Check out this Bush “Whopper” from Tim Noah. First, he has this quote up:
This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
He then posts this letter to Congress, claiming it is proof that Bush lied and did state there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda in regards to 9/11:
[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Unless you are a resident of the Planet Democratic Underground, this is in no way, shape, or form a whopper. The President, in the letter to congress, clearly defined several groups. The larger, more ambiguous groups were ‘international terrorists’ ( Osama, Saddam Hussein) and ‘terrorist organizations,’ (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Ba’athist party in Iraq) the third group being those who ‘planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001’ (Osama, Al Qaeda).
Jeebus.
For the slow-witted:
2 entries found for including.
in
Kimmitt
That’s not a reasonable interpretation of the text — the clause is obviously given prominence in the text and is supposed to be in some way related to Iraq.
Jeff G
here. And here. And here.
Sigh.
willyb
While I said in another entry, The Kool-Aid Crowd, I’ll say it again briefly here. The quote in Slate and elsewhere appears to have been lifted verbatim from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. A reolution approved by Congress (including John Kerry) and signed into law by the President in October of 2002.
The quoted passage does not say that that the President is limited to taking necessary actions against those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, it includes them with other terrorists and terrorist organizations..
Andrew J. Lazarus
I’ll mention in this thread, too: Fred Kaplan’s Slate article is a much more nuanced. accurate, and therefore devastating compilation of Bush’s verbal tricks and Cheney’s fibs.
I notice no one on Team Conservative has explained how half the country believes what John admits is not true, that Saddam was personally implicated in 9/11. The idea didn’t just float in from Mars. It resulted from a clever PR campaign intended to insinuate just that.
Jeff G
Half the country voted for Al Gore. Q.E.D
Nash
Indeed, Andrew. Arguing about Noah’s column is a rhetorical smokescreen. I think it is far more instructive to realise that President Bush has not told a whopper, rather he has legalistically, methodically and willfully mislead the American public as to this issue, hoping that when push came to shove, we’d argue about the meaning of “collaborative” as we now are doing. This is a far greater indictment of his lack of honest leadership.
Do you honestyly think the same strong majority of Americans would have supported this invasion if they hadn’t the misunderstanding that they were lead to? Why isn’t *that* the concern here, rather than the trivia of whoppers vs. non-whoppers?
Jeff G
I’ve got an idea. When Kerry’s elected, why don’t we just pass a law making everyone smart and informed?
Nash
Well, that certainly advanced the discussion.
Jeff G
What’s there to advance? Bush said, in front of reporters, on record, on videotape, that there was no evidence tying Iraq to 911. Now, people like you are asking…what? Why he didn’t write every American a personal note?
I’m tired of tryingt to “advance” the discussion. We get it: Bush lied. And when he told the truth, that was just another way of lying, because we can’t trust him to tell the truth. Or at the very least, he whispered the truth when he should have shouted it. Blah blah blah.
willyb
Nash,
The people of America didn’t take us into Iraq, Congress passed a resolution, and President Bush acted on it. What people thought afterward is your point.
I’m surprised many people still support the President, given the hatchett job the mainstream media has done on him. If you want to blame someone, blame everyone in the Congress (which by the way, would include John F. Kerry) as well as the President.
Are you an American? I only ask because of your spelling of realize (realise)?
Nash
Jeff, given Mr. Cole’s very reasonable “rules” for comments, why would you continue to comment here if you don’t actually want to discuss these things?
Since you addressed your comment specifically to me (since I addressed my overly snarky message to you), you have no right to say anything like: “We get it. Bush lied.” I never said that he lied and it’s not helpful for you to claim that I did. Nor would it be helpful for you now to say with a frustrated sigh that you were just responding to the myriad others who make that claim.
What I am saying is that I want my President, Mr. Bush, whom I respect, to lead me by talking to me (and my fellow Americans) in a way that we understand. I want him to educate us, and bring us along with him via his role as a leader, explaining straightforwardly, rather than by an apparent attempt to mislead us. He never lied. He mislead. There is a significant difference. The first is unforgivable. The second can be corrected.
Please Jeff, let’s keep the discussion about these topics. I’m sorry I was snarky. Talk to me.
willyb
Nash,
One other thing, to conclude that Bush was, as you put it, “legalistically, methodically and willfully” mislead[ing] the American public as to this issue”, you would have to conclude that he knew that the worldwide intelligence upon which he was basing his decision was wrong. You are either clairvoyant, or I missed where he admitted to knowing the intelligence was bad.
