The title of Dana Milbank’s piece today says it all: “9/11 Panel May Hurt Bush Reelection Campaign.”
It is listed as ‘News Analysis,’ so as usual, Milbank can getaway with any lie or distortion he wants, making this newsitorial seem like legitimate hard news, but serving only as agitprop for the DNC. The second paragraph made me scream (apparently it had the same effect on the folks at the Belgravia Dispatch):
After the commission staff released its findings Wednesday that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda — challenging an assertion Bush and Vice President Cheney have made for the past two years — Bush declared again that there was, in fact, a relationship.
This, folks, is how to get it done. Spend months distorting the commission’s findings, then wryly point out that your distortions might just be used against the President. Why don;t you just join the Kerry campaign, Dana? Although if you asked, I am betting they like you just where you are.
Time for a new google bomb:
willyb
If Dana Milbank is indeed correct, that is that the 9/11 Panel may hurt Bush’s reelection campaign, then I am waiting for the other shoe or shoes to fall in this sad story. The first one should be:
9/11 PANEL MAY HURT KERRY ELECTION CAMPAIGN
After the commission staff released its findings Wednesday that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda — challenging an assertion Senator Kerry made just prior to the U.S.’s unilateral invasion of Iraq — Kerry declared again that there was, in fact, a relationship.
When confronted with the Commission’s revelation, Senator Kerry did not deny being associated with the following statements made in October of 2002, in connection with The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114):
“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.”
“Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.”
Given that the Senator has signed on to the proposition that Iraq was “supporting and harboring terrorists,” and that members of Al Qaeda were known to be in Iraq, it seems clear that the Senator is on the record as identifying a “collaborative relationship”, which we now know did not exist.
When asked why he misled the American public into this totally unnecessary war with these bogus statements, the best Senator Kerry could do was to denigrate the works of this fine, bipartisan commission. It is indeed a very sad day in the world of American politics.
Kimmitt
Ooh, nice misdirect. By implying that Kerry’s support for the war, which was partially based on Administration lies regarding Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, is the same as Bush’s conception and nurturance of it, you do an excellent job of making it appear as though we have no choices in the matter.
shark
And when Kerry supported taking Saddam down during the Clinton admin, you explain that…..how?
Killa
Howabout “Marked for Death”??
willyb
Actually, I think it was the Clinton Administration lies regarding Iraq/Al Qaeda connections that got us into Iraq:
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Democrats in Congress also were part of the lies and deception:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D – MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The Clinton Administration, and its accomplices in the Congress, spread lie after lie in an effort to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was a threat. They even went so far as to pass a bogus legislation, The Iraq Liberation Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton on October 21, 1998.
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. ” (SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ)
No wonder President Bush felt justified in going after Iraq. He was misled by President Clinton, senior members of his Cabinet, and even members of Congress.
Sharp as a Marble
Kimmit – a grade A cheerleader for the DNC! He roots and cheers for his side and keeps his pompoms in front of his eyes so he sees no facts against his team!
Kimmitt
There has never been any question of whether or not Saddam’s Ba’athist regime was a threat to US interests. The answer was obviously, “Yes.” The question always was, in a world where Al Qaeda killed three thousand Americans in one day, was the threat Iraq posed to American interests contained, and would we have spent our limited resources better elsewhere? The Bush Administration lied about the answers to both of these questions; it implied that Iraq had much of anything to do Al Qaeda (it did not) and that Iraq had both the intention and capability to harm us in a significant fashion (it did not). So it’s now been almost three years, and due to this Administrations idiocy and mendacity, we still have not brought the mastermind of the September 11th attacks to justice.
The hell with Saddam; I want the guy who actually hit us. I want my President to maybe, at some point, possibly get around to the apparently gauche chore of defending me.
I was under the impression that that was what I hired him for.
willyb
Kimmitt,
Maybe you could tell us how you know the answer to the rhetorical questions you pose.
How do you know that Saddam did not, or would not pass on chemical or biological weapons to someone intent on doing us harm? There is a theory out there that much of his WMD ended up in Syria.
Is it your position that you need a large quantity of WMD to do harm? Are you saying he couldn’t have had his scientist cook up a batch of something, or maybe just pass along the recipe?
BTW, the guys that ACTUALLY hit us on 9/11 are dead.
And, oh yeah, YOU didn’t hire Bush to protect us. He stole an election, remember?
Sharp as a Marble
Kimmit, you are full of it. I remember you over at Misha’s pissing and moaning about Saddam not being a threat to us at all.
Do you have the goal posts on coasters to make them easier to move?
Kimmitt
“How do you know that Saddam did not, or would not pass on chemical or biological weapons to someone intent on doing us harm? There is a theory out there that much of his WMD ended up in Syria.”
How do you know that we really landed on the moon? There is a theory that it was all done in soundstages in the California desert.
“Is it your position that you need a large quantity of WMD to do harm? Are you saying he couldn’t have had his scientist cook up a batch of something, or maybe just pass along the recipe?”
I don’t think you need a large quantity of various WMDs to do harm, and there’s no reason to pass along a recipe that can be found in thirty seconds of Googling. The hard part has always been the production and transport facilities.
“BTW, the guys that ACTUALLY hit us on 9/11 are dead.”
Okay, that’s actually the most pathetic thing I’ve read in a couple of months.
“And, oh yeah, YOU didn’t hire Bush to protect us. He stole an election, remember?”
And I acceded to it, and I’m paying his salary. Unless you’re of the opinion that Bush is only President of the part of the US that voted for him.
“Kimmit, you are full of it. I remember you over at Misha’s pissing and moaning about Saddam not being a threat to us at all.”
Go back there; it’s nice having all of the foulness in one or two sites where the rest of us can ignore it if we so choose.
willyb
Kimmitt,
You may have noticed that my statement about WMD ending up in Syria was referenced to be a theory, you know, “a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation; an unproved assumption.” My question, i.e., “How do you know that Saddam did not, or would not pass on chemical or biological weapons to someone intent on doing us harm?”, still stands.
Regarding your comment on the quantity of WMD needed to do harm, thanks for the lesson. Do you speak from experience
Kimmitt
“Security wasn’t even a high priority with the American public when Bush was elected.”
I have a sense that if you’d asked the common person, “Should the Federal government put a great deal of effort into preventing a terrorist strike which would kill 3,000 Americans,” the answer would been a weird look and, “Yes, of course.”
willyb
Kimmitt,
“I have a sense that if you’d asked the common person, “Should the Federal government put a great deal of effort into preventing a terrorist strike which would kill 3,000 Americans,” the answer would been a weird look and, “Yes, of course.””
What does the question have to do with hiring versus electing a president? We were talking about the last presidential elections, right?Too bad the politicians were busy arguing about more important things, like social security and medicare, and no one asked that question.
Kimmitt
It was, you know, assumed.