"Saddam very much involved in 9/11"

[Brian Rucker]

What were we saying this morning about Republicans who have internalized the idea --- all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding -- that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of Sept. 11? It turns out that it's not just random Republican voters around the country who think that way; the Republican vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism apparently does, too.

In an interview about the president's Iraq speech, North Carolina Rep. Robin Hayes told CNN this morning that Saddam Hussein was "very much involved in 9/11."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

One of the guys mentioned seeing that this morning before work but I was sure he must have misunderstood. I guess not.

[John Reynolds]

Someone's simply towing the party line and trying to shore up the president's national address, thinking that their current position on that committee will lend more weight to their opinion. Or at least I hope that's the case or else someone's f'in illiterate.

[Desslock]

if this was on CNN, why is the link to Salon?

The President did not say Saddam was responsible for 9/11, nor has any member of his administration, notwithstanding all the demogoguery. Iraq is "tied" to 9/11 solely because 9/11 highlighted the dangers of not confronting Iraq. Obviously a lot of people don't share that belief, which we shouldn't rehash here, but the President didn't say Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and if you want to argue that, I'm your huckleberry.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Here's a CNN link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html).

Troy

[Desslock]

That dude's just a retard, then. Get him off our side.

[Jason Levine]

The President did not say Saddam was responsible for 9/11, nor has any member of his administration, notwithstanding all the demogoguery. Iraq is "tied" to 9/11 solely because 9/11 highlighted the dangers of not confronting Iraq. Obviously a lot of people don't share that belief, which we shouldn't rehash here, but the President didn't say Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and if you want to argue that, I'm your huckleberry.

Oh please. During the debates, when asked the reasons for going to war in Iraq, Bush responded, "They attacked us." Yesterday he mentioned 9/11 no fewer than 5 times in refernce to Iraq. Maybe he didn't use the actual words, "Saddam attacked us on 9/11," but the inference he has been trying to draw is very clear. You can split hairs all you want, but if you're going to argue that Bush isn't trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 in the public consciousness, then I'm YOUR huckleberry.

[Desslock]

Yesterday he mentioned 9/11 no fewer than 5 times in refernce to Iraq. Maybe he didn't use the actual words, "Saddam attacked us on 9/11," but the inference he has been trying to draw is very clear.

That's ridiculous -- 9/11 is, of course, the reason we went to war in Iraq because, as I said in the very message you responded to. It's fundamental to the entire war on terror, of course, so naturally it needs to be mentioned over and over and over again when people question why we're still fighting.

Whenever they've been asked if Saddam was involved in 9/11, the closest thing to suggesting involvement anyone in the administration has ever said was early on Cheney said "we don't know", which just happened to be the truth, but whatever.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Whenever they've been asked if Saddam was involved in 9/11, the closest thing to suggesting involvement anyone in the administration has ever said was early on Cheney said "we don't know", which just happened to be the truth, but whatever.

What the Vice-President said sometimes, though, was "We don't know, but one of the hijackers met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague and there are al-Qaeda camps in Northern Iraq." That's not being explicit about the connection, but the understanding is pretty clear, IMO.

IIRC, he made the Prague connection even after it had been disproven by US intelligence.

Troy

[Jason McCullough]

if this was on CNN, why is the link to Salon?

The President did not say Saddam was responsible for 9/11, nor has any member of his administration, notwithstanding all the demogoguery. Iraq is "tied" to 9/11 solely because 9/11 highlighted the dangers of not confronting Iraq. Obviously a lot of people don't share that belief, which we shouldn't rehash here, but the President didn't say Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and if you want to argue that, I'm your huckleberry.

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_d-squareddigest_archive.html#108573518762776451

The D-Squared Digest One Minute MBA - Avoiding Projects Pursued By Morons 101

Literally people have been asking me: "How is it that you were so amazingly prescient about Iraq? Why is it that you were right about everything at precisely the same moment when we were wrong?" No honestly, they have. I'd love to show you the emails I've received, there were dozens of them, honest. Honest. Anyway, I note that "errors of prewar planning" is now pretty much a mainstream stylised fact, so I suspect that it might make some small contribution to the commonweal if I were to explain how it was that I was able to spot so early that this dog wasn't going to hunt. I will struggle manfully with the savage burden of boasting, self-aggrandisement and ego-stroking that this will necessarily involve. It's been done before, although admittedly by a madman in the process of dying of syphilis of the brain. Sorry, where was I?

