L.A. Times Has Hit Piece on McCain — Which Resurrects the Old Canards About Ties Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
The L.A. Times saves space on its Sunday front page for a hit piece on John McCain. The main thrust of the piece is to say, in essence, “Nyaah, nyaah, John McCain said that Iraq would be a cakewalk, but it wasn’t.”
A little context would be nice. Plenty of liberals were surprised at how easily we overran Baghdad and kicked Saddam out of power. Indeed, plenty of liberals — including Bill Richardson, a strong contender for the second spot on Obama’s ticket — were surprised at how quickly we overran Kabul. So yeah, like most of the rest of America, John McCain failed to predict the insurgency — but he reacted to it faster than just about anyone else out there, and in the right way.
But never mind that. I want to concentrate on the article’s revival of a set of hoary old howlers regarding ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
But McCain openly disputed Bush administration claims that Hussein appeared linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “I doubt seriously if there’s this close relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,” he told CBS News in September 2002.
Postwar investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report and a report this month financed by the Pentagon, found no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.
Two paragraphs, three misstatements of fact. That’s a pretty impressive ratio, even for the L.A. Times. Let’s take them one at a time.
First, to my knowledge, the Bush administration did not claim that Saddam Hussein was (or appeared to be) linked to September 11. Bush and other administration officials have said that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda — a claim that, as I explain below, is fully borne out by the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pentagon report. But, far from claiming that Iraq was behind 9/11, President Bush has said the exact opposite, as this Associated Press story from September 2003 shows:
President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans.
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11″ attacks. . . . The president’s comment on Saddam, the deposed Iraqi leader, was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks. . . . Rumsfeld said, “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”
Many liberals have argued that, by referring to (and allegedly exaggerating) the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the Bush administration has deliberately implied that Saddam was behind 9/11. But any such implication is in the eye of the beholder. There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam’s regime was a state sponsor of terrorism — as the more recent Pentagon report makes painfully clear — and after 9/11/01, the Bush Administration decided to go after state-sponsored terrorism in an aggressive way. Back when Americans cared about 9/11, a lot of us felt the same way. I know I did.
This naturally meant that Bush and Cheney sometimes justified the war in Iraq by referring to the fact that, after 9/11, America had decided to go after terrorists rather than wait for the terrorists to come to us. This explanation does not constitute “claims” that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Moving to the next misrepresentations, neither the 9/11 Commission report (misrepresentation #2) nor the Pentagon report (misrepresentation #3) uses the phrase “collaborative relationship” as the article claims.
Don’t believe me? Check for yourself. Here is a link to the 9/11 Commission Report, and here is a link to the Pentagon report. The phrase “collaborative relationship” appears in neither document.
Both reports provide evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but emphasized that the links did not amount to an operational relationship in which in which Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks, or other attacks on the U.S. This is entirely consistent with the assertions of the Bush Administration, which has repeatedly and accurately pointed to links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, while refusing to claim (and at times explicitly denying the existence of evidence to indicate) that Saddam was behind 9/11.
The 9/11 Commission Report took care to use the word “operational” when discussing the concept of a collaborative relationship. At page 66, the report details numerous links between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, but explains that these links did not lead to an operational relationship with respect to attacks on the U.S.:
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. . . . Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 . . . The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
(My emphasis.)
It is not splitting hairs to note that the L.A. Times asserted the use of the phrase “collaborative relationship” rather than “collaborative operational relationship.” As I repeatedly documented in posts from 2004, the 9/11 Commissioners made it abundantly clear that they saw a clear distinction between an “operational relationship” (which did not exist) and a “cooperative relationship” or “ties” or “links” in general (which they said did exist). The commissions repeatedly emphasized that Iraq and Al Qaeda had numerous ties — but that those ties did not amount to an operational relationship that resulted in 9/11.
For example, in one of those posts I quoted Lee Hamilton, the Democrat Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, as follows:
I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is [that] we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.
Hamilton reinforced the point on Twitchy Chris Matthews’s “Hardball”:
There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants.
They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States.
As another example, after the issuance of the staff report (the findings of which were very similar to those of the final report), Commissioner Lehman said on “Meet the Press”:
MR. LEHMAN: There’s really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam’s intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There’s abundant evidence of that. . . . [I]t confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.
The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They’ve said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least.
The Pentagon report also notably omits the phrase “collaborative relationship” that the L.A. Times puts between quotation marks.
Like the 9/11 Commission Report, the Pentagon report details numerous ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, while disclaiming the existence of any “smoking gun” evidence in the reviewed documents that there was any “direct coordination and assistance” between the two. But this observation is 1) subject to several caveats evident elsewhere in the report, and 2) contradicted by other portions of the executive summary and report.
First, the caveats. The report does not purport to be an exhaustive summary of any potential contacts, because 1) “many potentially relevant documents were either inadvertently destroyed by Coalition forces during major combat actions or else were hidden or destroyed by members of the former regime”; and 2) the report concedes that it didn’t examine all of the documents that were captured.
Second, as Stephen Hayes explained here, the denial of evidence of a direct relationship is belied by numerous statements in the report, such as this: “Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision.” So Saddam supported Al Qaeda — but had no direct relationship with him? Hoo-kay then.
The confusion and self-contradiction inherent here is on display in the executive summary, which states in part:
While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.
Got that? There was no direct coordination and assistance, but Saddam “was willing to use . . . operatives affiliated with al Qaeda” — and the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda “would work together in pursuit of shared goals” creating a “de facto link.” Makes perfect sense to me — how ’bout you?
Regardless of how one interprets the report as a whole, it is inaccurate to state that it denied a “collaborative relationship” — with those words inside quotation marks.
You might want to ask Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold where that “collaborative relationship” quote came from — as well as where the paper gets the idea that the Bush administration claimed that Saddam appeared to be linked to the 9/11 attacks. You can reach her at Readers.Rep@latimes.com. As always, be polite.
UPDATE: My letter to the Readers’ Representative is here. In it, I tell Ms. Gold where the phrase “collaborative relationship” comes from: a “staff statement” prepared by the staff for the Commission, as distinguished from the final report by the Commission itself. (H/t: Foo Bar.) As I explain in my letter to her, the distinction is meaningful. The New York Times quoted Commissioner Kean as saying of the staff statement: “This was a staff statement, and we’ve had commissioners who have disagreed occasionally with the staff statements, and this may be one of those occasions.”
And indeed, the conclusion regarding Iraq/Al Qaeda contacts was worded differently in the Commission’s final report, which took care to refer to an absence of “collaborative operational relationship” — while the report listed many contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The inclusion of the word “operational” in the 9/11 Commission Report was a critical difference, as the post above shows.
I don’t even raise the issue of the article’s claim that the Bush administration made claims that Iraq was tied to 9/11. In all the comments below, nobody has produced any evidence of that, but I’m sticking with the error that is cut and dried, rather than raising one where they can try to argue with me based on alleged implications and such.
Reaching Jamie Gold: Why bother?
She acts like a meat grinder, except it’s BS that they feed into the hopper, and it comes out as finely ground guano.
The LAT is a classical example of “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”.
They look, but do not see.
They listen, but do not comprehend.
They are incapable of reason.
They are the walking dead.
