This is silly, because it's not important whether anyone explicitly said that Saddam was involved in the planning, financing or executing the September 11 attack on America.

What's important is that Iraq, 9/11 and Al Qaeda were mentioned in the same breath often enough that Americans, reeling from the tragedy of the attack, made the association. This is the manipulation that was shameless.

Nice strawman, though.

Chris, please cite sources. It's annoying to have to imagine what instances of shameless manipulation you may be referring to.

Secondly Chris, hypothetically, what if Bill Clinton was accused by anti-Clintonites of having oral sex from a White House intern? Even if he didn't do it? Especially if he didn't do it? Shouldn't that be redressed?

Sadly, everyone from the media to the weirdos on Democratic Underground have attributed Bush & Co. to explicit statements linking Saddam with 9/11, even though no such statements have, in actuality, been made.

Chris, please cite sources. It's annoying to have to imagine what instances of shameless manipulation you may be referring to.

Secondly Chris, hypothetically, what if Bill Clinton was accused by anti-Clintonites of having oral sex from a White House intern? Even if he didn't do it? Especially if he didn't do it? Shouldn't that be redressed?

Sadly, everyone from the media to the weirdos on Democratic Underground have attributed Bush & Co. to explicit statements linking Saddam with 9/11, even though no such statements have, in actuality, been made.

Chris, please cite sources. It's annoying to have to imagine what instances of shameless manipulation you may be referring to.

Alright:

"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."

Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002

"Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities"

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"in terms of its [Iraq's] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see."

John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

Secondly Chris, hypothetically, what if Bill Clinton was accused by anti-Clintonites of having oral sex from a White House intern? Even if he didn't do it? Especially if he didn't do it? Shouldn't that be redressed?

I fail to see the relevance of your metaphor.

Congratulations, Chris, you've proven that the administration claimed there were general ties between Saddam and terrorists, and even some ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. But that's not the challenge. The challenge is to find proof of an explicit statement alleging Saddam had a hand in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attack.

Er, allegory. Example? Whatever.

Congratulations, Chris, you've proven that the administration claimed there were general ties between Saddam and terrorists, and even some ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. But that's not the challenge. The challenge is to find proof of an explicit statement alleging Saddam had a hand in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attack.

I wasn't trying to win the challenge. I was responding to Jeremiah's request.

Bush supporter here . . . here's the closest I think they have come: Dick Cheney on Meet The Press, September 14, 2003:

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

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

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.

Cheney clearly left open the possibility, but he equally clearly set out the limits of what we know. I doubt anyone will find a statement that goes further than this.

I'll up the reward to $230. That's $20 added by Michael from www.thecommonvirtue.com.

I just noticed that the price has already been uped $25 more from somebody else, so that makes the total $255.

Thanks, Mike. Darren Kaplan kicked in - it's up to $255 over at where the reward originated.

There is reason to believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. It's just a coincidence Mohammed Atta was in the country a couple months before 9/11? What about the memos written by Iraqi agents with indirect references to the attacks?

I, on the other hand, do have $100 waiting for whoever can prove to me that that Bush, even once, said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Personally, I believe you owe the money to Chris and Crank.

When a Dick Cheney goes on MTP and is asked point-blank if Saddam was in on 9-11 and Cheney says 'We don't know' but then launches into a diatribe about how tight Saddam was with al Qaeda---it called 'insinuation,' folks.

Insinuation is a way of communicating a very specific message without using the specific words.

I think I can claim the reward.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

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

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

---snip---

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Wow, JadeGold really doesn't have a clue as to what constitutes evidence.

As for his (her?) previous message:

The simple fact is that we DON'T know whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. There is no firm evidence that he did, and not much infirm evidence, either, so far as the general public knows, but there's no proof that he didn't, either.

If he did have prior knowledge or an active role, evidence would PROBABLY have surfaced by now, but it is possible -- not probable, but possible -- that he had something to do with it, and managed to conceal his role. After all, we know that he approved of the attack, because there were murals in Iraq celebrating it after the fact. He had the motive, the means, and the appropriate degree of ruthlessness, and he had a huge incentive to make very sure he didn't get caught doing things like that, so if (note: IF) he had anything to do with 9/11, he no doubt took extensive precautions to preserve deniability.

