• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let’s bury these fuckers at the polls 2 years from now.

Trump’s cabinet: like a magic 8 ball that only gives wrong answers.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

I’m more christian than these people and i’m an atheist.

The only way through is to slog through the muck one step at at time.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

All hail the time of the bunny!

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

GOP baffled that ‘we don’t care if you die’ is not a winning slogan.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

People are weird.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / And Then You Have This

And Then You Have This

by John Cole|  June 29, 200511:25 am| 65 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

If you ever wondered why credibility is in short supply in Washington, read this:

Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the “evidence is clear” that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

“Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11,” Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, “I’m sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places.”

Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

President Bush said in September 2003 that “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks].”

Nevertheless, Hayes insisted that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam and “folks who work for him” has been seen “time and time again.”

“Nobody disputes 9/11,” Hayes said. “They would do it again if not prevented.”

Everyone repeat after me:

‘There is no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.’

Saddam did a lot of really awful things, and the world is better off without him. He may very well have been thrilled that 9/11 happened. But there is no connection.

Stop it, Rep. Hayes. Just stop the insanity. Why is it always someone from North Carolina or the south?

*** Update ***

I really don’t know what is more maddening- the attempts to claim Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or the attempts to claim Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in general. Tom Maguire addresses the latter.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Truth? You Can’t Handle the Truth!
Next Post: Mark Steyn »

Reader Interactions

65Comments

  1. 1.

    SomeCallMeTim

    June 29, 2005 at 11:31 am

    Why is it always someone from North Carolina or the south? Umm, asked and answered?

  2. 2.

    Richard Bottoms

    June 29, 2005 at 11:31 am

    You may recall the wonderfuly descriptive F**k the South site. It answers your question completely.

  3. 3.

    carpeicthus

    June 29, 2005 at 11:35 am

    Fantasists. Amazing. Shouldn’t someone worry when their elected official isn’t just different from them politically, but demonstraby deranged?

  4. 4.

    norbizness

    June 29, 2005 at 11:59 am

    Was there at least banjo music playing in the background as he was making his pronouncements?

  5. 5.

    Kimmitt

    June 29, 2005 at 12:00 pm

    I, um, don’t think he’s trying to deceive. I think he’s telling the truth as he sees it. I think he’s that incompetent. My 2c.

  6. 6.

    Jeff

    June 29, 2005 at 12:04 pm

    Yeah, why are you so surprised about this? There are a few exceptions, but besides some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, southern Republicans are the dumbest people on Capitol Hill.

  7. 7.

    ppgaz

    June 29, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    Why always somebody from the South?

    I think it’s the Moon Pies.

  8. 8.

    Jimmy Jazz

    June 29, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    Saddam was stealing my cable and overturning my garbage cans as I slept.

  9. 9.

    Jeremy

    June 29, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Hey now…don’t call “North” Carolina “the South”. Anything above Pickens County, South Carolina is a Yankee state. :-)

  10. 10.

    Mike S

    June 29, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Laurie Maurie(sp?) and Steven Hayes have done a fine job of pushing this bullshit. Then you have the Talk Radio wing of the GOP helping it along.

  11. 11.

    Russ

    June 29, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    One thing I learned while in Military Intelligence was that there’s always something you don’t know.

    So, John, I’d agree with you based on the facts we have available.

    But I’ll bet there is intel that will never see the light of day that might support Hayes’ assertion… in which case Hayes needs to be slapped down for referring to it in public.

  12. 12.

    hadenoughofthisyet

    June 29, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    Well, it seems as though Congressman Robin Hayes is not the only one who still believes this. All you have to do is check out the freerepublic comments today.

    Mass, unresolved cognitive dissonance perhaps?

  13. 13.

    SomeCallMeTim

    June 29, 2005 at 12:43 pm

    Russ:

    One of the primary points of punishment (I’d say the primary point) is to deter others. This requires public punishment. If we know that Hussein was involved in 9/11 and we’re trying to punish him for it, not publicizing the connection (and, in ways possible, the evidence that supports it) makes much of the Iraq war pointless for that purpose.