Comment by Another Drew — 3/23/2008 @ 3:58 pm
Al Qaeda is given too much respect as an organization. Pretty much any bozo over there can call himself Al Qaeda - without membership dues, formal meetings, or uniforms, who’s to say who is Al Qaeda? If a leader decides to expel someone claiming to be Al Qaeda, but who does not live up to their code, the leader must risk exposing himself trying to get the word out. For that matter, any communication detected between any Al Qaeda members could result in immediate attack by the Iraq police forces.
> two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet
Comment by Wesson — 3/23/2008 @ 4:38 pm
The Left has been lying about this for 6+ years now. Why in the world should we expect them to stop now?
As for Gold @ the Times, calling her a “Readers Rep” is laughable. She just defends the blatant lies, and spins like a top, when she actually bothers to acknowledge that some people disagree with their “version of the facts”.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 4:53 pm
More from the L.A. SLIMES which is just the west coasts issue of the NEW YORK SLIMES a vile news rag not worth linning a birds cage with not worth wrapping a dead fish in
Comment by krazy kagu — 3/23/2008 @ 5:09 pm
First, to my knowledge, the Bush administration did not claim that Saddam Hussein was (or appeared to be) linked to September 11.
Granted. They hardly disabused the public of the notion, though.
In September, 2003, Dick Cheney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “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.”
“We don’t know” was Cheney’s answer to Tim Russert’s question about whether Saddam had a role in 9/11, during the same television appearance.
Bush contradicted him days later.
In offering (and re-offering) the story of an Iraqi agent meeting Mohammed Atta in Prague, Cheney intentionally showcased an account the 9/11 commission flatly disputed: “We do not believe that such a meeting occurred.”
Cheney had said it was “pretty well confirmed.”
Comment by steve — 3/23/2008 @ 5:25 pm
Steve, you know that the White House disclaimed the Prague / Atta story shortly thereafter too.
Comment by SPQR — 3/23/2008 @ 5:37 pm
SCHIEFFER: What, if any, is the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
And do you feel — what do you feel is the most direct threat that he poses?
Is it that, as he is able to manufacture these weapons of mass destruction and basically act as a wholesaler for these terrorist groups around the world that would be the retailers, or do you think he is planning some sort of an attack on the United States?
MCCAIN: I think it’s primarily that he is developing these weapons and has shown a proclivity to use weapons of mass destruction against his enemies, against his own people, and we know who his number-one enemy is. He has also in the past funded, as well as assisted, other terrorist groups.
I don’t know, Bob. I doubt seriously if there’s this close relationship between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. But, look, if this guy were simply a survivalist, long ago he would have said, “OK, come on in, you can have your inspections, I’ll destroy my weapons of mass destruction.” He could have remained in power.
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 5:38 pm
I was in LA last week. LA is a company town, ie the movies, and for the movers there, Obama is the man,only he.The LAT is in deep financial shit.The truth is irrelevant when survival is at stake. Sell the story, get the ad rev,what else to do? The memory hole is afire.
Comment by mytralman — 3/23/2008 @ 5:40 pm
Push a story ala Cheney then disclaiming it a couple of days later is a friggin joke.
You put it out there the meme survies.
In a March 18 letter to Congressional leaders, Bush said that his use of the Congressional authorization to wage war against Iraq is consistent with the international effort against terrorism, “including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
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
Lies hurt Baby Jesus
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 5:47 pm
All these responses are exactly what I predicted in the post.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 6:17 pm
Patterico,
I think you are really still a die-hard LA Times’ fan and that’s why you keep trying to get the Times to correct its articles. Most of us have given up and hope the circulation/ad revenue falls so low that it will be forced to get more open-minded management.
Comment by DRJ — 3/23/2008 @ 6:18 pm
Patterico - Facts just get in the way of the narrative for folks like steve. They are impervious to facts, and choose to rely on their own “interpretation” of the actual events, as viewed through their BDS colored glasses.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 6:19 pm
Jlaw:
Right. Never mind the complete and utter lack of evidence that anyone in the administration pushed a meme - it’s out there ,so they must have done it.
If conservatives were half as irrational and paranoid as liberals, we’d be accusing liberals of putting the “Saddam did 9/11″ meme out there, to discredit those who legitimately wanted to invade Iraq for other reasons.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/23/2008 @ 6:31 pm
Xrlq - I think it would be fair to say that the Left has, in fact, pushed the meme that Bush linked Saddam to 9/11 out there. To what end, it has never been clear, since the facts, not their interpretation of the facts, has never supported that meme. I guess with the media doing the heavy lifting for them, letting the facts get in the way of a good story was never a concern.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 6:35 pm
Revisionist History YAY.
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 6:38 pm
Making shit up. YAY.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 6:40 pm
Right. Never mind the complete and utter lack of evidence that anyone in the administration pushed a meme - it’s out there ,so they must have done it.
If conservatives were half as irrational and paranoid as liberals, we’d be accusing liberals of putting the “Saddam did 9/11″ meme out there, to discredit those who legitimately wanted to invade Iraq for other reasons.
But the meme was pushed out by the Admin
“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda,” Bush said. “We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”
Think about that for a second, take a deep breath. There were no links but there were.
In late 2001, Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the “geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
Bush, in 2003, said “the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001.”
The implied link is there. Unless you are blind.
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 6:45 pm
Patterico:
steve:
Bush (quoted in the post above):
You can prattle on all you like about whether Cheney was right to say “I don’t know” whether the Atta meeting took place, when others (based largely on cell phone records, if I recall correctly) concluded it was well debunked. But that’s a pretty tangential thread to use to argue that the Bush administration “hardly disabused” the public of the notion of Iraq’s involvement, in the teeth of the crystal clear quote from the President himself that I present in the above post (in bold font, no less!).
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 6:50 pm
New grist for the mill:
The Times posted the Pentagon report here.
Comment by DRJ — 3/23/2008 @ 6:52 pm
What grade are you in? It’s clear English, and it’s what I said in the post: there were links, but not operational links having to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Perhaps instead of asking what grade you’re in, I should be asking what major national newspaper you write for.
Also from the post:
Jlaw:
Jlaw, as I explain in the post, there is another way to look at statements like this. After 9/11, a lot of us decided we were tired of playing defense against terrorism — not just Al Qaeda, but any terrorism in the world. So we decided to declare a war on terror, and go after *all* these mother[expletive deleted]ers, wherever we might find them.
Bush’s quote is equally consistent with that notion. In any event, I fully expected liberals to come onto this thread and endlessly argue that Bush et al. implied x, y, and z — you always do in these threads. No matter; the assertions of my post remain untouched by your predictable arguments.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 6:57 pm
No Patterico:
The administration has argued that Saddam’s government had close links to al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.
Guilt by association. You can’t honestly argue that a connection was attempted and for a large percentage of Americans was a success.
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 7:00 pm
Just because you cannot understand something, Jlaw, does not necessarily mean it is difficult to understand.
If you search hard enough to find your justification, I guess I can see where someone saying the exact opposite of your contention is seen as proof of your contention.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 7:11 pm
fully expected liberals to come onto this thread and endlessly argue that Bush et al. implied x, y, and z — you always do in these threads. No matter; the assertions of my post remain untouched by your predictable arguments.
But your post contaims omissions. It igonores key statemets by the admin which tried to link 9/11 to Iraq.
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 7:12 pm
Wait, so it WAS a cakewalk?
I’m so confused.
Comment by How Insane Is John McCain? — 3/23/2008 @ 7:14 pm
But your post contaims omissions. It igonores key statemets by the admin which tried to link 9/11 to Iraq.