JC
Unfortunately, there never is any real actual “convincing” that goes on for this issue. But it seems to me you miss the ‘rhetorical trick’, or support said trick. Namely, you are fighting the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” where then the fight is about what “sexual relations” mean. Does that mean intercourse, or does a BJ count?
Here you do the same thing – Bush is “including” those who aided the terrorist attachs on Sept 11 – but this resolution isn’t about them!
The link between Al Queda and Saddam is drawn, again and again – and as evidence by the commission, that link is not actionable. It has never been actionable. Don Rumsfeld had more “association” with Saddam than Saddam did. He personally met him after all.
And yes, you will say, “that was a long time ago!”. However, from what I understand, the documented contacts were around 1994 – this is a long time as well, yes?
Tom Maguire
Fred Kaplan’s Slate column is interesting. He hammers on Bush’s May 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech, but I don’t think we can use that speech to explain people’s confusion about a link between Saddam and 9/11 back in the fall of 2002 when war was being discussed.
Kaplan also uses an out-of-context quote from Sept. 2002 – “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”
The full context is here. Wasting a bit of bandwidth, I’ll excerpt this:
Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?
PRESIDENT BUSH: That’s a — that is an interesting question… They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous.
Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it’s a comparison that is — I can’t make because I can’t distinguish between the two, because they’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.
The Kaplan excerpt scarcely does that justice.
Kaplan picks one other quote from Feb 8, 2003, and describes it as disingenuous but accurate. Whatever. Folks who look through old Dem quotes from the late 1990’s, or re-read the Dem floor speeches from Oct. 2002 will laugh out loud.
John Kerry, to pick a name seemingly at random, provides this:
He [Ted Kennedy? NO, Saddam!]has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
And a bit later, Kerry shamelessly invokes the spectre of 9/11:
And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
How indeed?
JC
Rumsfeld had more “association” with Saddam than Al-Queda did. Mistype.
Nash
willyb,
I am honoured to have become an American by choice rather than birth. You can conclude from that whatever you will.
I believe Bush acted in quite appropriate fashion and with good faith based on the generally flawed information he was receiving going into the decision to go to war.
Where I think some bad faith enters is in the subsequent period, where he has taken to making accurate but, I believe, intentionally misleading statements about the information he used to go to war. This is what I am considering when I refer to “methodical and willfully misleading” statements.
I do not understand where it makes him a stronger person to continue to play these legalistic word games. A stronger leader, I believe, would admit the mistaken step, take responsibility, and move on, showing how he was going to lead us forward. I respect honest apologies. I tend to be wary of someone who cannot admit any error.
As to your other post, in re the role of Congress, that’s for another post
willyb
Nash,
“You can conclude from that whatever you will.”
Just to be clear, no offense was intended. I was just curious.
As to President Bush’s “making accurate but, I believe, intentionally misleading statements about the information he used to go to war”, I would be interested in knowing specifically what you are referring to. With the treatment he receives from the media, I don’t blame him for being less than candid.
Nash
One other thing about this: I am not going to go to the place where it’s possible to conclude that President Bush *still* thinks that the information he acted on was entirely accurate and therefore “actionable” for those reasons. There lies madness, for me at least.
Jeff G
I for one was convinced the Bushies couldn’t prove a 911-Iraq connection when they blamed the attacks on Al-Qaeda and went after the Taliban and Al- Qaeda in Afghanistan.
I have never, not for a moment, however, been lead to believe by the Bush administration that Iraq was connected to 911. They may still believe there’s a connection – cf. Putin and McCain today – but even if they do, they’ve been very careful to say that they have no evidence tying Iraq to the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.
Now, while you might call the Bushies’ legalistic and careful language “misleading” — and conclude from that that the Bushies were hoping to sucker dopey Americans into a war on false pretenses (why?) — others might just as readily suggest that the Administration has actually been reigning itself in rhetorically. That is, that they are convinced of an Iraq – 911 connection, but that they lack sufficient evidence to make the connection publically.
Either way, the truth remains that they’ve said, on tape, in public, in front of reporters, over and over again, that they have no evidence tying Iraq to 911, and that the war with Iraq was simply another battle in a larger war on terror — Saddam being a terrorist enabler and rogue leader of a country with WMD capabilities, if not of actual stockpiles of such weaponry.
That 50% of Americans believe otherwise is, as I’ve suggested, irrelevant. Perhaps they just don’t follow the news closely enough.
Nash
If I seem defensive about my “un-born” American-ness, it’s because in these discussions I have become conditioned to being considered something less than a real American. I am proud to be an American. Not all Americans, apparently, are prepared to accept that.
