quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

But what about the special forces troops at the Ansar Al-Islam camp, Dave?
the FBI invesigated this and had the rental car receipts to disprove the Atta/Prauge link. Mueller said as much in April 2002! And yet despite having the "the best intelligence available at the time, and not a 'lie' as liberals allege." the Administration stil kept at it! Ok, assume that Mueller just found out right there and then in April about the car recipts rather than simply debunking the Atta/Prauge link in a speech that month. Let me now highlight the dates of Bush Administration oficials making public statements still linking Iraq to 9/11 )
I haven't seen it disclosed exactly when the FBI concluded that Atta/Iraqi official/Prague thing was unquestionably innaccurate, and when that was reported publicly, or exactly when it was disclosed (presumably much sooner than it was disclosed to the public) internally within the government intelligence community, to the CIA, NSA, Department of Homeland Security, or the White House.

Quite honestly, I suspect that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and the rest purposefully didn't mention the Atta/Prague de-bunk sooner, in order to motivate popular support for the policy direction they wanted. Just like Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy all did in previous administrations, politically maneuvering policy in the direction that they passionately believed was the right course.
That is the nature of the political beast.

The proof is not there that the Bush administration purposefully misled the public, but I suspect to some degree they did cling to the obsolete rhetoric that helped to make their case.

But at the same time, I dislike how it is portrayed as if this is some incredible bamboozling of the public, and that it is something unheard of in past presidential administrations. It's the very same as in prior administrations.
I could point to half a dozen times where Clinton did the same thing.
I recall with the Whitewater files, that were taken from Foster's office immediately after his death, that Clinton with-held from investigators, that were kept hidden in the White House after Vince Foster's death, and congress had been clamoring for months for the files. Clinton suddenly released the files, and went on a diplomatic trip to Russia, and made a public statement: "I don't know what the Republicans are making noise about, we've been cooperating with the investigation all the time." Even Democrat pundits were saying at the time that no, Clinton was clearly NOT cooperating all along with the investigation.

But again, this is my own opinion, that I think the Bush people exaggerated to motivate public support for their desired outcome. But there is still no proof that they purposefully deceived.
And it could just as easily be that Rumsfeld, Cheney and others, who no doubt are swamped in memos daily and are juggling a lot of important situations, simply didn't get the update that the Atta/Prague meeting was no longer accurate information.
I'd think that no one would want to purposefully present false information, and put themselves in the situation (as Bush officials now are) of being grilled over their inaccuracies later. And I myself, who follow the news quite closely, have only become aware in the last week that the Atta/Prague meeting was inaccurate intelligence.

I don't think the Atta/Prague story completely disproves that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida, either.
As I said, I've seen other articles about al Qaida working in Iraq, fighting Kurds in the North before the war (as I said, in the New York Times). There is only circumstantial evidence at this point that Saddam might have a link to 9/11 or training the 9/11 terrorists, but clearly there is SOME connection between Saddam and al Qaida, for Hussein to contract al Qaida to fight Kurds in his country. I suspect that it is a superficial connection between Saddam and al Qaida, but to the Bush administration's defense, it is not proven beyond any doubt that there isn't a Saddam Hussein/ 9-11 link.

Your source...
quote:

From: Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq (Tarcher/Penguin).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585422762/counterpunchmaga [/QB
...is clearly very partisan, and heavy on vitriolic editorializing.
They present some facts, and spin them very well against Bush, and it is clear their hate of Bush matches your own.
I don't dismiss the factual part of what they say, but I take their assumptions and conclusions with great skepticism.



quote:
originally posted by Whomod:
[QB]
It's already been stated that hours after the 2nd airliner hit the WTC, Rumsfeld was calling for a link that would tie Iraq to 9/11 as to justify an already prexsisting desire for just such a war. I know, you don't care. it's all 'Bush hating' lies.
You've said this repeatedly. This is a partial truth.

