RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Why disclaim the implied Saddam-9/11 link now?(29 posts)

Why disclaim the implied Saddam-9/11 link now?PdxMark
Sep 17, 2003 5:04 PM
As stated by that arch-liberal rag, the Christian Science Monitor (3/14/2003), BuSh artfully linked Saddam with 9/11 in the build-up to the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Of course, that liberal rag, among others, saw through the transparent falsehood, but currently almost 70% of Americans think there was a link.

So why come straight now? Was Cheney just a little too glib in hinting at the link last weekend? Did he blow the plausible deniability of the misinformation campaign, requiring such an abrupt about face? It is Hell to be getting old...
Maybe george has come down with an attack of truthitis.MR_GRUMPY
Sep 17, 2003 7:07 PM
Maybe next week, he'll come out and say " You know, I might have missed all of those damned national guard excercises in 1972. I was stoned most of that year."
But then again, maybe not............
i'd guess it's just CYArufus
Sep 17, 2003 7:08 PM
anyone with any intelligence at all knows they tried to link them, and now we can blame the 70% of ignorant americans for swallowing it hook line and sinker. by denying it now, early and often, i guess they hope that people will believe it just like all the other lies they've told over and over until it's seen as fact by the american public, and not hold them responsible for putting the idea in people's heads in the first place.

you know, they can say "it's not our fault 70% of the public believes saddam was behind 9/11, we never said he was." and of course, they never did come right out and say it. but they sure made plenty of implications.
It takes a big man to say he's wrong,TJeanloz
Sep 18, 2003 5:29 AM
I think it's a good move. He was elected partly because of his image as a tell-it-like-it-is politician, and this reestablishes that to some degree. Standing up and saying "we were wrong" says that we are strong enough to admit our mistakes.

Which implies that the other things people are saying they're lying about (WMD, for example), are still believed to be accurate. You go back and say: we would have told you if we were wrong, but we didn't, so we still believe that what we said is correct.

Politically, I think it pulls a little steam out of the "liar, liar" tactic currently being used by the Left. I know those of you on the Left won't see it that way, and won't be fooled, but I think that's what's going on.
actually, i saw david gergen on tv last nightrufus
Sep 18, 2003 6:29 AM
and he was saying that it allows them to backtrack on their rhetoric without having to admit that their reasons for ramping up for war with iraq were questionable. i wish i had a transcript, cause he said it much better than i could recall it here, but in effect, he's saying they aren't admitting they were wrong.

likewise, i don't see it as bush stepping to the plate and admitting they were mistaken. what it is is a way for them to develop plausible deniability for what they've said and intimated in the past. when anyone says that the bush administration linked saddam to 9/11, they can say, "no we didn't, look we even said as much on 9/17/03. we don't know where you're getting this idea from, but we never did it, the assumptions are all on your part". if they keep on that point often enough, people will come to accept that as the truth, just like they've come to accept everything else they've told us about wmd's, and nukes, and atta meeting iraqi officials in prague, etc. it's a great rebuttal for any accusations from the dems in the coming election year. and to me, rather than contrition, it reeks of extreme hubris and arrogance.
one last thing. he's not admitting they were wrong.rufus
Sep 18, 2003 6:33 AM
he's not saying that this administration did link saddam to 9/11, and that information turned out to be wrong. he's saying that there are no links showing saddam to be involved, completely overlooking the attempts by him and his staff to imply that those links existed. he's not saying that they were wrong to even imply that the links existed, he's simply sweeping all that under the rug.
That's a stretch...TJeanloz
Sep 18, 2003 6:41 AM
Correcting a factual error is pretty much the same thing as saying you were wrong.

I know those on the Left want the President to come out and say, you know, about that 9/11 Saddam connection, I LIED, there never was a connection. But that isn't going to happen.

There is no question that the administration linked Saddam to terrorism, even to 9/11 via Prague, and saying that there are no links is correcting that mistake. I know this won't be good enough for the rabid Left that wants to catch the President in a bald-faced lie akin to "I did not have sexual relations", but that doesn't mean it isn't a mea culpa.
but he's not correcting a factual error.rufus
Sep 18, 2003 6:54 AM
they never came out and said that saddam hussein was behind 9/11. that's what they're saying now, that there was no link between the two.

however, they used all sorts of innuendo, half-truths, inferences, and what-not to imply that he was involved in some capacity. bush is not saying they were wrong for doing that. in fact, he's not even mentioning that, hoping that the american public will conveniently forget all of that in the coming year. and if they don't, he's got this new statement to rely on as his defense. he can blame it all on the media or the paranoid left, or just people jumping to the wrong conclusions, or whoever he wants for getting that idea in the public's head, when everyone knows it was his people putting that scenario out there. but now he can deny it by referencing his statements yesterday, and hoping that people remember this one, and not all the others.
This is ridiculous,TJeanloz
Sep 18, 2003 6:59 AM
So there's this big misconception out there that Saddam was behind 9/11, the President comes out and says that it's not true, and you have a problem with that? If he put out all of this innuendo, doesn't his statement correct all of it?

