by over-reaching and a failure to pay attention to the politics. The amendment over torture from Senator John McCain - backed by 90 senators to 9 against - is clearly one sign of this.

As history has shown, congressional attacks on presidential power have typically followed executive branch scandal. Moreover, there is a danger that by embracing torture it shores up the legal powers of the presidency but erodes an equally critical aspect: its moral authority.

So far Mr Cheney has resisted making concessions over the torture issue. Yet he could note a prescient passage from the Iran-Contra minority report. "Presidents are elected to lead and to persuade. But presidents must also have congressional support for the tools to make foreign policy effective. No president can ignore Congress and be successful over the long term."
raveneye is offline  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:50 PM   #60 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
I have bumped this thread with the hope of renewing discussion of Cheney's ideological influence upon presidents, past and present. Under the new rules of the politics forum, civil discussion may be possible.

I still believe that Cheney and Rumsfeld are the architects of this administration's policies. I also believe that their machinations are once again threatening the position of the executive. I find it so ironic the Cheney's continued pursuit of a universal presidency ultimately achieves the opposite result. Congress and the judiciary will reassert their roles, as they did under the Nixon administration.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:59 AM   #61 (permalink)
Banned
 
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, <b>but I never actually heard that claim from the administration outside of speculative contexts.</b> [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</font></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"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="+2" FACE="Times New Roman">By
DENNIS HANS</FONT></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">F<font color="#000000" size="-1">ans
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. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">It
seemed like only yesterday that Cheney and the Times strolled hand in
hand.</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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!</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">“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.”</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">Yes,
in 2002 Cheney and the Times were quite the item.</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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:</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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, &quot;pretty
well confirmed.&quot; </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">Cheney:
No, I never said that. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">Borger:
OK. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">Cheney:
I never said that. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">Borger:
I think that is... </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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. </font></font></p>
</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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.”</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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>.”</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.” </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.”<br>
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.” </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.”<br>
“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.”</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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>).<br>
The Times was not the only enabler. Consider the case of the bird-brained
Buffalo blowhard, Tim Russert. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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:</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">&quot;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.&quot; </font></font></p>
</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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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?” </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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. </font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.</font></font></p>
<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"><font color="#990000" size="+2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#000000" size="-1">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.</font></font></p>
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?

Last edited by host; 05-02-2006 at 09:42 AM..
host is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 09:27 AM   #62 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Host, thanks for sticking this is a different thread. I've got a couple of points and a couple of questions.

First, can you link the second, long quoted section? Thanks.

Now, you've posted many inches worth of material that amount to documentation of one comment by one official. At that, Cheney's comment was that the Czech government had confirmed a report (which at that point, they had, however haphazardly) and this was something he said in December of 2001. The invasion of Iraq began in March of 2003. Further, your own linked article indicates that Cheney was responding to this question from Russert: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?” Even the wording of the question asserts that Cheney had originally said there was no question - and this is further confirmed by your linked article. 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.” As long as we're in the way back machine, I think this is really worth highlighting - that Russert Cheney saying Iraq WASN'T involved in 9/11.

Heck, even if the Czech government had been right, a meeting isn't indicative of support, and I don't see here that Cheney claimed it was. If this meeting took place (and there's no reason to think it did) it could have been Atta asking the Iraqi government for support and getting told to go f*ck himself. Basically, I don't see this as a claim of a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

It seems to me that this instance you are citing (and particularly the articles you've quoted) are damning evidence of sloppy and leading reporting, not deceipt actively practiced by our administration. There must be more, given the prevalent meme that Bush and Cheney claimed that Iraq backed the 9/11 attacks.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 05-02-2006 at 09:29 AM..
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 10:48 AM   #63 (permalink)
Banned
 
I fixed the link to the counterpunch.org article....

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
Posted Feb. 5, 2003
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html
POWELL: There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs.....

.........But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern
Slide 39

Iraq.
Slide 39


POWELL: You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure.
Slide 40

Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.
Slide 40

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ``good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain even today in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters, and they are involved in moving more than money and materiale.

Last year, two suspected Al Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond.

We, in the United States, all of us at the State Department, and the Agency for International Development--we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October, a despicable act was committed that day. The assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder.

POWELL: After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

And now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.

As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions
Slide 41

against countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
Slide 41


According to detainee Abuwatia (ph), who graduated from Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasks at least nine North African extremists from 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks.

Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By
Slide 42

our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested.
Slide 42


The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe. We know about this European network, and we know about its links to Zarqawi, because the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network.

Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.

The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence, again, proved him right. When the British unearthed a cell there just last month, one British police officer was
Slide 43

murdered during the disruption of the cell.
Slide 43


We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida.

POWELL: Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida.

Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan.

POWELL: His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.
Out of the entire media, only one reporter from a major news outlet seriously questioned Powells' presentation to the UN, in a timely manner.....in that same week. Greg Miller's article did not develop any traction in the U.S., that I have found.....
Quote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...61575#continue
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, February, 2003 by GREG MILLER
SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?

Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the U.S. has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the al-Qaida terror network.

The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration on Thursday to explain its decision to leave the facility unharmed.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. <b>"Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"</b>

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

<b>"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."..................</b>

......A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no immediate comment on the matter.

The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of pre-empting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the U.S. already has a considerable presence.

U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes already patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no- fly" zone.
A year later, along comes an MSNBC reporter, "revealing" the training camp story, as if it was "new" news.......
Quote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
By Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but <b>the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.</b>

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
Quote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880/
Holy Zarqawi
Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.
By Daniel Benjamin
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 2:08 PM PT

Why didn't the Bush administration kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when it had the chance?

That it had opportunities to take out the Jordanian-born jihadist has been clear since Secretary of State Colin Powell devoted a long section of his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council. In those remarks, which were given to underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, Powell dwelt at length on the terrorist camp in Khurmal, in the pre-invasion Kurdish enclave. It was at that camp that Zarqawi, other jihadists who had fled Afghanistan, and Kurdish radicals were training and producing the poison ricin and cyanide.

