(from the NYTimes)
Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: ``The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. … I’m never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He’s doing a fabulous job and America’s lucky to have him in the position he’s in.‘’
Bush today disputed the findings of the 9/11 commission, saying
there was a high-level connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; and
the administration never said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11
Unmitigated chutzpah.
Senator Shelby did a similar dance on Hardball last night. Shelby is normally a bit less obtuse than he was last night, though. My wife, the Republican, asked “Why is he being so stupid?” To which I replied: “The facts are inconvenient.”
I’ve never met a politician of any stripe who let the facts get in the way of his prejudices. Er, well, Truman might have been an exception.
-Robert
Among other statements from 9/11 commission staff statement No. 15 (this is the most succinct):
“Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
Full text at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224036/ (it’s pretty long).
“Bush today disputed the findings …”
Oh surprise, surprise. A case of cowboy adventurism me thinks.
Hey George, where are the WMD’s? We’re still waiting.
I didn’t want to cut and paste the whole statement, which is why I linked it. There’s more in there than that. Suggest you read the entire thing before passing judgement on their work.
Hmmmm. Sounds like a tough choice for Al Qaeda. Assuming there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda…
I’ll admit the connection to Iraq and help the U.S. President’s image and foster U.S. domestic support for the war; or
I’ll deny the connection to Iraq and make the President look bad and further embroil the U.S. in a domestic squabble over whether they think they should be in Iraq.
I wonder which one they would choose?
Glad to see the 9/11 Commission is relying on rock solid evidence.
“No credible evidence…” isn’t good enough for you?
Why am I not surprised? 
-Robert
The bi-partisan commission has been at work since late 2002. They have 80 some staff, have interviewed over 1,000 individuals from 10 countries, had a budget of $15 million, held ten days of public hearings to date, during which it received testimony from 110 federal, state, and local officials, and experts from the private sector, etc, etc, etc.
If you don’t want to believe their report, don’t.
Which bastard?
…believe me…no commander takes that decision lightly. I don’t know who you’re referring to when you say “they” but to generalize the term to mean that our commanders are flippant with other peoples lives is asanine. I don’t know what you do for a living and don’t know if you’ve had to make decisions like this but if you haven’t I’d hold judgement. These commanders have to answer to the families and friends who have died for duty they’ve sworn to uphold. These soldiers have taken an oath…an oath they don’t take lightly.
Your generals and officers may care about your well-being, because many of them have been there, but history has proven that there always have been (and thus, always will be) political leaders who view their armies as just another tool to wrest more power and/or subjugate their own populations.
*edited because the first post somehow didn’t include my text.
It seems like you wouldn’t accept the truth even if God came down from the heavens and said, “Look, man, there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and nor were there weapons of mass destruction. Get it through your head.” Bush supporters always find some way to deny reality – to insist that their story is true – despite what empirical evidence otherwise says.
This kind of denial is just an extension of what Paul O’Neill found in the White House. Facts – or the truth – don’t matter. All that matters is upholding ideologically held beliefs and never letting empirical evidence challenge your assumptions.
Of course he wouldn’t believe it if God told him. He doesn’t believe God exists.
Bush today disputed the findings of the 9/11 commission, saying
<<1) there was a high-level connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; and
I think the point here is that althought there may have been “contact” between the two, there was never any common ground, shared opinion or dedision to act. The secular Iraqi government hated the fanatical religious Al Queda people and vice versa. To claim that there was connection when in fact there was perhaps a conversation ending in nothing is a complete, total, dishonest, disingenous, fabricated, bullshit, absolute, intentional, distorted version of the facts.
The fact that Michael Moore may have met Rush Limbaugh at some point does not establish that they have a “connection”.
Governor Kean has been very circumspect in his comments. I find it hard to believe he’d be so openly truthful about Bush.
-Robert
Congratulations, Ken. Now you know what it’s like to have the ground shift beneath your feet.
Witness:
As the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, Bush begins by arguing that Saddam has rebuilt his WMD capability. Subsequently, no weapons are found, anywhere in the country, David Kay even says there are not, as well as Hans Blix. Okay, onto plan B - invading Iraq is part of the “war on terror”, despite no meaningful interaction between Saddam and Al Qaeda (the only person who asserted this was Chalabi’s brother, and we now see how reliable he is). When questioned directly, Bush admits no connection, but that doesn’t stop him from peppering literally every speech he makes with liberal references to Al Qaeda and Saddam, as a not-so-smooth way of making Americans associate the two. Well, the 9/11 Commission debunked that effectively (they said Atta could not have allegedly met with Iraqi agents in Prague, as previously asserted, based on his ATM and cellphone records). Okay, onto Plan C - it was all done to free the Iraqi people. Well gee, given that Wolfowitz himself stated that that was not enough of a reason, and that Bush himself had railed against this type of military use in his campaign against that great nation-builder Al Gore, we can safely say that this is bullshit as well.
So then what was the reason? Don’t know really. I suspect it was just this overweening view that we should change the map of the world, simply because we can, and based on our strength and money, the rest of the world will simply fall in line, sooner or later. And without the oil, we wouldn’t be giving a shit, certainly, or else we’d be invading half of Sub-Saharan Africa as well.
It reminds of me of Whitewater - you begin a hunt for Clinton with Whitewater. After $70 million, it turns out nothing. So Plan B - start investigating sexual harassment charges. Then onto Plan C - perjury charges, which finally stick. Whatever gets the job done, right?
The problem is that in neither of these cases, the American people would have assented had they known the real and obvious agenda. They put up enough smoke about “principles” and “freedom” and the lemmings follow. They even have the audacity to evoke Goebbel’s “Big Lie” theory to attack their critics, knowing that nobody will remember their gall when all the dust settles.
Aha! I knew Rush was a closet liberal!
-Robert
Suppose we say the Bush family has oil interests and are wealthy because of oil. Now lets suppose that little bastard, bush lied and got the military involved and went into Iraq not for weapons of mass destruction which seem to exist only in Mr. Bush’s pin head but to get the oil? Hmmm what a concept!!!and of course as usual sending innocent men and women in the armed services but only after convincing them we are fighting for freedom, democracy, and the war on terror…goddamn bush…just like his father and the war on drugs which we “won”…uh huh…what else can these guys come up…
thats my two cents worth of steaming, hopping mad outraged with our gov’t and its lunacy, lies, lies lies and more lies …
Which bastard?
Hell, I don’t care. Just fire any of them. Or all of them.
Well, then we need to elect a Democrat and fix everything!!!
<< Sarcasm meter reading: Off the Charts. >>
Either way, we’re screwed in one fashion or another.