This has now become a religious belief for Dubya, and should be considered that way. Religion is an ongoing "belief in things unseen."

Fits this situation perfectly.

Since there are reports from numerous government entities from the Clinton administration claiming the same thing, I guess they were true believers, too.

The Czech government continues to maintain that the Prague meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Atta took place. Apparently this belief extends outside of this country.

The more ardent quasi-religious devotees are on the"Bush Lied" side. It doesn't matter what facts are placed in front of them, they will never deviate from their beliefs and their doctrine.

Good for George, putting his cards on the table and standing up for himself in the face of all this gratuitous negative b.s.

Another war started with a base lie...how is this news?

Clinton is the Source of All Evil. That's the Wingnut position, overall.

But if Clinton's folks believed it, then it Must be True. Is That the argument here?

Pfeh!

Try this analysis on for size. It works better -- and it make an appropriate comparison with Clinton as well:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102589/

Bush is such a liar. How can he even look at himself in the mirror in the morning?

At least when Clinton lied, he didn't get 10,000 people killed.

(Saddam is NOT among the DEAD.)

I like the administrations wording now, "a relationship". Sort of like Clinton's non-sexual "relationship" with that woman.

Is he referring to An Al Asar? Equating them with Al Queda shows a complete lack of understanding and is erroneous.
Is he referring to Abu Nidal and his organization? Or maybe Ramzi Yousef??? Not the same either. He brings up a meeting in the Sudan?! Too bad Bin Laden left the Sudan 10 years ago.

If Atta was in Prague, how did he manage to come in and out of the country, in a designated window of 5 days, without a single piece of evidence from travel???? He wasn't moving anonymously at that point, was traveling on his own passport, and records place him in the US immediately before and after the meeting! Anyway, what would be the point? Why would he risk leaving and reeentering the country? Why not make a phone call?

Bush and Cheney will continue to beat this dead dog, as they really having nothing else left to stand on. The "relationship" between Al Queda and Iraq was very weak...at least before we invaded and gave them a new haven from which to operate. If you want to argue about relationships, then maybe Bush should start talking about the much stronger and currently ongoing relationship between Al Queda and the House of Saud! But given the Bush's family 30-year chummy relationship with them, he'll conviently ignore such facts.

Don,
Clinton let OBL go in Sudan when he was weakly linked to the WTC bombing and a year away from Kobar and then the african embassy bombings. However, Bush let Muhammad Atta withdraw money from an ATM in Virginia when he was supposed to be in a meeting in Prague and a year away from bringing down the WTC! The score is even! But didn't this shot to hell one of the bright shining examples of how Iraq and AQ were in fact attached by the hip?

//The more ardent quasi-religious devotees are on the”Bush Lied” side. It doesn’t matter what facts are placed in front of them, they will never deviate from their beliefs and their doctrine.//

It doesn't matter how the 'facts' turn round and round in search for solid ground to put their feet on, Bushies see them as solid and sober. Can anyone here count how many times the true believers told us here on TCP that Atta met with the Iraqi official in Prague? I know the administration said so. I'm feeling aweful safe now! (gulp) Oh yeah, credibility doesn't matter... just like deficits (except when your ticker is going to go any day and your kids have HUGE trust funds, this last one becomes true at least for you)

It's one thing to fail to connect the dots before 9/11, but when did the commision get a hold of the ATM photo and why does the story persist that Atta met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani? How does such an urban myth get started? There he was in VA, clear as day and 'Intel' was placing him conveniently in Prague talking to the Iraqis. Here is an even more pressing question, with all the wheels that have fallen off this wagon only to be replaced by new ones of various sizes and shapes, why do the true believers still believe?

No one has yet explained to me how Pulling troops out of Afghanistan was a bad thing. Please? How is prosecuting the war in Iraq taking away from the War on Terror. Enlighten me please.

Chads

Maybe he just read the indictment that the Clinton admin brought against bin Laden...

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

New York -- A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 issued an
indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged
in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to
kill American citizens.


The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

"Bush let Muhammad Atta withdraw money from an ATM in Virginia when he was supposed to be in a meeting in Prague"

Um, no - he withdrew the money April 4 and is alleged to have been in the Czech Republic April 8 and 9. Withdrawing a large sum of cash is entirely consistent with planning foreign travel on short notice.

"Anyway, what would be the point? Why would he risk leaving and reeentering the country? Why not make a phone call?"

Surely, you don't think an Iraqi diplomat would speak to a terrorist located in the United States over the telephone. Puh-leeeze.

This commission is in big trouble.

The fur ain't even begun to fly yet.