In short, the answer to the question of whether Hussein had any role in planning or knowingly facilitating 9/11 is:

(a) we don't know, but

(b) despite some hints (e.g. Atta in Prague) there's no firm evidence that he did, and

(c) a lot of people have been looking very hard for such evidence without (so far as we know) finding much, so

(d) probably not.

Which is exactly what the administration says.

My goodness, Dr. Weevil. For a St. John's grad, albeit with a 15 year hole in your resume, you have great difficulty with reading comprehension.

The task at hand is not to produce evidence Saddam was involved in the planning or execution of 9/11; instead, the challenge is to show where an administration official tried to pin Saddam with involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

Rational and sane people know there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. This appointed administration has recently, and reluctantly, conceded this fact.

However, there is a great deal of evidence that this administration did try to manipulate public opinion into believing what this appointed administration knew was at best unlikely or, at worst, false.

My CBS cite demonstrates Donald Rumsfeld--certainly a highly placed figure in this appointed administration--was willing to portray Saddam as part of 9/11 though there was no evidence to so.

With all due respect guys, the idea that the administration "duped the public" into believing there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 is easily falsifiable.

How? Simple. The Washington Post did a survey just two days after 9/11, and 78% of the public thought it was likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Good luck finding evidence that the administration tried to "manipulate public opinion" prior to that.

Gee, is this anything like GWB saying that Iraq posed "no imminent threat" being twisted to mean he wanted people to believe that Iraq WAS an imminent threat?

Ummm. Right.

My CBS cite demonstrates Donald Rumsfeld--certainly a highly placed figure in this appointed administration--was willing to portray Saddam as part of 9/11 though there was no evidence to so.

Very good! Now find evidence THAT HE ACTUALLY PORTRAYED IT AS SUCH TO THE PUBLIC, and you can claim the reward.

Asshat...

JadeGold lies again:

1. If accurately reported, the CBS cite shows that Rumsfeld was willing to hit Iraq whether it was involved in 9/11 or not. It neither says nor implies that he planned to try to pin 9/11 on Iraq, and JadeGold has offered absolutely nothing to show that Cheney or anyone else in the administration ever did so.

2. JadeGold’s 6:48 message seems to imply that Cheney’s 'insinuation' was somehow dishonest. I simply pointed out that we do not in fact know whether Hussein was involved in 9/11, and the links between him and al Qaeda do indeed suggest that he may have been, or for that matter may have wished he had been. I can imagine him on the afternoon of that day saying "how come Osama never asked me to help with this?" My point was tangential, but relevant.

3. I can't think of any reason for JadeGold to refer to my resume that does not reflect very poorly on her character. Hiding behind her own pseudonym while dropping bits of information about my non-blogging life illustrates just what's wrong with (some) anonymous bloggers. It comes across as a bit of a juvenile threat: 'I know where you live, and you don't even know my name'. In all fairness, JadeGold should now mail me a copy of her own resume so I can make fun of it. Otherwise, this looks like the rhetorical equivalent of a sucker punch.

It also includes a big fat lie. There is no "15 year hole" on my resume. (Anyone who cares, e-mail and I'll send you the URL.) Since I'm a teacher, my c.v. lists 'Education' and 'Teaching Experience', but omits all non-teaching employment. Schools hiring Latin teachers don't much care that I have at times made my living as a C programmer and a technical writer. There is a period of 8 (not 15) years on my c.v. in which I was neither teacher nor student, and it is naturally omitted. JadeGold turns 8 into 15 and treats the omission as if it were somehow sinister. Sounds like projection to me: if JadeGold sends me her resume, I can check it for mysterious gaps that might correspond to periods of incarceration or hospitalization.

4. 'Dafydd' on the 10th thread down from this one ('That Honorable Discharge') is still waiting for a straight answer to a straight question. JadeGold needs to stop pretending she hasn't read it and answer it, either here or there.