Neither the Khurmal camp nor the surrounding area were under Saddam's control, but Powell provided much detail purporting to show Zarqawi's ties to the Baghdad regime. His arguments have since been largely discredited by the intelligence community. Many of us who have worked in counterterrorism wondered at the time about Powell's claims. If we knew where the camp of a leading jihadist was and knew that his followers were working on unconventional weapons, why weren't we bombing it or sending in special operations forces—especially since this was a relatively "permissive" environment?
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/
CIA report finds no Zarqawi-Saddam link
No evidence former Iraqi leader harbored Jordanian radical
Updated: 8:59 a.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

WASHINGTON - A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq.

“There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi,” a U.S. official said on Tuesday about the CIA findings.

But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that the report, which was a mix of new information and a look at some older information, did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions.

“To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct,” the official said in confirming an ABC News story about the CIA report that the network said was delivered to the White House last week.

ABC quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that the CIA document raises “serious questions” about Bush administration assertions that Zarqawi found sanctuary in pre-war Baghdad.

“The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad,” ABC reported.

Medical trip doubted
The CIA report concludes Zarqawi was in and out of Baghdad, but cast doubt on reports that Zarqawi had been given official approval for medical treatment there as President Bush said this summer, ABC said.

Earlier on Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan reasserted that there was a relationship between Saddam and Zarqawi.

“He was in contact from Baghdad with Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern part of Iraq. He had a cell operating from Baghdad during that period, as well. So there are clearly ties between Iraq and — between the regime, Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida,” McClellan told reporters.

Before last year’s invasion to topple Saddam, the Bush administration portrayed Zarqawi as al- Qaida’s link to Baghdad.

Following Saddam’s capture in December and waves of suicide attacks on U.S. and Iraqi security forces which followed, Zarqawi quickly became America’s top enemy in Iraq. The United States placed a $25 million bounty on his head.

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi and his militant Tawhid and Jihad group have claimed responsibility for a string of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/
Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

..........Cheney, for example, called the claim of an Atta meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague “pretty well confirmed” in a Dec. 9, 2001, “Meet the Press” interview. In a Sept. 8, 2002, “Meet the Press” appearance, just weeks before the congressional vote on authorizing President Bush to go to war, Cheney again returned to the issue: “We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.” <b>Even after CIA and FBI officials had already concluded the claims of the meeting were almost certainly false, Cheney was still referring to it in a Sept. 14, 2003 “Meet the Press” appearance. “The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraq intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”..........</b>

...........<b>The claim that Saddam's agents had instructed Al Qaeda terrorists in making "poisons and gasses" had in fact been a prominent feature of the administration's prewar assertions, highlighted by Powell in his Security Council speech and Cheney repeatedly in his TV appearances and speeches. <b>But the allegation was almost entirely based on the claims of one high-level Al Qaeda detainee—first identified by NEWSWEEK as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi—who, according to the 9/11 commission, has since recanted</b> his story.</b> Asked if Duelfer's team had found any evidence that Iraq had provided such training for terrorists, the U.S. official familiar with Duelfer's report shook his head and said simply: "No."
ubertuber, the preponderance of the evidence is that the administration lied about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda, and planted false stories to play off the MSM as having verified it's false claims.....

<b>The administration has done enough, on it's own, from what I've read that has been exposed about their activities to twist the truth, and to manipulate an already compliant press into helping them do it, to diminish any semblance of credibility....how could anyone trust what they've said?</b>[quote]
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040900890.html
Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi
Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 10, 2006; Page A01

....The military's propaganda program largely has been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war.

That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war. <b>One slide in the same briefing, for example, noted that a "selective leak" about Zarqawi was made to Dexter Filkins, a New York Times reporter based in Baghdad. Filkins's resulting article, about a letter supposedly written by Zarqawi and boasting of suicide attacks in Iraq, ran on the Times front page on Feb. 9, 2004.....</b>
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002314713
A U.S. 'Propaganda' Program, al-Zarqawi, and 'The New York Times'

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 10, 2006 3:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Midway through Thomas Ricks’ Washington Post scoop on Monday detailing a U.S. military “propaganda program” aimed at convincing Iraqis that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has a very prominent role in directing violence in that country, there is one specific tip on how the plan may have also targeted American reporters and audiences.

<b>Ricks found that one “selective leak”--about a recently discovered letter written by Zarqawi--was handed by the military to Dexter Filkins, the longtime New York Times reporter in Baghdad. Filkins's resulting article, about the Zarqawi letter boasting of foreigners' role in suicide attacks in Iraq, ran on the front page of the Times on Feb. 9, 2004.</b>

“Leaks to reporters from U.S. officials in Iraq are common, but official evidence of a propaganda operation using an American reporter is rare,” Ricks observed. He quoted Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. military's chief spokesman when the propaganda campaign began in 2004: "We trusted Dexter to write an accurate story, and we gave him a good scoop."

<b>Filkins, in an e-mail to Ricks, said he assumed the military was releasing the Zarqawi letter "because it had decided it was in its best interest to have it publicized." He told Ricks he was skeptical about the document's authenticity then, and remains so now.</b>

But Ricks' article, if anything, underplays the impact of the letter in February 2004--and if Filkins had qualms about its authenticity, it hardly deterred him and his paper from giving it serious, and largely uncritical, attention.

In his February 9, 2004 front-pager, <b>Filkins</b> detailed the contents of the letter, and its significance, matter-of-factly for eight paragraphs. Only then did he introduce any doubt, suggesting that possibly it could have been “written by some other insurgent…who exaggerated his involvement.”

After that one-sentence brief mention, <b>Filkins</b> went directly to: “Still, a senior United States intelligence official in Washington said, 'I know of no reason to believe the letter is bogus in any way.''’ The story continued for another 1000 words without expressing any other doubts about the letter—which was found on a CD and was unsigned.

In his Post story today, Ricks also does not mention what happened next.