  14. 14.

    hadenoughofthisyet

    June 29, 2005 at 12:44 pm

    But I’ll bet there is intel that will never see the light of day that might support Hayes’ assertion… in which case Hayes needs to be slapped down for referring to it in public.

    If I had to name one piece of information that would turn the tide of support for the war in Iraq — this would be it. I know this, you know this, everyone knows this. Even Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard knows this. I remember reading one of his columns a while back where he wrote (paraphrasing) he could not understand why the Bush administration wasn’t shouting from the roof tops about the collaberation that he had written about between Osama and Saddam.

    Perhaps because there wasn’t anyway?

  15. 15.

    JG

    June 29, 2005 at 12:55 pm

    Whenever I say Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism I’m saying he’s not like Iran or Libya in that he actively runs camps. He will of course give aid to anyone who’s a pain in our ass or Israels ass. Never a doubt about that.

    If there is evidence that Saddam was linked to 9/11, show it. I’ll still be mighty pissed at our level of pre and post0war planning but I’ll have a whole olt more support for this war. I certainly won’t be calling it a war of choice anymore.

  16. 16.

    Jimmy Jazz

    June 29, 2005 at 12:56 pm

    John, Re: your puzzlement as to why Dems say those mean, mean things everytime Bush gives a speech? This is why. While Cheney has made some demonstrably unprovable and flat out wrong statements on linkages between Iraq/Al Queda/ 9/11, Bush is satisfied with his terraterraterraOsamaSaddamevilaxis9/11neveragain hypnobabble.

    Then third string doofuses like Hayes and the AM Radio spinmeisters confuse the issue further.

    Opinion polls demonstrate again and again that there are a ton of confused folks out there, and this adminstration has done everything in their power to keep them that way.

  17. 17.

    ppgaz

    June 29, 2005 at 1:03 pm

    Yes, Jimmy.

    When you have the bamboozle mojo working, you can say just about anything and the crowd will roar.

    We’re reminded of Woody Allen’s version of the Russian resistance to French invasion:

    “Do you want them coming here with their heavy sauces?”

    “Noooo!!”

  18. 18.

    Marcus Wellby

    June 29, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    But I’ll bet there is intel that will never see the light of day that might support Hayes’ assertion… in which case Hayes needs to be slapped down for referring to it in public.

    Oh please! Like this wouldn’t have been leaked ages ago if it were true?? The only secrets this admin keep are the ones that embarass them.

    Although I could be wrong — maybe they keep all the Saddam/911 evidence locked in the trunk of a flying saucer at area 51? Or perhaps on the set where they filmed the “fake” moon landing?

  19. 19.

    Hokie

    June 29, 2005 at 1:15 pm

    Pfft, Vermont is the only Yankee state.

    In any case, I think it’s time for Robin Hayes to fess up. Clearly he’s holding out on us. Why does he love Saddam and hate America?

  20. 20.

    Jimmy Jazz

    June 29, 2005 at 1:27 pm

    Why does he love Saddam and hate America?

    Maybe he’s one of those “non terrorist insurgents” we’re negotiating with “all the time”.

  21. 21.

    hadenoughofthisyet

    June 29, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    And, it’s nice to see Andrew McCarthy of NRO weighing in on this subject today.

    If the president is guilty of anything, it’s not that he’s dwelling on 9/11 enough. It’s that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

  22. 22.

    AWJ

    June 29, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    I’ve been exposed to this stunningly illogical line of wingnuttery more than once myself.

    You’re discussing the Iraq war with a righty acquaintance whom you’ve heretofore assumed to be one of the sensible conservatives. The conversation turns to the connection between the war and the 9-11 attacks (or lack thereof), and your acquaintance suddenly looks at you as if you’re from Mars. “But of course Saddam did 9-11! Don’t you liberals know anything?” (generally followed by a typical attack on the “liberal mainstream media” which is, presumably, at fault for your being so woefully uninformed)

    You mention the fact that the 9-11 Commission found only weak evidence of any ties whatsoever between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and no evidence of collaboration in the 9-11 attacks. And the fact that not only has the President never asserted a Saddam/9-11 link, he has actively denied such a direct link on more than one occasion.