Sorry, in point 2 I meant the 5:22 message, not the 6:48. There are so many it's hard to keep track.

Trimpet: "Very good! Now find evidence THAT HE ACTUALLY PORTRAYED IT AS SUCH TO THE PUBLIC, and you can claim the reward."

Ummm..let's see. Saying it front of a reporter for CBS? You know, one of the major media networks in the US?

Kindly forward my reward to the Foundation for Rightwing Illiteracy Project. Note said donation is in Trimpet's name.

Trimpet: "Very good! Now find evidence THAT HE ACTUALLY PORTRAYED IT AS SUCH TO THE PUBLIC, and you can claim the reward."

Ummm..let's see. Saying it front of a reporter for CBS? You know, one of the major media networks in the US?

Kindly forward my reward to the Foundation for Rightwing Illiteracy Project. Note said donation is in Trimpet's name.

Gosh, Dr. Weevil. I'm crestfallen. An eight year hole in one's resume is sooooo much better than a fifteen year hole.

It's almost like when Fox Network 'defends' Bush by saying he was only AWOL for 12 months and not 18.

JadeGold, you're wasting your time. You can't win a rigged game. This is why it's not particularly impressive to see them "putting their money where their mouth is". Hell, that's easy. I'll throw in $100.

That's why I mentioned the term "straw-man". Very few people claim that anyone in the Bush administration ever literally said that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated on the 9/11 attacks. Just like very few claim that GWB himself ever used the word "imminent".

Stooping to the level of these little games of semantics and quote-chasing concedes the terms of debate and overlooks the overarching, undeniable theme that the Bush administration did systematically insinuate a link, and presented a case for an "imminent" threat -- whether or not the exact word was used (which it was, save by Bush himself).

This is the essence of the term "misleading", and is precisely the one thing that Bill and his pal cannot refute, because the quotes stand for themselves. This is why they focus on the diction and semantics of specific words that were and were not used -- it's all they've got.

Nobody ever said "Saddam was behind 9/11". Instead, there were plenty of quotes like "We need to stop Saddam to prevent future 9/11 style attacks on the US". It's implicit, not explicit. Bill, you know what was being said as well as any of us...

Question: If no "senior Bush administration official" has ever attempted to rhetorically link Saddam and 9/11, then how have a majority of Americans come to believe the two are linked?

Obviously, everybody is having a nice time ignoring the fact I'd pointed out...that people believed there was a connection LONG before any public discussion of Saddam Hussein.

Not hard to understand, as it completely undercuts the meme that the administration led the public to believe it.

Why do they believe that it could have involved him? Few reasons:

1: It *might* have, for all the general public knews. (probably not, but the possibility remains)
2: 9/11 was perpetrated by a bad guy from the Middle East. Saddam is the most well-known bad guy from the Middle East. People don't generally pay attention. Thus...it may have been Saddam!
3: Leading poll question. (Could it have been Saddam? eh, sure. Why not?)

But the fact remains....people thought that WELL before any public statement from the administration.

Buh-bye meme.

Chris Wage: You're absolutely correct. I realize what's going on but this is how I see it: some conservatives have too much invested in Bush to ever admit this guy is anything less than infallible. But there are conservatives who see the dishonesty of pretending Bush never claimed an 'imminent' threat or the latest 'no Saddam 9/11 link.'

And there still many more in the center who look at such grotesque parsings and semantical inaccuracies as what it is: dishonesty.

As a partisan, I *want* conservatives to spend their time engaging in these transparent straw men.

BTW, Michael Chaney, Brian A., and Jon Henke all have very good points.

Basically, this appointed administration has actively sought to blur the lines between the War on (some) Terrorism and Iraq.

Perhaps this is another area in which we disagree, JadeGold. I don't see a significant distinction between the war on terror and the Iraq war.

It is assymetrical warfare, and we cannot simply win it by attacking the Al Qaeda cells. We have to "drain the swamp", as it were, and Iraq was one of the potential and deserving targets. For a variety of complicated reasons, it was the most "do-able" of those targets.

