Oh. My. God.

You people just won't face up to it will you?

What?

Didn't you like my title - I thought it was witty??

The problem, dear heart, is that Ara actually believes that the President led people to believe that Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

I mean, it's a lie, just like the "imminent threat" lie and the "cakewalk" lie and so on, but rationality has never been Bush-bashers' strong suit.

Dean:

I know Ara pretty well. No way he's fallen for that tripe. He's way too bright for that. I think you are shortchanging him.

You don't buy that crap - do you Ara?

I'll face up to it. As soon as someone, anyone, provides me with a single quote in which the President says Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.

It won't be found, but that doesn't matter. Those who hate Bush don't deal in truth, they deal in innuendo, and if they repeat something enough times, they hope people will believe it.

Bush did indeed want people to come to the conclusion that Saddam was involved in 9/11. If people hadn't believed that Saddam was involved, Bush never could have gotten a majority to support his position. Bush avoided outright saying it, lest he be accused of lying, but he skated right up to the position.

He is being accused of lying and people like Rooney are putting the words he didn't say - in his mouth.

Haven't you heard - Bush Lied. It's all over the place. Everyone say's so - so it must be true. Proof? We don't need no stinkin proof.

I never thought he got close. I listened to every speech and not one single time did he say Saddam had a 911 connection.

In the Biblical story of Joseph sold into slavery, Joseph's brothers never told their father Jacob that Joseph was dead. They just allowed Jacob to believe it. That is what Bush did with Saddam and 9/11.

You listened to every speech, eh? I'm impressed.

I put up a post that is way too long to stick in a comment, but there are some quotes that show Bush painting the Hussein=Al Qaeda=9/11 picture.

Riiiight, Joel. Except people like you were too smart to buy into it, while people like me were to blind to even notice it.

You want to know one of the bigger misconceptions? That most people think Saddam was behind 9/11. Most people don't think that, and all you have to do is look closely at the polls. When you break them apart, you find that perhaps a third or less Americans actually do believe that--what most of them think is that he "may have had something to do with it." Which, as it turns out, is an absolutely reasonable and rational position.

You want to know another reason why I think the Left is likely to take a bad whupping in the next election? Because of its appalling lack of respect for the intelligence and common sense of the average voter. And this nonsense about how we were "fooled" into thinking that Saddam had something to do it by the amazing mind-powers of the maniacal genius Bush is a good example of that elitist crap in action.

I'd characterize Andy Rooney as a "turd merchant". He belongs on CBS, where he can spin his bedtime stories. Isn't he ready for a nursing home yet.

People can believe anything they want about what GWB means when he gives a speech. Its no different than when I say X and my wife hears Y. I guess its the Mars/Venus thing. The facts or an explanation just don't matter after that.

By the way, GWB's appearance and confident strut from the carrier landing was most outstanding. As a former fighter pilot, I can tell you that he showed that he fits the role of Commander in Chief to a tee. Chuck Yeager himself couldn't have looked any better. Ane it really seems to irk the lefties like nothing I've heard of in ages.

Joel,

Actually, what happened is that the broad majority of the American people are not motivated primarily by an anti-Bush/GOP animus. This means that even if they don't support the President generally, they don't then take this lack of support and use it to automatically ascribe ignoble motives to the President.

It is simple common-sense that taking down Saddam is a large part of the War on Terrorism in general - its doesn't take a great deal of technical knowledge to understand this. Almost instinctively, we all realised on 9/11 that it was our failures to act, as a nation, which lead the enemy to think he could murder 3,000 of us and not pay a heavy price - and for 10 years prior to 9/11, we had all gone over endlessly how dumb it was for us to not get rid of Saddam when we had him on the ropes.

It is President Bush who has an appalling lack of respect for the American voter. I don't believe for a moment that Bush actually thought Iraq has/had WMD.

Mark, well, for sure, we made about 4,500 innocent Iraqi civilians pay for September 11.