<b>William Safire, in his Feb. 11, 2004, column for the Times titled “Found: A Smoking Gun,” declared that the letter “demolishes the repeated claim of Bush critics that there was never a '’clear link’ between Saddam and Osama bin Laden.”</b> Safire mocked the Washington Post for burying the story on page 17, while hailing a Reuters account quoting an “amazed” U.S. officials saying, “We couldn’t make this up if we tried.”

Three days later, another Times columnist, David Brooks, covered the letter as fact under the heading “The Zarqawi Rules.” The letter was covered in this manner by other media for weeks. So clearly, the leak to Filkins worked.

A Web search of New York Times articles in the two months after the scoop failed to turn up any articles casting serious doubts on the letter. Two leading writers for Newsweek on its Web site quickly had a different view, however.

<b>Christopher Dickey, the Middle East regional editor, on February 13, 2004, asked: “Given the Bush administration’s record peddling bad intelligence and worse innuendo, you’ve got to wonder if this letter is a total fake. How do we know the text is genuine? How was it obtained? By whom? And when? And how do we know it’s from Zarqawi? We don’t. We’re expected to take the administration’s word for it.”

Rod Nordland, the magazine’s Baghdad bureau chief, on March 6 wrote: “The letter so neatly and comprehensively lays out a blueprint for fomenting strife with the Shia, and later the Kurds, that it's a little hard to believe in it unreservedly.</b> It came originally from Kurdish sources who have a long history of disinformation and dissimulation. It was an electronic document on a CD-ROM, so there's no way to authenticate signature or handwriting, aside from the testimony of those captured with it, about which the authorities have not released much information.”........

Last edited by host; 05-02-2006 at 11:39 AM..
host is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 11:31 AM   #64 (permalink)
Banned
 
Of course...there was more...this time, from the WSJ, 18 months after Powell's UN presentation, but.....in time to be examined just before the 2004 presidential election....
Quote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109866031609354178.html
Questions Mount
Over Failure to Hit
Zarqawi's Camp
By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2004

.....by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.

But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combatting terrorism at the time, said an NSC working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war."

<b>Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq."</b> Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

Still, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush had said he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide. Mr. Bush also had decided upon a policy of pre-emptive strikes, in which the U.S. wouldn't wait to be struck before hitting enemies who posed a threat. An attack on Mr. Zarqawi would have amounted to such a pre-emptive strike. The story of the debate over his camp shows how difficult the policy can be to carry out; Mr. Zarqawi's subsequent resurgence highlights that while pre-emptive strikes entail considerable risks, the risk of not making them can be significant too, a factor that may weigh in future decisions on when to attack terrorist leaders.

Some former officials said the intelligence on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts was sound. In addition, retired Gen. John M. Keane, the U.S. Army's vice chief of staff when the strike was considered, said that because the camp was isolated in the thinly populated, mountainous borderlands of northeastern Iraq, the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Former military officials said that adding to the target's allure was intelligence indicating that Mr. Zarqawi himself was in the camp at the time. A strike at the camp, they believed, meant at least a chance of killing or incapacitating him.

Gen. Keane characterized the camp "as one of the best targets we ever had," and questioned the decision not to attack it. When the U.S. did strike the camp a day after the war started, Mr. Zarqawi, many of his followers and Kurdish extremists belonging to his organization already had fled, people involved with intelligence say.

....Then, in midsummer, word somehow leaked out in the Turkish press that the U.S. was considering targeting the camp, and intelligence reports showed that Mr. Zarqawi's group had fled the camp. But the CIA reported that around the end of 2002 the group had reoccupied the camp. The military's plans for hitting it quickly were revived.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who was commander of the U.S. Central Command and who lately has been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Bush, suggests in his recently published memoir, "American Soldier," that Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been in the camp during the months before the war. Gen. Franks declined to be interviewed or answer written questions for this article. In referring to several camps in northern Iraq occupied by al Qaeda fighters who had fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, Gen. Franks wrote: "These camps were examples of the terrorist 'harbors' that President Bush had vowed to crush. One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi who had joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- where he specialized in developing chemical and biological weapons -- was now confirmed to operate from one of the camps in Iraq." Gen. Franks's book doesn't mention the plans to target the camp.

Questions about whether the U.S. missed an opportunity to take out Mr. Zarqawi have been enhanced recently by a CIA report on Mr. Zarqawi, commissioned by Vice President Dick Cheney. Individuals who have been briefed on the report's contents say it specifically cites evidence that Mr. Zarqawi was in the camp during those prewar months. They said the CIA's conclusion was based in part on a review of electronic intercepts, which show that Mr. Zarqawi was using a satellite telephone to discuss matters relating to the camp, and that the intercepts indicated the probability that the calls were being made from inside the camp.
Defense Department spokesman Larry Di Rita seemed to confirm that the Zarqawi terrorist camp was simply a propaganda prop, left intentionally in place by the Bush administration so that they could direct Colin Powell to use it's existance as the main "evidence" to offer to a skeptical UN, that Saddam had terrorist ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, it actually demonstrates that the U.S. administration had no argument that the camp...or Zarqawi was actually a major terrorist threat that it actually took seriously itself.
host is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 11:47 AM   #65 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Defense Department spokesman Larry Di Rita seemed to confirm that the Zarqawi terrorist camp was simply a propaganda prop, left intentionally in place by the Bush administration so that they could direct Colin Powell to use it's existance as the main "evidence" to offer to a skeptical UN, that Saddam had terrorist ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, it actually demonstrates that the U.S. administration had no argument that the camp...or Zarqawi was actually a major terrorist threat that it actually took seriously itself.
What an interesting way to read that, I read it in a completely different way.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 03:39 PM   #66 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
host,

I've read every word of each article you linked. There's a lot of stuff there. However, hardly any of it has to do with the question at hand: what form did the Bush administration's alleged claims of a tie between Iraq and 9/11 take? You posted lots of stuff about Zarqawi, and lots of stuff about broad ties between Iraq and terrorism in general, and ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in particular. However, these don't answer the question we're examining here - which is Iraq and 9/11. I'd like to focus on this one particular aspect before moving to larger things. I, for one, don't think that a general coexistance of Iraq and Al Qaeda agents is equal to a link to the 9/11 attacks. We've thought from almost the beginning that those attacks were orchestrated and executed by a small number of people within the Qaeda organization.

