Why won't Bush admit the plain truth & quit lying?

Let me ask you something, and I would like an honest answer.

Had the 9/11 commission came out agreeing with the administration, would you be giving the commission statements the same level of reverance that you are now?

I am curious, because I feel that the final report will show the Bush administration was doing the right thing prior to 9/11. I am sure that there will be somethings that could have been done better, that has already been demonstrated, but, I think the big picture will be benficial to the administration.

9/11 - Deconstructing the Myth
Center for American Progress
9/11 - Deconstructing the Myth Part II
6/17/04

The 9/11 Commission issued two staff reports yesterday which found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. The commission's findings shoot yet another hole in the Bush administration's sketchy justifications for invading Iraq. The New York Times sums up the rest: "Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy." See yesterday's Progress Report for more on the anatomy behind the myth of an al Qaeda/Saddam link.

SADDAM DISSED OSAMA: According to the Commission report, Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq." He even asked for help setting up training camps and buying weapons. However, it was a no go - Saddam ignored him, as "Iraq apparently never responded" to the request for help. Although there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, the Commission states that "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

QUASHING THE ATTA THEORY: The Commission report quashes the theory that Iraq helped train the 9/11 hijackers, a theory pushed by Vice President Cheney. In a September Meet the Press appearance, Cheney stated, "With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack." Not so. The 9/11 commission flatly dismissed this report, saying, ''We do not believe that such a meeting occurred.''

DODGING RESPONSIBILITY: Administration officials are trying to neutralize the fallout from the report by claiming that just because they previously said al Qaeda and Saddam were linked, they didn't mean it was a link to 9/11. Colin Powell claimed, "'I think we have said, and it is clear, that there is a connection, and we have seen these connections between al-Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we stick with that… We have not said it was related to 9/11.'' This isn't true. As USA Today reports, "Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"

CHENEY HELPED CREATE MISCONCEPTION: Cheney was aware the public was connecting administration claims of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda with the 9/11 attacks. Studies by the nonpartisan Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found "the most striking misperception" about the war in Iraq "is the belief that, not only were there links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, but that actual evidence has been found." Indeed, the studies showed a majority of Americans erroneously believed that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including one fifth who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. "Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." In September, Cheney acknowledged, ''I think it's not surprising that people make that connection'' between Saddam and 9/11.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL ERRORS: Another report poised to be released by the Senate Intelligence Committee criticizes the administration's means of gathering the "information" they used to claim a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Officials say the report specifically "criticizes the Pentagon's creation of an independent intelligence 'cell' called the Office of Special Plans to review raw intelligence about Baghdad's alleged ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and to funnel its analysis to the White House without going through normal channels."

HELL NO, CONSERVATIVES WON'T ADMIT THEY'RE WRONG: Earlier this week, Cheney went on record again perpetrating the myth that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Will he recant? "Hell no!" said an administration official. He's not the only conservative determined to stick to his deceptive claims. Even when confronted with the facts, some House conservatives are unwilling to admit they were wrong. "When pressed on the specifics of the report," writes The Hill, conservative lawmakers "glossed over the lack" of evidence of a tie, instead relying on the weak argument that "al Qaeda and Iraq share the same goal of killing Americans."

McGentrix


"Reverance"? You think I'm giving the Commission's report reverance? I'm merely passing along the facts found by the Commission. Had it been supportive of the Bush Administration or even the actions of the Clinton Administration, I would still pass it along, but with some skeptical comments just to fry your ire.

BBB

Media Mislead on 9/11 Commission Finding on Iraq-al Qaida Link


Reports Wednesday morning that the 9/11 Commission has determined there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida are completely false - and are undoubtedly driven by the media's determination to contradict the Bush administration's claims that such a link exists.

"9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden" reads the headline on the Associated Press report on today's Commission staff statement.

But that's not what the Commission staff report actually said.

The below passage, for instance, does more to confirm the Bush administration's claims of an Iraq-al Qaida link than it does to contradict them.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]

Apparently never responded? How, pray tell, does the AP derive from those words the conclusive claim that Iraq "rebuffed" bin Laden?