    “Well, the government can’t share the REAL evidence they have because of, you know, national security! And even if they did release the proof, the MSM would just cover it up or spin it because they’re all liberals who hate Bush.”

    But it’s one thing to hear this from some random wingnut in a blog comment thread, and another thing to hear it from a Congressman.

  23. 23.

    Jimmy Jazz

    June 29, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    I really don’t know what is more maddening- the attempts to claim Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or the attempts to claim Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in general.

    As per the box at one of Maguire’s linked sites
    Link,
    Saddam apparently financed terror groups that killed a total of 36 Americans. Most of these groups seem focused on Israel.

    Accepting all of this at face value, I still have a strong suspicion that terrorist groups targeting America pick up more money in a good weekend in Riyahd (or from radical clerics in Europe) than they did in a decade from Saddam.

    Sorry, try again. Putting pictures of the Twin Towers blowing up next to Saddam’s mug isn’t the sort of thing I’m looking for.

  24. 24.

    Simon

    June 29, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    Mike S, just fyi, it’s Laurie Mylroie who you’re thinking of. She’s the grandmaster of Iraq/al Qaeda/911 spin mojo.

  25. 25.

    SLE

    June 29, 2005 at 1:55 pm

    The president and the other 9/11-is-Iraq fantasists are not members in good standing of the reality based community.

    UBL was resident in Afghanistan, as were his camps and his advisors. The islamo-terrorists that we have caught are: Moroccan, Saudi, Algerian, Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian, in addition to whatever Iraqis we have caught.

    It ought to be telling that not one of the evil bearded people we see in the press is Iraqi, except for Muqtada, who clearly had absolutely no feeling about the US other than general disdain for kaffirs until we came to his country and gave him a political opening.

    Re-asserting something that the public views as untrue isn’t going to create support for this war.

  26. 26.

    akaoni

    June 29, 2005 at 1:59 pm

    John,

    Anyone who flat out states that Saddam had no ties to terrorism is indeed incorrect, but the question to ask is were the ties he had, and the actions he took enough to justify an invasion, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives (both US and Iraqi). If you read the State Department info that Maguire provides, the answer is clearly: no.

    Yes he was a brutal dictator, but according to the State Department document that Maguire sites, Iraqs main actions focused on “antidissident activities,” aiding organizations associated with pro-palestinian terrorism, anti-Iraninan covert operations, and “denouncing and delegitimiz[ing] UN personel.” Certianly these activities are harmful and should be denounced, but do they reach the level of meriting the invasion and overthow of a country. I think not.

    The real argument against the war is not that Saddam wasn’t a bad guy and it wasn’t that he wasn’t associated to some degree with terrorism. The argument is that his involvement in terrorism, and general threat to the United States (and to a lesser degree his neighbors in the Middle East) was not great enough to warrant invasion. This holds true for standards of international law as well as from as standard of post 9/11 self defense. In fact the whole terrorism debate obscures what I think are the real motivations behind the invasion. Withiout a discussion of these motivations, we cannot have an honest discussion of current policy regarding the waging of the war in Iraq, and the future of US military involvement in the region.

  27. 27.

    Mike S

    June 29, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    Thans Simon. I’m especially bad with names.

  28. 28.

    Nikki

    June 29, 2005 at 2:13 pm

    John,

    If you can’t get Republicans to admit there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, how could you possibly think they would be receptive to any ideas Democrats propose to help get us out of this mess?

  29. 29.

    James Emerson

    June 29, 2005 at 2:42 pm

    Mr. Reprehensive

    Talk is cheap…You got evidence…then it’s two years past time to introduce it to the American public. Otherwise STFU.