I don't know what you want short of Bush resigning, but I've made my point as to what I think he has to gain from making the statement.
no, it just covers his assrufus
Sep 18, 2003 7:19 AM
he still hasn't taken any responsibility for putting that notion out there in the first place. he hasn't said "we were wrong for pushing the atta meeting, even after our fbi says he was in america at the time, and the czech president told us the meeting never happened. we were wrong for implying that saddam dealt with al-qaeda. we have no evidence that he did"
Clinton apologized for lying about Monica.OldEdScott
Sep 18, 2003 7:52 AM
If he put out that lie, didn't his statement correct it? I don't know what you want, short of Clinton being impeached, but .... wait a minute, never mind.
I think your right but...........Len J
Sep 18, 2003 7:57 AM
it still stinks.

You are spot on that this backtracking is a political move to weaken the attacks.

My basic problem (and i know you don't agree) is that I think the erroneous link of Saddam to 9/11 was done conciously. I believe that the administration knew that no such link existed (or had serious doubts such a link existed), but felt they needed it to justify the war. Supporters of Bush will look at the recent statements and conclude that it was an honest mistake, others see it as continued evidence of the blatent manipulation of congress & the people with mistruths & lies.

Unfortunatly, we may never know the truth. For me, there are too many shady rationalizations for this war that continue to surface. The only conclusion I can reach is that either the administration is incompetent or they manipulated us. There are too many successful, intelligent people in the administration to believe that they are incompetent, so I'm left with lying as the only explanation.

Comning clean now has little to do with integrity and much to do with continued political manipulation. I suspect that this administrations credibility will continue to deteriorate.

Sad state of affairs.

Len
Classic spin, guys.OldEdScott
Sep 18, 2003 8:11 AM
This has been just straight-ahead old-fashioned spin -- say something technically truthful, and let folks leap to their own assumptions, which may be erroneous but hey -- WE told the truth.

Here it is, one fresh example in all its spin-naked glory:

Just Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." (Quote taken from the CNN site).

I bet 90 percent of the listeners didn't make a distinction between 'region' and 'Iraq.' Old Condie is being truthful as all get out. But she and the other Bushies are pro enough to know what they're doing, and what they're doing is perpetuating an IMPRESSION that they're talking about Iraq.

Don't even kid yourself that this happened or has been happening accidentally. Politicians are taught 'precision in langauge' at their mammy's knee.

Hey, I'm not criticizing. It's perfectly acceptable. But it's also perfectly acceptable to point out that the spin was used in a conscious attempt to bamboozle the American people, and it's up to the American people to decide how great the offense was, and what punishment, if any, should be meted out. The Repubs job is to say it's a minor infraction, it's my job to say it warrants the political death penalty, and it's the voters' job to judge who's right.

Just another day at the office.
An article fyi in case you missed it. Tough Democratic Love128
Sep 18, 2003 8:49 AM
As more of a Solutionist in terms of the prior referenced David Brooks NYTimes article, I thought his approach (seek the middle vote) ran counter to the (winning)strategy we agreed the Liberals should take: go after the hard core ideologues on the left (a la NeoBush, and Dean.)

So in terms of ridding the White house of the current scourge I am in the wrong as a Solutionist/Inclusiveness. I should be Intense for these purposes.

To further my contradiction, I would prefer to see something like the approach in this article (Dems. come out fighting) for this election. This admin. needs a wakeup call....

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0338/perlstein.php

"Now Jimmy looks sweet 'cause he dresses like a queen
But he can kick like a mule
It's a real mean team
We can love
Oh yes, we can love" -Bowie
Yep. Perlstein's always fun to read. nmOldEdScott
Sep 18, 2003 10:04 AM
They're Both Manipulative and IncompetentJon Billheimer
Sep 18, 2003 8:59 AM
The dishonesty and manipulation is unarguable. Their incompetence is rooted in the stupidity and arrogance of the policy assumptions underlying the pre-election decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.
I'm also puzzledDuane Gran
Sep 18, 2003 8:07 AM
The statement is such a self evident matter that I can only think it is done for political reasons. Americans are ignorant about many a thing, but the president doesn't go around setting people straight as a rule of thumb. Upon hearing that the administration claimed that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 my immediate response was: No sh*t, doesn't everybody already know this? Tune in tomorrow to find out that the sky is blue (except of course on the East coast where it is a solid blanket of cloud today).
When did YOU know it? Not laying for an attack, justOldEdScott
Sep 18, 2003 8:13 AM
really interested. At what point did you conclude Iraq wasn't involved, and how did you arrive at that conclusion? Where did the information you found convincing come from?
When did YOU know it? Not laying for an attack, justJon Billheimer
Sep 18, 2003 9:01 AM
The day after 9/11 when it was broadcast all over the airwaves that the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, that the whole thing was sponsored by Al Qaeda, run by a Saudi by the name of bin Laden who was operating out of Afghanistan. Like...duuuh!!!
intuition & common senseDuane Gran
Sep 22, 2003 5:18 AM
Given that Bin Laden had made several public statements against the infidel Baath/socialist/secular government of Iraq, I found it hard to believe that they had much allegiance aside from a common dislike of western culture. In addition, the Al Queda form of Islam is a variant of Sunni beliefs while Iraq is primarily Shiite.