Anyway, the secret to every analysis I've ever done of contemporary politics has been, more or less, my expensive business school education (I would write a book entitled "Everything I Know I Learned At A Very Expensive University", but I doubt it would sell). About half of what they say about business schools and their graduates is probably true, and they do often feel like the most collossal waste of time and money, but they occasionally teach you the odd thing which is very useful indeed. Here's a few of the ones I learned which I considered relevant to judging the advisability of the Second Iraq War.

Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.
Fibbers' forecasts are worthless.
The Vital Importance of Audit.


We also learned in accounting class that the difference between "making a definite single false claim with provable intent to deceive" and "creating a very false impression and allowing it to remain without correcting it" is not one that you should rely upon to keep you out of jail. Even if your motives are noble.

[chet]

Yesterday he mentioned 9/11 no fewer than 5 times in refernce to Iraq. Maybe he didn't use the actual words, "Saddam attacked us on 9/11," but the inference he has been trying to draw is very clear.

That's ridiculous -- 9/11 is, of course, the reason we went to war in Iraq because, as I said in the very message you responded to. It's fundamental to the entire war on terror, of course, so naturally it needs to be mentioned over and over and over again when people question why we're still fighting.


So I punch erik for your comment, that makes sense to you? Huh?

[Jason McCullough]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

Shorter Dick Cheney:

I think so.

[Desslock]

Fibbers' forecasts are worthless.

So your response is a conspiracy theory...uh, ok.

Next.

[Desslock]

So I punch erik for your comment, that makes sense to you? Huh?

You punching Erik is funny, so, o.k.

Again, we've argued dozens of times whether or not Iraq was an appropriate, or next, move in the war on terror, and I don't really want to hash those discussions again -- but whether or not you think it was the right thing to do, it's clear that the Bush administration did, and it's equally clear that was NOT because they though Iraq attacked us at 9/11.

This is just lame - you have McCullough arguing that two statements of "We don't know", mean "I think so".

[Bren]

This is just lame - you have McCullough arguing that two statements of "We don't know", mean "I think so".

At this late date, saying "We don't know" is just being evasive.

[Tim Partlett]

I don't think the Bush administration ever believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. If they thought there was any kind of reasonable connection they would make it plain: there's much more mileage to be made out of direct statements than being mealy mouthed. However, that they wanted the American public to make a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda that didn't exist is also clear as day.

[forgeforsaken]

Cheney has on numerous occasions claimed that Sadam was tied to Al Quaeda though.

[Brian Rucker]

From the very beginning this administration was making claims it couldn't back up about Iraq. One of them was the suggestion of ties to Al Qaida. The only reason WMD were made such a big deal was because of Saddam's ties to Al Qaida-like (well, it wasn't even that vague at first the language "evolved" in response to the fact they couldn't, despite Cheney and the Office of Special Plans best efforts prove any ties) terrorists.

Hell, they tried to make Ansar al-Islam "proof" of Saddam's ties to Al Qaida despite the fact their base was in Kurdish territory in which Saddam had zero influence. They trotted out all kinds of discredited theories (the meeting that never was, the plane used to train Al Qaida hijackers for hijacking missions) to make this point.

Sure, yeah, the position's evolved. We didn't invade Iraq to get WMDs away from terrorists. We invaded to spread democracy. Better, the new spin, we're fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home (I hope no Iraqis were watching that particular explanation).

Now when 9/11's invoked it's all about how we couldn't take the chance that Saddam had WMD or ties to terrorists (which is laughable considering we know, and knew, of other governments with stronger ties to terrorist groups who definitely do have WMDs - not to mention satellites for the former Soviet Union and disaffected military and scientists there, we're not spending a fraction of what we need to on that source of WMDs) or this new tarbaby argument about how this great strategy of ours is putting our troops out there among Iraqi civilians to draw the fire of terrorists who, presumably, are drawn to Iraq like moths instead of attacking the US. As though they couldn't do both if anyone were so inclined. It's just easier to get to Iraq and alot safer to sharpen up some skills there (per the CIA report). If they win there, they win and there's a new, worse, Afghanistan. If they lose there, like they did in Egypt and Algeria, they'll go after harder targets in order to reclaim some legitimacy - like they felt the need to go after the US when earlier efforts failed.

If we'd never have invaded we could have saved lives and money, and our own reputation, while denying jihadis a new training ground and focusing more on the real threats.