    Since you haven’t bothered yourself to produce proof, then I have to figure that your evidence…if it exists…contains a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein doing the karaoke version of “Stand By Your Man.”

    John, you really have a knack for picking topics that have explosion potential. Trackback not included.

  30. 30.

    Jon H

    June 29, 2005 at 2:53 pm

    There’s probably a videotape going around, showing Saddam watching a floating Osama Bin Laden balloon.

  31. 31.

    Jon H

    June 29, 2005 at 3:00 pm

    So, three years and change into the war, has anything interesting been discovered at the infamous Salam Pak “terrorist training center”?

    Haven’t heard much about that since March of 2003.

  32. 32.

    Tim F

    June 29, 2005 at 3:25 pm

    Jesus Harold Christ, every leader in the arab world shells out for the Palestinians. Think of it as protection money to mollify the radical islamists. In terms of consribution, if you compare Saddam’s payout to any other major Arab state you have to think that Hussein’s support was token at best. If that’s it then we’re obligated to invade every country between Turkey and the Sahara desert.

    In fact precisely the reverse of what John claims is true. The terrorists with whome America is actually at war, al Qaeda and sympathetic groups, despise Saddam and he despised them. Al Qaeda wants to unify the the arab world under a fundamentalist Islamic banner. Secular arab states and their American support stand in the way. So, the Baathists and Nasserites and their western patron have to go.. Not only did Saddam have negligible, token ties to any real terrorist outfit, unseating Saddam and replacing him with an unpopular American occupation that can be tarred as anti-Islam could easily be described as the #1 item on the al Qaeda wish-list.

  33. 33.

    Tim F

    June 29, 2005 at 3:33 pm

    …and for those who think that Zarqawi was anything other than a cynical prop this might help.

  34. 34.

    Darrell

    June 29, 2005 at 4:31 pm

    and for those who think that Zarqawi was anything other than a cynical prop this might help

    Can you imagine if, back in 2002 when we were trying to get a UN backed international coalition together as all you leftists wanted.. can you imagine the screams from the left if Bush had launched an attack into Iraq at that time without first attempting to build an international consensus to invade Iraq? Can there be any honest doubt that TimF and his fellow Dem whiners would be screaming had we sent troops or bombed Iraq while trying to get international consensus on whether or not invade Iraq back in 2002?

    What’s more, you lying hypocrites talk about how awful it is that we missed an opportunity to take out Zarqawi, yet you whine like bitches that we took out someone even more dangerous, Saddam.

    Oh, and because Clinton was more legalistic and ‘reality based’, he gets a pass for not taking out Osama with a cruise missile when he had the chance, right?.. or for not extraditing OBL from Sudan when give the chance on a silver platter.

    Nah, none of that matters to the ‘reality based’ group of here who tells us that Zarqawi was nothing but a “prop” for the evil Bush administration.

  35. 35.

    ppgaz

    June 29, 2005 at 4:46 pm

    You’re right, Darrell. The job of every citizen is to obey the dictates of the president, without question and without hesitation.

    It’s right there, in the Constitution. We have no right to criticize our leaders. You are right to always defend them and shout down any opposition. You are a true patriot.

  36. 36.

    Tim F

    June 29, 2005 at 4:46 pm

    Zarqawi was based in the independent Kurdish north, where the American military had free reign. In case you’re wondering, that means that we’d be mounting an operation in land that was already occupied by us. Now make sure to get that spleen off of your monitor before it dries.

  37. 37.

    Darrell

    June 29, 2005 at 4:47 pm

    So, three years and change into the war, has anything interesting been discovered at the infamous Salam Pak “terrorist training center”?

    Uh no, other than the fact that they found a terrorist training camp there complete with hollowed out airplane fusealage. Are your ‘reality based’ sources on the left suggesting that Salman Pak was anything different than a terrorist training camp? Perhaps the hollowed out fusealage was part of a children’s amusement park instead?

  38. 38.