The Commission statement continues:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

What's the evidence for this less-than-conclusive surmise?

"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," says the Commission.

Such a statement begs the question: Why does the Commission, let alone the press, take the word of two senior bin Laden associates over, say, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi.

Last December he told the London Telegraph, "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda."

Reacting to the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document placing 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks, he continued:

"This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

In fact, nowhere does the Commission make the claim that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. What it does say is "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [NewsMax italics]

Apparently Dr. Allawi's asssement counts for nothing.

Even so, it's worth noting that elsewhere in today's staff statement, the 9/11 Commission asserts:

"With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]

In other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden.

Another problem: If the press is going to take today's staff statement as gospel, certain long-held media assumptions will need to be drastically revised, such as the widely accepted notion that al-Qaida was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing.

Not true, says the Commission.

"Whether Bin Ladin and his organization had roles in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center ... remains a matter of substantial uncertainty," the staff statement says, before insisting, "We have no conclusive evidence" of a bin Laden link. [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 6]

The same goes for "Operation Bojinka," the 1995 plot to hijack 12 airliners hatched by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that experts say was the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks.

"[Mohammed] was not, however, an al Qaeda member at the time of the Manilla [Bojinka] plot," Commission staffers say, even though they acknowledge that he went on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.

The press is furiously spinning the 9/11 Commission staff statement in a bid to discredit the Bush administration. Americans should go to the Sept. 11 Commission Web site and read the conclusions for themselves: http://www.9-11commission.gov/

* Commission spellings

McGentrix
McGentrix, you are still the easiest A2Ker to expose. NewsMax, the source of your article is a right wing conservative site. The Commision is a bi-partisan group. ---BBB

Duh. But they also support the conservative viewpoint.

It will come out on other news sites soon enough.

Besides, at least I post my links...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/

McG's quote, "It will come out on other news sites soon enough." We shall wait with bated breath.

McGintrix
McGintrix, what are you accusing me of? I always post my source for articles I post. What are you implying?

BBB

Re: Why won't Bush admit the plain truth & quit lying?


Bush is incapable of apologizing to anyone for anything. Besides, he thinks he is justified for invading Iraq....he said God Himself told him to do it.

In my opinion, nothing justifies the loss of life and the quagmire Iraq has become.

Re: McGentrix


From the Center for American Progress:

"Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility."

Real non-partisan...

McGintrix
McGintrix, there you go doing it again. I said the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. You then remark about the liberal Center for American Progress, which I did not refer to.

When will you ever begin to make honest arguments instead of introducing "red herrings" or "straw dogs" to try to reinforce your positions? This pattern only demonstrates a lack of sophisticated intelligence and/or of political maturity.

BBB

Oh, I am sorry. I thought I did make an honest effort in posting the article I did which was immediately condemned because it came from Newsmax. Meanwhile, the second article you posted on this thread came from the Center for American progress. At least it appears to. You failed to post a link for it so I assumed that's where it was from due to the header "Center for American Progress
9/11 - Deconstructing the Myth Part II
6/17/04".

You have condemned my source as being a "right wing conservative site", I have countered by showing yours to be a left winged liberal site.

So, take from this what you will.

BBB, We all know by now the McG and his ilk keeps hanging onto straws, because their whole belief system about Bush would crumble without it. It's the same non-sensical belief system of terrorists that continues to believe they will have 72 virgins waiting for them after they sacrifice themselves as martyrs for the "cause."

Alright! I have ilk!

Another Bush bungling.
********************
Not So Frivolous
June 18, 2004
By BOB HERBERT

ALLIANCE, Ohio

President Bush traveled to Youngstown, Ohio, a few weeks
ago to talk about health care, and before long he was
reprising his complaint about "junk and frivolous"
malpractice suits, which he said are discouraging good
doctors from practicing medicine.

As he often does, the president called for reforms to make
it more difficult for patients to seek compensation and to
restrict the amount of damages that could be paid to those
who prove they have been harmed.