No, it does not. It acknowledges that there are statements in which “Bush and Cheney sometimes justified the war in Iraq by referring to the fact that, after 9/11, America had decided to go after terrorists rather than wait for the terrorists to come to us.” I noted that liberals (like you) see these statements as an implied linkage, whereas folks like me see them as an explanation of why 9/11 changed how we deal with terrorists generally.
And implications are not assertions.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 7:21 pm
Oh and:
href=”http://tinyurl.com/yvfs3y” target=”_blank” title=”">4000
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 7:22 pm
It igonores key statemets by the admin which tried to link 9/11 to Iraq. due to my BDS, I have interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what was said.
There, fixed that for ya’
The initial major military operations, through the taking of Baghdad, will be viewed, once the fog of BDS passes, as an astounding military accomplishment, done with incredible efficiency, all while attempting to minimize casualties on both sides. Truly remarkable, despite your lack of desire to acknowledge same.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 7:22 pm
No, it does not. It acknowledges that there are statements in which “Bush and Cheney sometimes justified the war in Iraq by referring to the fact that, after 9/11, America had decided to go after terrorists rather than wait for the terrorists to come to us.” I noted that liberals (like you) see these statements as an implied linkage, whereas folks like me see them as an explanation of why 9/11 changed how we deal with terrorists generally.
No these assertions implied a link….so much so that a majority of the American people (helped by the media) believed them.
If you were so sure of this why did you not include Cheney’s statements on MTP. Why did you ignore Condi and only post the “facts” that bolstered your weak case.
Why did the Administration have to correct he VP after his appearance on MTP?
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 7:27 pm
And there, IN FACT, were links between Saddam and AQ, but no operational ties between Saddam and AQ. That you cannot differntiate between the two most certainly does not mean that President Bush pushed a meme that those links existed, especially when the direct evidence shows that he did not.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 7:32 pm
If you were so sure of this why did you not include Cheney’s statements on MTP. Why did you ignore Condi and only post the “facts” that bolstered your weak case.
As much as I would have liked to have made the post several thousand words longer, I decided to fairly summarize the thrust of the liberals’ argument: that the Bush administration had implied a link between Saddam and 9/11. My point was that the LAT was wrong to say that the admin. had ASSERTED a link.
Now you go and destroy my whole premise by alluding to a MTP Cheney interview in which Cheney, when asked whether the Atta meeting happened, said “We don’t know.” THERE’S YOUR CLAIM RIGHT THERE!!! GAME, SET, MATCH: YOU!!!
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 7:38 pm
Thanks for the notice of the “grim milestone.”
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 7:51 pm
No there were tons of other subtle points made. Speeches that mentioned 9/11 and Iraq multiple times in a short space of time as to imply that somehow they were related:
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
As Bush said:
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.
9/11 - Iraq….9/11 - Iraq.
But hey now Powerline has jumped in with:
But McCain openly disputed Bush administration claims that Hussein appeared linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “I doubt seriously if there’s this close relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,” he told CBS News in September 2002.
Hmmm didn’t I just state that this quote was true or shall we just revise the 2002 transcript.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/16/ftn/main522136.shtml?source=search_story
Comment by Jlaw — 3/23/2008 @ 7:53 pm
The howler, as any grade-schooler could easily comprehend, was not McCain’s quote (which was accurate), but the idea that there exist “Bush administration claims that Hussein appeared linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
Are you really so dense you didn’t understand that?
I have explained to you (two or three times now) an innocent interpretation of Bush’s speeches that reference 9/11 and Iraq. You are free to disagree with the innocent interpretation, but again 1) the interpretation exists; and 2) implications are not “claims.”
I can’t re-explain every point in my post to you. From now on, when you make a point that I already addressed in my post, I will either ignore it or write “See post.”
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 7:59 pm
That remains a pathetic argument on your part, Jlaw.
Instead of actually reading the statements, and noticing the explicit argument being made, you avoid confronting that by claiming that putting the words together in the speech means more than the actual context.
Pathetic.
Comment by SPQR — 3/23/2008 @ 8:01 pm
President Bush once mentioned 9/11 and No Child Left Behind in a speech. Is that a subtle linkage of the two. He also mentioned 9/11 and tax cuts in the same speech. Links abound. He has also mentioned Saddam and children’s literacy in the same speech. Coincidence, I think not.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 8:04 pm
“Wait, so it WAS a cakewalk?”
Maybe more like a walk in a market.
Comment by stef — 3/23/2008 @ 8:04 pm
You can prattle on all you like about whether Cheney was right to say “I don’t know” whether the Atta meeting took place..
The Atta meeting was not referenced in the “We don’t know” quote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Comment by steve — 3/23/2008 @ 8:05 pm
Again, the evidence provided shows that they did not make the link you would have us believe that they were making.
Maybe it was so subtle, so nuanced, that only liberals could catch it.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 8:12 pm
That’s Cheney on Meet the Press, September 16, 2001.
He also told Russert in September 2003 that “we just don’t know” if the Atta meeting occurred. See here.
Does anyone have evidence of a “claim” as referenced in the LAT article? No? OK, thank you.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 8:21 pm
Patterico - They are immune and impervious to the facts. They have fixed their narrative in place, with the help of the media, and no amount of facts are going to change their mind. President Bush linked Saddam and 9/11. Period. End of discussion for them. They will take words, phrases, and answers that say the EXACT OPPOSITE, and claim that it supports their position.
Comment by JD — 3/23/2008 @ 8:28 pm
The final report may not include the specific phrase “collaborative relationship”, but the 9/11 Commission issued a staff statement in which that precise phrase was used:
There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.
Please update your post.
If you Google “collaborative relationship”, there are many pieces from ‘04 (e.g. this one) which put “collaborative relationship” in quotes. I know you have a low opinion of much of the mainstream media, but did you really think they had messed up the quoting of two words out of a report?
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 9:06 pm
Five days after the attacks, Cheney said he had no evidence linking Saddam to the operation.
Three years later he could not rule it out.
Initially terming the story of a Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi agents “pretty well confirmed,” he subsequently acknowledged the story could not be corroborated.
You cannot document “Bush administration claims that Hussein appeared linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks” with these Cheney statements. He just made sure the door was left open.
Comment by steve — 3/23/2008 @ 9:19 pm
Please update your post.
To say what? The documents referred to by the LAT didn’t use that phrase, but another document did?
No thanks.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 9:32 pm
If you Google “collaborative relationship”, there are many pieces from ‘04 (e.g. this one) which put “collaborative relationship” in quotes. I know you have a low opinion of much of the mainstream media, but did you really think they had messed up the quoting of two words out of a report?
If you read the links in my post, you’ll know that the LAT could watch a Meet the Press report in which a 9/11 commissioner said “x” and report that he said “not x.”
Anyway, if you look at the date on the staff report and the date on your second link, you’ll see that the second link refers to the first — i.e. the staff report. I think the report itself carries more weight — and the report itself is what the LAT was talking about.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 9:36 pm
The LAT piece says that “postwar investigations” found no evidence of a “collaborative relationship”. I grant that the writing in that sentence is poor, given that the “9/11 Cdmmission report” is not itself an investigation, but a report.
Nonetheless, it is accurate to claim that the postwar investigation known as the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a “collaborative relationship”, because the commission issued a report in which it said that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda do not appear to have resulted in a “collaborative relationship”.