    Jimmy Jazz

    June 29, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    Zarqawi was based in the independent Kurdish north, where the American military had free reign. In case you’re wondering, that means that we’d be mounting an operation in land that was already occupied by us. Now make sure to get that spleen off of your monitor before it dries.

    Not to mention the months-long “secret” bombing campaign before the war.

  39. 39.

    Tim F

    June 29, 2005 at 5:02 pm

    It’s hard to take seriously somebody who still thinks that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton. And, uh, “liberals” weren’t the ones crying holy hell when Clinton did send cruise missiles to take out bin Laden. That would be Republicans.

    To those imaginary Democrats who would have cried holy hell if Bush had lifted the left pinkie it would have taken to ‘delete’ Zarqawi, I say for shame! An imaginary wedgie to every perfidious one of them.

  40. 40.

    Darrell

    June 29, 2005 at 5:14 pm

    J Jizz, if the Bush admin had launched a strike on Zarqawi, we can rest assured leftists would be blasting and accusing Bush, lamenting that it was unnecessary, unjustified and criminal..and *horrors* done without UN approval. Oh, and of course done to help Bush’s re-election bid. With no strike on Zarqawi, the left is blasting Bush for protecting a terrorist, using him as a “prop” , blah, blah

    See? There is no basis for logical discussion here with the left. It’s all about conjuring up accusatory, gossip mongering stories, mixing some conspiracy theory filling in there, shake well, bake and serve. The left lives on a steady diet of that

  41. 41.

    Darrell

    June 29, 2005 at 5:28 pm

    It’s hard to take seriously somebody who still thinks that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

    From the Washington Post:

    The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

    The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

    Here is Clinton saying so himself in an interview. Clinton worried about legalese, refused to take custody of OBL when offered by the Sudanese govt. on a silver platter. Them’s the facts, sorry if they don’t fit with your whacked worldview

  42. 42.

    Sojourner

    June 29, 2005 at 5:38 pm

    It’s all about conjuring up accusatory, gossip mongering stories, mixing some conspiracy theory filling in there, shake well, bake and serve.

    Hmmm. Sounds like a Bush Administration press release.

  43. 43.

    Barry

    June 29, 2005 at 5:43 pm

    Just getting in a bit of S. Carolina bashing – supposedly there was a saying, back before the Civil War: “South Carolina: too small to be a country, too big to be an insane asylum”.

  44. 44.

    Jon H

    June 29, 2005 at 5:46 pm

    Darrell writes: “Uh no, other than the fact that they found a terrorist training camp there complete with hollowed out airplane fusealage. Are your ‘reality based’ sources on the left suggesting that Salman Pak was anything different than a terrorist training camp? Perhaps the hollowed out fusealage was part of a children’s amusement park instead?”

    That was discussed before the invasion even happened.

    Nothing has been said since the invasion.

  45. 45.

    p.lukasiak

    June 29, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    or the attempts to claim Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in general.

    who, exactly, has claimed that “Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in general.”

    You have this rather nasty habit of criticizing real nonsense by Conservatives, then setting up straw men to criticize liberals.

    Rummy, Cheney, and Negroponte all have a hell of a lot more to do with supporting “terrorism in general” than Iraq ever did, and in the time that Saddam Hussein has been in power, the US has consistently supported terrorists when those terrorists were acting consistent with US policy goals.

    (Hell, would it really surprise anyone to find out that the US was actually funding a terrorist like Zarqawi when his terrorism was aimed at Saddam Hussein?)

    Please stop this kind of bullshit — there was no relevant connection between the terrorist threat to the USA and Iraq. Indeed, Saddam was far less interested in “supporting terrorism” in his payments to the survivors of suicide bombers who attacked Israel than he was in getting good PR in the rest of the Arab world.

  46. 46.

    Darrell

    June 29, 2005 at 6:04 pm

    Rummy, Cheney, and Negroponte all have a hell of a lot more to do with supporting “terrorism in general” than Iraq ever did

    Behold the deluded ramblings, droppings from the left. It’s ugly, but you have to make yourself look anyway to understand that the left really is that whacked

  47. 47.

    Tim F

    June 29, 2005 at 6:09 pm

    we can rest assured leftists would be blasting and accusing Bush

    If those imaginary leftists ever make it out of Darrell’s head I promise that I’ll do my patriotic duty and beat them up.

  48. 48.

    Tim F

    June 29, 2005 at 6:15 pm

    Them’s the facts

    Yes, everybody believed that the story was true. Everybody except the Republican-led 9/11 commission, who strangely found, “no credible evidence” to back up the story. Apparently the Washington Post was about as well-informed as Judith Miller and her famous rock-solid reportage on Iraqi WMDs.

    The only remaining holdouts in the media are apparently the fair-and-balanced folks at Newsmax who claim to have the sole extant tape of Clinton admitting to the truth of the story. God forbid the rightwingers ever edit a Clinton tape to twist its meaning.

  49. 49.

    Darrell

    June 29, 2005 at 6:58 pm

    You know TimF, in your posts you repeatedly bring up those who you say ‘can’t be reached’, won’t accept the truth, etc. Yet you are one of those very people.

    I provided a Washington Post article and a tape with Clinton’s own words admitting that he could have gotten OBL from Sudan. So in addition to the sources I have already cited, which you have dismissed, here it is again from the leftist media matters site:

    CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got — well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    Clinton did not want to take OBL because (legalese talk following) according to Clinton, OBL “had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him”. You’ve got Bill Clinton in his own words saying he was offered up OBL. Apparently the left leaning Media Matters says the newsmax tape is authentic, despite your partisan hack spin to the contrary. So there you have it. You can choose to live in a ‘reality based’ world, or the one you’ve been living in. But since you’ve criticized Bush taking a pass on attacking Zarqawi within Iraq in 2002, it’s important to note that Clinton took a pass on a much easier route to getting his hands on OBL. Them’s the facts without a doubt

  50. 50.

    p.lukasiak

    June 29, 2005 at 7:06 pm

    Clinton did not want to take OBL because (legalese talk following) according to Clinton, OBL “had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him”.

    Damn that Bill Clinton! Actually obeying the law! What was he thinking!

    (meanwhile, the identities of at least 13 covert CIA agents are about to be blown because Bushco decided to take the law into its own hands and interfere in a anti-terrorist investigation being undertaken by Italy…)

  51. 51.

    p.lukasiak

    June 29, 2005 at 7:13 pm

    But since you’ve criticized Bush taking a pass on attacking Zarqawi within Iraq in 2002, it’s important to note that Clinton took a pass on a much easier route to getting his hands on OBL. Them’s the facts without a doubt

    but, but, but…. didn’t 9-11 change everything? Shouldn’t that at least include taking out known terrorists in areas where we are providing them safe-haven from Saddam Hussein?

    For Christ’s sake, Bushco never respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. His failure to take out Zarqawi was a deliberate and calculated political move — Zarqawi was, in fact, an “anti-Saddam” terrorist, but since he was also associated with al Qaeda and within the technical borders of Iraq, he could be used for propaganda purposes by claiming that Saddam was harboring terrorists.

    In fact, Bushco was harboring Zarqawi….but don’t let these facts get in the way of your Clinton-bashing…

  52. 52.

    Sojourner

    June 29, 2005 at 7:57 pm

    Come on folks. Be nice to Darrell. He’s one of a rapidly declining group of people who still believe what this administration says. It won’t be long before his picture is right up there with the spotted owl, although I suspect the owl species will recover more quickly than the Bush believers.

  53. 53.

    Jimmy Jazz

    June 29, 2005 at 8:20 pm

    Come on folks. Be nice to Darrell. He’s one of a rapidly declining group of people who still believe what this administration says. It won’t be long before his picture is right up there with the spotted owl, although I suspect the owl species will recover more quickly than the Bush believers.

    Just a few dead enders and former regime elements.

  54. 54.