As to the Congress, come now, do you truly think that the Congress had as much good intelligence, let alone more than, the Executive branch on which to make an informed decision on going to war? Clearly, the War Powers act and its various codicils acknowledge that this is one area of the Constitution that might fairly be considered arcane and in need of change. Congress is supposed to declare wars and the President is supposed to go off and fight them. In today’s world, it is much more likely (as well as necessary for our mutual protection) that the President may need to act in a much more rapid fashion than this will allow. In any event, do you truly think Senator Kerry was briefed in at the level that the President was? I think this line of argument is another smokescreen.
Nash
“That 50% of Americans believe otherwise is, as I’ve suggested, irrelevant.”
Careful, Jeff, your elitism is showing (said with a large grin).
Actually, this is the crux of our disagreement. You consider irrelevant what I regard as of paramount importance. Our leaders must have us with them when they make big changes, such as going to war or going to Mars. It is not in a President’s long-term best interests (and ipso facto, not in the country’s best interests) to have a large number of his citizens not understand why these big changes are necessary.
If you have ever played the game Civ III, you might know what I mean. You find that governing as a democracy makes starting and fighting wars very difficult, because your populace grows weary. Simplistic, yes, but fairly accurate, perhaps? You have to continue to convince me to fight the war you are convinced we need to fight. You do that by educating me with honest and straightforward rhetoric. In addition, you ask sacrifices of me.
That, in essence, is my thought in response to your “why”. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
Nash
And, since I am become a thread-hog, I will desist with this thought.
To me, it is the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) to our constitution that make our country uniquely wonderful. As we lose touch with even one of these, we become more like other countries.
Jeff G
I will rephrase: It is irrelevant to the truth what 50% of Americans “believe” to be the case. It is also sad and unfortunate. I certainly wish more Americans were informed, because then Kerry wouldn’t have a chance in 2004.
And with that, I’m off to dinner. Later, I will watch Mystic River, enjoy it, and then curse Tim Robbins and Sean Penn for being assholes off screen.
Jon Henke
I can answer this question once and for all:
“I notice no one on Team Conservative has explained how half the country believes…that Saddam was personally implicated in 9/11. The idea didn’t just float in from Mars. It resulted from a clever PR campaign intended to insinuate just that.
No, it didn’t. Two days after 9/11, a Washington Post poll indicated that 78% of respondents believed Saddam was likely behind 9/11. Since then, the number has only fallen.
How would 78% of them believe that? Did it just float in from Mars? Was it the result of a clever PR campaign?
Well, you’d better look for a third explanation, because we know of no flying saucers, or administration mentions of Saddam in connection with 9/11 prior to that poll.
The likely explanation is this: most people don’t pay attention. The ONLY name they know from the Mid-east is Saddam. Something bad happened…and the people who did it came from the Middle East. Well…must be that bad guy I’ve heard of.
On the other hand, you might believe the majority of the American public pays attention to obscure press conferences, or watches Presidential speeches, but I’d suggest you overestimate their interest in politics by a few orders of magnitude.
Kimmitt
“When Kerry’s elected, why don’t we just pass a law making everyone smart and informed?”
Why not pass the law now and make sure he gets elected?
Hm, we’ve actually got time to change our nominee before the convention; if we pass the law now, maybe we’ll get lucky.
Slartibartfast
“Why not pass the law now and make sure he gets elected?”
Hold on, not so fast. Unintended consequences coming on: do that, and Bush will also be smart and informed. Even more shockingly, Kerry will become smart and informed. If you decided to make them honest to boot, they’d all have to resign.
Kimmitt
Victory!
willyb
Nash,
Regarding the responsibility of Congress for what’s going on in Iraq, have you read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq? Many of the disputed premises for going to war are plainly stated. John Kerry, and other Democrats, are now trying to ignore these plain statements and substitute something else in their place. And the something they are substituting fits their political agenda and is being highlighted by their buddies in the vast left-wing conspiracy (aka the “mainstream” media).
An aside: I have no idea why they call the New York Times mainstream. What they are in large part is the propaganda arm for the left. Which is okay, as long as they don’t parade themselves around as reporting facts.
willyb
Nash,
One more thing about the resolution… it was done for political cover. Everybody knew this to be the case. As you point out, the President has broad authority in using the military to protect the United States. So why did Democrats, such as John Kerry, sign on to the prospect of going to war against Iraq? Why did they pass a resolution, that was signed by the President, that did not contain a crystal clear requirement that there be an operating agreement between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To hear them now, that was always their understanding. Why doesn’t the resolution reflect that understanding?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Jon Henke, you wrote “No, it didn’t. Two days after 9/11, a Washington Post poll indicated that 78% of respondents believed Saddam was likely behind 9/11. Since then, the number has only fallen.”
