In 1995, Texas governor George Bush held a meeting with Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian Coalition. During the discussion, Bush mentioned that he was planning to make a run for the Presidency after his second term in office. Reed, who had just helped usher in Newt Gingrich’s Congress and their “Contract With America”, was an obvious ally to have in a future run for the Oval Office. No one knows, however, whether Bush and Reed reached any agreement or whether they stayed in touch after the meeting.
Fast forward to 2004, where we find journalists probing whether the Christian Coalition ever directly supported Bush. Bush flatly denies that there was ever any “long established ties” between himself and Reed’s former organization. The press thinks they have caught him in a lie. Have they? Could this be considered a lie?
By the standards of the political Left the answer would be “no.”
The scenario above is pure fiction; I simply made it up. But it highlights the double standard that is applied to the Bush administration by those on the Left. Take, for example, this recent post on Lean Left in which I’m taken to task for my contention that there has been no evidence presented that Bush is “dishonest”:
In the comments, Joe was summarily lambasted (by myself and several others), but never did concede that the word "dishonest" could rightly be applied to Bush and his Administration.
Why do I bring this up now? Because in the wake of the GOP-led, bipartisan 9/11 Commission's finding that there's "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, coupled with Bush and Cheney's continued insistence that there is such a link, I'm wondering if he has reconsidered that opinion yet. And if not, what would it take to get him to reconsider it?
Have I reconsidered? Of course not. Because the Congressional report establishes the connection between Bin Laden and Iraq:
Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States. [emphasis added]
I’m not sure what the Left considers a “connection.” But in my mind when you have a senior Iraqi intelligence officer meeting with the head of al-Queda, then it fair to say that there is a “link” between Iraq and al-Queda.
I predict that we will see some goalpost moving on this one. At first the Left claimed there was no link to al Qaeda. Since that has been established, they'll dismiss it and claim that no significant link has been proven. What comes after that? Will they claim that Bush has failed to establish a family connection between Saddam and bin Laden?
More than that, there existed links between multiple terrorist groups and Saddam's regime. I have pictures posted on my blog, Sense Filter (on the left side here, under repricocity), of some of our soldiers and the pictures they took of the terrorist training camp. I am not indentifying which service they came from, their names, or where I got the pictures (their faces are blocked out), because I don't feel like having some nut flaming the person of people who took the photos. But if want evidence of a terrorist connection people, there it is. I'm sure Joe probably knows a few guys who saw the camps in Iraq as well.
David Marcoe:
"I am not indentifying which service they came from, their names, or where I got the pictures (their faces are blocked out), because I don't feel like having some nut flaming the person of people who took the photos. But if want evidence of a terrorist connection people, there it is."
Short version of David Marcoe: Here's some bogus completely uncorroborated crap that I use to support my view that the invasion of Iraq was justified, now that all of the other justifications for invading Iraq have been shown to be garbage. Like some unholy dingleberry, I cling to these views because I was so emotionally invested in the War on Iraq and avenging the 9/11 attacks that I will never ever admit that I was wrong.
Joe:
Wrong-O. By the standards of the Bush Administration the answer would be "no," and I can prove it with a non-made-up example. There's a connection, just not an important one...
"I predict that we will see some goalpost moving on this one. "
Give me a break. Why would anyone move the goalposts, Joe? You just tried to kick an 95 yard field goal but Lucy pulled the ball away. Now you're laying on your back and wondering whether the cloud looks more like a duck or a horsie.
I would LOVE to see George and Dick attempt the kind of spinning you just attempted with this issue. Unfortunately, they don't have the sack strength to do it themselves and Powell has already contradicted both you and his bosses. So that's leaves who? Condi? Her reputation for honesty is in ashes, along with Ashcroft's, so why not?
The pathetic part about this "news" is that it is not "news" at all to those of us who haven't been prostrating ourselves before George "God Told Me to Do It" Bush and his neocon hawks every day since 9/11. Unfortunately, because of Bush's misrepresentations regarding Iraq's nuclear program and Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, the commission's "findings" will indeed appear as "news" to Joe Schmoe and the millions of Americans who let the major networks and CNN do their thinking for them. I don't know exactly what percentage of Americans believed, before today, that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Hopefully, that percentage will drop. And hopefully the percentage of people who believe that the Administration misled them about urgency for invading Iraq will rise. Because a lot of people certainly were misled and, in spite of many political commentators pointing out the inaccuracies in the Administration's statements from the very beginning, the major news media just kept on rubber stampting the RNC propaganda and beating the war drums.
Saddam is gone. Big deal. He was not a significant threat to the United States. Never was.