At the end of your post you encourage your readers to ask the LAT rep where the “collaborative relationship” quote came from. The answer is quite reasonable: it came from a report issued by the 9/11 commission. Given that answer, do you really want to continue to encourage your readers to ask that question?
You went on and on about how important it was that the specific phrase “collaborative relationship” wasn’t used. It was used, in a report that was widely reported on in the media at the time. You don’t think that undermines your post in the slightest????
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 9:46 pm
Anyway, if you look at the date on the staff report and the date on your second link, you’ll see that the second link refers to the first — i.e. the staff report. I think the report itself carries more weight — and the report itself is what the LAT was talking about.
The LAT was talking about “postwar investigations”, and in a bit of trivial sloppiness equated the investigation known as the 9/11 Commission with the 9/11 report.
Do you have any evidence (aside from the absence of the phrase in the final report) that the commission specifically reflected on the phrase “collaborative relationship” and decided it was not appropriate? Given how widely the phrase was used in news reports at the time, I think there would be some evidence of a retraction or correction if the commission had rethought their phrasing and no longer thought the phrase appropriate. It’s much more likely that they believed the phrasing in the staff report to be consistent with the contents of the final report.
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 9:52 pm
The answer is quite reasonable: it came from a report issued by the 9/11 commission.
Actually, in a statement issued by the staff.
You went on and on about how important it was that the specific phrase “collaborative relationship” wasn’t used.
In the reports mentioned by the LAT.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 9:55 pm
Anyway, if you look at the date on the staff report and the date on your second link, you’ll see that the second link refers to the first — i.e. the staff report
To be clear, I am not denying the absence of the phrase in the final report. I am merely arguing that the significance of the absence is trivial, given that the staff statement did contain the phrase.
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 9:55 pm
In the reports mentioned by the LAT.
Nope. Your post does not limit itself to characterizing the reports themselves. You’re clearly pointing to their supposed reluctance to deny a “collaborative relationship” as evidence of regarding the Commissioners’ views on the subject. Hence, a staff statement issued by the commission in which the phrase is used is quite relevant to an understanding of the Commisioners’ views.
You write:
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 10:02 pm
You also might want to quote more from that staff statement:
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 10:03 pm
Hence, a staff statement issued by the commission in which the phrase is used is quite relevant to an understanding of the Commisioners’ views.
I’d say the staff statement is relevant to the staff’s views, and the Commissioners’ own words are relevant to their own views. You know, like Commissioner Lehman, whom I quoted in the post as saying “it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.”
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 10:06 pm
I’d say the staff statement is relevant to the staff’s views, and the Commissioners’ own words are relevant to their own views
The statement starts out:
Members of the Commission, with your help, your staff has developed initial findings to present to the public on the nature of the enemy that carried out the September 11 attacks.
So with the help of the members of the commission and under their supervision, a statement was issued for public consumption that contained the phrase “collaborative relationship”.
Look, it got reported on very widely at the time with that phrase in lead paragraphs. Do you have any evidence of the Commissioners subsequently distancing themselves from that language?
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 10:14 pm
Do you have any evidence of the Commissioners subsequently distancing themselves from that language?
Sure. First, there’s the quotes I give in the post and the language of the 9/11 Commission Report.
But I can go ya one better:
Interestingly, that same article quotes Lee Hamilton as denying a “collaborative relationship” — which is something that, if you read my links in the post (you did, right?) befuddled me in 2004. But there’s a couple of things about that. First, he made the statement in terms that make it clear he was talking about an operational relationship to engage in attacks, as the actual 9/11 Commission Report (you know, the one mentioned by the LAT) took greater care to make clear:
Also, keep in mind that this is the same guy whom I quote in the post (you did read my post, right?) as saying
and
So it’s pretty clear that when he loosely talked about a “collaborative relationship” he meant an operational one resulting in attacks. The fact that the media seized on the language in the report and repeatedly screamed “NO IRAQ/AL QAEDA LINK!” and the like is probably why the Commission decided to write the final report in a clearer way than the staff report had been written.
It’s been fun, but I gotta go to bed. Guess you get the last word tonight.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 10:30 pm
Your Lehman quote is from June 20, ‘04, which is the Sunday just after June 17, ‘04, the date of the staff statement I provided in which “collaborative relationship”. The staff report you mention here is the same as the staff statement I linked:
As another example, after the issuance of the staff report (the findings of which were very similar to those of the final report),
In fact, in the MTP transcript that you yourself link, there is this passage:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the staff report on the relationship, if you will, between Iraq and al- Qaeda, and I’ll put it on the board and read it for everyone: “Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. …Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.
…
Which led to this coverage by The New York Times: “The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush’s central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a `collaborative relationship’ between Al Qaeda and Sadam Hussein.
(there is obviously a “not” missing in the transcription).
You yourself said the findings of the staff report were very similar to those of the final report. The staff report uses “collaborative relationship”.
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 10:31 pm
Although your comment 54 comes after my comment 53, I think they crossed. My comment 53 answers points you raise in 54. Namely, why the 9/11 Commission report reads somewhat differently from the staff report.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2008 @ 10:33 pm
(you did read my post, right?)
I don’t dispute that the “no link whatsoever” characterizations that sometimes appear in the media are exaggerations. That said, your post is largely about the inaccuracy of the specific paragraph in the LAT piece that puts “collaborative relationship” in quotation marks. There is clearly a very reasonable basis for using that phrase in quotes. Nothing you cited in your last comment specifically walks away from that phrasing.
The idea that a reader’s understanding of this topic is not enhanced by noting that the staff report (a report you said was very similar in its findings to the final report) uses the language “collaborative relationship” is ridiculous.
The LAT looks a lot better given the information that the phrase was used in a publicly issued, widely discussed staff report.
What’s your goal- to maximize your readers’ understanding or to maximize the degree to which you dump (fairly or somewhat unfairly) on the LAT?
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/23/2008 @ 11:04 pm
Kabul is in Afghanistan. Not Iraq. Bill Richardsons quote is not very relevant.
Comment by Dennis D — 3/24/2008 @ 3:48 am
p: “the 9/11 Commission report reads somewhat differently from the staff report”
You’re suggesting that these two things should be treated as separate. At the time, oddly enough, Power Line, of all people, did not. They said this (6/17/04):
Power Line’s Johnson, in writing those words, treated the staff’s Statement (and the words “collaborative relationship”) as part of “the 9/11 Commission report.”
“You might want to ask Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold where that ‘collaborative relationship’ quote came from”
You might want to tell your readers that according to Power Line, it came from “the 9/11 Commission report.”
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 4:01 am
p: “the Bush administration did not claim that Saddam Hussein was (or appeared to be) linked to September 11″
We were constantly reminded that AQ was behind 9/11. We were also constantly told that Saddam was in bed with OBL. 1+1=2.
Cheney said Saddam and AQ had an “established relationship.” Feith (according to Stephen Hayes; see here and here) called it “an operational relationship.” Bush personally said that Saddam and AQ worked “in concert.” All those claims were later disavowed by a GOP-controlled Senate which said this: “Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.”
p: “Both reports provide evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but emphasized that the links did not amount to an operational relationship in which in which Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks, or other attacks on the U.S. … The 9/11 Commission Report took care to use the word ‘operational’ when discussing the concept of a collaborative relationship.”