Dean, glad to know that you think I'm full of elitist crap. I'm just a small town Methodist preacher living in a conservative rural area. I frequently vote Republican but just because I disagree with you on the war, then I'm part of the left. How graciously mature of you.

Dean, how is it a reasonable position that Hussein had something to do with 9/11 when Bush said "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks"?

Who created this false impression?

Joel: Left, right, I don't care. You can "believe" anything you want. But you're full of elitist crap if you think the average voter is so easily led around by the nose, preacher man, that the Bushies made most people believe Saddam plotted the 9/11 attacks. Especially when the President never even said anything like that, and it appears that most people don't believe it, either.

I suppose you also think that Bill Clinton never believed there were WMDs? That Madelaine Albright didn't? That Tony Blair didn't? That half the Democrats in Congress who said he had them didn't believe it either? Jesus. Get over it, man. Leaping to "lies" to explain something like this is just plain silly.

Out of curiosity, if we did find the missing WMDs, would you be satisfied that Bush didn't lie?

And here's another thing I'd like to know: can you tell me anyone you know who can say, "Yes, I thought Saddam plotted the 9/11 attacks, and the President certainly made me think that?" Because you know what? I've asked around and I cannot find anyone who will say they thought that. Am I just unusual in that regard?

Hugger: It is reasonable to think it possible that Saddam had "something to do with" 9/11 simply because he was giving money to terrorists in Palestine, and independent press accounts have shown Al Qaeda activity in different parts of Iraq. I'll be happy to show you some of the stories I linked on it last year, in places like The New Yorker.

We don't need a "who" to create such an "impression." Those facts were all on the table even before 9/11. We don't need the maniacal Bush to have put such foolish notions into our easily addled and simple minds, thanks. But "maybe" and "something" are huge words--even if you asked me right now, I'd say, "Yes, MAYBE he had SOMETHING to do with it, because if he ever gave them money, or weapons. or useful information, then that would make him an accomplice even if he didn't know what they were planning to do exactly."

"Maybe" and "something to do with" are so broad, you'd have to be irrational to rule it out entirely.

Ah. I see that Brutal Hugs has linked us, and has a good point.

Here's the problem I have: "Led to believe" is a phrase that is loaded with ambivalence and malice. It practically oozes the word "lie," or at least strongly smells of dishonesty.

But in fact, all the President did was -- quite truthfully -- note a suspected link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. There's nothing dishonest about that. There's nothing even inaccurate about it, because such suspected links existed well before 9/11, and reasonable suspicions about it still exist. Indeed, as I mention above, at least one press account last year took the administration to task for NOT investigating such a link, because they found evidence of it themselves. That was in The New Yorker.

Cheney's comments about a meeting with Mohammed Atta do seem to have been disproved and therefore problematic. What's wearisome to me is the instant assumption that he was "lying," in some sort of careful plot by the administration: "Let's have Dick lie about this and keep saying it even though we know it's not true. Because that way, if he says it on Meet The Press, we'll get weeks of coverage and analysis from pundits and we won't have to say anything else! The people, stupid yokels that they are, will just come to believe it." Come on, does that pass the laugh test?

To be honest, it's the constant drumbeat of "lies lies lies!" and "pattern of deception" that's so distressing to me. Especially when you face issues, again and again (don't even get me started on that "we had no plans" business).

But yes, you got me Hugger. Yes, the Bush Administration did indeed mention, a few times, known or suspected links to Al Qaeda. This is a far cry, however, from suggesting that the administration intentionally deceived the public in order to make the average voter think Saddam actively engaged in the 9/11 attacks--which, in my experience, very few people believe, and which the administration never suggested.

A big problem here is, by the way, people's propensity to exaggerate just how certain intelligence services like the FBI and CIA can really be. Real life intelligence work is almost rarely cut-and-dried. We need to grow up and realize that.