In all that material, the argument that the Bush administration claimed Iraq was tied to 9/11 occupied approximately 9 lines, and came to 2 things. The first was a reiterated story about Cheney citing the Czech government's confirmation that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague. Certainly this was faulty intelligence. There's no reason now to believe that it happened.

The second thing in ALL of those articles is op-ed columnists stating that the Bush administration was trying hard to link Iraq to 9/11. None of them cites any specific instances of this effort other than Cheney's repeated mistaken reliance on the Czech report (which was thought for some time to be true).

Here's the crux of my question. If, in fact, the administration engaged in an devious attempt to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, there should be a broad and clear pattern of stating this in media outlets. Can you cite these? Or is this meme due to Cheney's mis-statements on one incident and the broadly pursued theme of Zarqawi?

Since I'm going to bother to read all of the links you provide, please do me (and other posters) the courtesy of ensuring that they are topical and organized in a way that supports whatever your contention may be.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 03:49 PM   #67 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
I thought this was the Cheney/Rumsfeld "then and now" thread.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 01:39 AM   #68 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
host,

I've read every word of each article you linked. There's a lot of stuff there. However, hardly any of it has to do with the question at hand: what form did the Bush administration's alleged claims of a tie between Iraq and 9/11 take? You posted lots of stuff about Zarqawi, and lots of stuff about broad ties between Iraq and terrorism in general, and ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in particular. However, these don't answer the question we're examining here - which is Iraq and 9/11. I'd like to focus on this one particular aspect before moving to larger things. I, for one, don't think that a general coexistance of Iraq and Al Qaeda agents is equal to a link to the 9/11 attacks. We've thought from almost the beginning that those attacks were orchestrated and executed by a small number of people within the Qaeda organization.

In all that material, the argument that the Bush administration claimed Iraq was tied to 9/11 occupied approximately 9 lines, and came to 2 things. The first was a reiterated story about Cheney citing the Czech government's confirmation that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague. Certainly this was faulty intelligence. There's no reason now to believe that it happened.

The second thing in ALL of those articles is op-ed columnists stating that the Bush administration was trying hard to link Iraq to 9/11. None of them cites any specific instances of this effort other than Cheney's repeated mistaken reliance on the Czech report (which was thought for some time to be true).

<b>Here's the crux of my question. If, in fact, the administration engaged in an devious attempt to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, there should be a broad and clear pattern of stating this in media outlets. Can you cite these? Or is this meme due to Cheney's mis-statements on one incident and the broadly pursued theme of Zarqawi?</b>

Since I'm going to bother to read all of the links you provide, please do me (and other posters) the courtesy of ensuring that they are topical and organized in a way that supports whatever your contention may be.
Elphaba, I apologize....but mitigating factors are....this thread is active again, and it seemed like the appropriate place to continue....because the last post on the first page is a prequel to what's happening here now....but that may have been a threadjack, too ....again....sorry!

ubertuber, I try to avoid op-ed pieces, unless they are rich in links to MSM news reports, or they add to, or provide background for actual news reporting.

Please point out any link that I've posted to an op-ed, in this discussion, that does not meet the standard that I described above. I appreciate receiving your attention and your challenge to me to make the best case that I can here.

I hope that you are not discounting the signifigance of Cheney's intimidation tactics used in an escape attempt from Gloria Borger's question. He decided to lie by adamantly denying that he had made his previously televised statement. His response was bullying, and extraordinary, given that it was about a matter so serious. Remember....Cheney "blew off" Gloria Borger in June, 2004. This report shows that it isn't possible that he just "didn't remember what he had said on Dec. 9, 2001. His reaction to Borger backs that up:
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

.......Cheney, for example, called the claim of an Atta meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague “pretty well confirmed” in a Dec. 9, 2001, “Meet the Press” interview. In a <b>Sept. 8, 2002,</b> “Meet the Press” appearance, just weeks before the congressional vote on authorizing President Bush to go to war, Cheney again returned to the issue: “We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.” Even after CIA and FBI officials had already concluded the claims of the meeting were almost certainly false, <b>Cheney was still referring to it in a Sept. 14, 2003 “Meet the Press” appearance.</b> “The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraq intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.........
and....this was reported just a week after Cheney said that Atta's Prague meeting was "pretty well confirmed"....Cheney had to know about the doubts, but on Dec. 9, 2001....he said "confirmed", anyway, and he was still asserting that Atta traveled to "meetings" in Praque, nine months after the following reporting:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/in...gewanted=print

December 16, 2001
New Clue Fails to Explain Iraq Role in Sept. 11 Attack
By CHRIS HEDGES with DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

When Czech officials disclosed that Mohamed Atta, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, had met last April with an Iraqi diplomat in Prague, it stirred immediate speculation about whether Iraq had a role in killing thousands of Americans.

But in the weeks since, the Prague meeting has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq. Interviews with Iraqi defectors, Czech officials, and people who knew the Iraqi diplomat have only deepened the mystery surrounding Mr. Atta's travels through central Europe.......

.........American officials in Washington, by contrast, said the diplomat was a minor functionary who happens to have the same last name as a more important Iraqi intelligence agent. These officials said that they had no evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

There are even questions about whether the reports of the meeting took place. An associate said the Iraqi diplomat had a business selling cars and met frequently with a used car dealer from Germany who bore a striking resemblance to Mr. Atta. Just this week, there were even reports from Prague that the Mohamed Atta who visited Prague last April was a different man with the same name.

In a retreat from the earlier definitive statements by his government, the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, recently said there was "a 70 percent" chance the meeting between Mr. Atta and an Iraqi agent named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani took place............
Please consider that I can only present the "tip" of the iceberg that floats mostly below the surface. I believe that Helen Thomas's accusatory question was legitimate, and the pattern of Bush-Cheney, et al, deception, is evident in Bush's reply to Helen; "Afghanistan, Taliban, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.....I determined that Iraq....blah blah blah".