Al Qaeda, however, was a clear threat that the Bush Administration ignored until 9/11. Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, however, the Bush Administration seized the political opportunity to trump up a case for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, this bungling President and his stupid cronies got it all wrong, as I and many others could see as plainly as paint from the beginning.
Terrrorist attacks were way way up last year (in spite of the Administration's lies to the contrary) and there is no doubt that trend will continue until there is a major shift in US policy and even then we will have to endure the hatred of those Iraqis who saw their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and children slaughtered before there eyes by US troops.
Thanks Bush. Thanks for the blood. Thanks for the torture. Thanks for Abu Ghraib. And thanks for the terrorist attacks which you spawned, those that already occurred and those yet to come, undoubtedly on US soil. Oh, and thank you, David Marcoe, Kevin, intense, and the rest of the wingnuts who will tolerate any atrocities and inequities as long as your taxes aren't increased. The hundreds of dead troops did it all for you, as I'm sure you're aware. I'm sure not a single one of those hundreds of dead soldiers and not a single one of the thousands of crippled soldiers believed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Right?
Joe:
I’m not sure what the Left considers a “connection.” But in my mind when you have a senior Iraqi intelligence officer meeting with the head of al-Queda, then it fair to say that there is a “link” between Iraq and al-Queda.
How about some evidence to show that beyond just meeting some 10 years ago, they actually worked together in any meaningful way?
I predict that we will see some goalpost moving on this one. At first the Left claimed there was no link to al Qaeda. Since that has been established, they'll dismiss it and claim that no significant link has been proven.
Sorry, dude, but all the goal post moving has been on your side of the aisle. The "link" you describe hardly vindicates statements a like this:
The President told the American people that Saddam Hussein personally aids and protects members of al-Qaeda. There has to date been zero evidence to back up that claim. If "the Left" has an expectation that the administration will prove a personal relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, it's because Bush himself set that expecation in January of 2003.Please, oh enlightened one, explain to me how that constitutes the Left moving goal posts.
"Short version of David Marcoe: Here's some bogus completely uncorroborated crap that I use to support my view that the invasion of Iraq was justified..."
Larry, your type of comments are precisely the reason why I don't share that information. And yes I can get in contact with the person and yes, it is corroborated, not that that matters. I am the one who blocked out the faces.
Of course here is the catch-22: I don't respond to your comments and your either going to call me a hypocrite, a liar, or intellectual dishonest for not responding to your "arguments." If I do respond, then the evidence (whether it be an article, pictures, or cited facts/figures) is insufficient, doctored, or doesn't reach the level of proof that you want. The above paradox is why I am not spending another minute responding to you Larry.
Now, as to tgisrch's comment, I have to give pause. That is something that needs to be examined.
"Now, as to tgisrch's comment, I have to give pause. That is something that needs to be examined."
Whatever, David. How can it be possible that someone as "informed" as you has not seen the evidence which tgirsch so graciously cites to you? The answer is that it's not possible. tgirsch in nearly every instance, including this one, is pointing out the obvious. The Chalabi gaffe is news from two weeks ago.
What I admire most about tgirsch, David, is his incredible patience and willingness to spend the time to spoonfeed this information to people like you. I ran out of patience about the time that Bush started talking about Iraq and al Qaeda and 9/11 in speech after speech but all the wingnuts insisted that he wasn't misleading anybody.
"Larry, your type of comments are precisely the reason why I don't share that information."
Yeah, right. The problem is, David, that you don't really have any information to share. Nobody cares about the pictures because they don't prove anything. Besides, I have pictures which show that the guy who took your pictures fabricated them. I just can't say anything more about them because I don't want guys like you to flame me.
Fox News... Marines Discover Terror Training Camp Near Baghdad
Sorry, dude, but all the goal post moving has been on your side of the aisle. The "link" you describe hardly vindicates statements a like this:
The President told the American people that Saddam Hussein personally aids and protects members of al-Qaeda. There has to date been zero evidence to back up that claim. If "the Left" has an expectation that the administration will prove a personal relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, it's because Bush himself set that expectation in January of 2003.
So the fact that Abu Mussab Zarqawi received treatment in Baghdad and set up al Queda cells there is not sufficient? Let me guess, there is no "evidence", right?
Please, oh enlightened one, explain to me how that constitutes the Left moving goal posts.
Forgive me if I’m getting this wrong but wasn’t it the Left who claimed that it was absurd to think that Saddam and bin Laden would cooperate?
"So the fact that Abu Mussab Zarqawi received treatment in Baghdad and set up al Queda cells there is not sufficient?"
Correct. That is not sufficient evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to justify invading Iraq. Nor does it speak to the long-established fact that there is no link between Iraq and 9/11 (a link which the Administration did everything could do to establish in the minds of the American people, short of a bald-faced lie).