The only Washington Post poll, with 69% believing Saddam was behind 9/11, I found was from September **2003** which would tend to prove MY point. Do you have a link to any such WaPo poll FROM **2001** so that I may check?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Never mind, I found the poll, and right you are. Very interesting.
Actually, I think this number dipped and then rose again, but it’s worth tracking.
Andrew | BYTE BACK
>>With the treatment he receives from the media, I don’t blame him for being less than candid.
Exsqueeze me? What do you think happened first? Are you trying to say if (and I know you’re not) that if Bush told the truth “the media” would really have sometihng nasty and evil to tell the American public?
Because that’s what you said.
Also
>>That is, that they are convinced of an Iraq – 911 connection, but that they lack sufficient evidence to make the connection publically.
They’ve never been shy about crying terrorism or scaring the American public. Your statement defies … everything.
Also, WillyB?
>>An aside: I have no idea why they call the New York Times mainstream. What they are in large part is the propaganda arm for the left. Which is okay, as long as they don’t parade themselves around as reporting facts.
Posted by willyb
Weak. Very very weak. What’s mainsteam then?
Rachel
I agree with Willy b 100%.
It’s kinda weird that Kerry can have it both ways – he voted for a war that people are NOW starting to dislike for whatever reason, yet can claim how GWB mucked it up and still get to be the liberal (my side) savior…
man…maybe I should get into politics
Rob Bernard
The key word in Bush’s letter is “consistent”. That equates to “compatible” according to my dictionary and simply means that the war in Iraq is compatible with the ongoing war against the perpetrators of 9/11.
willyb
Andrew,
“Exsqueeze me? What do you think happened first? Are you trying to say if (and I know you’re not) that if Bush told the truth “the media” would really have sometihng nasty and evil to tell the American public?
Because that’s what you said.”
What I made was a general statement. My point was the NYT puts a negative spin on events that are mostly detrimental to Bush’s (and by extension, Republicans’) political standing with its readers. While I have stopped reading the NYT on a daily basis (for mental health reasons), I found more than a few examples of their “unbiased” reporting.
The example that comes to mind first are the articles and headlines surrounding the release of the August 6, 2001, PDB. If you read the PDB and the articles, you wouldn’t know the articles were reporting the contents of the PDB. A further example would relate to all of the front page coverage given to Abu Garaib. How much does the continuing coverage do to provide needed facts and information? Another example would be the spin put on the 9/11 commission’s statements regarding connections between Al Qaida and Iraq. Bottom line, it’s my OPINION that they overlook Democrat shortcomings and highlight, or create out of whole cloth, Republican shortcomings. If you want details on the PDB, I will be happy to provide.
“An aside: I have no idea why they call the New York Times mainstream. What they are in large part is the propaganda arm for the left. Which is okay, as long as they don’t parade themselves around as reporting facts.
Weak. Very very weak. What’s mainsteam then?”
Mainstream
Kimmitt
“But when they parade their opinions as facts, and I happen to disagree with their opinion, i.e., the opinion isn’t in my mainstream, I take offense. ”
I think the more important issue is that when they parade their facts as facts, and you happen to disagree with their facts — i.e. the fact is not in your made-up concept of “mainstream” — you take offense.
willyb
Kimmitt, Kimmitt, Kimmitt,
Please don’t put words in my mouth, you’re having enough trouble putting them in your own mouth.
I said what I said. In the context of mainstream, for which I displayed a definition, i.e., belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or WIDELY ACCEPTED GROUP, movement, style, etc., I expressed my dismay at their propaganda.
You do realize that there are people out there that do not adopt the dogma of their party on every single issue. And that what is “mainstream” will shift from issue to issue. The NYT always seems to find that a Democrat spin is the mainstream. Why is that?
Just because they are referred to as the “mainstream” media, doesn’t mean they are mainstream. Would you like some support for what I said regarding the August 6, 2001, PDB?
joe
I think it would be more useful if you defined mainstream for yourself, with reference to the particular context of the news media than to quote from a dictionary. We all know (or can easily access) the dictionary definition of mainstream. What you mean when you use the word is more relevant to the discussion. Can you provide examples of what you consider mainstream?