The administrations "linkage" of Saddam to 9/11, was a deliberate, slick, and sometimes subtle, propaganda campaign. As often as Bush supporters erroneously maintain that the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or the Silberman Commission, investigated and reported on how the Bush admin. analyzed, prioritized, and conveyed pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq...to congress and to the American public, all three of the reports issued by those Commissions state that they specifically avoided looking into those administration/intelligence handling related issues, and thus, did not make determinations about them, in the three reports.

Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate-SCI, is now trying to split up the second half of his committee's report, which promised to address these issues in a timely manner....first in July, 2004, and then after a senate democrats' unanimous protest that the report was overdue....last November,
when 17 months had passed with no progress seen on finalizing the report's second phase. Now Roberts is trying to split the second half report into, two, to presumably further delay examining and issuing a report on the administration's handling of pre-Iraqi invasion, intelligence. The goal is transparent....the 2004 delay was to avoid disclosure before the November presidential election, and the new "split" proposal, is to delay issuing the report until after the November, 2006 mid-term election, and possibly beyond.

So....you can't "know" anything beyond a reasonable certainty. The rubber stamp, republican congress offers only it's track record of Sen. Pat Roberts' broken SSCI investigative "process" to bring the facts out for the American people to see. The democratic party is in the congressional minority. Democrats have no authority to convene a hearing, or to subpoena and the swear in any witness, without permission from republicans, who hold all committee and sub-committee chairs in both houses.

Of course, I think that the "evidence" that I offer you to examine, increases in stature and signifigance because the POTUS and his fellow federal elected party members have made such a thorough effort to avoid bi-partisan investigation of what the POTUS and the VP knew, by March 19, 2003, and when they knew it....vs what they told us, and what they did, not in spite of it. We now live in a climate where previously declassified material, some of it as old as forty to sixty years, is being rapidly, methodically, and secretly reclassified, and where something as simple as an FOIA request for the secret service white house logs of Abramoff's visits since 2001, was ignored, and only obtained after a judge's ruling in the lawsuit that followed:
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000525.php
McClellan Says White House Records Won't Show Everything
By Paul Kiel - May 2, 2006, 1:45 PM

Those White House visitor logs that were supposed to show all of Jack Abramoff's comings and goings?

The infuriating exchange from this morning's press gaggle:

QUESTION: Scott, the Secret Service has agreed to turn over records related to Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House in recent years. What's your reaction to that? Are you concerned at all --

Scott McClellan: We're aware of it. We're fine with it.

QUESTION: But are you concerned, since the White House had refused for a long time to turn over those records?

Scott McClellan: I mean, I wouldn't look at it as a complete historical record of things -- of events here at the White House. I'd just caution you on that.

QUESTION: Do you plan to make a public release --

QUESTION: What is that?

QUESTION: What does that mean?

Scott McClellan: Well, I mean, they have certain records, but I wouldn't say that -- I would just not view that as a complete record, but they have certain records that they keep and that they will be providing.

QUESTION: Did you say it was a complete historical record they're providing, or not? I thought that's what you said --

Scott McClellan: No, I wouldn't view it as a complete historical record, no.

QUESTION: Why?

QUESTION: Are you going to add to it then?

Scott McClellan: Because they -- they don't keep all those -- all historical records. It's just certain records that they keep that they will be providing.

QUESTION: Are you going to turn over your records?

Scott McClellan: Well, I've already -- I mean, I've already talked to you about what I know, and if there's anything you have to bring to my attention, you're welcome to, but I don't know of anything that's been brought --

QUESTION: But you brought it to our attention that there is more to it.

Scott McClellan: No, I didn't. There's nothing changed in terms of what I've previously said on it.

QUESTION: Are you saying in that, that Abramoff could have made other visits that are not recorded in the Secret Service records?

Scott McClellan: I'm just saying that they have -- I don't know exactly what they'll be providing, but they only have certain records, and so I just wouldn't view it as a complete historical record.

QUESTION: What other kinds of records could there be?

QUESTION: Are you going to add to it?

QUESTION: Not all visits to the White House are included in that record?

Scott McClellan: I don't know that they are.

QUESTION: -- who he was visiting when he was here?

Scott McClellan: Well, I think -- again, talk to the Secret Service. I think they only maintain certain records. I just wouldn't view it as a complete historical record.

QUESTION: You're saying they don't save everything?

Scott McClellan: I mean, what I said previously still stands. I think he attended two holiday receptions at the White House, and there are some additional staff-level meetings. But I said I couldn't rule out that there might be other large events that may have taken place that he attended. But that's what I know, and that still stands.

QUESTION: Is what you're saying is that the Secret Service doesn't have records of these parties --

Scott McClellan: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Is what you're saying --

Scott McClellan: They have Secret Service records that they keep.

QUESTION: But they might not include some of these large receptions?

Scott McClellan: ..........

other links: http://www.forbes.com/business/energ...ap2714162.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050200378.html
Much of what I described above is detailed here....including document reclassification, and the fact that Cheney kept the details of his 2001 "Energy Task Force" secret...not disclosed, to this day:
Quote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/14462039.htm
Posted on Sat, Apr. 29, 2006

Cheney exempts his own office from reporting on classified material
BY MARK SILVA
Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration has dramatically accelerated the classification of information as "top secret" or "confidential," one office is refusing to report on its annual activity in classifying documents: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and "any other entity within the executive branch" to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney continues to insist he is exempt.

Explaining why the vice president has withheld even a tally of his office's secrecy when such offices as the National Security Council routinely report theirs, a spokeswoman said Cheney is "not under any duty" to provide it.....
So....now that I've painted the case that they are obsessively secretive...the Cheney Energy Task Force meetings took place before they could use the excuse of 9/11 as a shield....here is what I've got. For me....it's enough...because it's all we're gonna get for the time being....and these folks have acted in an alarmingly un-American manner. No respect for FOIA, accountability to the people, or even respect for the structure of the constitutional government, or for the law: (I thought it would help to post these in chronological order.)