Hold back the heavies, gentlemen, there are plenty to go around, many not even aired yet.

Let's let the spin mongers release their full report so we can hang them, literally, page by page, for wasting our money and lying to us.

Don

I read your link above and you guys are really stretching. I mean come on. In all the stuff I've read I've never ever thought anyone in the administration was equating Saddam with 9/11. So basically what you are saying is liberals are gullible?

Chads

Crank

The only thing that connects Muhammed to the U.S. the days in questions is 4 calls on his cell phone. You don't suppose he'd loan it out to a fellow "muslim" if he was going to be out of the country do you. Nah, me neither.

Chads

Don

to your 7:50 post

The problem isn't what Clinton beleived or didn't beleive. The problem is that he was so busy with his fantasy presidency he didn't DO anything about any of it-unless you count making sure the CIA and FBI couldn't communicate or gutting the armed forces as doing something.

Chads

Right, but he seemed like a pretty good president. And the one we got right now is such a good leader, he managed to isolate the US from the rest of the world right out of a disaster that had seemed to bring the global community together. Astonishing leadership. Things can only get worse if he stays in office. Oh yeah, remember how Palestine and Israel was during Clintons "fantasy presidency"? Glad to know Bush is keeping the situation real over there.

Let's see...


Friends with everybody who was dealing with Saddam under the table, and we leave Saddam alone to build a nuclear umbrella over the ME, including Afghanistan, so they can build up all the terrorist infrastructure we tore down after 9/11, and a Presidential Humvee in the Oval Office to boot, or...


We call the spade a spade, tell France germany Russia, and anyone else who wants to bitch that their sweetheart oil deals aren't worth our buildings and people, and bust up his little party in Iraq?


Pretty obvious what you want.


Maybe when you get a little older, you'll realize just how expensive those ...err...off road romps...really are, in dollars and in opportunity costs.


Me?

I'll take my party after the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, thank you very much.

Its more fun when you don't have a 767 hanging over your head.

Not to get into a partisan pissing match, Cripes, but I've often heard those opposed to Bush bemoan how he's "isolate[d] the US from the rest of the world" and how it has been bad for us, but I really don't understand nor do I see the supposed impact of this isolation.

The major nations we opposed in going into Iraq were Russia, China, France and Germany. I don't believe there have been any negative economic effects with any of these countries, nor with any other country in the world with which we previously enjoyed trade, so I have to assume the problems perceived aren't economic in nature.

As for national security from a military alliance perspective, we never had military ties with either Russia or China, so no effect there. Our military ties with Germany center around NATO largely because of the limitations in their constitution, but I haven't heard anything about them asking us to vacate the bases, so I will assume no effect there. That leaves France, and while their military is not insignificant neither do I think anyone would deem them essential in protecting US national security.

In fact, as far as the issue of isolation goes, I haven't heard of a single concrete action by any other country, even those in the ME, to demonstrate such sentiment, even as a token. Also, our number one military (UK) and economic (Japan) allies have stood with us from the start and still do, along with many others (Australia, ROK, Poland, Italy, Mongolia, etc.). Even Tonga just recently sent troops (only 44, but they made it clear they wanted to support to whatever level they were able).

One might say the cost can't be easilly measured, as it is the cost of a tarnished reputation, international trust and image. To the contrary, I say the action did nothing but bolster trust in the US. We said we'd invade and depose Saddam and, lo and behold, we did. I bet the next time we say we'll do something a lot more countries will believe and trust us than previously. In fact, I belive it was especially important at that time to follow through, as Bin Laden himself cited America's tendency to be a "paper tiger" as a key motivator in believeing there would be no meaningful response to 9/11.

I admit I believe differently than you when it comes to the Iraq campaign, but I really am not trying to be partisan here. I honestly neither see any evidence of the isolation so many talk about nor do I see any ill effects resulting from that supposed isolation. Furthermore, I do not understand the use of the word "leadership" to disparage moving your country forward against her foes and sticking to your principals in the face of diplomatic opposition, but instead equating it with winning a popularity contest in an international pity party.

Given the choice between moving against my declared enemies with the true friends I have or sitting back licking my wounds with the sympathy of those actively doing business with my enemies, I have no doubts which course I would pursue.

..patience is a virtue.The 9/11 commission is far from getting to the bottom of anything and the way things look very few are going to believe anything they comprise anyway .Sure the anybodybutbush crowd are salivating,(((surprised))), I`m not in the least,quite the contrary. Whats bad for GW. The libs are having orgasms over.Their quest to regain the White House can only be described as insane addiction to power,facts be damned,just spin a story until the results match their agenda...so alas my friends again I say ..
((((PATIENCE))))
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

Don,

It's okay to just say you disagree that the facts support the existence of a relationship and that you think that Bush is a liar. Being bitchy about the source of those facts or how people interpret them just makes you look dumb.