Saddam and Iraq did have links to Al Queda. There was a huge terrorist training camp north of Baghdad where Al Queda literature was found. Several Al Queda and Ba'thist types admitted meetings between the two organisations. Bush never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. That isn't to say that Saddam and Iraq didn't have something to do with it as a facilitator.

I found the article. I was mistaken, it wasn't published last year, but rather, in February of this year. It's Jeffrey Goldberg's The Unknown, published February 3, 2003. It's worth reading. Note how Goldberg portrays the Washington intelligence establishment as not doing enough to track down these links that he himself found.

That there might be a link between Bin Laden's group and the regime and the Iraqi regime, the Iranian regime, the Saudi regime, and so on has been worthy contemplation for a long time--and it still is contemplated. I recall that the press itself began speculating and asking about such a possible connection within days of 9/11. And why not? I speculated on it myself, also wondering if there could be connections with the Saudis, the Iranians, and so on.

So let's run a scenario here:

1) Post 9/11, the Bush administration's evil neocon cabal decides to pin it on Saddam. How? They'll have Cheney run around dropping hints that he knew were not true, suggesting that there might be a Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection. They did this hoping it would immediately cause the press, which otherwise never would have thought to ask the question, to start wildly speculating, and that the gullible American people would overwhelmingly conclude that Saddam plotted the 9/11 attacks.

2) The administration, for good reason, thought there might possibly be a link. When asked, they said, "well there's some evidence of ties, we aren't sure though." When pressed, they admit that they either don't think there's a link, or they just don't know. Cheney, who hears and reads thousands of pages of reports on myriad topics, and has every reason to strongly suspect ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, gets it stuck in his head that an Al Qaeda figure met with top Iraqi officials, even though he's been told a couple of times that that probably didn't happen.

You tell me, Hugger, what sounds more reasonable to you?

Which goes back to my earlier point: the instant credibility given to people who shout "lies, or at least pattern of deception!" at the first sign of any inconsistency or confusion.

By the way, I still do not believe that more than a very small minority of Americans has ever believed that Saddam was directly involved in plotting or ordering the 9/11 attacks. It's not irrational if most people think he "may have had something to do with it," and it's not reasonable to pin that thinking solely on the administration.

I listened to Rooney's crap, and I'm glad someone took the time to pick it apart appropriately. I guess I'll have to start reading more Andrew Sullivan. Just goes to show that Rooney's brain is best suited for discussions of why he doesn't trim his eyebrows, or about why manufacturers keep adding more blades to shaving razors.

"We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th - the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

George Bush, May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat operations in Saudi Arabia.

Oooops. I mean Iraq. My bad!

Dean,

Seems kind of funny that you possess all the negative qualities you claim to abhor in others. I would call you a master hypocrite. You stereotype, bait and switch, insult, sneer, and more. You claim to be tolerant, but you really aren't.

Never fear, Ara, Saudi Arabia's turn is coming soon. They either reform or get reformed.

If Bush does not follow through on smacking the Saudis in his second term (its a little late in this term to start another war), then I will be annoyed at the waste of a good opportunity.

Besides, we have to smack the Norks first. Safety from a narcisstic nut with nukes takes precedence over a vengeance whomp on Wahhabists.

Offhand, Joel, I'd say the real problem is that you mistake sincere criticism of your side for stereotyping and sneering. But if you really think otherwise, why don't you just leave?

So, Ara: You're finally coming out in favor of declaring war on Saudi Arabia, are you? A "yes" or "no" response to said question would be nice--you Artful Dodger you. :-)

Ah, Dean, maybe Joel wouldn't look so silly if he wasn't misrepresenting President Bush's words so much while calling Bush deceptive ...

However, I find his namecalling of you endemic among the Bush-haters as we have "labeled" them.

Why don't I just leave? We are all hypocrites in one way or another. As much as I don't care for your personality (as I perceive it), I also know that you are bright and have a lot of good insights. I'm reading your blog because I'm confident that I will learn something. I don't have to like someone to believe that they might teach me a thing or two. I'm even willing to admit that I might be wrong about the war.

Dean,

The administration's public comments are pretty well scripted. They have their talking points, their pounded phrases.

Cheney is a really smart guy. I just don't think it's an accident when he keeps talking about this discredited link between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official.

Your scenario is too kind to the administration. They didn't say "there is some evidence of ties, we aren't sure". Cheney said the ties were "Pretty well confirmed" and that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the 9/11 terrorists. Those are pretty strong statements for people that were just speculating.

So here's my scenario, which I think is most likely:

3) Bush and company mentions Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same breath enough times while trying to avoid saying anything that is verifiably false. A certain number of Americans get the hint and believe the connection is real and a compelling reason to invade.

It's a simple tactic, more akin to advertising than argument. But our politicians are all about advertising. That's how they communicate these days - in impressions and short bits of sound. Few have the time or attention to listen to the whole argument, so most get the gist and move on. Bush knows it, as do all politicians. And so we get advertised to instead of reasoned with.

As for the New Yorker article, I don't know what to make of it. First I've seen it. My initial reaction is that if the information in it were true, why didn't the Bush administration tout any of it in its drive to convince us we needed to invade Iraq? Why didn't Powell have pictures with circles of terrorist training camps at the UN?

Also, some of the connections mentioned between Iraq and Terrorism are not the same as connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example, Ansar al-Islam set up shop in the Kurdish-controlled north, which really doesn't have much to do with Hussein.

So, Ara: You're finally coming out in favor of declaring war on Saudi Arabia, are you? A "yes" or "no" response to said question would be nice--you Artful Dodger you. :-)

"No."

...is that simple enough for you, you invincible Stone Deaf warrior?

~8^/

From the 9/1/03 Weekly Standard:

No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States.

Despite the Czech government's confirmation of the Atta-al Ani meeting, the Bush administration dropped it as evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection in September 2002. Far from hyping this episode, administration officials refrained from citing it as the debate over the Iraq war heated up in Congress, in the country, and at the U.N.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

James Woolsey said at a Q&A last week that whether or not the meeting took place continues to be disputed. Apparently Atta wasn't in Prague during the time in question under any of his known aliases.

Joel,

You said "well, for sure, we made about 4,500 innocent Iraqi civilians pay for September 11."

Actually, those civilians lost an unfortunate lottery held becuase Saddam Hussein ran their country. Given that he and his henchmen were killing hundreds or thousands a month, what we really did was substitute some deaths for others. Over the long run there will be many fewer deaths due to the actions we took.

It's a shame people can look at us and say we had a hand in killing person x, but you have to realize we saved person y as well, even though you can't name her. Anything else is just grandstanding.

Joel, for a "small town Methodist preacher", you don't listen very well...

Ara:

"We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th - the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

"George Bush, May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat operations in Saudi Arabia.

Oooops. I mean Iraq. My bad!"

-----------

Nice. But try this on for size will ya...

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Bush - State of the Union, January 2001

Andy, I'm listening. What do you have to say?

Bush lies. Let's try this out. Bush made a big part of his 2000 campaign foreign policy platform that the U.S. is not about nation building. Well, we're in nation building big time to the extent that the administration's sights go far beyond Iraq. I sincerely believe that we may be creating more terrorists in the process.

Rosemary:

So what?

"Bush made a big part of his 2000 campaign foreign policy platform that the U.S. is not about nation building. Well, we're in nation building big time"

I never thought I'd see the administration criticized for not sticking with the plan from before the terrorist attacks. Criticizing them for not picking the right new option seems reasonable, but this is ridiculous.

Better come up with something new.

Joel, that has got be one of the dumbest "bush lies" claims I've ever heard of!

Yes, Bush campaigned against "nation building." Yes, that's what his adminstration is doing now in Iraq.

Where your non-logic falls through is your claim that the only interpretation is that Bush lied during the campaign. This is an assumption on your part, for which you provide no justification. You just "say so."

