Subject:
|
Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:48:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
967 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
Not surprisingly, Dubya is still
clinging to his
“admit no error policy.”
Here are a few lies of omission worth noting:
“This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between
Saddam and al-Qaida,” he said.
Even in the last few days Cheney and Powell have been implying a substantive
link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and for many months members of the
administration including, but not limited to Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Powell,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Ridge have deliberately constructed their
rhetoric to keep Iraq and Al Qaeda adjacent in the public’s memory. At the very
best, such careless fearmongering is dishonest and irresponsible. At worst, it
is treasonous. I’m hoping that it will be recognized as the latter.
“We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida,
for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of
al-Qaida in the Sudan.”
Of course, Dubya does not say that the meeting resulted in Iraq’s refusal to
allow Al Qaeda to use Iraq’s territory and resources for terrorist training.
Instead, Dubya omits that key fact and allows the implication of collusion to
stand.
For all of his idiocy in terms of domestic policy, Dubya is actually much better
at performing cowardly legalistic gymnastics to hide from accountability.
For example, imagine that someone finds a tape of Dubya making the following
claims:
“We have definitive evidence that Iraq orchestrated 9/11 with Al Qaida.”
Well, he can still say “We never said that Saddam orchestrated it. We said
that Iraq orchestrated it.” A deceitful but technically correct answer.
or
“We have definitive evidence that Saddam coordinated 9/11 with Al Qaida.”
Well, he can still say “We never said that Saddam orchestrated it. We said
that Saddam coordinated it.”
This is all similar to something I discussed
here.
It’s funny that right-wing pundits and so-called Conservatives are only too
happy to embrace nuance when it’s used to defend Their Chosen Leader, but nuance
is seen as a failing when it comes from a Democrat.
It’s also funny that Clinton is still ridiculed for discussing the meaning of
is as it pertained to a legal extramarital affair between two adults, but no
one in the media is complaining about Dubya’s wholesale manipulation of
language.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
20 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