The first Bush quote reminds me of a song:
<a href="http://www.lyricsdownload.com/sprung-monkey-coconut-lyrics.html">put the lime in the coconut and mix em both up</a>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020925-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 25, 2002

President Bush, Colombia President Uribe Discuss Terrorism
Remarks by President Bush and President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia in Photo Opportunity
The Oval Office

....... Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. <b>The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.</b>

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.........
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003

President Delivers "State of the Union"
The U.S. Capitol


..... Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

<b>Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, 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.</b> It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.) ....
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address

......... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ........
Quote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
from the March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.....
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030321-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 21, 2003

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. <b>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....</b>

.... As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/po...tel.ready.html
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.’’

The newly declassified portions of the document were made available by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Levin said the new evidence of early doubts about Mr. Libi’s statements dramatized what he called the Bush administration’s misuse of prewar intelligence to try to justify the war in Iraq. That is an issue that Mr. Levin and other Senate Democrats have been seeking to emphasize, in part by calling attention to the fact that the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee has yet to deliver a promised report, first sought more than two years ago, on the use of prewar intelligence.

An administration official declined to comment on the D.I.A. report on Mr. Libi......

....The report issued by the Senate intelligence committee in July 2004 questioned whether some versions of intelligence report prepared by the C.I.A. in late 2002 and early 2003 raised sufficient questions about the reliability of Mr. Libi’s claims.

<b>But neither that report nor another issued by the Sept. 11 commission made any reference to the existence of the earlier and more skeptical 2002 report by the D.I.A., which supplies intelligence to military commanders and national security policy makers. As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel.

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place... </b>

Last edited by host; 05-03-2006 at 01:51 AM..
host is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 02:47 AM   #69 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Here's an article I remember reading when it was fresh:

Quote:
No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
By Greg Miller *
Los Angeles Times
September 18, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.

Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

Bush's comments were his most direct on the issue to date. He drew a clear distinction between alleged Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda and the lack of evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. That is a distinction administration officials did not emphasize in the months before the war. The issue has come to a head amid recent polls showing that most Americans believe — despite the lack of evidence — that Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed Wednesday that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link. McClellan's assertion appears to be factually correct, but many administration critics, including some in the intelligence community, said it was also somewhat misleading.

A reading of the record shows that while senior administration officials stopped short of accusing Hussein of complicity in the attacks, they frequently alluded to the possibility of such a connection, and consistently cast the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in stronger terms than many in the intelligence community seemed to endorse.

Even Bush's remarks Wednesday were challenged by lawmakers and other officials who have reviewed the White House's prewar claims and have access to the underlying U.S. intelligence. Responding to Bush's statement, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said any alleged ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda "are tenuous at best and not compelling." And while he agreed that administration officials never made an explicit connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, Rockefeller said the White House "led the American public into believing there was a connection in order to build support for the war in Iraq."

The issue, which had been dormant for several months, has been revived in recent days by a number of factors, including a fresh effort by the White House to shore up support for the increasingly costly military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq by casting the operation as a part of the response to Sept. 11. In a speech last week, Bush described Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism, even though few in the counter-terrorism community described it as such before the U.S. invasion.

In his appearance Sunday on "Meet the Press," Cheney vigorously defended every aspect of the war, saying the administration's prewar claims about banned weapons held by Iraq would be proved true. He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Cheney said.

The White House has been on the defensive for months over the failure so far to find banned weapons in Iraq, which has fueled criticism that the administration hyped the threat posed by Hussein. Perhaps fearing that Cheney's comments might trigger a new public relations problem, the White House has moved quickly in recent days to clarify its position on Iraq and Sept. 11.

Bush's remarks Wednesday followed nearly identical comments by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday that the administration had no evidence tying Hussein to Sept. 11. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice also spoke on the issue Tuesday, saying on ABC's "Nightline," "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." Recent administration statements, however, have prompted new questions about whether the White House contributed to and capitalized on public perception that Iraq was involved in the attacks.

Polls over the past year have shown that a persistent, perhaps even growing, majority of Americans believes Hussein was somehow involved. The latest, an August survey by the Washington Post, found that 69% of Americans believed Iraq was "likely" behind the attacks.

Polling experts say the numbers reflect the strong animosity many Americans have felt toward Hussein since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "The American public has always been prepared to think the worst of Saddam Hussein," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "They think he's a dangerous guy, and he comes from the Mideast, where the people who are dedicated to hurting us come from, and [their belief that he was behind Sept. 11] is less conviction than, 'Yeah, probably.' "

Asked whether he believed the administration contributed to that perception, Kohut replied: "Well, they didn't have to hint very much to have Americans draw that inference. I don't know if people were already there [in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11], but they were prepared to go there really quickly."

Though Bush and his top aides did not say directly that Hussein took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, they often combined the two subjects in speeches and interviews leading up to the war. In a key speech in Cincinnati in October, the president said: "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." After Hussein's regime was toppled, Bush reinforced the perception of a link between the two in his May 1 speech aboard an aircraft carrier off San Diego, saying, "We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

Critics argue that such juxtapositions encouraged people to tie Hussein to Sept. 11. "It was the close association in the same thought, the same sentence, that led to that incorrect conclusion," said Greg Thielmann, a former senior intelligence official at the State Department who retired last year. "And I think it was done with great skill and deliberation."

The administration also seized on shards of evidence that seemed to suggest Iraqi complicity in the attacks, evidence that has since come into serious question. In perhaps the most important example, Cheney has repeatedly cited the allegation that the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague several months before the attacks. "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April," Cheney said in an appearance on "Meet the Press" three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

The CIA says it can find no evidence that such a meeting took place. The FBI says that financial and other records indicate that Atta was in Florida when the meeting allegedly took place. Nor has the account been supported by information from the Iraqi agent, who has been in U.S. custody for several months. "If we had gotten confirmation that there was such a meeting, I think you would know," a U.S. official said Wednesday.

