The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

I recall how breathlessly excited the leftists were about "Fitz-mas".

Yes, please go back and re-read those threads, and perhaps re-educate yourself to the facts.

Libby was indicted on 5 counts: 1 count of obstruction of justice, 2 counts of perjury, and 2 counts of making a false statement to federal investigators. (Much like Martha Stewart.)

Libby was NOT indicted on "disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel" or "improper disclosure of national defense information," as you claim. The Grand Jury investigated those allegations, but Libby was not indicted for them. There was no evidence that Libby violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

You're welcome.

Of course you're right, nothing 'untoward' there.

Getting back to my original comment to Finn that you first commented on

Why didn't the Bush administration let the people know that Saddam wasn't directly involved in 911 even though they knew it to be the case?

You're asking me to tell you the deepest secrets of the inner sanctum.

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

The discussion, as you've acknowledged but can't seem to remember, was based on an assertion JTT made that Bush & Co overtly misled the American people into believing Saddam participated in the planning or execution of 9/11.

This simply isn't true which, despite your insistence upon dancing with the term “technically,” is also something you've acknowledged.

I have already shared with you my thoughts on the issue of there being a link in the public mind between Saddam and 9/11 and I'm not going to repeat myself, but since you seem to have gotten such a kick out of my use of "untoward" I'm going to explain to you how you took in out of context in your reply to me and your exchange with Tico.

Here is what I wrote:

(emphasis added)

"This argument" of course is your argument that Bush & Co should have clearly and unequivocally explained to the nation that there was no evidence to support the widely based public opinion (as determined by polling) that Saddam was involved in the planning or executing of 9/11.

You can assert and accuse, bluster and bloviate as much as you care to but you cannot prove the US government did anything illegal, unethical or untoward in terms of misleading the American people into believing that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 in terms of planning or executing. What you have been able to do is assert that the government could have and should have done more to disabuse the American public of its belief in the Saddam-9/11 connection, that they should have taken the extreme measure of going on national television to answer an unasked question

Once you really got yourself in a lather your reply to me you wrote:



I'm not sure if it still bears pointing out (your latest reply to Tico suggests it does) that your long litany of government malfeasance has nothing to do with the issue of the American people believing the Saddam/9-11 connection. I'm not going to bother arguing what if anything on your list is a valid assertion (You can keep slugging it out with Tico on that if you'd like), but again none of it has anything to do with the issue that originally gave rise to the discussion - JTT's claim.

In your zeal to score points you didn't take the time to read what I wrote and so created whatever obfuscation there was to find.

While we're on the topic, there was no obfuscation in my making a point about the public's stubborn willingness to believe something when all evidence is to the contrary. Clearly (at least to Tico, if not you) I was not arguing that since there was more reason to believe that Saddam, as opposed to the CIA, took the WTC down, no clarification on the Saddam/9-11 connection was perforce required.

I certainly would agree with you that if you find yourself unable to understand what a writer is saying the problem may well be the writer's coherence rather than you comprehension...or not. In any case it's amazing how actually reading what has been written tends to solve either problem.

Ha! I tricked you, I'm already dead.

Reading this was quicker than those two A2K threads! Freaking pinkos.

“The Whole Operation of Deception”: Reconstructing President Bush’s Rhetoric of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Stephen J. Hartnett
Laura A. Stengrim
University of Illinois
Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, Volume 4 Number 2, 2004 152-197

DOI: 10.1177/1532708603262787
© 2004 Sage Publications
http://129.11.76.45/papers/pmt/exhibits/1869/hartnett.pdf

Abstract:
Based on analyses of seven pre-war intelligence documents, we demonstrate that estimates of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs were laced with ambiguities and contradictions. Yet President Bush turned this contested intelligence into a heroic rhetoric of certainty, hence dragging the U.S. into war on the basis of lies.

Based on a comprehensive critique of their post-9/11 speeches and testimonies, we offer a four-step rhetorical schema for analyzing how President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell constructed these lies.We thus offer readers both a critique of Bush administration deceptions and the critical rhetorical tools necessary to recognize and decode future governmental deception. Then, focusing on the post-war revelations offered by Joseph Wilson, which in turn prompted a vicious administration attack on Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, we analyze the labyrinthine cover-up the Bush administration has used to conceal its lies about Iraqi WMD.

Hey Finn - I'd stopped following the thread for a few days s0 I don't know or care what JTT said - I was only addressing your statement that Bush had never said anything about Saddam being responsible for 911. I said technically you were right, but then gave my caveats in that his administration knew he wasn't involved but did nothing to disavow the public of that belief.

Then Tico sticks his dick in, you wave yours around and I'm getting tag-teamed by a pair of neocons with no KY. Aint this fun!

untoward? do any of you speak common American English?

I just saw someone say 'Forfend' in another thread. Wow!

I am serious, the words some of you use make no sense to me! Also when you use single quotes well that does tell me something

Open another tab and go to an on-line dictionary, keeping it on hand like that makes it easy to learn. You can just pop over there when you are reading.

Single quotes tell you I was quoting Finn - go nag him about language usage - at least he's American.

I know I can do that except no one I know of uses some of the words that are written on this site, thanks though

btw I don't do tabs, I rather open a new window.

Some us indulge in the occaisional sesquipedalian diversion from the modern monosyllabism... mostly just for shits and giggles.

huh??? omg I just about spit out my pop on the computer screen. Thanks for the laugh!!!!

Untoward is common American . . . and some people, myself included, use it in everyday speech if it is the appropriate word. I even use whom where it is appropriate. Don't extrapolate from your own ignorance.

What about castigate?

Yes, i would use that where appropriate--such as: I will have to castigate you for saying that i am anti-Saxe-Coberg-Gotha.

Castigate is Setanta's middle name izzy.

He should have a sensible middle name like the.

Nothing but haughty pretensions, Set.