Sunday, March 26, 2006

How To Make a Direct Connection Without Making a Direct Connection, Example #473

"First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

-- George W. Bush, 3/20/06


"We're in Iraq because the United States of America faces a different kind of enemy in a different kind of war and we have to have a different kind of Middle East if we're ever going to resolve the problems of an ideology of hatred that was so great that people flew airplanes into buildings. Iraq, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, was a threat."

-- Condoleezza Rice, Meet the Press, 3/26/06

14 comments:

howard said...

There was a recent Zogby poll that said:

Almost 90% of SOLDIERS IN IRAQ think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11.

Now, where would they get that idea?

It's all too sad to comprehend.

Michael Markowitz said...

In another post I quoted the actual resolution for the invasion in Iraq in which it was said it was retaliation for 9/11, and someone commented "Name ONE example where Bush connected Hussein to 9/11"

VERY sad.

As I said in that thread, 70% of those who voted for Bush in 2004 believed Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda, even though by that time Bush and Cheney were denying ever having having said it. Al Franken said, "How dumb do you have to be to believe something the guy you're voting for says isn't true?"

Paul Israelson said...

Mike,

No comment.

Paul Israelson said...

Howard,

You omitted something...To quote the Zogby website:

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Michael Markowitz said...

So they're wrong on both oounts.

peeky said...

Operation Iraqi Freedom has been an abject failure (statistically speaking, that's a 100% failure) because it was based on arrogant erroneous assumptions by know-nothing old dinosaurs who wouldn't listen to people with actual knowledge and experience. They should be fired in disgrace and then either imprisoned or beheaded. (I'm flexible.)

Michael Markowitz said...

But what's remarkable is that the Supreme Court gives the Presidency to Bush, and the next day Cheney calls Cohen and says, "I want Bush briefed on one topic: Iraq."

Cohen says, "Usually these are around-the-world briefings." Cheney essentially says, "Fuck that. Iraq only."

It hasn't been a secret. It was in the Woodward book, Cohen told CNN, it was in the "Cobra II" book that came out last week for which Cheney wrote a dustjacket blurb!

And still Bush can stand in front of the White House press corps and deny that he came into office with his eye on invading Iraq? And people are actually STILL gullible enough to buy his bullshit?

And now that we have ANOTHER memo confirming the Downing Street memo, confirming that Bush was full of shit about WMD and about avoiding war, what will it take to get this war criminal impeached?

peeky said...

If what's happened isn't enough to impeach, then I doubt he will be impeached. We'll all limp to the end of his term, and history will acknowledge this as probably the most inept administration ever. Whoever is elected in '08 will inherit an horrendous situation and we'll all be biting the bullet for years to come. (Not too optimistic, I know.)

Michael Markowitz said...

I guess what I don't understand is why the double standard. There's a big controversy now because the Washington Post flatly refuses to include the impeachment question in its polls. Their polling director has publicly said it's irresponsible and out of the question to ask the public about the President's impeachment when no one in Congress is seriously considering it.

Yet, they asked the polling question "If true, should the President be impeached" TWO DAYS after the Monica Lewinsky story BROKE! I think a lot more people are "considering" Bush's impeachment now than were considering Clinton's impeachment two days after the Lewinsky story BROKE!

I'm a little more optimistic. Unrealistically so. At least I hold out hope that if he's not impeached he and Cheney will someday be brought before the World Court.

peeky said...

I don't know why the double standard, except for the very distressing reason that it's partisan politics.

My discriminatory view: Dem's don't necessarily stick by someone no matter what they do or who they turn out to be. To the current batch of neocon's, that is considered weakness and betrayal. Compound the mistake but never ever admit anything. Or, in this case, never even fire anyone, no matter how corrupt or inept. It's distressing.

You probably don't put your party affiliation and personal gain over everything else including the common welfare, the environment, the future, you name it. So it's hard to imagine (for me, too) people that would.

Paul Israelson said...

Clinton was impeached, but he didn't leave office.

What you really want is Bush's resignation.

Then what? What's the plan?

Paul Israelson said...

Knowing that Saddam terrorized his own people, publicly supported Palestinian suicide bombers (he paid $25,000 rewards to the families of "successful" suicide bombers!), and provided sanctuary to members of various terrorist organizations, would it not be naive to unilaterally reject ANY connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda? (pardon the split infinitive)

Michael Markowitz said...

It is naive to lump the terrorists Saddam supported with Al Qaeda. Saddam was a greedy secularist who shook hands with Rumsfeld. He was everything Osama despised.

And Clinton was impeached and acquitted. It would have been inappropriate for him to leave office.

Paul Israelson said...

I will concede that you make two excellent points.

Color me naive. I do lump all terrorists together. Any regime that supports terrorism must be discredited and eventually replaced, if not by internal reform or rebellion (I assume you will agree), then by outside forces (but you probably won't agree here). Containment is a temporary, short term strategy that rarely produces long term positive outcomes.

When (or "If") history shows that our invasion of Iraq proved to be the catalyst that brought about the demise of terrorism, then the allegations that Bush "deceived the public" to justify the invasion will be irrelevant.

(e.g. historians have alleged that FDR "allowed" the bombing of Pearl Harbor because he needed an excuse to declare war against Japan.)

In the meantime, if you really believe that it'll do any good, impeach Bush & throw him out of office.


Mike, I'm sensing that perhaps my political comments are perceived as antagonistic and that I'm alienating, rather than engaging, you and your readers. Not feeling too welcome, knowhattamean?

Granted, I'm a highly opinionated, stubborn, right-wing Conservative who is not quite as articulate as he pretends or as well-read as he aspires. Much of what I write comes from my gut & I cannot always provide bibliographic references. In any debate with you, I'm probably overmatched.

I remain a big FAN of your work -- it'll be hard to top DUCKMAN (truly genius), but I am confident that you will succeed in doing just that! It was curiosity about your post-Duckman career that led me to your blog site (via Google).

I enjoy your blog. But I should probably resist the urge to comment on your political postings in the future. We're on opposite sides of most issues & the only people we really have any hope of influencing are those in The Middle.


Or am I just being a big pussy?