Hell, Osama's laughing his ass off. We've done more damage to our own military and economy, not to mention international standing, by invading Iraq than that old has-been group on the fringes of the jihadi movement could ever have dreamed of doing.

Have you even seen that counter that tracks in real-time how much we've spent on this lark? That money doesn't come from nowhere. We're selling bonds to finance the debt. And, as everyone knows, China's buying a lion's share. Who's our next serious strategic competitor? Al Qaida? Was it ever?

[Jason McCullough]

Fibbers' forecasts are worthless.

So your response is a conspiracy theory...uh, ok.

Next.

Where the fuck is the WMD, then? Did all the intelligence professionals saying there was no even remotely reliable evidence hide it? I guess we all hallucinated "they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat?"

There's a one axis map to explanations that fit the facts, differing by degrees of bastardity:

The Bush team is a stupid band of motherfuckers who completely ignored the recommendations of everyone who knew what they were talking about, prefering to rely on crankery flat-out *known to be wrong* to anyone with a pulse, but they did really believe it.
The Bush team consciously lied.
The Bush team didn't care if what they said was true or not.

Pick one.

[flyinj]

From the very beginning this administration was making claims it couldn't back up about Iraq. One of them was the suggestion of ties to Al Qaida. The only reason WMD were made such a big deal was because of Saddam's ties to Al Qaida-like (well, it wasn't even that vague at first the language "evolved" in response to the fact they couldn't, despite Cheney and the Office of Special Plans best efforts prove any ties) terrorists.

Hell, they tried to make Ansar al-Islam "proof" of Saddam's ties to Al Qaida despite the fact their base was in Kurdish territory in which Saddam had zero influence. They trotted out all kinds of discredited theories (the meeting that never was, the plane used to train Al Qaida hijackers for hijacking missions) to make this point.

Sure, yeah, the position's evolved. We didn't invade Iraq to get WMDs away from terrorists. We invaded to spread democracy. Better, the new spin, we're fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home (I hope no Iraqis were watching that particular explanation).

Now when 9/11's invoked it's all about how we couldn't take the chance that Saddam had WMD or ties to terrorists (which is laughable considering we know, and knew, of other governments with stronger ties to terrorist groups who definitely do have WMDs - not to mention satellites for the former Soviet Union and disaffected military and scientists there, we're not spending a fraction of what we need to on that source of WMDs) or this new tarbaby argument about how this great strategy of ours is putting our troops out there among Iraqi civilians to draw the fire of terrorists who, presumably, are drawn to Iraq like moths instead of attacking the US. As though they couldn't do both if anyone were so inclined. It's just easier to get to Iraq and alot safer to sharpen up some skills there (per the CIA report). If they win there, they win and there's a new, worse, Afghanistan. If they lose there, like they did in Egypt and Algeria, they'll go after harder targets in order to reclaim some legitimacy - like they felt the need to go after the US when earlier efforts failed.

If we'd never have invaded we could have saved lives and money, and our own reputation, while denying jihadis a new training ground and focusing more on the real threats.

Hell, Osama's laughing his ass off. We've done more damage to our own military and economy, not to mention international standing, by invading Iraq than that old has-been group on the fringes of the jihadi movement could ever have dreamed of doing.

Have you even seen that counter that tracks in real-time how much we've spent on this lark? That money doesn't come from nowhere. We're selling bonds to finance the debt. And, as everyone knows, China's buying a lion's share. Who's our next serious strategic competitor? Al Qaida? Was it ever?

I remember arguing about this endlessly on the Gone Gold forums. I really wish they were still around, because I had a large tome of links quoting Cheney as saying he had hard evidence of strong ties between Al-Qaida and Iraq.

The funny thing was, instead of the righties saying "Of course there isn't a connection between Iraq and 9/11!" like they say now, they would constantly spew out false report after false report of "solid" links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Every time I would show that these connections were false, someone else would come forward with another "solid" report of Al-Qaeda / Iraq links.

Which, of course, would be completely bogus.

It is so blatantly obvious that there was a mis-information campaign pushed hard by the administration to further their reasoning to go to war. They simply put out these false reports, and people hear about them, and never actually take the time to follow up and realize they were bogus.

Do you really honestly think that Cheney and company never meant to mis-inform the public about an Al-Qaeda / Iraq connection?

Please.

[Jason McCullough]

It was orchestrated in multiple countries, too. James Bamford makes the point in A Pretext For War that all the snow job was pretty well coordinated between the UK, US, and Isreal, with "intelligence reports" from each flying into the PR ether in synchronicity.