Trouble is, that exact phrase (”operational relationship”) is what Feith said (according to Hayes). And it’s hard to find any meaningful difference between those words and the words used personally by Cheney (”established relationship”) and Bush (”in concert”).
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 4:25 am
p: “the Bush Administration decided to go after state-sponsored terrorism in an aggressive way”
In the world of “state-sponsored terrorism,” Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are no slouches. They arguably rank much higher than Iraq and Iran.
The Taliban was created by Pakistan (with some help from us). Pakistan is one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban. The other two are Saudi Arabia and UAE. Bush treats Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as great allies, and tried to make a ports deal with UAE. But it’s nice to know that “the Bush Administration decided to go after state-sponsored terrorism in an aggressive way.”
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 4:52 am
Patterico - It appears that all of the dodges, weaves, lies, distortions, mischaracterizations, etc … that you expected, came to fruition.
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 5:08 am
jd: “President Bush linked Saddam and 9/11″
Indeed. Bush said “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror … they work in concert.”
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 5:38 am
On your bad days, Patterico, this is what you become: a collection of uninteresting whining.
The main thrust of the piece is to say, in essence, “Nyaah, nyaah, John McCain said that Iraq would be a cakewalk, but it wasn’t.”
In other words, they contrasted McCain’s advocacy of a policy that conservatives defend as “working” with some other advocacies that didn’t quite work out that well. Using a ton of quotes.
That’s called “journalism”. When it’s done to Democrats, you cheer.
A little context would be nice. Plenty of liberals were surprised at how easily we overran Baghdad and kicked Saddam out of power.
Yeah, I’m sure you think that a bunch of stuff in there about all the things liberals got wrong would be “nice”, but I missed the part where the LATimes is obligated to be nice to you.
You don’t have an error here, or a factual dispute, or any new information to add. You’re complaining that a lot of true statements in the article here make John McCain look bad. That’s uninteresting, and also sort of embarassing.
Comment by glasnost — 3/24/2008 @ 5:46 am
“Nothing you cited in your last comment specifically walks away from that phrasing.”
If it makes you happy to believe that, I can’t make you believe something different. I gave you a quote from one of the commissioners that said there was a “cooperative relationship.” I gave you a quote from another saying the Commission might write that specific section differently to address exactly the points we’re discussing. I gave evidence in the post that this was indeed done.
“The LAT looks a lot better given the information that the phrase was used in a publicly issued, widely discussed staff report.”
Why? The final report was specifically written differently, to clarify the extent of the links, and make clear that only the existence of an “operational” relationship was being discounted.
You keep trying to make the staff report and the final report identical, but while they were similar in many respects, I have repeatedly pointed out how the final report of the Commission itself was careful to phrase this conclusion differently and fully list the extensive contacts — and I also gave you evidence that this was done deliberately.
So when you claim that the staff report is “a report you said was very similar in its findings to the final report” [I said I didn’t remember saying this but I did]you’re ignoring the whole point I’ve tried to make for the last several comments. You asked for evidence of a distinction. I provided clear evidence. You’re trying to minimize my evidence.
I think it’s interesting that the staff report used that phrase, I really do. And had you come on here and made that point — while acknowledging it was merely a staff report, and that certain statements of the Commissioners themselves were at odds with it, and that the final report says something recognizably different — I would have said: Kudos to Foo Bar for adding to our knowledge.
But you came on here acting like you have debunked my post, or told us something that is CRITICAL!!!1! to its accuracy. And that’s where you’re wrong.
Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2008 @ 5:57 am
If it makes you happy I may include a reference to the staff report in my e-mail to the Readers’ Rep. Because they’ll be all like: I know I saw that SOMEWHERE! and I’m all about helping them out.
Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2008 @ 6:00 am
Patterico - Don’t you love it when they make your points for you?
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 6:12 am
You can prattle on all you like about whether Cheney was right to say “I don’t know” whether the Atta meeting took place, when others (based largely on cell phone records, if I recall correctly) concluded it was well debunked.
—–
Why would that be even slightly conclusive? I’ve been to europe. The first time, I took my cellphone with me, intending to buy a local SIM card to use while I was there (I had done a little bit of research). It turned out to be impossible- my US phone was incompatible with the EU network. I might as well have left my US phone back in the US.
Atta had been to Europe before, he probably would have known about this. So why is this considered conclusive? Last I heard, the Czechs were standing by it.
Comment by rosignol — 3/24/2008 @ 6:20 am
Patterico,
Nearly every media outlet has (intentionally) biffed this story.
While writing a recent piece on this for http://www.regimeofterror.com I called and emailed AP, McClatchy and the Post and the answers I get from these people are astounding and something I’d like your readers to know.
These people admitted having no idea how many members of al Qaeda there were in 2003 (if you are going to discuss who al Qaeda is “linked” to you should know how many members are in it), they couldn’t tell me the difference between Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda(the Treasury Department considers them indistinguishable from one another and EIJ made up 2/3 of AQ at its inception), they wouldn’t tell me what their definition of “links” or “ties” were but said that training, financial support and arming the group weren’t “ties.”
The debates went on and on and these people all but told me they didn’t have the necessary background knowledge on this story and didn’t read the recent IDA report on the subject.
NEWSWEEK biffed it
McClatchy biffed it
CNN biffed it
ABC biffed it
the NYTimes and WashPost biffed it
and now the LATimes.
Something needs to be done about this. If there were a “fairness doctrine” needed it’s to rid the public of our dishonest, lazy, biased hacks in the press. Not encourage more of them.
Comment by Mark Eichenlaub — 3/24/2008 @ 6:25 am
So jlaw can stretch Bush’s words into meaning something because he didn’t explicitly say the opposite but can’t see the connection between Saddam and the al Qaeda movement in the documents?
Is this selectively overreading one and underreading the other?
Comment by Mark Eichenlaub — 3/24/2008 @ 6:43 am
Sadddam and Al Qaeda were not working together, Saddam was not involved in 9/11, Saddam was not going to attack us. All your fascist pro war blathter is just a smokescreen to make yourselves feel good about an unnecessary war you supported from the get go.
Comment by Jakester — 3/24/2008 @ 6:46 am
Jakester, all your whacky BDS blather shows is that you’ve not read the post or the thread.
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 6:57 am
Jakester,
Exposing our enemies does not equal prowar.
Is the IAEA warhawks for keeping tabs on Iran’s nuclear program too?
Maybe some people don’t think the U.S. is the enemy, they actually think that the people who want to kill Americans is actually the enemy….
Comment by Mark Eichenlaub — 3/24/2008 @ 6:58 am
Regarding the Mohammed Atta in Czechoslovakia thing, it has never been proven that he wasn’t there, dubious reports about is cell phone and other things notwithstanding:
None of this means that Atta in fact met with the Iraqi agent, or even if he did that it had anything to do with 9/11. But the conclusive claims that the meeting did not happen at all are nothing more than conjecture. The best evidence that we have militate towards such a meeting not against.
Comment by MichaelW — 3/24/2008 @ 7:22 am
“Bush lied, people died.”
Except, the Bush Administration, as most responsible governments do when dealing with aspects of foreign intelligence where sources and methods might be compromised by explicit statements, were somewhat ambiguous in describing the relationship between SH and AQ.
The problem arises when the Media, in order to write a compelling story (in their eyes), hyped the story-line to make the connections absolute. They made connections that, at best, were only oblique tangents. They took the statements that SH was developing WMD (true), had used WMD against his enemies (true), and his people (true), and ran that to he was providing logistical and/or operational support to AQ (not true - as far as we know at this time).
