← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · kminta
Thread ID: 14232 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2004-06-17
2004-06-17 15:54 | User Profile
[B][URL=http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17THU1.html]The New York Times (Zionist-controlled, BTW)[/URL][/B]
[B]The Plain Truth[/B]
Published: June 17, 2004
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.
On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.
The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.
This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.
2004-06-18 04:04 | User Profile
[B]The Plain Truth[/B]
...and the focus, exquisite: except: this present catching him out on a false claim to justify attacking Iraq, plus their Wed. June 9 editorial "The Roots of Abu Ghraib ("But yesterday, Attorney General Ashcroft assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Bush had not ordered torture..."), add up to far more than any apology could begin to cover, and they know it.
Bush must insist he was not wrong about the Iraq Al Quaida link -- "the terror link posed a threat we couldn't ignore. We never said the attacks were orchastrated betrween bin Laden and al Queda" he said. (Quoted elsewhere) -- not so much to salvage legitimacy -- let that slide -- as to make sure the link can be played up NOW: even in the plumed-up righteous indignation of outrageousness of such a charge. That is:
[B]to link America and Israel under the broadened, visionary (self-contradictory) war on terror to complete "our mission in the Middle East" [/B]
Bush could say, openly, what he shows (and shows America) to be, openly (a sadistic, cruel bully of the male homosexual sort (repressed)): "HEY, SSHL* - GOTCHA." Not to cringe. Such rampages with rapes by males of one clan of those of another, weaker clan, just across the border -- that was the way they played football, in the middle ages, a tradition continued, if highly sublimated, in West Texas high plains shoot-outs every year between the Lockney Lornghorns and the Floydada Whirlwinds. They were larger, but we were as tough, and as good. Floydada was the county seat, had the radio station, and attracted fist fights. It took a Freud to come along and see in this male-rebirth-through-anal-rape fantasy ("Hey! it means we like ya'"), but it shouldn't have. Its sort of self-evident.
Bush needs the idea of punishing terror threats in its generic form in order for it to be useful for "Our Mission in the Middle East has Just Begun" -- WWIV campaign, now extending the poison threat to China every way they can, as quickly as possible, to excape this crisis.
I am taking it as a obligation to help the Times focus on the blatant contradiction between the claim that there is and the claim that there is not evidence of a connection beween Saddam Hussein and bin Laden's attack (if it was his) on 9/11. Both sides have now been stated within each other's hearing. Who will address it, and call down the dissembling permeating the entire operation?
Lets hear it by party vote: Democrat or Republican say which? Questionairre: "Dear (Elected Official, D. or R.), do you or do you not believe there was a link between between Saddam Hussein' government and Osama bin Laden?"
Next, lets hear opinion about what party votes mean: "Dear Citizen: Do you or do you not believe those who support Bush are more likely to believe there is a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Quida?"
Those who answer the second question should be forwarned that "Yes" implies that these, as a group, would make war on the basis of lies; saddle you with the tax bill; then turn their guns on you to make you pay.
(Just like the boys from Floydada thought they would do. I say we kick their butts for them, Longhorns. What do you say?... (then after the game under those Friday night lights,.... ) They look to me like they've been Ghraibed, or something. Not healthy. Mad. Let the living stay away, or get bled.)