(Cue Desslock calling me anti-semitic).

This is just lame - you have McCullough arguing that two statements of "We don't know", mean "I think so".

So you're telling me that if President Hillary Clinton said she "didn't know if gun control reduced the murder rate" but then followed up with a stream of information *known* to be wrong, all implying that it does reduce the murder rate, you'd call that "she doesn't know?" If it was done repeatedly for months and months by the entire damned administration?

This gets back to the quotes you called a conspiracy theory: saying "I don't know" followed up by a lot of misinformation or lies implying "yes" is called "lying".

[Midnight Son]

That dude's just a retard, then. Get him off our side.

So they have a Republican party in Canada?

[chet]

So I punch erik for your comment, that makes sense to you? Huh?

You punching Erik is funny, so, o.k.

Again, we've argued dozens of times whether or not Iraq was an appropriate, or next, move in the war on terror, and I don't really want to hash those discussions again -- but whether or not you think it was the right thing to do, it's clear that the Bush administration did, and it's equally clear that was NOT because they though Iraq attacked us at 9/11.

This is just lame - you have McCullough arguing that two statements of "We don't know", mean "I think so".

Linked to poe because source long gone.
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=36447

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

And desslock who is not taking sides, but just looking for the facts (oops a little slip there on that last post?), will claim victory on this quote, and the rest of america will know the truth.

Desslock you are going back to guessing what is in people's pockets and telling them they are wrong, that you know better. On american TV this administration orchestrated a purposeful plan to confuse and mislead the american public to connect 9/11 and saddam. When we went to war some 80% thought this link was true, during the election it still hovered over 50%. Why do you think that was? Just because all us americans are wacky confused? Or that we were fed lies?

Want more? here is tenet correcting cheney - guess why? Because cheney told the truth? Because he wasn't misleading? Guess again.
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=32753

Oh, and if you still don't get it. Here is a little fun.
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002152.php

Need more?

Chet

[flyinj]

Ah, yes, there is one of them.

So, dess, what do you have to say about that?

Cheney was just confused? Fed the wrong information?

EDIT:

And if he didn't have his facts straight in the least, does it make "That dude just a retard."?

[Prodigy]

That's ridiculous -- 9/11 is, of course, the reason we went to war in Iraq because, as I said in the very message you responded to. It's fundamental to the entire war on terror, of course

It's fundamental to the war on terror to create more terrorists and give them another haven ?

[XtienMurawski]

Whenever they've been asked if Saddam was involved in 9/11, the closest thing to suggesting involvement anyone in the administration has ever said was early on Cheney said "we don't know", which just happened to be the truth, but whatever.

I hate to get involved in this stupid roundabout, but this was a howler. You sure you want to stand by this statement?

Please say yes, because this is just a great quote.

-Amanpour

[Brian Rucker]

Hey, am I ahead of the curve with the China buying Iraqi war bonds reference or what? Here's a Blumenthal article from today on Salon:

When will Rumsfeld propose his 12-year budget? At the current rate of $1 billion a week spent on Iraq (a low estimate; some experts believe the true figure is double that rate), the cost over 12 years would be $4 trillion, $380 billion. But that does not factor in hidden costs such as replacement materiel, special benefits, reenlistment bonuses, etc. And will the budget be reviewed by the DOD, the White House Office of Management and Budget or the Treasury? Furthermore, such financing of the war is done through supplemental budget requests. Once enacted by Congress, the spending is borrowed by selling Treasury bills mostly to Chinese and other Asian banks. The Chinese use the interest to finance their military modernization, which we have scolded them is not permitted. Where are the DOD analyses justifying this strategic tradeoff?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/06/30/bush_speech/index1.html

Insomuch as the foolish comments that inspired this thread are about Bush's PR strategy roiling around his address these further comments from the same article are relevant.

You can't listen to those tapes of Johnson without hearing a man in utter agony, knowing he's trapped," Leslie Gelb, director of the Pentagon Papers project inside the Defense Department during the Johnson administration, and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told me. "Bush doesn't think he's trapped. Bush has reduced everything to will. I've never seen any self-doubt or agonizing, or anyone who works with him suggest that."

From the thoroughly favorable political position of national unanimity after 9/11, Bush pursued a war of choice in Iraq, relying on shaky, distorted and false intelligence. Skeptics were driven into a corner and punished. The administration became an echo chamber.