Cheney raised the issue of the meeting again Sunday, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." To be sure, there is evidence of some contact between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. An Al Qaeda affiliate, Abu Musab Zarqawi, operated from Baghdad, where a cell he controlled orchestrated the killing of a U.S. diplomat last year, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody have told interrogators "that there was some training of Al Qaeda types offered by Iraq, and perhaps received," a U.S. official said. There are also reports of contacts between Iraqi agents and Al Qaeda operatives in Sudan dating back a decade or more. But none of the senior Al Qaeda operatives in custody, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, nor any of the senior Iraqi officials being detained, have described significant cooperation between the two, according to intelligence officials. "Nobody has alleged that Al Qaeda was working hand in glove with Iraq," the U.S. official said.

White House Quotes Past and Present
[Compiled by Times researchers Cary Schneider and Joan Wolff. Sources: Facts on File, news reports.]

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

*Times staff writers Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter contributed to this report.
I have some things to say about this topic, but I'm tired.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 02:59 PM   #70 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
host,

I've snipped out the sections of your previous that have to do with the Bush administration (through its officials) asserting a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. The first is what I characterized as an op-ed piece. This may not be a fair label, but I'm not sure what else to call it. It's merely Benjamin's claim that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld (notable not Dick Cheney or even G.W. Bush) said things, without any quotations, context, or proof.

Holy Zarqawi
Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk. By Daniel Benjamin

Quote:
Originally Posted by slate.com
After 9/11, senior officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, simply refused to believe the assessment of the intelligence community that Iraq had no hand in the attack and that al-Qaida operated independently of state support.
Cheney's Debate Misrepresentations on Iraq.

This one is a news report, but is not much more than a rehash of the one claim of Cheney's statement that Atta met Iraqi agents once in Prague. Once again, while this statement is now unproveable, it was for a short time confirmed by the Czech government. And yes, I know that their confirmation was sloppy, unwarrented, and bizarrely delayed and later retracted. I bolded Cheney's interesting and indignant claim that he never made that claim (other than the one thing, which he admitted saying in a very specific way).
Quote:
Originally Posted by msnbc.com
Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that “I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” But that claim is belied by an array of interviews and public comments in which Cheney has done precisely that—by repeatedly invoking claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. That allegation was also debunked by the 9/11 commission after the panel found abundant evidence that Atta was actually in the United States at the time the rendezvous supposedly took place.
Please note that this post concerns your posts 63 and 64, and your question about my characterization of some of their contents as op-ed. While I admit that I may have applied that label inappropriately, I'm not sure what to call the first of these snippets. The second is, as we both acknowledge, another report of one claim, which may have been made several times.

And please forgive me for harping on this, but it is striking that I could only pull 6 lines of directly relevant text out of your approximately 26 pages of linked text (all of which I read).

I'm currently reading through your more recent post, so I'll respond when I've finished. I promise I haven't forgotten or moved on.

This may be a moot point by now (and I'll find out soon), but I again want to emphasize that the question I asked was about the Bush administration alleging that Iraq was linked or responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I saw many people decrying those claims, but don't remember hearing administration officials making them (your incident with Cheney's favorite citation of a temporarily confirmed report aside). I'm thinking that if the Bush administration was really making that claim as a justification for invading Iraq, then we ought to be able to find out when and where they said it, not to mention just what was said. At this point, I think Wolfowitz is the most likely suspect, as he has always seemed the most hawkish of the bunch.

I should state outright that I don't think claims of co-existence or even cooperation between Iraq and Qaeda agents are enough to support an Iraq-9/11 connection. They are a claim that Iraq consorted with terrorists, but as we've noted, it is widely accepted that the 9/11 attacks were planned and perpetrated by a small number of people - it seems to be the only way they could have been kept secret. If your assertion that the Bush administration has claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11 is based on the Zarqawi stuff or non-aggression pacts between bin Laden and Hussein, I think we'll have to agree to disagree - I just don't think that is strong enough to justify the outrage over that claimed connection.

Again, I'm not necessarily arguing that you're wrong. I'd just like to see the administration's words from their own mouths. I've never understood where all that hoopla was coming from. I'd very much appreciate someone pointing it out to me more clearly. I'll get back to sorting through your most recent posts, so I apologize if you've already done so.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 05-03-2006 at 03:02 PM..
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 05:36 PM   #71 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
host,

You seriously just posted the same article for a second time without saying anything new about it. I'm referring to the msnbc.com article about the Vice Presidential debates.

Here I quote from your second article. New Clue Fails to Explain Iraq Role in Sept. 11 Attack
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
American officials in Washington, by contrast, said the diplomat was a minor functionary who happens to have the same last name as a more important Iraqi intelligence agent. These officials said that they had no evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
...
There was definitely one meeting,'' between Mr. Ani and Mr. Atta, an intelligence official in Washington said. ''We don't know if it was significant. We certainly don't attribute to it the significance others attribute to it automatically. Just because there was a meeting doesn't mean it was connected to 9/11.
I'm skipping the Abramoff and classification stuff, but I'll comment there in the end of this post.
From the whitehouse.gov transcript of President Bush's interview with President Uribe of Colombia you might have done better to post this snippet (below). However, this STILL isn't a claim that Iraq was responsible for (or even aware of) the 9/11 attacks. He's saying that since we were shocked by those attacks we've learned that we have to proactively address threats to our national security (which they then tried to show Iraq was through the whole WMD debate). This is like me seeing a car accident and resolving to tell my mother I love her because she might die unexpectedly as well. That's not me saying that she'll die in a car accident - just that a lesson learned from one event can be proactively applied to similar situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitehouse.gov
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think the American people ought to understand that life has changed here in this country; that it used to be two oceans would separate us from danger, that we were quite comfortable in our shores knowing that it would take an unusual circumstance to be attacked. After September the 11th, we were attacked, and the American people understand that this country must deal with the true threats.
I won't quote your information from the State of the Union speech - you've narrowed it down pretty well. However, once again this is not an assertion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It's a fear that next time could be worse, if Iraq DID assist terrorist organisations.

