Media Lies: Too Many to Catalogue
There is so much distortion of the 9/11 Commission’s staff report from yesterday that it is impossible to catalogue it all. So I won’t even try. Dozens of other bloggers have done so, and will continue to do so. Suffice it to say that the staff report does not deny any connection between Iraq/Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. And the Bush Administration has never claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11, so the staff report does not “refute” or “rebuke” or “contradict” any such non-existent Administration claim.
Any news report that says otherwise is a lie. And that’s about all of them.
Unbelievable.
Looking at the vague political phrases one can of course like you claim, that the US gov. never made allegations in reference to direct links of Iraq or Saddam with 9/11.
However, they gave enough wobbly doubletalk and hints etc. that would many lead to believe, that there are such links. Just check the following quotes that I got from http://prowardotcom.typepad.com/. these quotes are amigious at best, some of them already misleading, wouldn’t you agree?
exhibit A:
Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
“VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, . . . new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. . . . There is — again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan — we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. . . . QUESTION: But no direct link? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I can’t — I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
Exhibit B:
Statement by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
“MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism. QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes.”
Source: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).
Exhibit C:
Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
“We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of ‘01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been — we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.”
Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
Exhibit D:
Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
“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.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).
Especially the last quote shows, who the water gets murky by stiring in 9/11 at each an every opportuniy when referring to Iraq. If you say, that you destroy the geograhic base of terrorist who had you under assault for many years, most especially on 9/11 you ARE saying, that the terrorist from 9/11 were based and/or linked to Iraq! Right?
Exhibit E:
Statement by President George W. Bush
“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.”
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
—- once again: if one reads it word by word, one could claim that Bush makes no allegation of Iraq directly linked with 9/11, but if you just listen a bit superficiently, you would get the impression, that there is such a connection….
So, in a certain way you are right, and than again NOT.
Cheerio from Old Europe
Comment by Pat — 6/18/2004 @ 5:37 am
There is no way in which I am not right on this. The media is just uniformly sloppy.
If it likes, the media can say: “The Administration’s observations regarding Iraq’s connections with Al Qaeda have led many to believe incorrectly that there is proof of an Iraq connection to 9/11. The staff report refuted any such belief.”
But to act as though the Administration claimed such a connection is just flat-out wrong — yet virtually every media outlet in the country has made this claim.
Comment by Patterico — 6/18/2004 @ 5:59 am
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 21, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq 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. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.
These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.
As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Comment by m.croche — 6/18/2004 @ 9:00 am
Pat:
Exhibits A and B clearly disclaim any alleged connection to 9-11, focusing instead on Iraq’s proven links to al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. If anything, those are examples of how the administration did not draw any improper links between Iraq and 9-11.
It’s also worth noting that of the five statements you quote, these two are the only ones that even preceded the war. So even if Exhibits C-E are as misleading as you suggest, the worst they could have done is make Americans feel too good about the war, after the fact. They couldn’t have misled anyone into supporting it in the first place. Nevertheless, I don’t think they are all that misleading. Here’s why.
Exhibit C alludes to the Czech intel that is the only known evidence of a 9-11 link, but makes it clear that the administration was not able to corroborate it. What else was he supposed to say? That the Czech intel was wrong? Maybe it’s not wrong!
Exhibit D is the only one that comes close to suggesting Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Even there, describing Iraq as “the heart of the base,” and not the base itself, makes it clear that the base we are concerned about is the Middle East as a whole.
Exhibit E describes the battle of Iraq as “one victory in a war on terror,” which clearly implies that there were others also. [Not that this wasn't obvious enough already, given the war in Afghanistan in 2001.] I don’t think that mentioning two stages in a long, protracted war against terror states implies that Saddam was behind 9-11, any more than a brief discussion of the U.S. involvement in World War II, which from Pearl Harbor to V-E Day, would have falsely implied that Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/18/2004 @ 2:30 pm
Thanks for the comments, guys! Just did not have time to answer over the weekend, sorry! But your points are well taken, especially Paterico’s about the media’s spinn on this.
Comment by Pat — 6/21/2004 @ 7:41 am