Anti-anti-Saddamism

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Anti-anti-Saddamism

PERHAPS JOHN KERRY simply made the mistake of believing what he read in the New York Times. There it was, the lead headline on Thursday, June 17: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Or perhaps he read the Los Angeles Times headline: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found." Or the Washington Post: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed." Or maybe he was watching CBS News the night before, as John Roberts explained that "one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war in Iraq" took "a devastating hit" as the 9/11 Commission "put the nail in that connection" between Saddam and al Qaeda.

So Kerry pounced. No matter that this coverage ranged from tendentious to false. The Bush administration, he claimed, "misled America." "The administration took its eye off al Qaeda, took its eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq." And "the United States of America should never go to war because it wants to; we should only go to war because we have to."

So we didn't have to go to war against Saddam, and (presumably) shouldn't have. After all, "the real war on terror" is in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. And since the Bush administration, Kerry implies, knew perfectly well that there was no link between the "real" terrorists and Saddam Hussein, it went to war to remove Saddam only "because it want[ed] to." The New York Times reports, incidentally, that this last line, about the administration "wanting" to go to war, is "one Mr. Kerry has been using with increasing frequency in campaign appearances," and is one that receives "loud applause." Why any administration should "want" to fight an unnecessary war Kerry does not explain. Or does Kerry now agree with his colleague Ted Kennedy that the Bush administration went to war because it knew it "was going to be good politically"?

This is surely a major moment in the presidential race. John Kerry had, until last week, been running a disciplined general election campaign, carefully suppressing his left-leaning foreign policy instincts, soberly emphasizing his commitment to fighting the war on terror and to seeing through the effort in Iraq. Then he couldn't resist the temptation to jump on the (misleading) press accounts of the (sloppy) 9/11 Commission staff report, in order to assault the Bush administration on the issue of terror links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

The Bush administration has fought back. President Bush explained on Thursday, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Vice President Cheney went on television that night to elaborate: "The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. . . . And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not [Iraqis] were involved in 9/11. And there, [the commission] found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways." By the end of the day, 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton were emphasizing that the commission had never said Iraq-al Qaeda links did not exist. Nor, Hamilton explained, did he "disagree" with Cheney's statement that there were "connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government." The New York Times, having asserted on Thursday that the commission's report "challenges Bush," failed on Friday to report this statement of Hamilton's.

Continued...

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,325 • Replies: 23

No top replies

0 Replies

"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're
going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.ira

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the
attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote
addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

0 Replies

"Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report."

Would that you were as concerned when we were spending millions to investigate oral sex, hmm?

You guys crack me up!

0 Replies

Quote:

"Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report."

Would that you were as concerned when we were spending millions to investigate oral sex, hmm?

You guys crack me up!

Honestly Suzy, I fail to see what one has to do with the other.

0 Replies

[Yawn]

Put this one in the loss column for Bush and let's move on.

People who don't care enough to get informed are going to just see the headlines-- and the headlines don't look good for Bush.

People who do care enough and are informed already know that Bush "misled" the American people. To them, this is not news.

There are a strange group of people spend way too much time to inform themslves in just the right way to support their wildly partisan ideas. They write and post long-winded articles trying to explain away the obvious-- that Bush misled the American people.

Those in the third group are all voting for Bush anyway. Saddly no one in second group is going to be fooled, and no one in the first group cares.

0 Replies

New York Times pundit William Safire is also outraged. In his column today he lashes out at the commission chairman, Republican Tom Kean, and the vice chairman, Democrat Lee Hamilton, for letting themselves be "jerked around by a manipulative staff." Safire drives home the point that the staff conclusion concerning Iraq and 9/11 was "not a judgment of the panel of commissioners," but rather "an interim report of the commission's runaway staff."

Appearing Sunday on ABC's This Week, Sept. 11 commission chairman Kean fell in line, saying repeatedly that the staff report is only an "interim report." Not only did he note it is "not finished," the commissioners themselves have not been involved in it so far and the final report will include whatever "new information" becomes available.