    HH

    June 29, 2005 at 10:10 pm

    “The Republican-led 9/11 commission”…

    Including Jamie Gorelick and Richard Ben-Veniste… bye-bye credibility…

  55. 55.

    HH

    June 29, 2005 at 10:11 pm

    FYI the Commission’s assertions were based on the contradictory word of Clinton himself and of course the wholly discredited Sandy Berger. I’m sure you’ll cop to the Commission’s more thorough debunking of assertions in Fahrenheit 9/11 too, right?

  56. 56.

    Mike S

    June 30, 2005 at 1:51 am

    Including Jamie Gorelick and Richard Ben-Veniste… bye-bye credibility…
    Posted by HH at June 29, 2005 10:10 PM

    Did he say wholy Republican committee? Bye Bye intelligence.

  57. 57.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    June 30, 2005 at 6:58 am

    Hopefully, the spammer gets blocked. But anyways, you know Darrell the fact that Clinton didn’t take the easy, illegal road heartens me.

    I believe that this country was founded on the principle of Law above all else, and in principle, no man is above the law, not the president, not the richest man in America. Whether this is actually true is a matter up for debate.

    But if we arrested everyone who was a bad person, who’d like to do bad things to us, ignoring sovereignty and international treaties, that means we’re above the law. And I don’t like that.

    Now note the part of that that you didn’t mention –
    “So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”

    The Saudi’s, our allies, didn’t pursue him because it’s too difficult. This only reinforces my view that they aren’t our allies, and puts them in the same boat as the Palestine Authority of being unwilling to enforce law wherever it may take them because of the social fall-out.

  58. 58.

    Darrell

    June 30, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    MikeS wrote:

    Did he say wholy Republican committee? Bye Bye intelligence.

    No sh*t for brains, he did not say that. What he said was “wholly discredited Sandy Berger”. Can you read? You might want to take a good look at the drooling nimrod facing you in the mirror before questioning the intelligence of your betters next time

  59. 59.

    Sojourner

    June 30, 2005 at 1:48 pm

    Darrell’s comments are always such a pleasure to read. The breadth of insight is truly mind boggled.

  60. 60.

    Mike S

    June 30, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    Darrell is a child. I only wish the whole GOP had the brains that moron does.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. SoCalPundit says:
    June 29, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    Regarding Iraqi Ties To September 11th 2001

    It seems President Bush’s mentioning of Iraq in the same sentence as the attacks of 9/11 has set off a bit of a fire storm among the leftist elite in America. So often I hear even centrist individuals and media folk state that there is no evide…

  2. The Jawa Report says:
    June 29, 2005 at 9:10 pm

    Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy (Updated with counter-arguments)

    Hold on, There was no connection between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, Nancy Pelosi told me so. CBS) Over a thousand victims and family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks sued Iraq and…

  3. Mudville Gazette says:
    June 30, 2005 at 7:32 am

    Dawn Patrol

    Iraq Ryan’s column for June [Ryan and Christie’sPlace – Ryan is in Iraq] Here’s Ryan’s column, as it appeared in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on June 29. QURI CHAY, Iraq

  4. Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. says:
    June 30, 2005 at 8:05 am

    The newest form of link-whoring, well, that and *other* stuff!

    Some people take their re-enacting seriously… There is good news in the Castle Argghhh! family, but it is not mine to announce… simply know that life is, *good*. No, I’m not involved, though I hope to leverage it for my…

  5. Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. says:
    June 30, 2005 at 10:31 am

    Fallen comrades, the newest form of link-whoring, well, that and *other* stuff!

    I usually leave things like this alone, but since SGT Devore is sharing it, so will I. This is the downside to the Band of Brothers. Raw stuff. All I have to say to SGT Devore, after generations of soldiering…

Primary Sidebar

If This Doesn't Make You Feel Better, Then Nothing Will
Image by WG’s niece (6/16/25)

Recent Comments

  • Archon on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 2:52am)
  • Archon on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 2:47am)
  • Jay on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 2:28am)
  • Jay on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 2:21am)
  • Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 2:10am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!