Re: Welcome discussions
- For some reason this post was delayed for more than a day before it
appeared on the message list. I sent this out yesterday morning and I
thought it was the internet connection problem. Censorship perhaps?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@...> wrote:
> > between Sadaam and 9/11, don't watch Fox News, etc., but it
> > would be a shame for truth to get in the way of propaganda.
> > Many people thought Sadamm had weapons of mass destruction.
> "I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you
> got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the
> truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"
> So it's no surprise that the "liberal" New York Times had to report
> with a by-line that the "liberal" reality that "Bush and Cheney Talk
> Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein" back in 2004. Was the propaganda
> catapulting a success? You bet. This is what the non-partisan Program
> on International Policy Attitudes found after election 2004:
> "A large majority of President Bush's supporters continued to believe
> that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (47 percent) or a
> major program to develop them (25 percent), contrary to official
> findings. And three out of four Bush backers believed Saddam Hussein
> provided substantial support to al Qaeda or was involved in the Sept.
> 11 attacks, while 56 percent said the Sept. 11 commission found such
> ties. In reality, the commission found 'no collaborative relationship'
> between Iraq and al Qaeda. The survey showed supporters of Bush and
> Sen. John Kerry had stark differences and saw "separate realities."
> Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein
> By DAVID E. SANGER and ROBIN TONER
> President Bush and Vice President Cheney said yesterday that they
> remain convinced that Saddam Hussein's government had a long history
> of ties to Al Qaeda, a day after the commission investigating the
> Sept. 11 attacks reported that its review of classified intelligence
> found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" that linked Iraq
> to the terrorist organization.
> Mr. Bush, responding to a reporter's question about the report after a
> White House cabinet meeting yesterday morning, said: "The reason I
> keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
> and Al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al
> He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were
> orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were
> numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example,
> Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda,
> in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
> He repeated that Mr. Hussein was "a threat" and "a sworn enemy to the
> United States of America."
> Last night Mr. Cheney, who was the administration's most forceful
> advocate of the Qaeda-Hussein links, was more pointed, repeating in
> detail his case for those ties and saying that The New York Times's
> coverage yesterday of the commission's findings "was outrageous."
> "They do a lot of outrageous things," Mr. Cheney, appearing on
> "Capital Report" on CNBC, said of the Times, referring specifically to
> a four-column front page headline that read "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq
> Tie." Mr. Cheney added: "The press wants to run out and say there's a
> fundamental split here now between what the president said and what
> the commission said."
> He said that newspapers, including the Times, had confused the
> question of whether there was evidence of Iraqi participation in Sept.
> 11 with the issue of whether a relationship existed between Al Qaeda
> and Mr. Hussein's regime.
> Speaking of the commission, he said, "They did not address the broader
> question of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in other areas,
> in other ways." He said "the evidence is overwhelming." He described
> the ties and cited numerous links back to the 1990's, including
> contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.
> Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president,
> also jumped into the debate yesterday, saying: "It is clear that
> President Bush owes the American people a fundamental explanation
> about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not
> supported by the facts. That is the finding of this commission. The
> war against Al Qaeda is not the war in Iraq, when it began."
> Staff Report 15, released by the commission Wednesday, detailed how a
> senior Iraqi intelligence officer "reportedly made three visits to
> Sudan" and met with Mr. bin Laden in 1994. At that meeting, the report
> concluded, Mr. bin Laden sought permission to establish training camps
> in Iraq and help in obtaining weapons, "but Iraq apparently never
> "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also
> occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not
> appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report
> continued. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that
> any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible
> evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
> United States."
> Mr. Cheney expressed a slightly different view last night, saying, "We
> have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on
> 9/11." He went on to cite a Czech intelligence service report that
> Mohammad Atta, one of the lead hijackers, met a senior Iraqi
> intelligence official in April 2001. "That's never been proven," he
> said. "It's never been refuted."
> The commission report released on Wednesday concluded: "We do not
> believe that such a meeting occurred," citing phone records and other
> evidence that Mr. Atta had been in Florida at that time, not Prague.
> Mr. Cheney returned to the subject of the Times's coverage later in
> his appearance on CNBC when Ms. Borger began saying, "But the press is
> making a distinction between 9/11 and . . ."
> "No, they're not," Mr. Cheney said. "The New York Times does not. `The
> Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Ties,' " he said, quoting the headline.
> "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 its malicious. But you'll take a statement that's
> geared specifically to say there's no connection in relations 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
> Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were not alone in responding yesterday to the
> commission's findings. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, an Illinois
> Republican, also charged that the media had distorted the findings of
> the commission about links between Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Hussein. He
> sad the report showed the two men were "developing a relationship."
> "That relationship could have led to dire consequences for the United
> States," Mr. Hastert said, adding that the two men "are cut from the
> same cloth."
> Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry had expected to focus on the economy
> yesterday, but the dispute over the 9/11 commission's report
> overshadowed that effort.
> Speaking to reporters in Detroit, Mr. Kerry said that it was Mr. Bush
> and Mr. Cheney who were muddying distinctions. "The president and the
> vice president on a number of occasions have asserted very directly to
> the American people that the war against al Qaeda is the war in Iraq.
> And on any number of occasions, the president has made it clear that
> the front line of the war against al Qaeda is in Iraq."
> He returned to the theme last night, talking to officials in the
> Michigan A.F.L.-C.I.O. "Now we learn in the latest reports of the
> commission that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with what was happening in
> Iraq, and we're spending $200 billion of your tax money over there.
> I'll tell you this, as commander in chief, based on my experience in
> fighting a war, and what I know about what's happened in these last
> years, I will always remember that the United States of America should
> never go to war because it wants to, we should only go to war because
> we have to."
> The line, one Mr. Kerry has been using with increasing frequency in
> campaign appearances, received loud applause. Steve Schmidt, spokesman
> for the Bush campaign, said that Mr. Kerry was contradicting himself.
> "John Kerry explicitly stated that Saddam Hussein was connected to
> terrorism," Mr. Schmidt said. "He contradicted himself today. John
> Kerry voted for war in Iraq, but less than a year later declared
> himself an antiwar candidate." Mr. Schmidt said Mr. Kerry had a "track
> record" of "exploiting the war on terror for political gain."