The rationale for war is complex. It is, to my mind, a very stategically necessary move.

But it's disingenuous to claim that the administrations comingling of Iraq with the war on terror was "deception". It was stated, from the beginning, that it was a *part* of it....and it was. And is.

Obviously, everybody is having a nice time ignoring the fact I'd pointed out...that people believed there was a connection LONG before any public discussion of Saddam Hussein.

This distracts from the real force of the argument, which is not "The Bush administration led people to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, when they did not believe that previously". It's "The Bush administration led people to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, when in fact, he was not."

This is an important distinction. If, two days after 9/11, people erroneously thought he was involved, why then, a year and a half later on the eve of war, did they still believe it?

Answer: see the aforementioned quotes.

Jon: The difference is huge.

Asymmetrical warfare, by definition, precludes the state. Think about it; if you're some dictator in some country are you going to risk a terrorist attack on a nation several magnitudes more powerful than you? Because if you entertain that thought--you'd better hope and pray that attack completely decimates that nation because if it doesn't, you and your country are going to be lying beneath several tons of rubble. Put another way: if you decide to take on Mike Tyson, you'd better hope your first shot lays him out 'cause that's the only shot you get before the lights go out.

The term "draining the swamp" is an ugly term; essentially, it means you're willing to kill an awful lot of people who pose no threat to you in order to get the relative few who are. It's akin to saying if a certain area has a high crime rate--let's level the area.

Ultimately, Iraq has endangered us all for a number of reasons. First, after 9/11, Bush had an historic opportunity to unite the world against terrorism. Virtually everyone was willing to team with us and pursue groups like al Qaeda. And we were well on our way to crushing al Qaeda. But then Bush decides to go after Iraq--using rationales we all now know were bogus. He then managed to alienate a great number of our allies *and* our diversion to Iraq allowed al Qaeda to regroup.

So, in the space of less than 2 years, we've gone from a nation united with the world well on its way to dealing terrorism a death blow to a nation that's PO'd most of its allies, allowing the Taliban and alQaeda to catch its breath and regroup.

Most serious, however, is the fact that we've squandered our national credibility--which is a national security asset. One day, we may face another worldwide crisis, a legitimate one---and we'll find others questioning our motives at a time when action is sorely needed.

You folks sure love to overintellectualize this stuff.

Eventually a simpler, more common version of this grand tragedy will be formulated by the everyday person who has lost a son, daughter, husband, father, or knows someone else who has. The longer it goes on, the more communities it will touch until someone you know will die.

We have been led into this situation and accountability falls to those who are leading us, no matter how many word games are played.

Yes, those common people will make up their minds, and they vote. More importantly, there are a lot more of them than there are self-important windbags.

Well said, SemiPundit.

I think what we're seeing here is attempt to create the conservative version of "The Lost Cause" revisionism.

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

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

---snip---

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

____________________
Ummm..let's see. Saying it front of a reporter for CBS? You know, one of the major media networks in the US?

Kindly forward my reward to the Foundation for Rightwing Illiteracy Project. Note said donation is in Trimpet's name

Hey JadeGold- who the fuck is illiterate? How did Rumsfeld say these things in front of a reporter since the article is based on NOTES HIS AIDES TOOK DOWN?? I didn't know Rummy employed CBS News staff as his aides in secret meetings.

Asshole...

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

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

---snip---

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

____________________
Ummm..let's see. Saying it front of a reporter for CBS? You know, one of the major media networks in the US?

Kindly forward my reward to the Foundation for Rightwing Illiteracy Project. Note said donation is in Trimpet's name

Hey JadeGold- who the fuck is illiterate? How did Rumsfeld say these things in front of a reporter since the article is based on NOTES HIS AIDES TOOK DOWN?? I didn't know Rummy employed CBS News staff as his aides in secret meetings.

Asshole...

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

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

---snip---

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

____________________
Ummm..let's see. Saying it front of a reporter for CBS? You know, one of the major media networks in the US?