Immediately after the invasion, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neoconservative deputies systematically excluded knowledgeable experts from participation in reconstruction. The State Department's extensive "Future of Iraq" project was sidelined, and Rumsfeld refused to permit 32 State Department experts from being hired by the new U.S. Office of Reconstruction, as David L. Phillips, a member of the State Department's project, recounts in "Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco." Phillips' firsthand account is a chronicle of epic disaster. He reveals that it was not only the U.S. State Department and the intelligence services that were ignored. On the question of disbanding the Iraqi army, it was the U.S. military's senior experts who were shunted aside. "The Bush administration had committed one of the greatest errors in the history of U.S. warfare," he writes.

In his speech, Bush said that once the Iraqi army is re-created, we will leave. Iraqification has become the linchpin of U.S. policy. "To me the reason we didn't win in Vietnam isn't that we failed to arm the South Vietnamese armed forces or give them air cover at the end," said Gelb. "The reason they lost is that they didn't have a government they felt was worth defending and dying for. Without that, no army is going to fight. It won't take 12 years, it will take forever."

The crisis in Iraq has been produced by deliberate decisions taken by the Bush administration against the advice of the State Department, the military and others. "Their lack of planning was criminally irresponsible, grounds for impeachment," said Gelb. "Of the things that have happened to the U.S. in warfare, this was the single greatest dereliction of duty. It wasn't as if the military wasn't telling them they needed more troops. They still don't know what they are doing."

Bush's speech did not mark a new foreign policy. It did not resolve the political conundrums of Iraq. It cannot advance the combat-readiness of the feeble Iraqi army. Rather, his speech was an exercise in public relations to revive his own political situation.

Unlike Lyndon Johnson, he does not grasp the tragic dimensions. Like Johnson, he is giving hostages to fortune. Everything he says can and will be used against him in the court of public opinion. His fortitude appears as recklessness, his determination as cluelessness.

[Mister Widget]

That's ridiculous -- 9/11 is, of course, the reason we went to war in Iraq because, as I said in the very message you responded to. It's fundamental to the entire war on terror, of course

It's fundamental to the war on terror to create more terrorists and give them another haven ?

Yep! Can't have a war on terror if there are no terrorists!

Of course, fundamental to winning the war on terror would be another matter...

[AttAdude]

Yesterday he mentioned 9/11 no fewer than 5 times in refernce to Iraq. Maybe he didn't use the actual words, "Saddam attacked us on 9/11," but the inference he has been trying to draw is very clear.

That's ridiculous -- 9/11 is, of course, the reason we went to war in Iraq because, as I said in the very message you responded to. It's fundamental to the entire war on terror, of course, so naturally it needs to be mentioned over and over and over again when people question why we're still fighting.

Whenever they've been asked if Saddam was involved in 9/11, the closest thing to suggesting involvement anyone in the administration has ever said was early on Cheney said "we don't know", which just happened to be the truth, but whatever.Oh come on now Desslock you are smarter than this and are just towing the party line. There is no way a person as smart as you can miss the fact that the Bush Admin has been using Implicit Association to link Iraq and 9/11 in an effort to justify the Iraq war. Its a standard technique in both sales and psychology. They have been doing it from the start. You don't really think the whole freaking country just misunderstood do you? You don't have to say "Saddam and Iraq are linked to 9/11", in order to get that message across. In fact i submit to the court that Implicit association is much stronger than its explicit relative. With explicit association you are just taking someone word for it. Implicit association is so dangerous because it gives the illusion that you made the connection from the evidence provided. In general a belief structure that comes from within illusion or not, is much stronger.

Ive said it before and ill say it again. I may not like bush, but one must respect his ability to manipulate the average American mind. It is at least to me the most astounding thing i think ive ever seen in in my own life in terms of mass psychology.

[spacemonkey]

Where are all of these people taking the party line? Are they "towing" it out to the lake for some bass fishing?

[MikeSofaer]

Somehow the acceptable intarweb spelling of "toe the line" became "tow the line" and stopped actually making sense.

[John Many Jars]

Where are all of these people taking the party line? Are they "towing" it out to the lake for some bass fishing?

Stop "trolling" (geddit?).

[AttAdude]

i had always thought it was towing because you where carrying the parties broken ideology for the sake of partisanship. I.e. you where pulling the broken party along behind you.

In anycase a simple correction is often better than a snide comment. Why people fall back on being rude right from jump is beyond me. Hearing some of you guys talk is like watching the children as pundits portion of the daily show.