I'm no expert, but these two factors made me suspicious about any real collaboration from the onset. From the first time I heard about "links between Iraq and Al Queda" I smelled BS. I reluctantly gave the administration the benefit of the doubt on the WMD issue and regret that I wasn't more steadfast in my skepticism.
It's that and a deal.sn69
Sep 18, 2003 7:08 PM
First and foremost, it's a CYA act to start laying groundwork for the next election cycle. Like you said, duh.

What lurks in the background, however, is the key to it all. Watch in the coming weeks and we start seeking and attaining a closer degree of commonality with France and Germany via the UN. This is also very much a deal brokered at the DoState level in the back booths of Georgetown bars and such.

Deception and duplicity are the way of life in the beltway.
It's that and a deal.Jon Billheimer
Sep 19, 2003 9:39 AM
Scott, two questions. Do you think the American public and Congress will be as easily suckered by the Bushies the second time around? And, two, on the national security and foreign policy fronts can they effectively neutralize Wesley Clark?
It's that and a deal.sn69
Sep 19, 2003 9:59 AM
Q1: The American print media standard for style and composition is written to a seventh grade level. What does that tell you?

Q2: Dunno. They might play on Clark's dismissal by the Clintonites, although that would require some varisty spinnin' to keep from looking beyond-foolish. Likewise, they'll have to contend with Powell if they really go after Clark--he's Clark's mentor. I'm not sure how any of "them" could disparage Clark on his military service, particularly given the President's limited, arranged service in the TANG, Rumsie's short-duration service in the Navy and Wolfie's nuthin' service. That said, however, there's always the Hackworth-factor, and that misanthropic egocent attacks damn-near everyone in uniform who made general/admiral if, for nor other reason, than he didn't. I think the most significant hinderance to Clark will be his lack of experience on the domestic front.
It's that and a deal.Jon Billheimer
Sep 19, 2003 10:56 AM
Agreed. Let's hope for the sake of American democracy and world peace that SOMEONE unseats Bush and his arrogant plutocracy.

On the Dem. vs. Repub. partisan front the California carnival is sure as hell a wash! Right? And if the Supremes reverse the 9th Circuit they'll look like the political hacks that they are and bring American jurisprudence into total disrepute. It's a neat conundrum.
It's that and a deal.sn69
Sep 19, 2003 11:24 AM
Of course a great many on both sides also think the 9th Circuit was out to lunch with their ruling, but such is life. Compared to Europe and their collective laundry list of sex-scandals and whatnot throughout the years, I personally liken this to little more than more of America's "coming of age" into their political early adulthood. Welcome to the world.....

Fortunately, even though I live in California, I am granted an allowance to maintain my state citizenship with Florida. I don't vote here, but, then again, my "technical" state of residence has some pretty substantial voting issues, dontcha think?
attacking clark's military record.rufus
Sep 19, 2003 11:46 AM
on another board i frequent, some of the right-wingers are already attacking clark as a man who blundered the kosovo campaign, woefully inept as a commander, antagonizing, despised by both the men who served under him and those above him, and a man who risked starting WWIII with the russians over an airport.

not sure how much of this is accurate, and how much colored by their biases. but it surely shows no fear of attacking him on his military record.
Colored by bias.sn69
Sep 19, 2003 11:51 AM
At least that's my opinion. The issues in Kosovo were the direct result of the Clintonites and their steadfast refusal to allow first Smith and later Clark to prosecute the campaign as they saw fit (both were/are students of the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force). It was a classic "Vietnamesque" situation where the field commanders were severely limited by the legislators at home.

Personally, this is typical partisan hooey. The Right will jeer him for anything. Then the Left will cheer him for anything. It's the bipolar nature of our system.
Colored by bias.Jon Billheimer
Sep 19, 2003 6:07 PM
At least he's a real military guy who actually has spent his life defending his country, unlike the TANG deserter in the White House fraudulently masquerading as a patriot, while committing America's future resources and present military personnel to protecting his and his family's vested interests with the Saudi royal family.
I'm with Duane on this.Turtleherder
Sep 18, 2003 11:51 AM
When I first heard Bush and his back tracking the first question I asked was what does he get out of this? There has to be more to it than just setting the record straight. Come on, this administration is not really known for opening up the doors to the back rooms and letting the light in. Also using it as political cover doesn't sound right because they usually are much too arrogent to admit to any type of mistake or blunder and typically just tend to do what they want and count on the people not paying attention. So what do you think the REAL politcal advantage is? When is the other shoe going to drop?