stop the deceit (political thread)

[Arabella Figg 2003]

stop the deceit

 

[jrydberg]

Findings on 9/11 split US press

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

ask any 10 people about why we're in Iraq, and I'd hazard a guess that at least 3 would tell you it had something to do with bin Laden. the administration has worked very hard to create that impression. cheney has said things which are blatantly not true. the 9/11 commission shows that there was someocommunication between bin Laden adn Saddam Hussein, but no joint planning.

I suppose this administration is playing on our worst fears.

and by the way -- I occasionally read the NY Post, but give it the same credibility I give to the National Enquirer...so when the BBC cites to the NY Post, I just have to laugh...

 

[wvrevy]

My favorite part of the bbc article (actually from the New York Post):

"The war on terrorism is not just about seeking revenge against the perpetrators of 9/11 - it's about neutralising radical Islam's fundamental challenge to Western civilisation," the tabloid says.

It adds that "just because the Kean commission hasn't yet found any evidence [of an al-Qaeda-Iraq link] does not mean it doesn't exist".

So, we toppled a secular leader in order to neautralize radical islam ?

And there's no evidence that I am actually an alien from the planet Zarbon 5, but that doesn't mean that I'm not, right ?

Might want to pick a different article, j...lol

 

[Dan Murphy]

Try not to blur

 

[jrydberg]

Do you laugh at the Washington Post?

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

no, I take the Washington Post quite seriously. unfortunately.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

from the MSNBC article:

The vice president noted a disputed report about an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence official and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in April 2001. "We've never been able to confirm or to knock it down," Cheney said

sounds like backpedalling to me.

 

[jrydberg]

Well that was more my point in posting that link. I know the NY Post and, of course, it's hard to take it too seriously. But when the Washington Post (not exactly noted for its conservative views) says that accusing the administration of lying is nearly as irresponsible as the Bush administration's rhetoric, I think that warrants notice... especially on a thread titled stop the deceit.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Do you laugh at the Washington Post?

Ok, let's look at what the Washington Post says:

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

In January, Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking 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."

Now, it doesn't seem to me that they are somehow suddenly agreeing with the administration. Seems to me that they're basically saying that the administration is trying to escape on a semantic technicality.

And oh, by the way...how maby lies can you spot in the quote above coming DIRECTLY from Cheney and the white house ?

 

[jrydberg]

I'm not saying the WP is agreeing with the administration suddenly. But the WP doesn't agree with those who accuse the Bush administration of lying. That's fairly clear.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
ask any 10 people about why we're in Iraq, and I'd hazard a guess that at least 3 would tell you it had something to do with bin Laden. the administration has worked very hard to create that impression.

That's because most people draw their own conclusions from what they see in the media. If you are going to lay the blame around, should you not include the media for misleading the public as well?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
stop the deceit

President Bush is being accused of back peddling on something he never said. He never said that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. He said that there are terrorists links between Saddam, terrorists and Al Queda. That is what he has always said. Putin said as recently as today that Russian intelligence reported that Saddam was plotting to attack the United States, on the homeland and its interest abroad. The 9/11 commission did not exist to investigate terrorists links to Saddam. It existed to investigate 9/11. The press is creating a story where none exists and covering up the real story that Saddam had links to terrorism and Al Queda. So I would suggest you follow your own advise; STOP THE DECEIT.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
President Bush is being accused of back peddling on something he never said. He never said that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. He said that there are terrorists links between Saddam, terrorists and Al Queda. That is what he has always said. Putin said as recently as today that Russian intelligence reported that Saddam was plotting to attack the United States, on the homeland and its interest abroad. The 9/11 commission did not exist to investigate terrorists links to Saddam. It existed to investigate 9/11. The press is creating a story where none exists and covering up the real story that Saddam had links to terrorism and Al Queda. So I would suggest you follow your own advise; STOP THE DECEIT.

What about Cheney, Dawn?

How many of those quotes from the Washington Post come from our vice president?

and how many of them have been proven to be untrue?

makes you want to go "hmmmm....."

 

[disneydad2]

If you're interested in knowing exactly what Pres. Bush said to the people of the U.S. in regards to his reasons for 'disarming' Saddam, please read his State of the Union address in 2003.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
(you'll need to go about 3/4 of the way down to get to the topic of Iraq)

I find nowhere in the speech where he ties Saddam to al Qaeda or 9/11. Did I miss something? He did make a reference to a 'what if' those WMD 's that he was developing were to get into the hands of terrorists, and ultimately onto a plane crashing into a city.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

yur link doesn't work, disneydad.

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
yur link doesn't work, disneydad.

thanks for the heads up - fixed it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

 

[N.Bailey]

Misleading Reporting
Friday, June 18, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly
Once again we are mislead by some in the press.

I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone.

The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."

The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."

And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.

The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah.

A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.

Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:

“The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have here is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that is true.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123067,00.html

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by disneydad2
If you're interested in knowing exactly what Pres. Bush said to the people of the U.S. in regards to his reasons for 'disarming' Saddam, please read his State of the Union address in 2003.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
(you'll need to go about 3/4 of the way down to get to the topic of Iraq)

I find nowhere in the speech where he ties Saddam to al Qaeda or 9/11. Did I miss something? He did make a reference to a 'what if' those WMD 's that he was developing were to get into the hands of terrorists, and ultimately onto a plane crashing into a city.

"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."

Does this statement from the speech be interpretted as a "tie"?

 

[jrydberg]

Sure I'd say that's a tie... but it is a factually correct tie. Bush has made the argument that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda (not to 9/11). But I don't think that's a debateable point.