[MikeSofaer]

It's not just you. It really has become the standard spelling, although it bothers me every time.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

It's not just you. It really has become the standard spelling, although it bothers me every time.

It bothers me, too, but not as much as the new meaning of "begging the question."

Troy

[MikeSofaer]

It's not just you. It really has become the standard spelling, although it bothers me every time.

It bothers me, too, but not as much as the new meaning of "begging the question."

Troy
I agree 100% Brilliant insight.

[Sebmolo]

Spell checkers have a lot to answer for. Personal hates:

'Discrete' means individual
'Discreet' means confidential

and

'For all intents and purposes' NOT 'For all intensive purposes'

[XtienMurawski]

spacemonkey, it's not "Where" these people are taking the party line, but rather "Were" they are taking it. Come on, get it right!

My panties get in a bunch over "couldn't have cared less" for some reason. People are always saying they "could have cared less." Well then, go right ahead. Care less. And get back to me when you can't care less any more.

Also, I like to go around saying "irregardless" in public, both because it was my mother's number one grammatical annoyance, and because I like to catch the odd reaction of people who know. Last time I said it I was on my way into a movie theatre with a friend. A pretty raggedy looking fellow passing us in the hallway snorted and said derisively, in the quintessential pot smoker's drawl, "Irregardless."

-Amanpour

[Jason McCullough]

On the "we have to stay in Iraq to attack the terrorists we're creating I MEAN attracting from elsewhere" thing:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006948

The biggest problem with the speech was the president's attempt to promote the idea that U.S. forces are at war with Al-Qaeda terrorists and foreign fighters in Iraq, when in fact such individuals likely make up only 5 to 10 percent of the insurgents. The bulk of the insurgents are Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and their activities are concentrated largely in three of Iraq's 16 provinces. Collapsing the two groups -- foreign terrorists and Sunni Iraqis -- is a strategic mistake, as the Sunni insurgency is likely aggravated by the U.S. presence on the ground, which Bush last night justified as a response to the foreign terrorists in Iraq, and may well require a totally different strategy to quash. Separating out the two distinct insurgencies that U.S. and Iraqi forces are fighting -- and the distinct strategies needed to vanquish each -- would seem like a logical first step in explaining to the public the work that remains to be done in Iraq before the bulk of U.S. forces can leave. Already the United States has successfully rebuffed an earlier insurgency, that of the Shiite forces led by Moqtada al-Sadr, through a combination of military force and negotiation. And it scored a tactical victory against Sunni rebels at Fallujah last fall, though at a high price to the city and U.S. forces.

[chet]

I was hoping Desslock would have at least given a, "well that is water under the bridge, we are there now so..."

I love when republicans use that logic to run, like the war was the weather and only god himself controlled it happening.

Chet

[russellmz00]

"the die is cast" means that the person is taking a gamble, not that the person has a sure thing, as sure as a cast die mold pumping out the perfect product.

[Chris Nahr]

Alea iacta est, as Julius Caesar liked to say...

I was amazed to learn that "discreet" is actually a real word in English. I always assumed it was just people who didn't know how to spell "discrete". :oops:

[madkevin]

Also, I like to go around saying "irregardless" in public, both because it was my mother's number one grammatical annoyance, and because I like to catch the odd reaction of people who know. Last time I said it I was on my way into a movie theatre with a friend. A pretty raggedy looking fellow passing us in the hallway snorted and said derisively, in the quintessential pot smoker's drawl, "Irregardless."

I'm pretty sure that was me.

[Desslock]

This is just lame - you have McCullough arguing that two statements of "We don't know", mean "I think so".

At this late date, saying "We don't know" is just being evasive.

Good thing the statements weren't made as of this "late date", then.

[Desslock]

One of them was the suggestion of ties to Al Qaida.

But there's no doubt Iraq under Hussein did have ties to Al Quada -- nobody is seriously asserting otherwise, and the 9/11 commission acknowledged them (but found the evidence didn't suggest they had a collaborative relationship).

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam's regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990's, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden's fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet's October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
(summary culled from Andrew McCarthy's recent column)

[Desslock]

..Where the fuck ...differing by degrees of bastardity...a stupid band of motherfuckers...consciously lied.....didn't care if what they said was true or not

Could you devolve into moonbat madness further? Look what it's doing to you. You sound like a raving lunatic.

It's bad enough that your "best" argument you can come up with is that "the Bush Adminstration didn't actually lie, but they used PSYCHOLOGY!!!".

[Jason McCullough]

Whatever. Apparently it's gauche to get angry at a President who flushes 2,000 soldiers down the toilet for nothing.

I'm not the one saying things to be proven wrong two posts later, and the one who apparently *does* think Saddam was involved in 9/11. You scare me, kid.

[Desslock]

I'm the one saying things proven wrong two posts later, and the one who apparently *does* think Saddam was involved in 9/11.

I fixed your post, although it usually doesn't take 2 posts to prove you wrong.

Why don't you ask Lizard King if he thinks he and his friends are being flushed down the toilet for nothing? Maybe it's just "gauche" to so badly misrepresent things as you consistently do since you're unable to fashion a cogent argument by sticking to reality (your misrepresentation of my statements was a beaut, so you must appreciate the same thing being done to yourself above).

[Jason McCullough]

I doubt LK wants to be dragged into our pissing match.

[Desslock]

who cares about Tom Chick's rules

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19851

[Jason McCullough]

I didn't think it was "icky", but I also missed that thread, so whatever I guess.

[Desslock]

I didn't think it was "icky", but I also missed that thread, so whatever I guess.

Yeah, rim job cartoons are always a gas. Is it surprising that you've lost the ability to have a civilized political discussion that sticks to reality?

..Where the fuck ...differing by degrees of bastardity...a stupid band of motherfuckers...consciously lied.....didn't care if what they said was true or not

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, have you been actually reading this forum for the last 6 months? For that matter, reading your own posts?

[Desslock]

Uh, have you been actually reading this forum for the last 6 months?

Has your behaviour been like this for that long? Seriously, why not just stick with what was actually said, and done, rather than all this fantasy stuff, extrapolations and hyperbole?

[Andrew Mayer]

Uh, have you been actually reading this forum for the last 6 months?

Has your behaviour been like this for that long? Seriously, why not just stick with what was actually said, and done, rather than all this fantasy stuff, extrapolations and hyperbole?

Either way your going to trot out the the same discredited crap over and over again, so why not take it up a notch?

Also, just because Tom Posts some rules that doesn't make you his censorship deputy, no matter how lovely a fantasy that might be for you.

[Desslock]

Either way your going to trot out the the same discredited crap over and over again, so why not take it up a notch?.

...Because descending into ridiculousness, and/or just being offensive without offering any substantive arguments, makes it highly unlikely that you'll have a meaningful discussion, let alone persuade anyone? If you just want to gibber nonsense, well, o.k., I guess, but that's probably why most people avoid this forum.

Also, just because Tom Posts some rules that doesn't make you his censorship deputy, no matter how lovely a fantasy that might be for you

Shouldn't you now say I'm gay or something? You know you want to.

[chet]

Psssst... desslock...

So I punch erik for your comment, that makes sense to you? Huh?

You punching Erik is funny, so, o.k.

Again, we've argued dozens of times whether or not Iraq was an appropriate, or next, move in the war on terror, and I don't really want to hash those discussions again -- but whether or not you think it was the right thing to do, it's clear that the Bush administration did, and it's equally clear that was NOT because they though Iraq attacked us at 9/11.

This is just lame - you have McCullough arguing that two statements of "We don't know", mean "I think so".

Linked to poe because source long gone.
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=36447

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

And desslock who is not taking sides, but just looking for the facts (oops a little slip there on that last post?), will claim victory on this quote, and the rest of america will know the truth.

Desslock you are going back to guessing what is in people's pockets and telling them they are wrong, that you know better. On american TV this administration orchestrated a purposeful plan to confuse and mislead the american public to connect 9/11 and saddam. When we went to war some 80% thought this link was true, during the election it still hovered over 50%. Why do you think that was? Just because all us americans are wacky confused? Or that we were fed lies?

Want more? here is tenet correcting cheney - guess why? Because cheney told the truth? Because he wasn't misleading? Guess again.
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=32753

Oh, and if you still don't get it. Here is a little fun.
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002152.php

Need more?

Chet

[steve]

Has your behaviour been like this for that long? Seriously, why not just stick with what was actually said, and done, rather than all this fantasy stuff, extrapolations and hyperbole?
With all due respect, you're not the person to make any statements about fantasy, extrapolations, and hyperbole as that's been your posting style for the last few months. Does anyone really need to dig out the dozens of "moonbat liberal" comments, ones in which you stretch, extrapolate, and generally engage in everything you accuse Jason of doing?

[Desslock]

Psssst... desslock...

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida..