I ask, as a way to shoot down this form of (il)logical thinking, that since the U.S. was involved in continueing contacts/negotiations/etc. with the USSR over the status of Germany in the early 50’s, are we responsible for the Soviet’s actions against the German people in the ‘53 Berlin Riots?
The Media Lied, and People Died!
Comment by Another Drew — 3/24/2008 @ 7:50 am
jd: “Don’t you love it when they make your points for you?”
Don’t you love it when folks who can’t deal with facts try to hide behind meaningless snark?
When you’re ready, you can tell us how remarks by Bush (”in concert”), Cheney (”established relationship”) and Feith (”operational relationship”) are compatible with what the GOP-controlled Senate committee said (pdf): “Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.”
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 7:51 am
drew: “he was providing logistical and/or operational support to AQ”
The source of this claim was not “the Media.” The source of this claim was Bush, Cheney, Feith et al. I realize that you’re not going to try to explain how their words could possibly be interpreted any other way.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 7:56 am
This argument with leftists and their propaganda arm in the MetaStasisMedia is an exercise in futility, most especially when it comes to ANY military action in defense of the nation or our allies.
The Utopian Socialists do not now and have never supported the use of our military to defend the nation. Their childlike understanding of the world leads them to believe Saddam and Bin Laden needed a timeout and then a very forceful round of campfire songs, “If I had a hammer” and “Kumbaya”. This was after, of course, we prostrated ourselves before them, begged forgiveness for being of Western European descent and for causing their “righteous anger” in the first place.
A leftist isn’t chic in the whine and brie company he keeps, unless he is a)calling a Republican or non-leftist “stupid” or a “chickenhawk”; b)blaming the US or Israel for the fanatical behavior of some opposition group; c)running down his own country to curry favor with other One World Socialists around the globe; d)whitewashing terrorism, murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mutilation of women and girls…and every other manner of evil…that stems from leftist/opposition groups.
The propaganda arm of this cadre of leftists, the MetaStasisMedia, Hollywood, Michael Moore, the wire services, campus intelligentsia…utilize lies, misrepresentations, parsing of words, fauxtography, to feed these mindless lemmings their one-note, echo chamber, songbooks.
Here are the facts, and they are indisputable:
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, murdering, vile and despicable tyrant. He was KNOWN to be involved in STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM.
Terrorism was….AND STILL IS…targeted against the US, its citizens and its allies.
The terrorists became emboldened by the lack of organized response to their increasingly aggressive tactics.
Saddam had a long history of harboring and supporting terrorists, including those who struck at the US and her allies.
The Taliban had an intimate relationship with terrorists and were deeply involved in the state sponsorship of exporting and secreting its murderous dens around the world.
When we put the terrorists on the run in Afghanistan, they sought to broker agreements with numerous regimes, friendly to their cause, and Saddam was willing to meet.
Saddam HAD developed weapons of mass destruction, (there is no disputing this, only the propaganda arm of the leftists try to spin this…he was told to DISMANTLE them…he had them, he USED them and then refused to allow inspection of the remainder…we STILL don’t know where they may be…the LAST time, he hid them in the Tigris River, some went to Syria), and had VOICED a willingness to pass them along to terrorists or harbor them.
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION signed into law…regime change in Iraq…because THEY stated that he was a risk to the world, in handing off mass murdering weapons…to mass murdering intended terrorists. Albright, Cohen, Sandy Berger ALL said that Saddam was a clear and present danger.
To suggest that this was “Bush’s War” or “McCain’s War”…is simply a lie. It’s leftist propaganda…and our diseased MetastasizedMedia knows PRECISELY how to couch words and phrases to get their lemmings to follow them blindly to their cancerous worldview.
Comment by cfbleachers — 3/24/2008 @ 7:58 am
jbg…I recall they only said that there were “contacts”. How does that become something else? Or more?
I have contacts with the DMV, does that mean I’m the guy who writes the Vehicle Code?
Comment by Another Drew — 3/24/2008 @ 8:00 am
I’m just waiting for the:
“But we never said, in so many words, there were weapons of mass destruction”
I’m sure if you start to parse the language enough you will surely find a pony.
Comment by jlaw — 3/24/2008 @ 8:07 am
To those, including a poster above, who say that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are greater threats than SH’s Iraq and Iran, I say: Take a deep breath.
Iran attacked this country in 1979, were responsible for the Beirut Marine/Embassy bombings in the early 80’s, and have fingerprints on several attacks in Saudi on U.S. forces. To the best of my knowledge, Pakistan has never attacked U.S. forces and/or territory.
To cite the Taliban as an example of Pakistan’s animus is to ignore why they were created/supported: The situation in Afghanistan upon the withdrawal of the Soviets was utter chaos - Civil War writ large. The Taliban were thought at the time to represent the best hope for the re-introduction of a civil society. Hopes were obviously misplaced, and (eventually) the situation was corrected.
To pre-empt those who will ask why, in light of the on-going situation with Iran, we didn’t just attack them instead of Iraq? IMO, Iraq offered us a two-fer: We were able to eliminate a pest who was funding a lot of the bombing activity in Israel (rewards to the families of suicide bombers), a guy who was a constant threat to his neighbors and the West’s oil lifeling; plus, it would give us a logistical base for further operations against the really bad guys of the ME: Syria and Iran.
Comment by Another Drew — 3/24/2008 @ 8:23 am
drew: “I recall they only said that there were ‘contacts’ ”
What you “recall” is highly selective. I’ve posted specific quotes, with citations. I realize you and your pals are determined to pretend those quotes don’t exist.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 8:24 am
drew: “To cite the Taliban as an example of Pakistan’s animus is to ignore why they were created/supported”
Yes, I realize you’d like to explain why supporting the Taliban once seemed like a great idea. And I’m sure you can also tell us lots of good reasons why Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand in 1983, at the same time that Saddam was using poison gas.
“the Beirut Marine/Embassy bombings”
Funny you should mention that. Maliki is appallingly close to the Beirut barracks bombing. At the time, he was 50 miles away running Dawa in Damascus. We claim Hezbollah did the bombing. Dawa and Hezbollah have always been very close. Read here about the connections between Hezbollah and Dawa, especially at that time:
Iraq used to be run by a secular thug who was an enemy of Hezbollah and Iran. Now Iraq is being run by an Islamist thug who has close and longstanding ties with Hezbollah and Iran. Heckuva job, Dubya!
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 8:42 am
Today’s must read on this topic
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Saddam Hussein supported and ordered terrorist attacks on Americans
http://regimeofterror.comSaddam Hussein and terrorism
Comment by Mark Eichenlaub — 3/24/2008 @ 8:45 am
So jukeboxgrad, you want to pretend that time and events are not important? Didn’t think you were here representing the adult version.
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 8:45 am
“…shook Saddam’s hand …”
And, at the time SH was a counter-point to our avowed enemy in the ME, Iran.
Enemy of my enemy….
To quote SPQR: “…time and events are not important?” International relationships are never cut-and-dried. Context is meaningful.
Just think back to the change of attitude within the Left Intelligentsia re Germany in 1940, and after the start of Barbarrosa. But, of course, they were just mindless robots following the Comintern line.
Comment by Another Drew — 3/24/2008 @ 8:59 am
drew: “International relationships are never cut-and-dried.”
