Return to nonfamous.com index page

June 18, 2004

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle

Cheney's not too happy, it seems, about the media reports around the 9-11 commission's conclusion that there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda related to the 9-11 plot. Check out this transcript of an interview between Cheney and CNBC's Gloria Borger:

BORGER: Mr. Vice President, I don't think I've ever seen you, in all the years I've interviewed you, as exercised about something as you seem today.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I was. I admit, Gloria, and you and I have known each other a long time. But I do believe that the press has been irresponsible, that there's this temptation to take...

BORGER: But the press is making a distinction between 9/11 and...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, they're not. They're not. The New York Times does not. The Panel Finds No Qaida-Iraq Ties. That's what it says. That's the vaunted New York Times. Numerous--I've watched a lot of the coverage on it and the fact of the matter is they don't make a distinction. They fuzz it up. Sometimes it's through ignorance. Sometimes it's malicious. But you'll take a statement that's geared specifically to say there's no connection in relation to the 9/11 attack and then say, `Well, obviously there's no case here.' And then jump over to challenge the president's credibility or my credibility and say ...(unintelligible).

So, the media is "fuzzing up" the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, eh? Well, that's a turnaround for the books. Let's compare the fuzziness of the New York Times article with the administration's own statements on the matter (as reported in Slate):

[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.
—President Bush, in a letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
—President Bush, May 1 2003 ("Mission Accomplished" speech aboard USS Lincoln)

[a U.S. success in Iraq will mean] that we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
—Vice President Cheney, Sep 14 2003, Meet The Press

Who's being fuzzy now?

Posted by david at June 18, 2004 10:26 AM | TrackBack
Comment spammers: see our Unauthorized Advertising Policy and rates
Comments

First we determine that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now we find that Iraq actually had nothing to do with 9/11. Those were the two main reasons for invading Iraq, as I recall, though I'm sure the administration will soon start claiming that neither of those were significant in making the decision. Can we impeach these bastards yet?

Ok, so I've listened to a lot of the quotes from way back when, and they're right. They never DIRECTLY said Saddam was involved in 9/11. They just implied it a lot. And said their were ties between Al Quaida and Iraq. But the ties that were found seemed to amount to Osama asking for money and Saddam not responding. So, if I ask Paul Allen to build a museum to my musical taste and he ignores me, does that officially mean he has ties to me? Under Bush's logic, I believe it does.

"Hey, Paul, ol' buddy. How's it going? I was thinking about dropping by after work for a beer. Cool?"

Posted by: paulette on June 18, 2004 11:20 AM
Post a comment