It is not hard to see what is coming. On Thursday Cheney told the press that he "probably" had more intelligence information than had been made available to the commission. Commissioner John Lehman, another Republican stalwart, told Meet the Press Sunday "the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't
have. And we are now in the process of getting the latest intelligence."
Flash back, if you dare, to other "intelligence" promoted by Cheney: the aluminum tubes

that turned out not to be suitable for fashioning nuclear materials after all; the mobile "biological warfare labs" that produced nothing more lethal than hydrogen for weather balloons; the infamous report, based on forged documents, alleging that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

Most observers are familiar with the rhetorical landscape with which Bush and Cheney persuaded a large majority of Americans that Iraq played a role in the attacks of 9/11, and many shrug this off as familiar spin by politicians inclined to take liberties with the facts. So far little attention has been given to the fact that a constitutional issue is involved.

On March 19, 2002, the day the war began, President Bush sent a letter to Congress in which he 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." If the staff's finding that there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States" is allowed to stand, the Bush administration will be shown to have gone afoul of the Constitution yet again.
Also watch for administration attempts to change the final draft report, if the Republican commissioners do not succeed in neutralizing offending passages.

Tim Russert called attention Sunday to reports that the White House had been allowed to review the staff reports just made public, and asked if that was appropriate.

Ben-Veniste indicated that the purpose of reviewing the reports is supposed to be to find and eliminate any classified information. He also said, though, that the White House "went somewhat beyond that and took issue with some of what the staff had concluded."
Indeed, an early draft of one draft report was changed, according to Newsweek. A passage expressing skepticism about the account of Cheney getting Bush's approval for the shoot-down order was reportedly removed after the White House objected.

Ben-Veniste told Russert that the White House will review the final report before it is made public. Thus, there will be considerable opportunity for the manufacture of "insurmountable" classification problems

0 Replies

Safire made up his mind on Iraq a long time ago. Nothing that's happened over the past few years has changed it, and nothing ever will. Same is true re Israel-Palestine issue. His friend, Ariel Sharon, has the best interests of the Palestinians at heart. The two of them talk on the phone, apparently. It's kind of sweet...

0 Replies

ebrown writes

Quote:

Put this one in the loss column for Bush and let's move on.

People who don't care enough to get informed are going to just see the headlines-- and the headlines don't look good for Bush.

Oh no. On another thread it is being hotly debated whether GWB committed a cardinal sin for continuing a reading session with school children when the 9/11 attacks first began. If such minutae can be used by his opponents to discredit him, the other side deserves at least equal time when he gets something right. One can't be important and the other 'a yawn'. Smile

0 Replies

Foxy,

There are two things going on here.

There are some very legitimate things one can use to discredit Bush. The war in Iraq is one. The record deficit (at least the parts caused by the war and tax cuts) is another.

There are some things that Bush is getting blamed for that he probably shouldn't be. In all honesty he probably shouldn't be blamed for continuing to read, nor for most of the recession.

But it works out in the wash.

But to those of us who think Bush is a fool, any reason to discredit the incompetent idealogue is fair game. The public isn't paying attention to some of the legitimate things, and they are unfairly paying too much attention to others.

But that's politics. As long as he is out of office come January, we don't care!

(edit: fixed punctuation typo !)

0 Replies

Please explain just what it is he's gotten right!

0 Replies

Suzy writes

Quote:

"Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report."

Would that you were as concerned when we were spending millions to investigate oral sex, hmm?

You guys crack me up!

and Suzy writes

Quote:

New York Times pundit William Safire is also outraged. In his column today he lashes out at the commission chairman, Republican Tom Kean, and the vice chairman, Democrat Lee Hamilton, for letting themselves be "jerked around by a manipulative staff." Safire drives home the point that the staff conclusion concerning Iraq and 9/11 was "not a judgment of the panel of commissioners," but rather "an interim report of the commission's runaway staff."

Um Suzy, did you read the Safire piece? Do you realize that the first quote that you scorned so scathingly is a part of it?

0 Replies

Actually, I thought those were your own words, and no, I didn't read the article, only quoted what I thought was an interesting line. Do you people realize that it's not a formal report yet? Smile

However, I did notice that my other posts weren't addressed...

0 Replies

ebrown writes:

Quote:

But to those of us who think Bush is a fool, any reason to discredit the incompetent idealogue is fair game. The public isn't paying attention to some of the legitimate things, and they are unfairly paying too much attention to others.

You see, all of us do not share your opinion that Bush is a fool. I believe the polls currently show that at least about half of us do not believe he has lied to or even seriously misled the American people. I think most of us who can read and/or have any common sense know he has made errors in judgment; that he has made statements that he believed at the time that he has had to backpedal on. What president hasn't? Maybe Bush has made more than his fair share. Nevertheless, many of us think that whatever his failing has been/are, he is far superior to any alternative currently out there who can realistically be elected in November.