And desslock who is not taking sides, but just looking for the facts (oops a little slip there on that last post?), will claim victory on this quote, and the rest of america will know the truth.

Uh, what is untrue about that statement above? Of course it's true, as the laundry list I posted above indicates, and as the 9/11 commission acknowledged (though not findiing a cooperative or operational relationship). But there's no doubt that Hussein's regimes had ties to Al quaeda. Was that a relevant factor in why the Bush Administration went to war? Of course - and that's expressly stated in the war resolutions.

But that doesn't mean you can sensibly assert that the Bush Administration said Hussein was responsible for 9/11 .

[Desslock]

Has your behaviour been like this for that long? Seriously, why not just stick with what was actually said, and done, rather than all this fantasy stuff, extrapolations and hyperbole?

With all due respect, you're not the person to make any statements about fantasy, extrapolations, and hyperbole as that's been your posting style for the last few months. Does anyone really need to dig out the dozens of "moonbat liberal" comments, ones in which you stretch, extrapolate, and generally engage in everything you accuse Jason of doing?

No, there's a difference between: (a) insulting someone's views or opinions, which I've certainly done, for better or ill (and it certainly probably hasn't helped elevate the conversation); and (b) making up stuff about what someone did, or said, stuffing it with hypberbole or extrapolating its significance to ridiculous extremes without having any reasonable basis for doing so -- which is what I've criticized as "moonbat" behaviour.

Is (b) worse than (a)? Maybe neither is constructive, but at least (a) is honest and encourages people to not make ridiculous assertions that are easily torn apart.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, to hell with it. Never mind. I'll let someone who knows you better do it, because I guess I'm too much of a Chomsky-lover or something for you to listen.

[Kunikos]

You two lovers want to get a room? Seriously, if I have to stand around and watch this flirting anymore I think I'm going to vomit.

[Brian Rucker]

Yikes. I though Desslock had given up and wandered off. Seems I missed something.

This fellow, McCarthy, has a problem. In order to build the RICO case he needed to go after "the blind shiek" he ended up relying on a really questionable source. I'm not certain but I think it was just the one. A lone source. This is a fellow who wanted to go into witness protection after stealing money from Bin Ladin. As far as I know nobody else has ever backed up any of his contentions and we really don't know if any of them hold water whatsoever. When the 9/11 Commission put things in a light based on multiple sourcing much of the groundwork of the RICO indictment is threated to come crumbling down and cast serious doubt on many of the connections he asserts.

So if you want to believe McCarthy's version of "Curveball" that's up to you. I'm much more comfortable with the learned conclusions of the 9/11 Commission myself.

As for old "Slam Dunk" Tenet, I'll just let history speak for itself.

[chet]

Psssst... desslock...

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida..

And desslock who is not taking sides, but just looking for the facts (oops a little slip there on that last post?), will claim victory on this quote, and the rest of america will know the truth.

Uh, what is untrue about that statement above? Of course it's true, as the laundry list I posted above indicates, and as the 9/11 commission acknowledged (though not findiing a cooperative or operational relationship). But there's no doubt that Hussein's regimes had ties to Al quaeda. Was that a relevant factor in why the Bush Administration went to war? Of course - and that's expressly stated in the war resolutions.

But that doesn't mean you can sensibly assert that the Bush Administration said Hussein was responsible for 9/11 .

Funny how you didn't quote the section where the administration contradicts itself, and one of them even gets caught in an outright lie. but yeah, skip that part because then it makes all your statements true!!!

I can dig up more quotes, i can dig up more concepts confused, but you will just ignore them desslock, whats the point? Since you are king of all american media, can you tell me what is on tv tonight? anything I should tivo?


Chet

[Desslock]

Funny how you didn't quote the section where the administration contradicts itself, and one of them even gets caught in an outright lie.

What's funny is that you somehow think you're more "objective" -- I've commented on that Jon Stewart thing before and said I think it's great -- he does a better, more professional job, than the mainstream media in highlighting changing positions and inconsistencies.

Here's another great, more recent, example, if you haven't seen it: http://www.tompaine.com/pass/

[chet]

I ran the previous post through babelfish, from desslock to english. Here is the response.

"While you have never claimed you are objective, i have, numerous times. That MAKES ME MORE OBJECTIVE!!!

I am spouting a bunch of bs, but that thing you point out that shows how full of bs I am? I already talked about that, so lets get back to me spouting a bunch of bs and pretend your point has no bearing on this issue.

Did I tell you how objective i am? I am!!"