Or you could take the position that the relationship evinced by the facts doesn't justify going to war. Perfectly respectable position, although many might disagree.

The problem is, you don't seem to grant anybody the right to hold a different point of view. Is it really so unreasonable to think it a good strategy to start by taking out a regime with whom we'd been in a shooting match for almost ten years, who was actively supporting terrorism in Israel and had provided some support to other terrorist operatives (some of whom had al Qaeda ties) and who wouldn't come clean about weapons we knew he had and was willing to use? Was it the only option? No. But it does seem like a decent choice if your goal is to try and re-orient the thinking in the middle east. Most liberals like addressing root causes and I think that's what this whole thing is. If there were a Democratic president with the stones to do this, something tells me you wouldn't be objecting all that much.

>>Clinton let OBL go in Sudan

Funny how the right wingers will not believe a word the Muslim world says, unless it happens to agree with their criticism of Clinton. This is BS! So, you believe a government that currently supports genocide in Dafur when it comes to bashing Clinton! You are pathetic.

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks against the United States and its interests abroad before the Iraq war, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. However, he said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

"Indeed, after Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB1S0N7MVD.html

Just to play devils advocate, Russia has been concerned with its Arab/Moslem population for a while -- all those "stans" tucked up under its belly. Putin just might have whispered that into the Bush administration's ear, hoping Bush would take care of what Putin saw was a problem, but didn't have the resources to address...? Putin can publicly say, "oh, no, how terrible" about Iraq while getting our help in the "stans".

Thanks for posting Putin's statement, Jeffers. Of course, the spin doctors are already diminishing its significance: "Well, it's just part of the confusion." Who's confused? As long as people keep discounting any fact that might support the war in Iraq, it's a case of SS, DD.

TL

Most liberals like addressing root causes and I think that’s what this whole thing is.

I agree with your whole post except that last part.

The whole problem with terrorrism up to now is that we have never addressed the root cause, and the way it looks the liberals never will. Welfare misses all the root causes. Affirmative action misses the root causes. The Dems new jobs platform WAY misses the root causes. The liberals just want to paint over everything and call it fixed.

Chads

Crazy: If Atta could be in Spain on July 17, why couldn't he have been in Prague on April 9? He was in Prague in the Spring of 2000, using an assumed identity. From Prague, he flew to Newark, N.J. And if I was using your cell phone in Florida, that wouldn't necessarily mean you were in Florida.

Consider this scenario. The Administration has information from Russia that Iraq is planning terrorist attacks. It leaves Iraq alone. There is a terrorist attack, plotted by Iraq, in which, say, 1,000 Americans die. It comes to light that the Administration had this information prior to the attack. The same people who are now saying we should not have invaded Iraq would be saying Bush is incompetent because he didn't prevent the attack.

I guess the anti-war posters have gone back to the Democratic Underground to figure out how to spin the Putin story.

I know that you invaders from DU have a hard time grasping this, but this is NOT a war on Al Queda, this is a war on TERRORISTS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS.

So, go ahead and keep placing faith in your pipe-dreams about Bush lying and Kerry swooping into the rescue. You have a little less than 20 weeks to enjoy your fantasy.

The liberals may believe that are responding to the "root causes" but in reality the are doing what we in the business world call "solving the symptoms".

the welfare state is perfect example of that. Once the left convinced itself (and a fair number of us in our callow youth) that poverty was the root cause of all sorts of social ills America embarked on a journey that would result in the transfer of Trillions from those who work to those who don't.

meanwhile the social ills that poverty was the alleged cause of skyrocketed.

So when these knee jerking morons tell us that we need to deal with the root causes of terrorism watch out.

Not only don't they have a clue about real root causes but whatever solution they come up with wont' be rocket science: it'll be more complex and far more expensive than mere rocket science.

I strongly reccommend that the posters here read today's column by VDH on NRO.

His thesis is pretty simple: our on going military presence is Europe has allowed them to embark on their utopian fantasies.

VDH argues that we should pull our troops out of europe simply because we need the Europeans to relearn how to defend themselves. This self defense will help snap them out of their stupor.

I agree. I also believe that the recent European election results represents something of a repudiation for Schroeder and Chirac's trashing of our relationship.

Blair took in the shorts based on the Brits distaste for the EUrinal.

Close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and say "There was too a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda."