I would hope that the loyal opposition would have at least as much integrity, honesty, and fairness as they demand of the president. To use manufactured or invented fallacies or exaggerations to discredit him speaks poorly of those who do that. If you have legitimate ammunition by all means use it. If those on our side are making a big mistake, convince us. Show us how we are paying unfair attention. I think arguments that consist solely of name calling and using uncomplimentary adjectives convince nobody.

I don't support GWB because I belong to his party. I don't belong to his party. I support him because I believe he is the candidate with the better vision, the more constructive values, and who is the more honest. I will guess, without your even saying so, that you think that is ludicrous. But of such are spirited debates born.

Any reason to discredit anybody shouldn't be good enough. There need to be real reasons.

0 Replies

Suzy wrote:

Quote:

Actually, I thought those were your own words, and no, I didn't read the article, only quoted what I thought was an interesting line. Do you people realize that it's not a formal report yet?
However, I did notice that my other posts weren't addressed...

Yes, I knew the formal report hadn't been written yet. Your post that quoted from the piece you scathingly scorned suggested they get busy and write one. I believe that's maybe what you took the most exception to.

I didn't rebut the remainder of your post because it is thoroughly rebutted by the Safire piece posted in its entirety in this thread. It seems clear, both from statements made by members of the 9/11 commission, and those reporters willing now to set the record straight that there was a clear relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq whether or not any terrorist negotiations came out of that relationship. In my opinion, that fact alone removes any constitutional issue from the playing field.

(And I just know how the anti-Bush members of the media hate like the dickens to admit that.)

0 Replies

" there was a clear relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq whether or not any terrorist negotiations came out of that relationship."

what?

0 Replies

Suzy writes

Quote:

" there was a clear relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq whether or not any terrorist negotiations came out of that relationship."

what?

In my observations there have been several factors at work.
1) Those who have accused Bush of connecting Saddam and 9/11 which he has denied. Nobody has been able to find a quote in which he or the administration says there was a connection.

2) Bush from almost the beginning stated connections between Saddam and Al Qaida and that was one of the justifications for invading Iraq. Initially the renegade staff of the 9/11 commission said no 'credible evidence' was found of that to which Bush and his administration vigorously protested. In face of documented proof, the 9/11 commission has had to back off that.

3) The final thing has been that staffers from the 9/11 commission state that there was contact between Al Qaida and Saddam but there is no 'credible evidence' that there were any negotiations as a result of that contact. That is the piece of the puzzle that is yet somewhat up in the air; however most thinking people think that if there were several meetings, they must have talked about something.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Suzy writes

Quote:
" there was a clear relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq whether or not any terrorist negotiations came out of that relationship."

what?

In my observations there have been several factors at work.
1) Those who have accused Bush of connecting Saddam and 9/11 which he has denied. Nobody has been able to find a quote in which he or the administration says there was a connection.

I'll take this one for starters :

Quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/quotes.html

The details on how to confirm the quotes are in the site credits noted at the bottom of that page.

0 Replies

Quote:

however most thinking people think that if there were several meetings, they must have talked about something.

Who are these "most thinking people" ?

0 Replies

Yeah, ehbeth. Not to mention my entire post from earlier, which Foxfyre seems to have missed! here are the salient parts, Foxy:

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

]

Most observers are familiar with the rhetorical landscape with which Bush and Cheney persuaded a large majority of Americans that Iraq played a role in the attacks of 9/11[/color], and many shrug this off as familiar spin by politicians inclined to take liberties with the facts. So far little attention has been given to the fact that a constitutional issue is involved.

On March 19, 2002, the day the war began, President Bush sent a letter to Congress in which he 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."[/size] [/i]If the staff's finding that there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States" is allowed to stand, the Bush administration will be shown to have gone afoul of the Constitution yet again.
from TomPaine.com

"I would hope that the loyal opposition would have at least as much integrity, honesty, and fairness as they demand of the president. "
They do. Surprisingly, we still play fair. Quite a feat when the opposing team behave like deaf sheep! B just because we demand it doesn't mean we're getting it. We're sure not. The president has shown himself to be a liar and a fool time and again!

So again, what is the credible evidence?

0 Replies

Anti-anti-Saddamism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know