Rumsfeld and the other neo-conservatives have a well-known pre-emptive strike policy against terrorism and threats to the U.S.
Rumsfeld instructed his people to look for a link to Iraq after 9/11, not to FABRICATE it, as you allege.

quote:
originally posted by Whomod:


You're right though, the Bush Administration doesn't lie. They're much too clever for that. Instead they misrepresent and lead you down the path to make wrong assumptions yourself. That is how you have 70% of the American public beleiving Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. I won't even go into the Bush SOTU adress where he doesn't link Sadaam to 9/11, he just uses iraq and 9/11 in the same sentences and paragraphs so he won't have to lie to get you to ASSume the link exists.
Again, the Bush people didn't outright lie. I don't see that (as I suspect, but has not been proven) the Bush administration's possibly bending the truth without outright lying is new to the White House with George W. Bush's presidency.
And I still think that the few innacuracies that were later corrected (the Atta/Prague thing) were within the possible realm of honest mistakes.

I don't think mentioning them in Iraq and al Qaida in the same sentence is a disingenuous attempt to deliberately mislead the public. He mentions North Korea in close proximity with both Iraq and al Qaida, and I don't think there's any implied connection there, beyond that they're all evil --but independent-- threats to the U.S. and the world.

quote:
originally posted by Whomod:

The whole thing finally blew up in their faces way back on page 7 (9/17/03) if you recall when Cheney went on meet the Press one time too often to try to insinuate the Sadaam 9/11 link and was finally called on it. If you remeber, that week EVERYONE from Bush on down had to declare that there was no proof Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
I already answered this allegation previously as well:
  • Bush said there was NO PROOF of a Saddam Hussein/al Qaida link.
  • Cheney said there was NO PROOF, BUT PLENTY OF CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE on which to STILL SUSPECT a Saddam Hussein/al Qaida link.

As I just outlined, I don't see the inconsistency. Cheney was just more specific than Bush, in his comments.


quote:
originally posted by Whomod:

Do I "misrepresent" because I hate or do I hate because they "misrepresent"?
As I've also said previously, I do respect a good percentage of what you post.
I at least listen to what you say.

But just as often, the level of deliberately inflammatory rhetoric in your posts, that really just makes clear your contempt for Bush, makes me tune out. Particularly when you post the inflammatory graphic images. There's certainly no persuasive potential or information in these inflammatory images.

When you make a sincere argument, I at least respect that you seriously believe in what you're posting. I often don't agree, but I listen.

And to your credit, I think your comments have been more respectful and persuasive, in the recent past. (And I freely admit, with the right provocation, and on occasion perhaps even without, my own rhetoric can be pretty inflammatory. I understand that we both feel strongly about the subject.)

quote:
originally posted by Whomod:

But honestly Dave, whether you disagree with me or whether you think i'm a traitor or give comfort to the enemy or what have you, you have to admit this is a great source of both POV's and an invaluable source of info, timelines, and links from both extremes, yours and mine. I know I reference it on many occasions. I hope others do too.
I assume the "great source" you describe is Rob's boards. And on that I absolutely agree.

It's a great online coffee shop we have here, for discussing things both serious and not-so-serious.

I again say that blind opposition to Bush is traitorous.
Shattering a President's popular support, and deliberately undrmining his ability to conduct public policy, by pounding him with a relentless stream of unsubstatiated allegations, is traitorous.
But respectfully questioning our government's policies, and suggesting a better course of action, is NOT traitorous.

What bugs me is that many of the Democrats who voted in September 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and who (as I quoted above, including Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton) acknowledged the threat of Iraq, are now attacking Bush for self-serving reasons, against the interests of the nation. These congessmen and Senators, who are briefed daily with intelligence just like the President, particularly on the Armed Services and Defense committies. They knew the facts long before the rest of us, they knew what the CIA, FBI and NSA believed to be accurate about Iraq, long before WE knew, long before the issue was even discussed with the public. And yet right up till the war, they said that Iraq was a threat.

While I don't agree with everything Bush is doing, I do think he is courageously going against world opinion, and much of U.S. national opinion, to do what is necessary for long-term global peace. Instead of determining public policy by acquiescing to whichever way the political wind is blowing, he is taking a political risk to do what he thinks is right and necessary.
Bush is taking a big chance to bring the seeds of democracy to the Middle East, and the larger Muslim world. If he succeeds, history will praise the genius and future vision of his actions, warts and all. If he fails, the world will condemn him (and is eager to condemn him already).

Tony Snow this week on Fox News Sunday held up a 1946 issue of LIFE magazine, and quoted from it how "America is losing the peace" in Europe. And we all know how that turned out.
And reconstruction of Europe cost one hell of a lot more than reconstruction of Iraq ever will Thank God the current liberal media wasn't in place in 1946, or we just might have lost the peace in Europe for real.