I'm glad we're all on the same page.
"the Left who claimed that it was absurd to think that Saddam and bin Laden would cooperate?"
They did and it was and it still is. Yet for some strange reason, certain neocons and their link continue to perpetuate the absurdity.
Geez, the faster I type the rounder I go. "Link" should be "ilk." "Everything could do" should be "everything it could do."
Correct. That is not sufficient evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to justify invading Iraq.
Please show me where the link between the two was ever used as a justification for the invasion.
Nor does it speak to the long-established fact that there is no link between Iraq and 9/11 (a link which the Administration did everything could do to establish in the minds of the American people, short of a bald-faced lie).
And while you are at it, back this statement up with facts. I’m guessing, Larry, that you simply heard that claim repeated so often that you assumed it was true. Why don’t you do your homework and get back to us on that one.
They did and it was and it still is. Yet for some strange reason, certain neocons and their link continue to perpetuate the absurdity.
So the fact that a bi-partisan commission has established that fact doesn’t sway your thinking? Why am I not surprised.
"Please show me where the link between the two was ever used as a justification for the invasion."
What do you mean by "used"? I don't want to waste time pulling all the quotes from Bush and gang's speeches (or finding a website where it's already been done) if you simply refuse to believe that those statements were made in order to sway the American public's opinion re: the war. I believe that the only evidence good enough for the emotionally invested hawks is a memo from someone in the Administration saying, "Here's what we do. We never say that we have evidence that Saddam plotted 9/11. We just keep referring to 9/11 and Saddam over and over again so people start to associate the two." As incompetent as these guys are, they aren't that incompetent.
The issue boils down to honesty and competence. The Bush administration could have been forthright and said, "Look, the planet is running out of fossil fuels and anyone can see that there is going to be a big crisis soon. These countries in the Middle East aren't entirely stable so the sooner we get in there and establish a solid footing on a large bed of oil reserves, the better. Also, we believe this will help us transform the Middle East, although there may be a period of increased hostility in the short term, by which we mean about ten years."
Would enough American people have bought this to have made it politically possible to invade Iraq? Maybe. There's a lot of aggressive and crazy frightened folks in this country.
But the Bushies chose another route: deception. And guess what? That path, and their incompetence in the execution of their plan, is coming back to bite them in the ass.
Far right conservatives can gorge themselves on all kinds of "proof" that Saddam was bad. Unfortunately, they are starting to sound more and more like UFO watchers and creationists as they are smothered by the weight of the evidence which proves they were mistaken.
When do we get to talk about Bush's claim that the Abu Ghraib incident was merely caused by a few bad apples? And is anyone here willing to go on the record and say that they are certain that we have already seen the worst of the revelations regarding Abu Ghraib?
Joe:
So the fact that Abu Mussab Zarqawi received treatment in Baghdad and set up al Queda cells there is not sufficient?
Never mind the fact that Zarqawi is not al-Qaeda, and that intelligence agencies refer to them as "Zarqawi cells," and not "al Qaeda cells." Never mind that there's little evidence that Hussein or his government lent him any official support. Never mind that the reports of his treatment in Baghdad are just that -- reports -- and far from accepted as "fact," as you seem to claim.
The point is that the bi-partisan, GOP-controlled 9/11 Commission doesn't think it's "sufficient," the American intelligence community doesn't think it's "sufficient," and the world intelligence community doesn't think it's "sufficient." But of course, they're all ignorant, misinformed, and just plain wrong, while you've got the all the inside goods. They've just spent the better part of six months investigating such things, while you run a blog in your spare time. I can see why I would take your word over theirs.
Maybe you should join the intelligence community since you obviously know so much more than they do.
Forgive me if I’m getting this wrong but wasn’t it the Left who claimed that it was absurd to think that Saddam and bin Laden would cooperate?
You're right. It was the Left that said that. And you still have provided absolutely zero evidence that they have ever cooperated. The best you can do is one possible meeting, ten years ago, that nobody will confirm but nobody has yet discredited. How, again, does this constitute the Left moving the goal posts? You're the one moving them, at an ever-increasing rate.
That is not sufficient evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to justify invading Iraq.
Please show me where the link between the two was ever used as a justification for the invasion.
Oooh, ooh, ooh, I got this one! How about here, or here?
For a guy who claims to like Bush, you sure don't seem to listen to the guy. He's says point blank that if we don't act right now, Iraq could and would provide al-Qaeda with nuclear weapons. I suppose I'm taking him out of context or something.To put it quite bluntly, the fact that you won't admit you're wrong about this says a great deal about your credibility on this issue.
And while you are at it, back this statement up with facts.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with Larry that the Administration did "everything it could to perpetuate" the perception that Hussein was partly responsible for 9/11, but they sure as hell didn't do anything to dispel the myth. As recently as August of last year, better than two-thirds of Americans polled still (falsely) believed that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and this was a big reason why they supported the Iraq war. VP Cheney had an opportunity to dispel this myth and instead chose to perpetuate it, causing Bush to go into spin mode. Larry may have overstated the case, but he's not as far out there as you might like to think.
So the fact that a bi-partisan commission has established that fact doesn’t sway your thinking?
Dude, reading comprehension is apparently problematic for you. The only thing the bi-partisan community concluded was that bin Laden asked for help from Iraq ten years ago and that he didn't get it! This, to you, is "proof" that they cooperated?
The more I debate this subject with you, the more convinced I become that there is absolutely, positively nothing that could ever convince you that the ties were overblown (intentionally or otherwise), or that Iraq and al-Qaeda were in fact enemies. It's an article of faith with you, and debating any of it seems pointless.
What do you mean by "used"? I don't want to waste time pulling all the quotes from Bush and gang's speeches (or finding a website where it's already been done) if you simply refuse to believe that those statements were made in order to sway the American public's opinion re: the war.
I’m only asking for the obvious. The Left is always claiming that Bush “made a case for going to war with Iraq” so there should be plenty of quotes where he said that was a reason.
The issue boils down to honesty and competence. The Bush administration could have been forthright and said, "Look, the planet is running out of fossil fuels and anyone can see that there is going to be a big crisis soon. These countries in the Middle East aren't entirely stable so the sooner we get in there and establish a solid footing on a large bed of oil reserves, the better. Also, we believe this will help us transform the Middle East, although there may be a period of increased hostility in the short term, by which we mean about ten years."
So it’s all about oil, eh? Come on, Larry, that is sooo 1991.
But the Bushies chose another route: deception. And guess what? That path, and their incompetence in the execution of their plan, is coming back to bite them in the ass.
Well, heck, Larry let’s impeach the suckers if they deceived us.
Far right conservatives can gorge themselves on all kinds of "proof" that Saddam was bad. Unfortunately, they are starting to sound more and more like UFO watchers and creationists as they are smothered by the weight of the evidence which proves they were mistaken.
Okay, let’s reinstate Saddam.
When do we get to talk about Bush's claim that the Abu Ghraib incident was merely caused by a few bad apples?
When it becomes apparent that it wasn’t.
And is anyone here willing to go on the record and say that they are certain that we have already seen the worst of the revelations regarding Abu Ghraib?
Why don’t we wait and see what happens.
Obviously, the clinton adminstration and media lied too
Sorry for the long quotes...
From
http://www.weeklystandard.com/check.asp?strSearchPath=/content/public/articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp&s=%2FSearch%2FFreeSearch%2Easp%3FintRecordCount%3D319%26Search%3DKeywords%26chrType%3DArticle%26chrKeywords%3Dconnection%26intRecordStart%3D1
"he Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:
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"
and
"By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."
"So it’s all about oil, eh? Come on, Larry, that is sooo 1991."
Huh? No, it's not "all about oil" Joe. It's about power. It's about being number one. You know, the kind of stuff that is really important to a lot of Americans, especially politicians.
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the fact that so many other very highly informed and intelligent people reach conclusions about Bush's misrepresentations that differ from yours? Do you honestly believe it is merely a partisan issue (i.e., I'm a "Bush-hater") and that when John Kerry is president all of a sudden people like me will be begging him to invade Iran?
Regarding the time "we get to talk about Bush's claim that the Abu Ghraib incident was merely caused by a few bad apples", Joe wrote:
"When it becomes apparent that it wasn’t. "
Again, the question which begs asking: when the hell is that ????? Do you believe that OJ didn't kill Nicole? Does the sky start falling only when a piece of it hits your head? Read the damn memo. Look at the photographs. Are there no reasonable inferences which can be drawn?
"let’s reinstate Saddam."
I didn't know there was a field farther left than left field, but apparently there is. Because where else could this reinstatement of Saddam nonsense have come from?
You just don't get it Joe. There IS NO GOING BACK. That is why invading Iraq without a hell of a lot more evidence, planning and international diplomacy was a butt-fxxxing stupid idea in the first place.
Oh, and here's just a tiny taste of Bush's annoying fondness for linking Qaeda and Saddam in the public's mind. Sure, maybe he didn't know what he was doing. Maybe he really believed the crap spilling out of his flip-flopping lips. Maybe George couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam but a lot of other people certainly could. Too bad for you. Really bad for America.