The radio address is probably the best link you used. It is an example of President Bush himself asserting that there have been past links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. However, these claims range over a decade and while specific, never mention the 9/11 attacks or even Osama bin Laden. Hang on to this for a second, because it'll be part of the end of this post.

Following that, you've got Bush's letter to Congress, which states that disarming 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. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)."

I'll admit. This is pretty darn close to what I was asking about. Here's the thing (and I know I sound like I'm splitting hairs - I'm sorry, please bear with me). This letter asserts that disarming Iraq is consistent with...including those nations... The words "consistent" and "including" are key, as they allow the interpretation that, once again, Iraq is similar to agents that prosecuted the 9/11 attacks without being those agents. You're right in that this instance is hard to take in other ways. However, this letter was written at the beginning of hostilities with Iraq, not during the time that the Bush administration was trying to drum up support for the war - so it can't be part of the public idea that the Bush administration claims that Iraq was linked to 9/11 in ways other than being a lesson to learn from.

Which brings me to your Christian Science Monitor article... This article explicitly makes the point that I'm suspecting. That the Bush administration DID NOT make claims that Iraq had any involvement with the WTC/Pentagon attacks of 9/11/2001. In fact, even in the transcripts and articles that you've posted, there are several explicit claims to the contrary. However, there are numerous (if not tons) of instances in which administration officials mention 9/11 and Iraq in close proximity to each other. That's hardly surprising since Bush and his administration seem to sincerely believe that after 9/11 we find ourselves in a new world. They link those attacks to virtually every issue in international and domestic politics. Further, there's a repeated idea that we should invade Iraq because 9/11 taught us to proactively engage these sorts of threats before it's too late. In abstract, this isn't such a bad lesson to have learned from September 11th. On the other hand, extrapolating that to Iraq and determining that Saddam Hussein represented the most significant threat to US interests seems to be quite a leap. Of course that's a topic for another thread.

So am I correct in concluding that there are not clear and repeated instances of Bush administration officials publicly claiming that Iraq had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks? I see a broad attempt to link the sense of danger we felt after 9/11 to Iraq. I remember many critics of this policy complaining that the Bush administration had made these claims - and I didn't remember hearing them. Of course (as you're probably realizing now), I'm an unusually literally-minded person. The list of quotes at the end of Smooth's article support my memory, and my literally minded interpretation.

Smooth's article probably states this more concisely than you or I could. (Thanks Smooth - I'd like to hear your thoughts when you're not too tired.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Times article
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed Wednesday that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link. McClellan's assertion appears to be factually correct, but many administration critics, including some in the intelligence community, said it was also somewhat misleading.
Finally, and I'm trying to be gentle here... Once again, I had to wade through lots and lots of quoted and linked material that is unrelated to the topic at hand. I know Abramoff and Cheney are your pet issues, but there's nothing here related to Congress, classification, lobbying, energy commissions, or any of the other myriad links you included. Your points could have been made with about 3 links where you used more than a dozen. I'm assuming you provide such voluminous documentation because you want us to read it... That would be both more likely and more rewarding if these links were chosen more selectively. I know I'd appreciate it if you'd just think about this.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 02:05 AM   #72 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
ubertuber, I'm curious if we could work through the following problem inductively: what is the explanation for the direct correlation between the rise in the population's belief of an Iraq-Sept. 11th link and the claims about justifications for the Iraq war?

A direct correlation, in this context, means that as claims for the war increased, so did belief in a link between the two concepts.

Linkage, in this context, is not necessarily physical collaboration between two entities. Links can also refer to mental association between two things. The language used by the administration when referring to Iraq or 9-11 seems intended to elicit mental linkages between the two concepts.

Let's deconstruct some portions of the discursive tactics the administration utilized:
I notice that Iraq is a Nation-State, while Sept 11th is a time.
Do you agree with me that when Iraq and Sept 11th are spoken of, the former is referred to as an agent while the latter is referred to as a time or event?

Referring to an attack as a time, rather than who is responsible for it, cues the listener to listen for, or think about, the action and fill in the actors responsible for it. In this case, according to polls over time, the actors became Iraqis andSaddam Hussein in the minds of a large majority of the population (whas it somewhere between 60 and 70%?).

I don't have direct quotes of explicit links between Iraq and the attack on Sept 11th. I would have been surprised if they had made some given that the hypothesis I'm working with is that the administration was unaware of or knew of no physical link between the two concepts but wanted to create a mental one regardless. If that is true, I would doubt they would use direct links that could, in the future, be disproven (thereby making them susceptable to charges that they actually/explicitly lied to the public).

I remember, however, that during the run-up to the war that I was constantly discussing with a handful of people during which I was correcting them about the lack of a physical link between Iraq and Sept 11th.

I'm not claiming that only leftists recognized their was no physical link between the two. If I'm remembering the polls correctly, 30-40% did not believe Iraq was responsible for the attack on 9-11. It stands to reason that you, as I, did not make that logical coupling. But the empirical evidence is that we are in the minority of the population.

As much as I dislike the use of an implicit concept to steer public opinion to support a war, I recognize another link that is far more problematic. Intentionally or not, the administration is creating a frame of reference to understand these contemporary events. This is one link you recognized and reiterated: a sense of fear.

The threats these events create to our nation's security create a ready-made perspective on other events. This frame gives us a set of linguistic tools to apply to new problems and constrains our thoughts in accordance with the language in play.

We could examine how this new frame (terrorism; national security) is being applied to drug offenders and illegal immigrants, for example. My main concern is that as this military action way of looking at and responding to our foreign threats is applied to domestic threats, we will see an increase in para-military reactions domestically. That is, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern that we might see an increase in centralization of police power and subsequent use of that force domestically.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 05-04-2006 at 02:14 AM..
smooth is offline  
 

Tags
back, failing, history, learn, neocon


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360