If you say it often enough, and believe it Truly and Deeply in your heart, who knows -- maybe it'll come true.

And then you'll be in Kansas again. Or Texas, perhaps.

Alternatively, the Wicked Witch of the West can tell you, once again, that there was No Operational Link between Iraq and al Qaeda. None.

Then you can play word games, asserting endlessly that you never Really said such a thing, but that if the American People misinterpreted what you said, well, that really isn't Your fault, is it?

Yes -- it is.

"The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that." - Lee Hamilton, Democrat and Vice Chairman of the September 11th Commission.

Don

You were giving long verbose arguments stating facts based on fallacies of thought. Now you've regressed to attacking. Not good.

And how did we take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan?

Chads

Don, there may have been No Operational Link between Iraq and al Qaeda but it was too big a risk to take to assume such.
Anyway the war with Iraq had been going on well before 911 - it's not like we attacked out of the blue. We had been attacking them for a decade. They were our enemies before 911. Our simple theory is that our enemies potentially and often join together against us - why, it's what we would do too you know. Why, it's been happening for as long as recorded history. Let's see, AQ are our bitter enemies and Saddam too threatened to attack us with terrorist tactics. Two dots, let's draw a line.
If they weren't linked it would be astonishing - if not, it was only a matter of time surely.

Why do you people argue with such an Obvious Troll?

Don would say until he was completely paralyzed by Sarin Gas that "There is no evidence of WMD"

Don would say, "There is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda" as Saddam Hussein ordered Abu Zarqawi to shoot him in the head.

(Did anyone else notice that Don has now started posting about there being no "operational" links? Even as Hamilton and Kean admit there were to Margaret Warner and in the 9/11 commission report?)

That in itself, is Quite Telling.

Lest there be any confusion, I am not suggesting that there was an exisitng operational tie that can be proven, but this is all about risk. The 9/11 confirms what the administration suggested all along. Hussein's behavior only goes to show that he was going to be a liability sooner or later, and no amount of Blixing by the left will change that.

THOMAS KEAN: Well, first of all, this is a staff report. It’s not the report of the commission or the commissioners as yet. But the staff in their investigation has found that, yes, there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there. But as far as any evidence that Saddam Hussein was in any way involved in the attack on 9/11, it just isn’t there.

MARGARET WARNER: And Mr. Hamilton, you agree with that, do you?

LEE HAMILTON: Yes, I do.

This is the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 commission.

MARGARET WARNER: What about the testimony that we played that the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Fitzgerald, was commenting actually on an indictment from ‘98 about sort of least an understanding between al-Qaida and the government of Saddam Hussein about not doing operations against each other, maybe in the future collaborating. Where does that fit in?

LEE HAMILTON: I don’t think there’s any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden’s people. But our finding relates to a collaborative effort, the lack of evidence for a collaborative effort to attack the United States. We’re not saying that there were no contacts of any kind or description.

We’re quite sure on the basis of the evidence we have that there was not an operational tie between Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government on the one hand and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida on the other with regard to attacks on the United States.

The Left has been preparing to capitalize on the 9/11 report since the commission was first formed.

They expected the report to blame Bush for 9/11 and when it didn't, when it contained no new information not already reported in the House and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 9/11 report, issued roughly a year ago, the Left pounced, without looking or thinking, right into their other pet lie, that there was no reason for the war in Iraq.

This is a grave strategic error on their part. They are drawn out and exposed.

This is an error we can exploit. They are vulnerable.

The errors they have made are numerous and well documented in print. Now is the time to demonstrate what errors of this magnitude mean in terms of our security, in clear terms the man on the street can understand and relate to.

If I were in Bush's shoes, I would be taking paid full page adveretisements in at least 50 major newspapers across the country.



"Kerry: No connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

Fact: Saddam Hussein sent explosive experts to Sudan to train Al Qaeda suicide bombers."

Implication: Can YOU trust your security to John Kerry?"



New York Times: No connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Fact: Al Qaeda terrorists trained to hijack airliners on a Boeing 707 located at Salman Pak Iraq. Their stories have been corroborated by reports from administrative officials at the camp, by satellite imagery of the aircraft and training camp, and by first hand eyewitness accounts from reporters who have seen the camp."

Implication: Can YOU believe the New York Times anymore?

Do YOU wish to pay good money to an organization that knowingly perpetuates lies against our country in time of war?"




This is but a single idea. The point is, regardless of exactly how this gross and malicious outrage is exploited, the response needs to be thought out in advance and executed, without dribbling it out one sound bite at a time.

Let them pay for their lies, in a coin meaningful to them, and they will not be so eager to lie in the future.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: