Am I the only one that this pisses off! He Lied, and he knew he was lying when he said it. People are just to lazy, or too damn stupid, or both, To do anything about it. If more people gave a damn, maybe this Nation wouldnt be soo shity.

Wow, a politician mislead people, that has never happened before. I have been following this closely, and while I may have missed something, at no time did I ever hear the President say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He definitely gave the public that impression (clearly shown by the fact 69% of them think so), but he didn’t say it outright. If I was one of the people that was duped into thinking it was so, I may be pissed at the President (only for revealing my own gullibility). But, I think it is more appropriate to be pissed at the media for not questioning the implications of his statements at the time, and also at the majority of dopes that came to a conclusion that wasn’t supported by facts.

Oh, we can be pissed at the President, too. He’s a lying, whoremongering asshole. He knew exactly what he was doing.

The media has much to atone for, too.

I think we get a little too saturated with information and sometimes can’t differentiate between what the pundits say and what the administration said. 

Of course it didn’t hurt their cause of getting the public to go along with the war to allow everyone to think that Iraq had a hand in September 11th so they didn’t bother to mention it until now, but I suppose I should be happy they’re at least owning up to the truth. Finally.

This was not the first time this question was asked and it definitely isn’t the first time it was addressed by the administration.  I don’t ever recall the administration saying they had evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  And Bush is just a lying asshole…It was Bill Clinton who was the lying whoremongering asshole:

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

That wasn’t Bush; that was Bill Clinton in a December 1998 speech.  I do not think much of polls…they have their uses, but I don’t see how people put much faith in them.  In a recent Excite.com poll, 30 % of respondents thought Kobe Bryant was guilty of felony sexual assault, 34% thought he was not and 23% were unsure.  I’ll have to guess that the respondents had very little to base their opinions on (other than a gut feeling), so what relevance do these poll results really have? 

Did you ever hear George Carlin’s bit about the poll that was taken in the 1970s, that asked who was the most trusted person in America?  The first most trusted was teleprompter jockey Walter Cronkite followed closely by Betty Crocker!  Betty Crocker, for those who do not know it, is about as real as Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, The Green Giant, or Mr. Clean.

There is no question that this administration intentionally misled people.  These polls have been coming out for months saying a majority of people believe that Saddam had something to do with Al Queda and 911.  Lots of folks knew there was no tie, but they were dismissed as “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic”.  I even saw a bumper sticker that said “Support Bush on Iraq, remember who attacked us first” and it had a picture of the twin towers both smoking.  Surprising that people are so gullible?  No.  Sad?  Yes.

BTW I think it is pretty pathetic for people to compare lying about a blow job with lying about reasons to go to war!  Just not in the same category.  Yes, lying is lying.  Lying is wrong, shame on Clinton for lying!  Shame on Bush for lying!  Shame on Clinton for hurting his family!  Shame on Bush for hurting America and sending US soldiers to die for no good reason!  See the difference?  It isn’t rocket science folks.

If you noticed Mild Bill didn’t compare Bush lying about going to war versus Clinton lying about getting a blow job. If you believe Bush lied about why we went to war, then so did Clinton. Clinton also went to war in Kosovo, but they never attacked us, so why did we go? And talk about a quagmire, home by Christmas? We still have troops there 5 years later (I guess it must take longer than 5 months to rebuild a country). Let’s get over the blow job and look at the real misleading Clinton did.

Delaney

I didn’t say His Excellency Bill “Blowjob” Clinton lied about his sexual escapades; though he did.  I posted a direct quote he made about Iraq.  If I hadn’t assigned that quote to Clinton in 98, one would have thought Bush had made it in 03!  We won’t discuss the “Monica Missiles” Bill fired at the aspirin factory in the Sudan And then there’s the Kosovo operation…as Val said, there is still a large contingent of US troops there. 

In no way, shape, or form has Bush ever said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  He has cited some pretty weak associations between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but I’d like you to show me where he said Saddam was in on 9/11. 

I’m with Val (again); it doesn’t really shock me that a politician would lie.  That activity is not unique to the current crop of politicians; FDR did it to get us geared up to fight WWII and Kennedy over-hyped the Soviet ballistic missile threat.  The only Prez I can think of who I can’t call a liar is Carter.  I can however call him naïve…a guy who used a schoolboy mentality to try to conduct international policy.  I recall him being quoted that he couldn’t believe that Soviet President Brezhnev actually lied to him about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan!

Oops…I digressed!

Well I’m convinced; there’s a bumper sticker that says Iraq was involved in 9/11, so obviously Bush had Cheney call the Acme Bumper Sticker Corporation (from his secret, undisclosed location) to mislead them.  Off with their heads!

I do not put much faith in polls or that many people have enough information to form meaningful opinions (yeah I said it…I meant it…and I’m here to represent it!).  These polls ask absurd questions like, “Do you think we have enough troops in Iraq?” Now what average person is going to know the answer to that question?  How can you make a reasonable judgment about that if you don’t have current knowledge of the composition and capabilities of military units? 

I recall Clinton’s big thing was to reduce to 100,000 the number of troops stationed in Europe (just like 100,000 teachers and 100,000 cops that were going to be recruited under his “programs”).  What is the significance of 100,000 troops other than it’s a nice, neat number?  Is that 100,000 fighting troops or 100,000 troops handing out basketballs at the gym?  If he said we will keep one Army corps, two Air Force fighter wings…etc, then that would make sense…it’s about capabilities, not numbers!

Damn I digressed again!

I recall back in the early 1980s, I was traveling by train from Washington to Philadelphia to return to my base in England.  I sat next to a lady who asked where I was heading.  I told her back to my base in England.  She asked if I was British and I told her I was not; that the US has about 55,000 airmen and 400 aircraft stationed in England.  She told me that was not so…there were no US troops in England!  I tried to convince her, but to no avail.  So I changed the subject and continued on with my trip to my nonexistent base in England!

What does that have to do with polls?  I assume that lady and people like her are the same folks that also respond to polls.  My experience with people is if they don’t know something, they’ll say any damn thing so as not to look stupid.

Valhalla, while I give you some benefit of the doubt as to whether Bush and Company actually offered un-contestable intelligence linking Hussein’s Iraq with 9/11, I will go as far as to say they worked hard to put the possible association into the minds of the public and the press.
This is a great example:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
(Emphasis added)

As is this:
CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

And this:
NY TIMES (9/15/03)
Further, Cheney argued that new evidence found in Iraq proved more ties between Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization, and he argued that Iraq was the “geographic base” for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “If we’re successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,” he said in an hour-long interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Cheney also seemed to broaden the intelligence on other alleged al Qaeda connections with Hussein, saying, “The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ‘90s.” Up to now, administration officials and CIA documents have said there had been eight meetings, primarily in the early 1990s, when bin Laden was in Sudan.

Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia’s ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. “I don’t want to speculate,” he said, adding that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.”

And even this:
WASHINGTON POST
President Bush paused in his Labor Day remarks about jobs and told his audience of union members, “I want you to think back to that fateful day, September the 11th, and what happened afterwards.”
In the past six weeks, Bush has cited “9/11” or Sept. 11, 2001, in arguing for his energy policy and in response to questions about campaign fundraising, tax cuts, unemployment, the deficit, airport security, Afghanistan and the length, cost and death toll of the Iraq occupation.
Such references are not new for Bush. In April, when he was making the case for invading Iraq, he said he refused to leave the nation’s enemies “free to plot another September the 11th.”
The attacks sometimes even seem to overshadow the president’s sense of previous history. “Prior to September the 11th, there was apparently no connection between a place like Iraq and terror,” he said at a congressional retreat earlier this year. Iraq was first placed on the State Department’s list of designated terrorist states in 1979 and has been there continuously since 1990.
Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Bush faces a potential backlash from trying to use “something we agree on to divert people’s attention from things we don’t agree on.”

And finally this:
MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
Re: Cheney’s appearance on “Meet The Press”
...Cheney offered stuff, but it wasn’t evidence. He said that one of those involved in planning the attack, an Iraqi-American, had returned to Iraq after the attack and had been protected, perhaps even supported, by Saddam Hussein. That proves exactly nothing about Iraq’s links to the attack itself.
Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer—but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel “quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports” of such a meeting.
In trying to make that link, Cheney baldly asserted that Iraq is the “geographic base” for those who struck the United States on Sept. 11. (No, that would be Afghanistan.)

Yes, the press is at fault for lack of aggressive reporting for not ferreting out the facts, and the White House Press Corp is a bunch of wimps to the extreme concerning this administration, and the public at large is too easily mislead, but when information is withheld, reported “apparently as fact” before it has been validated, and it is propagandized, it’s much more difficult to form a fair opinion. I probably don’t even need to point out direct or indirect desires of Senate and House members to limit open, vigorous discourse. This administration counts on the public to be gullible and apathetic and they encourage it to pay off shamelessly.
Now what was that you were saying:
“But, I think it is more appropriate to be pissed at the media… and also at the majority of dopes that came to a conclusion that wasn’t supported by facts.”
Think again!

Next, Bush will be saying that he never said there were WMDs in Iraq.

His administration pushes the English language to the limit, leaving one to draw conclusions which can be “denied” at a later time.

Fact: Bush implied a link between 9/11 and Saddam, and then acted AS IF there was such a link by invading Iraq.  So it is no surprise that most people have connected the dots on the manner in the way that polls indicate.

“Valhalla”*

It is not unusual to update war plans against hostile or even friendly countries.  This was especially true of Afghanistan where there were no current contingency plans for a conflict there.  I have been told by “people in the know” that I would be surprised where some of our nuclear weapons were targeted in the past!

And on the Washington Post “quote”:

Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia’s ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. “I don’t want to speculate,” he said, adding that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.”

Well “Valhalla” the Washington Post printed a retraction to that “unbiased statement”.  It appears Cheney was the victim of quote mining and said the exact opposite of what the “Post” credited to him.  Here is their retraction:

A Sept. 15 article on Vice President Cheney’s appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” mischaracterized the vice president’s response to a question about releasing information on Saudi Arabia’s ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. The article quoted Cheney as saying, “I don’t want to speculate” about the ties, and said that the vice president went on to say that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.” The article implied that Cheney agreed with this point of view. In fact, in his full remarks, the vice president took the opposite view and argued that it is important, in discussing alleged Saudi connections to the hijackers, not to release information that would jeopardize the United States’ ability to fight terrorism.

Gee “Valhalla”...I wonder if the Post reporter just didn’t understand Cheney’s statement?  The VP said the Saudi connection is an ongoing investigation, so it would not be appropriate to comment on it.  Here are some of Cheney’s statements from MSNBC about Iraq and 9/11:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that.

So it appears “Valhalla” that this was not the first time this question was put forth and answered by the administration.  There is a statement made by Cheney that taken out of context could imply that Iraq was the “geographic base” for 9/11:

…if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now 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. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything.

The “geographic base” seems to mean the region, not the government of Iraq.  If one read only the Post (prior to their retraction) one could make incorrect assumptions about Cheney’s statements.  If one reads the actual transcript from Meet the Press, one gets a totally different feel for what was said.  One should always endeavor to seek the truth instead of finding mined quotes to support ones opinions…mustn’t one “Valhalla”?  In my estimation, the Bush administration says enough screwy stuff without people (read pundits) having to doctor their statements.

*Note to Val:  it appears “in vogue” to answer questions that you personally did not ask, so I continued with that convention

So in other words, it all depends on what you mean by “the *heart*...of the geographic base.” Someone attempting to take what comes out of Cheney’s mouth word for word might just parse this as....well, Iraq. 

Semantics aside, all I’m gleaning here is the attempt to make the link in the minds of Americans while avoiding overt statements that the administration can be pinned down on.  Russert makes the conclusion desired, Cheney counters that he didn’t *really* say that.  Which does make me wonder about the “full remarks” made on the Saudi link to Al-Quaida--this apparently was brought in as proof of the unreliability of the WaPo?  That might be the case, MB, but your own quotes seem to add more, not less, credence to the attempt to draw a link.

PS--if that second quote was “out of context...” couldja maybe give us the context?

Correction to above--the second MSNBC quote with Cheney and Tim Russert.

So in other words, it all depends on what you mean by “the *heart*…of the geographic base.” Someone attempting to take what comes out of Cheney’s mouth word for word might just parse this as….well, Iraq.

Where are the terrorist coming from? The middle east. Where is Iraq? pretty well right in the middle, or shall we say, heart, of the middle east. So to say we attacked in the heart of the base is a factually accurate statement, but that has nothing to do with going after the people that attacked us on 9/11.

Fact: Bush implied a link between 9/11 and Saddam, and then acted AS IF there was such a link by invading Iraq. So it is no surprise that most people have connected the dots on the manner in the way that polls indicate.

I thought the reason we attacked Iraq was the WMD issue, was it not? If we went after Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11, then whether there are WMD’s would be irrelevent, but I see alot of questions about WMD’s.

It isn’t much of a stretch to say the administration used hyperbole leading up to the war, but it is just as obvious that those opposing the administration aren’t strangers to hyperbole either.

The question is if the administration has said that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  I think their policy shows pretty clearly that they think Iraq is part of the overall war on terror, but I don’t see where these new statements are revelations.  Someone previously posted a Post citation that said Cheney was dismissive of the Saudi involvement in 9/11.  I posted the verbatim retraction the Post gave.  If you want to know what Cheney said, here’s a link:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/966470.asp

Since this link is from NBC, creators of Meet the Press, I’d tend to believe these transcripts before some hack job in the Washington Post (which I use to deliver as a lad!)

I’m not a Bush apologist, but because some “patriots” have bumper stickers that claim Iraqi involvement in 9/11 does not make it the fault of the administration.  People will believe what ever foolish things they choose to believe.  If 69% of the people in this country really believe that, I’d like to hear from some of them to clarify their beliefs.  Certainly with over 2/3 of our fellow citizens believing this, there must be someone out there who could articulate why he believes it.  I don’t believe it and so far no one else posting here believes it.  So where the hell are these people?

I don’t put much faith in polls (as I said in previous postings) because I don’t feel people often have enough knowledge to form opinions.  I had a debate on another page where a guy was telling me that the military should have used “knock out gas” to incapacitate Saddam’s sons!  I pointed out to this person that there was no such thing as “knock out gas” that I ever heard of and I was an Air Force weapons specialist for 21 years!!!  I also noted that the Russians tried to use “knock out gas” during that hostage situation a few months back and killed 120 people with it!  He further explained to me how “conditions were perfect” in that situation for the use of this gas (whatever it might be and however it might be used).  For this I was discounted as a “pseudo-intellectual”, robot, etc.  I guess the next time I have an operation, I won’t have to pay a doctor (called an anesthesiologist) to put me under…I’ll just save that $1,500 and find me an ex-military guy to do it.

At the end of the day, all a poll proves is what people think…not what’s real.  People will believe whatever foolish things they wish.

Firstly Mild Bill, you are a Bush apologist! If one reads the responses you’ve given here in the past, I believe one would fairly conclude that you are a Bush lover. Step up and admit it; the truth will set you free.
Concerning my directing of press pieces to Valhalla concerning to what degree Bush and Co. helped the public perceive Iraq to be a participant in 9/11, I did so because he stated:
“Wow, a politician mislead people”
And
“I have been following this closely, and while I may have missed something, at no time did I ever hear the President say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.”
And also because he said:
“If I was one of the people that was duped into thinking it was so, I may be pissed at the President (only for revealing my own gullibility). But, I think it is more appropriate to be pissed at the media for not questioning the implications of his statements at the time, and also at the majority of dopes that came to a conclusion that wasn’t supported by facts.”

My attempt was to demonstrate how the Administration has attempted to lead the public toward believing that Iraq did indeed play a part in 9/11. They have encouraged this nation view time and again and if you can’t accept that, too bad…you’re just in denial. Unlike Bush senior who said “read my lips” Bush Jr. wants us to “read into” relevant situations conspiracies, without recognizing his lips said anything to encourage it. As I’ve said on SEB before: he isn’t a smart man, just an opportunistic one.
You point out that The Washington Post offered a retraction concerning Cheney’s remark regarding Saudi Arabia’s ties to al Qaeda, which is well and good. They were honest enough to apologize for a possible mischaracterization of that one section from the Meet the Press interview. You didn’t even touch the problem with Cheney’s mention of a possible meeting in Prague between Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer. Nor did you touch any of the Bush statements quoted. In fact you based your entire chastisement of taking quotes out of context on one Washington Post retraction of a remark concerning Saudi Arabia not Iraq. At least I offered quotes, not vague allusions as with your remark- “I have been told by ‘people in the know’ that I would be surprised where some of our nuclear weapons were targeted in the past!” Gee, can I quote you on that? Then again you didn’t really say anything of substance worth quoting or able to be argued with.
So I really don’t need your critiquing to whom I address my comments. I don’t direct them to you as often anymore because I am sick to death of everything you perceive being filtered through you experiences in the Air Force. What was your rank anyway? What level of security clearances did you have? I may be asking these questions incorrectly since I have no military background, but I’m sure you can glean the intent of my questions. Since you argue most everything based on your special experiences and intelligence received through your noble profession, I would love to know how you justify your greater understanding and mastery of various discussion strings. Or is it really just “sour grapes” that feeds your need to write anymore? Dude, get over the fact that not everyone comes from a military background, just as not everyone comes from a Christian background. Don’t allow yourself to judge us, despise us or pity us, simply because we don’t share your exact experiences.
To address an old and tired issue yet again….I don’t care if you know better than I whether a knockout gas, tear gas, or a note home to their mother could have been used against Hussein’s sons. Neither of us knows what really went down or why. It was a discussion string, not a congressional or military hearing.
I also indirectly addressed your comments in this string, such as:
“I think we get a little too saturated with information and sometimes can’t differentiate between what the pundits say and what the administration said.” (I did address what the Administration said by direct quotes in my post to Valhalla.)
“I don’t ever recall the administration saying they had evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.”
I included quotes illustrating how they “said” so.
True to your style of debate you had to drag Clinton and Carter (and Nancy Pelosi into the debate if you could have), as did Valhalla with a Clinton reference earlier. Can’t you two just deal with the present situation without having to resort to such dubious arguments. We are in the here and now, paying taxes, losing lives and liberties and jobs now. Let’s discuss from that vantage point.
Fine, don’t put much faith in polls. I don’t either. Just keep in mind that the public is often swayed by them, even if they shouldn’t be, and the dynamics of why are better discussed and understood as a sociological phenomenon.
One recent poll offers that the majority of American citizens are against the 87 billion request for our continued presence in Iraq. It wouldn’t even take a poll to guess that we are growing weary of gross mismanagement of our taxes. 

Talk about quote mining; lets look at your effort to point out the impreciseness of that:

You quoted: ( from “Meet the Press” )
“MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that.”

Your quote mining stops there, in order one would presume, to illustrate that Cheney did not wish one to assume he was trying to recklessly connect 9/11 to Iraq. He actually goes on to say:

“Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.
MR. RUSSERT: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers but that it will not be released to the public.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t know want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI that that material needed to remain classified. At some point, we may be able to declassify it, but there are ongoing investigations that might be affected by that release, and for that reason, we kept it classified. The committee knows what’s in there. They helped to prepare it. So it hasn’t been kept secret from the Congress, but from the standpoint of our ongoing investigations, we needed to do that.
One of the things this points out that’s important for us to understand—so there’s this great temptation to look at these events as discreet events. We got hit on 9/11. So we can go and investigate it. It’s over with now. It’s done. It’s history and put it behind us.
From our perspective, trying to deal with this continuing campaign of terror, if you will, the war on terror that we’re engaged in, this is a continuing enterprise. The people that were involved in some of those activities before 9/11 are still out there. We learn more and more as we capture people, detain people, get access to records and so forth that this is a continuing enterprise and, therefore, we do need to be careful when we look at things like 9/11, the commission report from 9/11, not to jeopardize our capacity to deal with this threat going forward in the interest of putting that information that’s interesting that relates to the period of time before that. These are continuing requirements on our part, and we have to be sensitive to that.”

I’ve already included pieces questioning the authenticity of the Atta/ Senior Iraqi Intelligence officer meeting and it’s suspected agenda, so most of what Cheney said regarding the information “that‘s been public out there” was questionable even before he so conveniently mentioned it again on “Meet the Press”, and he was fully aware of this. Sound familiar?
If you notice how many times Cheney mentions, in this interview alone,“9/11” and “Iraq” in the same sentence, paragraph or conversation point, you don’t doubt as much that he is trying to further at least a subliminal association.

Concerning Cheney’s “heart of the base” quote, here is how that went.
( Still from “Meet the Press” )
“MR. RUSSERT: The Congressional Budget Office said that: ‘That the Army lacks sufficient active-duty forces to maintain its current level of nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. In a report that underscores the stress being place on the military by the occupation of Iraq, the CBO said the Army’s goals of keeping the same number of troops in Iraq and limiting tours of duty there to a year while maintaining its current presence elsewhere in the world were impossible to sustain without activating more National Guard or Reserve units.’
Can we keep 150,000 troops beyond next spring without, in effect, breaking the Army?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now 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. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.
MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it’s a global operation. It doesn’t know national boundaries or national borders. And the commitment of the United States going into Afghanistan and take down the Taliban and stand up a new government, to go into Iraq and take down the Saddam Hussein regime and stand up a new government is a vital part of our long-term strategy to win the war on terror. America’s going to be safer and more secure in the years ahead when we complete the task in Iraq successfully, and we will complete it successfully. And whatever the cost is, in terms of casualties or financial resources, it’s a whale of a lot less than trying to recover from the next attack in the United States. So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.
We talk about $87 billion. Yeah, that’s a significant expense. No question about it. But it’s going to be much more expensive down the road if we wait. And it’ll be much more expensive—it’s less money, frankly, than the events of 9/11 imposed on us here in the United States.”

Now you tell me again Mild Bill baby, that Cheney wasn’t placing Iraq smack in the middle of his “heart of the base” of terrorist organizations, especially the one which took out the world Trade Center. Also, tell me the correct assumptions one should make from this full quote, and be careful: the very tatters of your credibility are at stake.

Mild Bill: “The ‘geographic base’ seems to mean the region, not the government of Iraq. If one read only the Post (prior to their retraction) one could make incorrect assumptions about Cheney’s statements. If one reads the actual transcript from Meet the Press, one gets a totally different feel for what was said. One should always endeavor to seek the truth instead of finding mined quotes to support ones opinions…mustn’t one “Valhalla”? In my estimation, the Bush administration says enough screwy stuff without people (read pundits) having to doctor their statements.

Reality check: Iraq was Hussein - Hussein was Iraq!
ONE (meaning you be the One) and probably only one that would get a totally different feel for what was said.

Ok, so what drugs exactly are you on? You included only the part of Cheney’s remark that would prop up your argument and at the same time said “One should always endeavor to seek the truth instead of finding mined quotes to support ones opinions…mustn’t one “Valhalla”?
I don’t even know why I bother to argue with you anymore. You certainly don’t play by rules most of us try to play by.
I agree with hesprynne. You did more to further that which you apparently attempted to tear apart. Quote mining my ass!
In summation, Bush and his cohorts repress relevant information, they use misinformation and innuendo, they endeavor to play on our emotions to accomplish desired support, and if they get caught at any of this, they simply say they were misquoted or misrepresented and call those who dare to ask for clarification unpatriotic. Its no wonder the public believes all manner of fantastic things. None of us can call them out on ALL their lies, but that doesn’t mean we as a “land of the free” shouldn’t continue to ask whatever questions we damn well feel we have the rights to ask,and receive answers minus political spin and misdirection.

BTW I don’t use the blue box technique to highlight quotations because it has always been the way Les’ entries are done. I liked the way his pieces stood out and didn’t want to clutter the strings. If my posts are more difficult to follow because I don’t box quotes, please forgive me.

In summation, Bush and his cohorts repress relevant information, they use misinformation and innuendo, they endeavor to play on our emotions to accomplish desired support, and if they get caught at any of this, they simply say they were misquoted or misrepresented and call those who dare to ask for clarification unpatriotic.

The problem we face is that except for calling people unpatriotic, every President in the last 50 years (and probably well before that) has done the same things.

Yes, we are in the here and now, but Iraq is a done deal, we can’t go back and unattack. I wish we could, but we are now stuck with the situation as it stands, and I don’t think anyone feels we should just abandon the Iraqi’s to their own devices. So what do we do now? The pundits and politicians opposed to Bush seem to think they should do some of the same things that Bush did to get us into Iraq (I see alot of innuendo and playing on emotions, like Sen. Kennedy saying we are bribing countries to join us in Iraq, but provides no evidence to back it up). This over the top rhetoric seems all too popular these days (on both sides of any issue), but it only entrenches support for both sides. Was Bill Clinton was the worst President, or He was the Best President? I would say the truth is none of the above, but if you want to play on emotions you will use which ever is appropriate for “your side”.

I know this thread is primarily about whether or not the Administration misled the public on a Iraq / 9/11 connection, but I can’t resist a quick general comment.  Forgive me for skewing the topic…

One, it was a BIG mistake for Pres. Bush to link the invasion of Iraq to WMD.  This reduced the whole thing to a bizarre “scavenger hunt” when that was never really the point of the invasion to begin with.  Unfortunaty it was a politically expedient reasoning put out there in an attempt to garner international support.  More to the point of the thread, I would posit that it was also not about revenge for 9/11 (except maybe for a certain vengeful minority of the populace).  In my eyes the main point was to remove a reactionary, muderous regime in a very key area.  In the long term, a free democratic Iraq (to use the current political buzzword) will lead to a more stable region.  And, trust me, the majority of Iraqis are quite happy Saddam is out of power.  The lines of people along the roads who wave and cheer were just as thick 3 months after the offensive as they were on the second day of it. I’ve read polls (of Iraqis) to that effect as well, but I don’t have the data on hand.
Of course, this is just my opinion.  In the end, history will decide.  Just know that it is often beneficial to envision the future beyond the next election.  We, as Americans, often do not choose to do that.  We are typically more content to view events as belonging to some “asshole politician”

It would appear that G.W.Bush is convinced that everyone else is as thick as he is, or worse still he deludes himself with the belief that he is actually smarter than most people. So in his fantasy world everyone buys his stories about Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever else he decides to take his war on terror.

If you want to consider a more valid reason for the war on terror(TM), then do a Google search for ‘peak oil’ the results may open your eyes a little bit.

Serai

Do you think that government of Afghanistan sponsoring an attack against the United States is maybe, kind of, sort of a pretty good reason to remove that government?  I must say that is pretty unrealistic if you don’t.  Bin Laden’s major beef with us is our support for Israel and our “occupation” of the Muslim holy lands.

So in summary, I infer from your statement that you think:

1.  The lawful government of Saudi Arabia does not have the right to enter into defense alliances with the US (essentially because their territory was threatened by Iraq)

2.  That a bunch of yo-yos who are not part of the Saudi government have the right to usurp the authority of the Saudi government

3.  Any despot who so desires should be allowed to invade Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, seize a large portion of the world’s oil reserves, and cripple the world’s economies

4.  That we should allow the Arabs to annihilate the Israelis

I’m sure you don’t truly believe these things.  If you do think Al Qaeda is justified, I guess the Spanish would be justified in slamming an airliner into Westminster as payback for you guys busting up their little Armada some 400 years ago!  Actually that wouldn’t be a good comparison…it would have to be some other group doing it in the name of the Spanish.

And double dipping…

Brock

I just heard on CNN that 78% of respondents thought Saddam was involved in 9/11. 
One would think of the 8 or so folks that have responded to this page, that at least one would have been among the “duped”.  Either the people on this page represent a statistical anomaly or that poll is meaningless (which I think is what I’ve been saying).  What we need is one of the 78% to respond here as to why they believe what they believe. 

I don’t believe I parsed any of these quotes; I only used parts that were relevant to 9/11.  It’s pretty obvious that the administration thinks that Iraq is key to fighting the war on terror or we would not be there!

On the Post article you said:

They were honest enough to apologize for a possible mischaracterization of that one section from the Meet the Press interview.

Pardon me, I just swallowed my tongue!  Well screw me ridin’ side saddle…you mean the Post just misunderstood what Cheney said…just an honest mistake?  That’s real nice that they were good enough to apologize for their honest mistake, but apparently YOU didn’t know about the retraction, so I’ll assume there are many others who also did not!

You didn’t even touch the problem with Cheney’s mention of a possible meeting in Prague between Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer.

Once again you have used a second hand article that mischaracterizes what Cheney said, so I’ll point out another falsehood besides your Washington Post nonsense:

MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer — but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel “quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports” of such a meeting.

And what Cheney really said was:

The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

So in the same sentence Cheney mentions this incident, he also says there is no evidence of it.  Who’s quote mining?  Do you really think those reporters just didn’t understand the statements?  Bullshit!  It’s the silly little game they play…tell a lie on page 1 and print a retraction on page 3!

Naturally I don’t expect any cogent response from you other than personal attacks on my military experience.  It’s interesting that you brought that up though.  I was an E-8 and had a Top Secret clearance and NATO Secret Atomal clearance.  I was only given the level of information required to do what I had to do!  Some people think the higher the clearance the more you know, but that’s not the case...information is released on a “need to know” basis.  That is why I have submitted to you several times previously that the administration OBVIOUSLY has knowledge that we do not.  I don’t understand why that is a hard concept for you to understand. 

You obviously do not like Bush and that’s understandable…some of the things he does infuriate me too.  I must point out your dislike for him and his administration appears to be skewing your reasoning abilities.  I have refuted your claim of Cheney’s supposed indifference towards the Saudi role in 9/11 and the Atta/Iraq/Czech connection, so what do you have left?  The geographic base statement?  The one that does not mention 9/11, but states that there is a Saddam connection with terrorism?  Wasn’t that Saddam who was paying Palestinians $25,000 to kill Israelis?  What’s that country called to the west of Iraq?  Syria I do believe it’s called and I’ve heard they have a “small” hand in promoting terror as does that other little country called Iran to the east.  Coincidentally, Iraq is in the geographic center of these two.

You are making a baseless assumption that the 78% were swayed into their thinking by Cheney’s recent comments.  It is baseless because you have not presented any evidence that shows that Cheney’s comments affected peoples’ thinking.  We would need to have one of the 78% answer why they believe what they do for your assertion to be correct.

You also said:

I did address what the Administration said by direct quotes in my post to Valhalla.

I would think citing the Washington Post and Minneapolis Star would be indirect quotes and quoting the NBC Meet the Press transcript would be a direct quote.  Apparently I am wrong once again.

And finally here is the most ridiculous item of the day:

Don’t allow yourself to judge us, despise us or pity us, simply because we don’t share your exact experiences.

Who died and made you the spokesman for everyone on this page or when you say us do you mean you and the mouse in your pocket?  When did I ever defame or ridicule anyone on this page who didn’t have a military background?  I wouldn’t reasonably expect non-military people to know about the military.  Rob and Val’s recent postings appear to be quite well thought out!  From what I’ve read, the people who post here are quite capable of expressing themselves with minimum aid or supervision from you Sir!

Mild Bill Over and Out!

Yes of course, it’s just an incredible coincidence that the US financed the Taliban in the expectation that they would in turn honour deals for a pipeline, and also a HUGE coincidence that when the Taliban refused to honour the above agreement Bin Laden a convenient bad guy gives the US just the reason they needed to take control of Afghanistan.

Then as if these amazing coincidences were not enough, Saddam begins wearing a suspicious look on his face or something, provoking the US to begin it’s crusade against terror. Come on if WMD and all the other daft excuses for the Iraq war were true then why did they wait so long?

I don’t disagree with removing evil murdering dictators, I just find this whole scenario stinks of BS. Come on be honest do you really think peak oil has nothing to do with this then? And if peak oil isn’t a factor is it because you believe a) the US has plans to resolve the crisis that don’t include siezing the worlds richest remaining oil reserves? b) Peak oil is a myth and the world has enough oil for centuries.

One way or another you have to face the facts that the resource our civilisation depends on most, (fossil fuel) is dwindling at an alarming rate along with drastic increases in consumption. So to imagine that the world powers cannot see this and are not taking steps to grab as much of the reserves for themselves as possible is in my opinion a little naive don’t you think?

Governments don’t go to war for the sake of some greater good, it’s a nice myth that the good guys are out there crusading to save the world from tyranny and evil, but that’s an ideal best reserved for fantasy fiction.

I really don’t get your point about us attacking the Taliban over an oil pipeline.  If you are talking about the regional pipeline deal of the 1990s, I found this:

On December 8, 1998, Unocal announced that it was withdrawing from the Centgas consortium, citing low oil prices and turmoil in Afghanistan as making the pipeline project uneconomical and too risky. Unocal’s announcement followed an earlier statement—in August 1998—that the company was suspending its role in the Afghanistan gas pipeline project in light of the recent U.S. government military action in Afghanistan, and also due to intensified fighting between the Taliban and opposition groups. Unocal had previously stressed that the Centgas pipeline project would not proceed until an internationally recognized government was in place in Afghanistan. To date, however, only three countries—Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates—have recognized the Taliban government.

It doesn’t appear that Afghanistan will be stable enough to run a pipeline through it simply because we got rid of the Taliban (pipelines are quite soft targets after all).  I tend to go with the thinking of one of your fellow countrymen, William of Occam.  Occam’s Razor of course suggests that simple explanations should be preferred to more complicated ones.

I could extend your “theory” to any number of other events in history.  I could theorize that the American Civil War was fought because greedy Yankee industrialists knew the importance of the oil reserves in Texas and wanted to secure them.  I would of course have to ignore the fact that petroleum was not even developed until many decades later.

The simplest explanation is that the US attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban government killed 3,000 people and caused serious monetary and economic loss (I myself was laid off a couple of months after 9/11 in 1/02!)

Governments don’t go to war for the sake of some greater good, it’s a nice myth that the good guys are out there crusading to save the world from tyranny and evil, but that’s an ideal best reserved for fantasy fiction.

I absolutely agree…These “patriotic”, flag wavers have got it all wrong.  I spent a number of years in uniform and I never believed any such foolishness.  The US military’s overall mission is to protect the national security interests of the United States and of these interests, economic security would be a major consideration.  So I don’t see it as odd that we should employ military forces to achieve economic security (translation: OIL).  If that offends anyone’s delicate sensitivities, that’s quite unfortunate.  Just consider when you go shopping HOW that stuff got to the store.  I’m not a student of physics, but I do believe some sort of energy transfer must take place to move matter through space (from the farmer’s field to Sainsbury’s in your case).

No, I am NOT saying attack others and gobble up their oil.  I am saying only the most disconnected and naïve person could possibly think it’s just “business as usual” if someone hijacks a major portion of the world’s oil.  Anyone over the age of 6 years old surely must see that Mom (Mum for you Serai:)) and/or Dad need to have a job or baby don’t eat!

I am with you on our lack of a coherent energy policy.  In my simple little world, I can’t understand why we are not pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into alternative energy research!  It only makes sense…how much is a barrel of light sweet crude?…less than $30.00 a barrel I do believe.  Well when we add on the 3 aircraft carrier battle groups, 2 army divisions, 12 fighter wings, 4 bombardment wings, etc., etc., that sorta jacks the price up a bit!

Damn, do you think it’s too late for me to throw my hat in for the ’04 Presidential race?  You could unseat Blair and we could get the ball rolling on this energy thing!  We can create a thousand year reich…no that’s not cool…I mean a new world order…no that won’t do either…you’re gonna have to come up with a slogan…I’m mentally tapped out

As usual an interesting and well thought out response Bill. It really is speculation on my part and I admit that, but I am concerned by the motives of our governments yours and mine. Resources are running out, exactly how much is left and how long it will last isn’t certain, but I do believe a struggle to control what remains is on the cards.

It seems to me that human society now has become ‘throwaway’, as in politicians not planning further than the next election, and environmental concerns being ignored as long as they won’t affect us in ‘our lifetimes’. It’s a shame that we spend so much time researching ancient civilisations and yet learning nothing from them, I mean we aren’t suffering ill effects from ancient Egyptian pollution are we? Can we say the same for civilisations that come 2000 years after us?

It would be naive to suspect that the present administration has any interest in oil for profit. The Bush dynasty has no history or present connections with oil producers and sources, either here, in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. This war and the war on terrorism in general are about stopping renegade religious factions. It’s about liberation, justice and truth so noble and bright that it shines through, manifesting at least one thousand points of light.
No energy company contributed most of the money necessary for legal efforts put forward in Florida to battle the vote recount there.
Ken Lay never met Bush personally prior to 1998.
The White House didn’t direct the EPA to doctor their report on the safety of the world trade center environment immediately after 9/11.
And Bill Clinton’s blow-job seriously threatened national security. He deserved to be impeached. (Is it just coincidental that two of the greatest erections this nation has known were destroyed after Clinton denied having sex with that woman? Could this be an example of the fury of a woman scorned?  Has anyone checked to see if Monica had ties to al Qaida? )
Continuing in the point/ counterpoint mode: 
Chaney, (on Meet the Press) when asked by Russert about finding WMD said:
“Well, I think that the jury is still out in terms of trying to get everything pulled together with respect to what we know. But we’ve got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David Kay. He used to run UNSCOM, a highly qualified, technically qualified and able individual. He’s in charge of the operation now.”
David Kay never ran UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Committee that conducted weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991 through 1998. He was chief inspector for the International Atomic energy Agency, which handled nuclear weapons investigations for UNSCOM.
On the 87 billion issue:
MR. RUSSERT: If you froze the tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans, it would generate enough money to pay for the $87 billion for the war, if you did it for just one year. Would you consider that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think it’d be a mistake, because you can’t look at that without considering what its impact would be on the economy. An awful lot of the returns in that top bracket are small businesses, and they provide an awful lot of the job growth in this economy. If you’re going to go increase taxes on small businesses, you’re going to slow down the extent to which we’re able to reduce unemployment. So I think it’s a serious mistake; the wrong time to raise taxes.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country has an average income of just over $1 Million. This year there are 1.3 million families and individuals in that bracket. By 2010, the top 1 percent will likely have about 1.4 million taxpayers, earning over $l million a year. Every state has at least a few of these wealthy people, although most live in just eight states: California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan.  The USA’s 5.8 million small firms employ about half of all workers and create the most jobs.
If only 1.3 million families or individuals make up the top 1 percent and we have 5.8 million small businesses, how can Cheney say “An awful lot of the returns in that top bracket are small businesses”? He should instead have said that approximately 1/5 of US businesses (the most profitable ones that aren’t really small businesses after all), make up the top 1 percent. A great portion of that top 1 percent of taxpayers has businesses with profits of 10 million to 100 million or more. Kind of diminishes the idea that the good old small business is going to make out like gang busters with Bush’s tax cuts doesn’t it, or that freezing tax cuts to the top 1 percent would penalize small businesses or threaten job growth. Besides, Mr. Cheney, what the hell was this supposed to mean?:  “So I think it’s a serious mistake; the wrong time to raise taxes.” Russert said freeze the “cut for the top 1 percent” you moron, not increase the taxes on small businesses!! But Cheney wanted to say don’t raise taxes on small businesses, so he did.  It’s no wonder some people walk away from interviews thinking they received responsible answers.
But even Cheney used to be smart enough to realize what invading Iraq would require.
In April 1991, as defense secretary he said:
“If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”
He didn’t even touch on the fact that you would need an America willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort as well. Then again he had an opposing agenda to push at that time. How could he know then that a decade later he would be called to help assist in an all too different war. A war to keep America in the dark, sometimes literally.
As much as I hate to say papa Bush was right about something…:
George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft from A World Transformed:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Not a totally barren outcome, old man. We bought ourselves some oil. It’s just a shame we have to pay so much for it.

Mild Bill, I didn’t personally attack your military experience. If I’ve never said it before, I will now. I respect that you were willing to serve in the military. I’m sure at times it was an unpleasant experience for you. It just reminds me of someone using their intimate experiences with Christianity to assume it gives them the privilege to discuss anything under the sun from that perspective. If I don’t have that vantage point, why does it help to debate from it? Most of what we are discussing here is political in scope. While I’ll concede that you may have a better understanding of military strategy and mindset, what motivates Bush and his subordinates is political power and wealth. The military simply jumps when they say so, providing a genuine punch when that type of demonstration is desired. The real battles and gains are realized in private meetings between politicians and private sector presidents and CEO‘s. The real combaters aren’t soldiers of the military but soldiers of fortune.
It is most unfortunate that America is so capitalistically focused. Manipulation of these voracious, seldom completely satisfied appetites provides a greater chance of gain. Those who have wealth wish to keep it and those who are seducible quickly get their attention. Because of their desires, those marked for seduction face temptations you and I can only imagine considering. So instead of asking me to understand the world through your military experiences, let’s both imagine how we can remove the evil temptations elected innocents must face in their battles to serve the greater public good. As for being doubtful that a majority of Americans actually believe Hussein had a hand in 9/11, I can only say I’m doubtful that according to some polls, a majority say they will likely re-elect him. Amazement doesn’t lead to understanding nearly as often as it should.

I know you addressed Serai, but since it’s a public string perhaps she won’t mind if I comment too.
You’ve mentioned Occam’s Razor often on the site and I guess it does sort of make one sound intelligent when they refer to it, but I think it’s a bit ironic that you use it in this string. The simplest inference to make is that Hussein would have been a part of 9/11. He and Bin Laden both hate the US. So you keep saying you haven’t heard from anyone who has made that tiny leap to belief in his involvement, yet you constantly maintain that simple explanations should be “preferred to more complicated ones.”
The poll is simply backing you up.

Mild Bill- “The simplest explanation is that the US attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban government killed 3,000 people and caused serious monetary and economic loss.”
Well there you have it. Case closed! No need to look backwards any further. You’re right MB. Simple does work. Let’s not muddy the highly successful Afghanistan operation with extraneous details and illogical counter-productive cause and effect elements.
Mild Bill- “I don’t believe I parsed any of these quotes; I only used parts that were relevant to 9/11. It’s pretty obvious that the administration thinks that Iraq is key to fighting the war on terror or we would not be there!”
Well hell, we wouldn’t be there would we, otherwise? A link between Iraq and terrorist acts against America has been proven. But, please Mild Bill, humor me and explain where the proof is that Iraq was involved in 9/11, or had any connection to the war on terror. Ok, sure, they think our soldiers are now being attacked by terrorist organizations that perhaps have connections with al Qaida, but that’s possibly because we created that very thing by going to war with Iraq, which they want us to believe existed prior to. Seems to me that considering the dynamics of cause and effect is more useful to understanding our present quagmire than Occcam’s Razor would be. Not everything is reducible to one simple explanation, and parent causes often breed multiple effects. If every result is as easy to predict or explain as Occam‘s Razor allows, we wouldn’t be in the various messes we are in now and no one would be in disagreement of the facts. Regardless of how simply we prefer to see things, reality has more fantastic plans for us.
Mild Bill- “Wasn’t that Saddam who was paying Palestinians $25,000 to kill Israelis?”
So this is why Cheney can say Iraq is “the heart of the base”, and that’s why invasion was our only choice? I’m referring to the part of his interview where he says ...given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. And If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now 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.You know the one I talking about. The same section that you identify as containing “The geographic base statement? The one that does not mention 9/11, but states that there is a Saddam connection with terrorism?” Looks like that section mentions 9/11 to me!! Please, again, provide me with any information you may possess to prove Saddam’s connection with 9/11 or terrorist acts against the US in general. I’ll pass it on to the nation, but you’ll be the hero! 

Heart of the base again:
Iraq hasn’t been proven to be the “heart of the base” for al Qaida, though it may have become so since we invaded, and please don’t tell me we now have to invade Iran and Syria or else we won’t have the heart adequately under our control, and do we have the heart for it? We don’t even have Afghanistan under our control yet, really. How large of a base are we willing to try and conquer, and why aren’t we being assisted by all the other members of the UN?
Bottom line is that Cheney is placing the Iraq region “right at the heart of the base” of rogue states responsible for terrorist acts against us to justify the Iraq invasion and to justify billions more for reconstruction and continued military occupation. WMD can’t be found, why not do the next best thing and use 9/11 and other terrorist acts to galvanize support for both past and present actions concerning Iraq.

When you take issue (again) with what Cheney really said about Atta and Prague you appear to miss my points altogether…yet again.
VICE PRES. CHENEY:…With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
Been public out there is Cheney’s way of saying widely disseminated, and who has widely disseminated this story? It has been mentioned by Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others in various speeches, interviews and press releases so how could it fail to be public(ly) out there?
And anyone with sufficient reasoning power can immediately recognize what it really means when Cheney says “…in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know”, that he isn’t really saying no such link has been proven and take care not to be mislead, he’s saying lets keep the possibility viable. If he makes reference to it again after he is aware that the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting, the CIA has always doubted the story and Czech President Vaclav Havel “quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports” of such a meeting, it begins to appear that he places no value in these conclusions, or he prefers the public to believe the meeting actually happened. After all, if the public believes Iraq helped to bring about 9/11, the public will be closer to accepting hundreds of billions of dollars and ongoing casualties as small prices to pay for freedom and victory, just as the administration knew it had to scare us with imminent threats of giant mushroom clouds and other WMD, in order to gain support for an invasion of Iraq. Before the invasion they often pointed out that they didn’t want another 9/11. This is all like my writing in a national widely- read magazine, Mild Bill, that I have no proof you are an alcolholic. Although no one has any proof that you are, or any proof that you aren’t, we just don’t know. Though one person said they’ve seen you drinking alcohol at odd times, and you act like you have an addiction of some sort. Plus you were in the service and everybody knows service men live constantly in the “heart of” high risk alcohol abuse areas. Next thing you know, everybody believes you do indeed have a serious drinking problem, and my intention at the onset was to lead others to believe you are an alcolholic.

Mild Bill- “In my simple little world, I can’t understand why we are not pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into alternative energy research!”
You’ve also mentioned before, in various discussions, the Bush administration knows things we common people don’t. So maybe he knows why any attempts to funnel research dollars into development of alternative energy sources would be ill advised at this time. Then again he has gotten behind hydrogen energy research, to a degree. Never mind that this direction has it’s own substantial risks to the environment and it’s own built in opportunities to dole out the hydrogen as suppliers see fit. And he has, in effect, asked various agencies to start-over their research efforts in regards to global warming and acceptable emissions levels. Guess it’s best to spend millions more to someday conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming exist. Then and only then should we attempt to minimize any negative effects.

Serai

I read your thing on Peak Oil and it is quite interesting.  You clearly know much more about this stuff than I do (I did nod off a few times while reading it :sleepy:).  I don’t know why ethanol or other renewable fuel sources can’t be used more effectively (but I’m sure you do ).  Brock, I don’t think the current state of our energy policies started with “King George (Bush) II” nor do they end with him.  The Congress also factors into this equation; I just wish someone in politics was brave enough to address it.

Brock you said:

It would be naive to suspect that the present administration has any interest in oil for profit. The Bush dynasty has no history or present connections with oil producers and sources, either here, in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. This war and the war on terrorism in general are about stopping renegade religious factions. It’s about liberation, justice and truth so noble and bright that it shines through, manifesting at least one thousand points of light.

And I previously said:

The US military’s overall mission is to protect the national security interests of the United States and of these interests, economic security would be a major consideration. So I don’t see it as odd that we should employ military forces to achieve economic security (translation: OIL).

So I don’t understand your statement.

You’ve mentioned Occam’s Razor often on the site and I guess it does sort of make one sound intelligent when they refer to it, but I think it’s a bit ironic that you use it in this string.

Once a guy asked me, “Do you think you’re cool or something?”.  I told him there were a couple of possibilities…either I thought I was cool or I really was cool!  He thought that was a cool answer!  You can apply that to your opining over my intellectual capacity.

In response to your statement though, Serai said this:

Yes of course, it’s just an incredible coincidence that the US financed the Taliban in the expectation that they would in turn honour deals for a pipeline, and also a HUGE coincidence that when the Taliban refused to honour the above agreement Bin Laden a convenient bad guy gives the US just the reason they needed to take control of Afghanistan.

To me, it appeared to be an overly convoluted explanation that could be explained very straightforwardly.  I did not say Occam’s razor works under all situations… I only meant that for that specific comment.  I did not apply Occam to Iraq!  I could have called it KISS (keep it simple stupid); I only used Occam because Serai is from England and our idioms often do not translate to English English.  If you prefer, I’ll dumb myself down in the future .

Mild Bill, I didn’t personally attack your military experience. If I’ve never said it before, I will now. I respect that you were willing to serve in the military. I’m sure at times it was an unpleasant experience for you.

How are you sure it was an unpleasant experience for me?  Truthfully I had some of my best times while I was under the most adverse and austere of conditions.  My fondest military memory is living in a tent in the Turkish desert for three months.  That was better than living in a hotel on the Strip in Vegas for a couple of months.  I didn’t think of the flag or apple pie or any of that horseshit…it was good because I was with some outstanding people!

It just reminds me of someone using their intimate experiences with Christianity to assume it gives them the privilege to discuss anything under the sun from that perspective.

Ok…here’s the deal.  You get your information about the military from sources external to the military (mainstream media); I got mine from being in the military.  Do you recall the incidents during the recent Iraq operation where they said we were using “unguided” cluster bombs in civilian population centers and the press said we did not have any guided cluster bombs?  For my last 3 years in service, I worked on this thing called Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD).

The name is a little misleading; it is not corrected “by” the wind it is corrected “for” the wind.  It can be launched from altitudes exceeding 7 miles, where winds of several hundred miles per hour can be experienced.  WCMD is a guidance kit that replaces the conventional tail on cluster bombs of the SUU-60 family of weapons.  It uses inertial navigation with GPS quality coordinates to strike area targets.  I see my old co-workers from time to time and they tell me there are “many” WCMD currently in the inventory.

Most details about WCMD are not classified…just go to Google and type WCMD and you will get several sites explaining it.  Now you might look at my previous statements as boasting, but I look at them as fact!  I don’t know what your profession is, but I’m sure when you hear someone saying something inaccurate about it you raise the bullshit flag!

You obviously read my story of the lady on the train that told me that I and my 55,000 colleagues were not actually stationed in England. That was such a Twilight Zone experience for me that I can barely comprehend it… I actually thought I saw Rod Serling standing in the corner of the car.  I almost expected to get back to base and find an empty field and I’d go running around babbling about a non-existent air base until I was thrown into a straight jacket and hauled away!  I actually showed this lady my travels orders that showed my unit, base name, and country followed by the words United States Air Forces Europe and she still didn’t believe me!  Ironically planes from that base made headlines when they attacked Libya just a couple of years after that incident.  I hope that lady was watching the news then.  I’ll bet prior to that she told all her friends about the demented ass she met on a train who thought he was stationed in England

You seem to think I have a love affair with the military…this is not the case.  I could have stayed in for several more years, but got tired of the bullshit.  In my mind, when you no longer fit in an organization the honorable thing to do is not to defame it, but leave it.  Some of these retired generals should also do that.  Wesley Clark, “Hero of the Kosovo War”, was forced to retire immediately after that conflict.  He is now heard criticizing everything the current military establishment is doing.  I don’t know what caused his removal, but I’m sure we will be hearing about it in coming weeks.  Could it be that Wes has an ax to grind?  Enquiring minds want to know!

But, please Mild Bill, humor me and explain where the proof is that Iraq was involved in 9/11, or had any connection to the war on terror.

I believe I said this in a previous post:

If 69% of the people in this country really believe that, I’d like to hear from some of them to clarify their beliefs. Certainly with over 2/3 of our fellow citizens believing this, there must be someone out there who could articulate why he believes it. I don’t believe it and so far no one else posting here believes it. So where the hell are these people?

So I do not understand why you are asking me for proof of something I do not believe.  I abso-friggin’-lutely believe the administration exaggerated the Iraqi situation.  Note that I used the word exaggeration, not hyperbole as Valhalla did earlier, because you might think I’m gettin’ downright uppity and high-falootin’ again.

Finally, if you can’t concede that your citation was incorrect in quoting Cheney about the Atta/Iraq/Czech connection, I really don’t know what to say!  Obviously that article meant to imply that Cheney still believed there was a connection, while he said in the same sentence that they couldn’t confirm or deny it.  Could someone jump in here…Rod Serling is standing in the corner of my room smoking a cigarette!  Hey what’s that weird music???  What do you mean, “Submitted for my approval?” Go away Rod, you’re creepy!