Now you tell us. All of a sudden nuance is back in style. I guess we’ve come a long way from this:
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 9:25 am
I gave you a quote from one of the commissioners that said there was a “cooperative relationship.”
So what? That’s an individual commissioner (who is a Republican, which you failed to note in the post, although you point out Hamilton’s party ID). Right before that in the MTP transcript, you have Ben Veniste saying, yes, he agrees with what Russert had just read, which included “collaborative relationship” in the negative.
As you concede, the NYT piece that discusses possibly rewriting has Hamilton, the vice chair, again saying no “collaborative relationship”. Then you go on to say, “yeah, but what he meant by that was X,Y,and Z”. Maybe your interpretation of what Hamilton meant would be relevant if the LAT piece had elaborated in a contrary way regarding what “collaborative relationship” meant, but the piece didn’t do that.
In any case, the meanings of cooperative, operational, collaborative are hazy enough that you really need an explicit acknowledgment from the commission that it was a mistake to use “collaborative relationship”, and you don’t have that.
that certain statements of the Commissioners themselves were at odds with it
Certain statements of some of the commissioners, not statements that reflected the collective judgment of the commission.
But you came on here acting like you have debunked my post
I didn’t say debunked. I asked for an update and suggested that what I had cited undermines your point to some degree, and I stand by that.
I would have said: Kudos to Foo Bar for adding to our knowledge
Would you have said it in your main post? The contents of your post shouldn’t be a function of whether you think a certain commenter has overreached.
You’re encouraging your readers to email the LAT and ask them “where did you get that ‘collaborative relationship’ quote?” Don’t you think the reader would prefer to know that a staff report from the commission included that phrase before deciding whether to take the time to email? I wouldn’t want to send that email and then feel sheepish when I got the reply, “uh, we got it from a report issued by the commission”.
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/24/2008 @ 9:33 am
The thing that amazes me is that we can fathom all of these “auras” and “implications” and “he hinted this” and “she implied that” while ignoring the plain words of Bush saying “there was no link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks”.
They’re also all so busy trying to play “gotcha” with Patterico’s exact wording while again ignoring plain English all in an attempt to show how Bush et. al. manipulated the poor unsuspecting public…
Comment by Rob C — 3/24/2008 @ 9:39 am
“…you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror…”
Works for me, then and now!
But, I’m a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who thought that Iran should have been sent physically back into the 8th Century (so that they could really live their philosophy) back in 1979!
BTW, ever heard of “geo-politics” or read the history of Count Metternich?
Comment by Another Drew — 3/24/2008 @ 9:47 am
This clearly shows Bu$Hitler’s attempts to tie Saddam to 9/11
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 10:45 am
The BDS crowd on the left keeps squawking that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al implied a link between Saddam and 9/11. Not true.
What is true is that the anti-war left, LAT, NYT et al inferred this, in service to their ongoing anti-war, anti-Bush narrative. They continue to do so, as clearly illustrated by the anti-war, anti-Bush commenters here.
It has nothing to do with implication by Bush and everything to do with a convenient inference by the left. It’s called propaganda.
Comment by YFS — 3/24/2008 @ 11:02 am
На блоге довольно много материала про воспитание детей. Здесь есть подборка советов о рождении и воспитании детей. Обмен советами и опытом: мифы о воспитании детей. Найдете много разных рекомендаций для родителей.
Comment by vospiptayk — 3/24/2008 @ 11:43 am
rob: “The thing that amazes me … while ignoring the plain words of Bush saying ‘there was no link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks’. ”
The thing that amazes me is the way certain people are willing to invent quotes. As far as I can tell, Bush never said the words you just put in his mouth. You should let us know where that quote can be found, outside of your imagination.
The statement Bush made in 9/03 was a lot weaker than the statement you just invented. In 9/03, he didn’t say there was “no link;” he merely said there was “no evidence.” Keep in mind these are the same folks who had been telling us that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” And aside from that, what he said in 9/03 hardly counts since this was after the invasion. Before the invasion he was singing a different tune.
yfs: “The BDS crowd on the left keeps squawking that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al implied a link between Saddam and 9/11″
I’ve cited the words they used. Like Bush saying “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror … they work in concert.” I notice you and your pals have no interest in trying to explain how these words could be interpreted in any other way (other than implying “a link between Saddam and 9/11″).
“It’s called propaganda.”
That’s hysterically funny. This thread vividly illustrates how Bush’s supporters pretend he said things he didn’t actually say, while steadfastly ignoring what he actually did say. That’s beyond propaganda. It’s self-delusion.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 11:51 am
“Don’t believe me? Check for yourself. Here is a link to the 9/11 Commission Report, and here is a link to the Pentagon report. The phrase “collaborative relationship” appears in neither document.”
OK, let me give it a try…
p.66 9/11 Commission Report
“According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76″
Comment by templeton — 3/24/2008 @ 12:02 pm
This says not one single allahdamn thing about 9/11. Your fevered imagination inserts 9/11 in there, so you can feel better about arriving at a flawed conclusion.
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 12:13 pm
jd: “This says not one single allahdamn thing about 9/11″
Yes, a statement about AQ has nothing to do with 9/11, provided you think AQ had nothing to do with 9/11. Let us know if that’s what you think.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 12:27 pm
jukeboxgrad, that’s right - intentionally stupid meaningless snark is only allowed to you.
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 12:37 pm
jukeboxgrad - Are you incapable of discerning the not the least bit subtle differences between a group, and the actions of a group? Is it possible for one to reference AQ and not reference 9/11? Good allah, you trolls are fucking dense. Lead-like.
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 12:47 pm
jd: “Is it possible for one to reference AQ and not reference 9/11?”
Yes, provided you think that AQ had nothing to do with 9/11. And provided you reference AQ and not reference 9/11. Trouble is, that’s not what Bush did. What Bush did was tie AQ to 9/11, and simultaneously tie Saddam to AQ.
Bush told us that AQ did 9/11. Bush also told us, at the same time, that “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam [because] they work in concert.”
Let’s say I told you that person A did crime X. And let’s say in the same breath I also told you that person B is a great danger, and a likely source of future crimes similar to crime X, and that ‘you can’t distinguish between person A and person B [because] they work in concert.’ And let’s say I also had my people claim that person A and person B had an “operational relationship” and an “established relationship.” It would take a lot of imagination to claim that I wasn’t tying person B to crime X. But you obviously have a lot of imagination.
“fucking dense”
What’s dense is pretending that Bush didn’t say what he said.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 1:22 pm
Outside of your inferences, where in that quote is there any reference to 9/11?
He did not “tie” AQ to 9/11. AQ was responsible for 9/11. It is also beyond dispute that Saddam had terror links, including links to AQ. That you go an make a ridiculous jump conflating AQ and 9/11 is all on you, buddy boy.
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 1:57 pm
It really astonishing to see how much people’s BDS depends on the silly assertion that daring to argue that Saddam Hussein would support Al Queda groups was this huge historic deception.
Mind boggling silliness.
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 2:42 pm
…chirp chirp…chirp chirp…
“Don’t believe me? Check for yourself. Here is a link to the 9/11 Commission Report, and here is a link to the Pentagon report. The phrase “collaborative relationship” appears in neither document.”