To bolster his argument Mr. Bush introduced a local doctor,
Compton Girdharry, to an audience at Youngstown State
University. Dr. Girdharry, an obstetrician/gynecologist,
said he had been driven from a practice of 21 years by the
high cost of malpractice insurance.

The president praised Dr. Girdharry and thanked him for his
"compassion."

If Mr. Bush was looking for an example of a doctor who was
victimized by frivolous lawsuits, Dr. Girdharry was not a
great choice. Since the early 1990's, he has settled
lawsuits and agreed to the payment of damages in a number
of malpractice cases in which patients suffered horrible
injuries.

"It's been four years since my son passed away, and I don't
feel any stronger or any happier than the day I lost him,"
said Lisa Vitale, whose suit against Dr. Girdharry and a
hospital was settled out of court.

During an interview in her home in Alliance, Ms. Vitale
said she went into Alliance Community Hospital on the
morning of Aug. 17, 1993, for the delivery of her second
child.

Her first delivery had been by Caesarean section, but Ms.
Vitale said she was told that a vaginal delivery this time
would not be a problem. While she was in the delivery room,
however, the fetal monitoring strip was not properly
checked and, she said, she was left alone and in pain for
long periods. Dr. Girdharry stopped by around 6 p.m. and
then went to dinner.

No one noticed that the baby was in serious distress.

Dr.
Girdharry blamed the ensuing tragedy on the nurse. Ms.
Vitale, he told me, "was being monitored by a nurse who was
what they call a casual part-time nurse, who was not very
well trained in reading fetal monitor strips."

By the time he was called back from dinner, he said, it was
"too late" to take the steps, including a Caesarean
delivery, that might have prevented permanent injury.

The baby was born with severe brain damage. He was unable
to even drink from a bottle. He lived six years and four
months, requiring nursing care the entire time.

Judy Mays, another patient of Dr. Girdharry, delivered a
son by Caesarean section on March 26, 1999. The baby was
fine. But, as alleged in a suit filed by Ms. Mays, when the
incision was closed, a sponge with a cord and a ring
attached to it was left inside.

Ms. Mays said she complained repeatedly to Dr. Girdharry
about the pain she experienced, which at times was
incapacitating. "When I brought it to the doctor's
attention," she said, "he told me, `Well, you just had
major surgery. You've got to heal."

After four and a half agonizing months, Ms. Mays felt a
bulging growth beneath the skin, "about the size of a
grapefruit."

She was petrified, she said, thinking it was a tumor. She
said an associate of Dr. Girdharry ordered tests, including
a CAT scan. The sponge was spotted, but by that time it had
adhered to her internal organs and her intestines were
surrounding it.

Dr. Girdharry told me he began operating to remove the
sponge but found the damage was worse than he had expected.
Another surgeon was called to complete the surgery.

Ms. Mays said she learned after the surgery that part of
her large and small intestines had been removed, and that
she probably would have died if the sponge had stayed
inside her for another month. The surgery, she said, has
left her with a variety of permanent ailments.

These are just two of the cases settled by Dr. Girdharry,
who told me that his appearance in Youngstown with
President Bush was "a dream come true."

Yesterday a White House spokesman said the president had
not been aware of the problems in Dr. Girdharry's
background. "Had this doctor provided that information,"
the spokesman said, "he would not have been at that
event."

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/opinion/18HERB.html?ex=1088562097&ei=1&en=fc8f84d791aacff5

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

*ahem*


Commission confirms links

By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.

The staff report concludes that:

• Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."

• "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."

• "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."

Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.

President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.

For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.

Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."

The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.

What a stretch! I had contacts with many people on this planet; it doesn't mean I had any "relations" with them that involved terrorist or sexual activities. Trying to make any conclusion about what transpired between any contact between two people are guessing in the wind; worthless presumptions. I would rather make assumptions about Rummie shaking hands with Saddam. That has grist, and some kernal of "truth" about providing Saddam with WMDs.

So, how is some were so quick to announce that there was NO link between Hussein and al Qaeda, but now that links have been demonstrated, from the SAME COMMITTEE, it is still doubted or under played?

Could it be that some are just so ultra-partisan that it doesn't matter what the report says as long as it damns Bush?