There are other explanations that do not require extra proof. For example:

Bush campaigns against "nation building." Then, six months after he took office, terrorists fly two jets into one of the most famous buildings in America, torching 3,000 people. This causes a change of heart, and of policy. Dunno about you, but seeing a giant pit that contains the vaporized remains of thousands of people would change my mind about a lot of things...

Now that wasn't so hard, was it? But I bet you'll keep insisting that he lied anyway, because that's what you want to believe about Bush.

When Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he had been fully briefed on the dangerous nature of the world, including a multitude of terrorist scenarios every bit as dangerous as 9/11. Is Bush really so dumb that he woke up one morning and said, "Gee, how did this happen?" No, I think he simply knew on the campaign trail that nation-building as a concept wasn't popular. I don't think Bush believed his own rhetoric, and that makes him a liar for proposing what he didn't believe.

Joel, this is preacher-to-preacher. You're a small-town Methodist preacher, I'm a rural Presbyterian preacher. Casey has a point. Somewhere between 2000 and today, the world changed. Do you remember where you were on September 11, 2001?

I will never forget the e-mail I received from a parishioner, forwarding an eyewitness account from someone in the streets of Manhattan; at first I thought she was e-mailing me science fiction. Then I went and turned on my TV.

I will never forget the hastily prepared prayer service that evening. Nor the worship services at Mt. Hope and St. John's on Sunday, September 16, 2001. I hope to God I never again find myself in a situation where I need to use that responsive call to worship from the first chapter of the Book of Lamentations: "How lonely sits the city that was full of people... How like a widow has she become, she that was great among the nations... In the street the sword bereaves; in the house it is like death."

I can understand how an intelligent person of good will could differ with me, and differ fundamentally, over the war in Iraq. That's one of the perils of being a Liberal Protestant: I can see (usually without getting too bent out of shape) how good, decent people might actually disagree with me.

But Joel, what I can't understand is how someone could bridge the distance between campaign promises in 2000 and the situation today with nothing more than "Bush lied." And to me, your latest post (following Casey's) makes your stance not less but more inexplicable.

Care to elaborate? I'm all ears.

Who briefed him on the campaign trail? His advisors? Clinton's?

I find it hard to believe that the Clinton Administration would brief a presidential candidate with sensitive information.

After the election, of course, but not on the campaign trail. Why would they? Isn't that stuff like classified?

His own campaign advisors would not have access to national security info?

So - how is it that he lied about nation building?

You know, back in 2000, I thought nation-building was probably a bad idea too. Then 9/11 hit and I began to think we needed to rethink things like that, and even before the President said a word I started thinking we needed to do something about Iraq. I've been an outspoken advocate for democracy and human rights in Iraq for well over a year now.

Guess that makes me a big fat liar too, eh?

Paul, my point is that Bush always believed in nation-building. He campaigned against his beliefs because back in 2000 nation-building was an unpopular stance that could be tied to Clinton. So, my point is that Bush is unprincipled. I could also say that I hope I don't have to use that Lamentations passage when Bush gets through trying to remake the world in his image. You see, I genuinely believe that Bush and associates are making the world a far more dangerous place.

Dean, you changed your mind. I don't think Bush changed his mind. I think he just discarded an idle campaign promise. Call you a liar? I haven't even called you an elitist or full of crap. I simply think you are wrong.

Rosemary, most of the terrorist scenarios were public knowledge. The terrorists had already tried to take down the World Trade Centers before.

Joel:

Well, okay, I see where you're coming from, even if I disagree with it. I think that terrorists and tyrants have already made the world a far more dangerous place, and that by the time Bush and crew are through, the world will be a relatively less dangerous place, and parts of it will enjoy a great deal more freedom.

Best regards!

Joel,

I see your point, now. I think you are wrong, but I see it. :)

From what I recall, Bush always spoke out in public about 'nation building.' Do you have any links to the contrary? Not arguing (I doubt it would do much good) but I am curious to see where you got that idea?