OK, let me give it a try…
p.66 9/11 Commission Report
“According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76″
Comment by templeton — 3/24/2008 @ 12:02 pm
Comment by templeton — 3/24/2008 @ 3:19 pm
sort of screws up your argumnent when you haven’t even read your own ’sources’ and just rely on a ‘word find’ search…
Comment by templeton — 3/24/2008 @ 3:21 pm
The issue here is context and the battle being fought is for said context.
If you say that A is indistinguishable from B and works in concert with B then it is fair to assume that A and B acted together. This is an ideal context but in reality this is not always true. If the US Government decided to go to war and sent soldiers to fight this war, they aught to be considered as working in concert. Does that also mean that when soldier A is shot and killed, then also the US government is shot and killed? Is Senator Clinton as Hilteresque as Bush seeing that both are members of the American government which works more in concert then AQ and SH ever did?
It would be just as foolish to suggest Hitlarism in Clinton as it would for Bush and just as stupid to think that the statement, “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam [because] they work in concert.” wouldn’t require context to make it sensible. As I understand the quote it means that both AQ and SH were a major player in global terrorism, contributed to various aspects of global terror, met in the hopes to further their mutual goals and saw the US as a mutual enemy and target of terrorist activities. Any human being who is subject to scrutiny as the President has been will seem to contradict themselves. Perhaps I assume these things because I view the President as a reasonable man with the wish to make Americans safe in their home and abroad. I also believe that Bush hopes to contribute to an environment in which American interests are furthered. jukeboxgrad, it seems, does not share in this view and thinks its opposite. So. here we are arguing over the minutia of words which are best understood in their context rather then in the context of our political spin.
Comment by P. Ami — 3/24/2008 @ 3:24 pm
templeton, actually it is your argument that is screwed up. This is because you did not read Patterico’s post. All you did was find the phrase he explicitly said was used instead of “collaborative relationship” - “collaborative operational relationship”.
Read his post where he says “The 9/11 Commission Report took care to use the word “operational” when discussing the concept of a collaborative relationship.” But you didn’t take care to read.
So that one blew up in your face.
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 3:31 pm
** chirp ** ** chirp **
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 3:44 pm
jd: “It is also beyond dispute that Saddam had terror links, including links to AQ”
Right. That’s why a GOP-controlled Senate committee said this (pdf): “Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.”
“AQ was responsible for 9/11. … That you go an make a ridiculous jump conflating AQ and 9/11 is all on you”
Nice job contradicting yourself. Since “AQ was responsible for 9/11,” there is no “ridiculous jump” in seeing the association between one and the other.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 4:00 pm
spqr: “daring to argue that Saddam Hussein would support Al Queda groups”
Nice job trying to change the terms of the discussion. Bush et al didn’t claim Saddam “would” support them, or could support them. Bush et al claimed he did support them. There’s no other way to interpret claims like “in concert.” Trouble is, that claim was false.
“The 9/11 Commission Report took care to use the word ‘operational’ when discussing the concept of a collaborative relationship.”
Small problem: “operational relationship” is the phrase that Feith used. I notice that no one here wants to explain that.
“** chirp ** ** chirp **”
That’s the sound you’re making in response to my point regarding Feith. I first made that point more than forty comments ago.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 4:00 pm
ami: “As I understand the quote it means that both AQ and SH … met in the hopes to further their mutual goals”
Small problem. A GOP-controlled Senate committee said this (pdf): “Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.” You should tell those GOP moonbats that you know more than they do.
Comment by jukeboxgrad — 3/24/2008 @ 4:01 pm
Actually, jukeboxgrad, I wasn’t changing the terms of the discussion. I was making a point about your rather severe case of BDS. A point you’ve only confirmed.
And my response to templeton had nothing to do with your point about Feith.
Meanwhile, templeton is trying to figure out a new nick to show up with …
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 4:03 pm
templeton:
So sorry; I was wasting my time working instead of responding to your vacuous post. So shove your chirping where your energy-saving bulbs don’t shine.
I enjoyed the irony of your comment. You purport to take me to task for supposedly not reading the 9/11 Commission Report before discussing it. In so doing, you disclose a Grand Revelation that I explicitly discuss in my post — thus showing that you didn’t read my post before discussing it.
Mmmm . . . that’s good irony!
Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2008 @ 4:04 pm
You can’t get irony that tasty just anywhere, Patterico.
Or incompetence. Both are so close in the dictionary you know …
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 4:06 pm
You really are a mental midget, aren’t you?
First off, you are willing to take some political words from Saddam Hussein as gospel truth, over the mounds of evidence to the contrary. The 9/11 Commission says jukeboxgrad is wrong, and I am alright with that. I guess that those Ansar Al Islam camps were really just Boy Scout camps that Saddam allowed to be conducted there. The money he was paying to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers? Tithing.
Jukeboxhero - Get the stars out of your eyes. You are not that cute, nor nearly as clever of a wordsmith as you may think. Just because AQ committed the actions on 9/11, you cannot use AQ and 9/11 interchangeably. No wonder that the idiot Bush was able to beat you clowns, twice. You are dummerer than him.
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 4:08 pm
Patterico - These posts are great. You could have written out every variation of the loonwaffle responses well in advance, and it would just be a matter of time until they were all trotted out. Predictable, and sad.
Comment by JD — 3/24/2008 @ 4:10 pm
“The LAT looks a lot better given the information that the phrase was used in a publicly issued, widely discussed staff report.”
Why? The final report was specifically written differently, to clarify the extent of the links, and make clear that only the existence of an “operational” relationship was being discounted.
Your post gives no indication that the phrase “collaborative relationship”, in the context of a denial, ever appeared in written or oral form coming from the commission or any of its members. The reader is left to scratch his head and wonder, “where’d the LAT come up with those quote marks around that phrase? Did they make it up? Did they confuse some sloppy secondhand summary written by another news organization with the primary source documents?”
This impression that you leave with the reader is false. The article says that postwar investigations found no “collaborative relationship”. In fact, a postwar investigation did indeed lead to the creation of a publicly available report saying there was not evidence of a “collaborative relationship”. For the purposes of assessing the accuracy of the LAT piece, there’s a world of difference between that reality and the impression you leave.
I think you’re probably a little bit embarrassed that you didn’t know that the specific phrase was used in the report issued in June ‘04, so you’d rather not acknowledge it in the body of the post.
My impression from visiting this blog intermittently over the past few years is that you’re one of the more fair-minded bloggers I’ve come across, but your failure to edit your post here does not strengthen that impression.
Comment by Foo Bar — 3/24/2008 @ 4:19 pm
Foo Bar, your comments are not making any sense.
Comment by SPQR — 3/24/2008 @ 4:29 pm
An aside: am I the only person having trouble downloading the recent Pentagon report?
This link
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
is not working for me.
Comment by DubiousD — 3/24/2008 @ 5:13 pm
jukeboxgrad,
The mental gymnastics you have practiced on this page has confused me as to what other twisty thoughts you might entertain. When you call the GOP moonbats, are you suggesting that my comment that SH and AQ met in the hopes of working together is so far to the “right” that even the GOP seems liberal (ie moonbat) compared to me or did you not know that you should be using the derogative word wingnut when discussing the GOP?
p.66 9/11 Commission Report
“According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.”
Seems to me there would have to be a meeting between SH, or his agents, and AQ for that offer to be made.
You are not only ideologically irrelevant but rude as well.
Comment by P. Ami — 3/24/2008 @ 5:23 pm
So, let’s take a poll. Are they being A)aggress