Kindly forward my reward to the Foundation for Rightwing Illiteracy Project. Note said donation is in Trimpet's name

Hey JadeGold- who the fuck is illiterate? How did Rumsfeld say these things in front of a reporter since the article is based on NOTES HIS AIDES TOOK DOWN?? I didn't know Rummy employed CBS News staff as his aides in secret meetings.

Asshole...

Trimpet: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

If David Martin received notes from a "secret meeting"--shouldn't Rumsfeld be ordering an investigation?

The fact remains CBS was given these notes. You don't provide notes or documentation to a major news network and get surprised when they show up on the 6 o'clock news.

Perhaps Ann Coulter will write a primer for the Foundation for Rightwing Illiteracy. I can see it now--ABCs: How the Liberal Left Uses the Alphabet to Undermine Freedom

This claim that there is NO connection between Saddam and 9/11 is not a factual statement, and belies some very damning evidence.

An Al Qaeda terrorist training camp at Salman Pak trained non-Iraqi terrorists in the art of hijacking airplanes using only knives - in a real plane that sat unmoved for years.

From NRO:
"There have been several confirmed sightings of Islamic fundamentalists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf states being trained in terror tactics at the Iraqi intelligence camp at Salman Pak," Khidir Hamza, Iraq's former nuclear-weapons chief, told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee last July 31. "The training involved assassination, explosions and hijacking."

"This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world," former Iraqi army captain Sabah Khodada told PBS's Frontline in an October 14, 2001 interview. Khodada worked at Salman Pak. He said that instruction there was "all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests." He added: "We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane...They are trained how to plant horror within the passengers by doing such actions." A map of the camp Khodada drew for Frontline closely matches satellite photos of the base, thus bolstering his story.

"I was the security officer in charge of the unit," at Salman Pak, an ex-Iraqi lieutenant general told Frontline anonymously in a November 6, 2001 interview. "This unit was under the direct supervision and control of the Iraqi Intelligence Service," he added. "And the fact that the training was concentrated on a plane made it even stranger as far as I was concerned."

I find this evidence quite damning. In any event, once this information is brought to light, it is simply not possible to disregard it as completely irrelevant to this discussion, despite the gallant attempt by the media to do just that.

For some Googling fun, try this one ("Salman Pak" + Mylroie) or this one ("Salman Pak" + "Faruq Hijazi").

It's too bad the media ignores such stories; an informed debate is so much more interesting and useful.

Hey asshole JadeGold, NO CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

YOU SAID THAT RUMSFELD SAID THOSE QUOTES IN FRONT OF A CBS REPORTER. WHEN I POINT OUT THAT THE QUOTES CAME FROM SOMEONE ELSES NOTES, YOU SAID:

If David Martin received notes from a "secret meeting"--shouldn't Rumsfeld be ordering an investigation?

The fact remains CBS was given these notes. You don't provide notes or documentation to a major news network and get surprised when they show up on the 6 o'clock news

SO WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT RUMSFELD DIDN'T SAY IT TO CBS LIKE YOU CLAIMED???

Unless, in your convoluted mind, you're trying to imply that Rumsfeld either gave the notes to CBS, or sanctioned the notes being given to CBS? Fine, but (typed in caps so you can understand) WHERE IS THE PROOF? You know, proof, that thing that verifies your assertions?

The absence of a Rummy "investigation" into the notes isn't proof of your assertion. If you tried to use this standard of proof in a legal setting, you'd be laughed out of court. Even the People's Court.

Unless you have PROOF that you can cite, instead of some half baked conspiracy theory, go fuck off eh?

Traitor...

What would Trimpet do without a caps lock?

"I, on the other hand, do have $100 waiting for whoever can prove to me that that Bush, even once, said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Bush never said it. Scott McClellan did, but that was in reference to Iraq being a threat to Turkey and, by extenstion, all of NATO (not a direct threat to the US).

This game sure is fun. I'll pay $100 to anyone who can prove that martians exist. No? Ok, I'll pay $100 to anyone who can prove that Dick Cheney is Lord Satan. Look, you're offering money for something that everyone knows to be patently false. The Bush administration never explicitly connected Saddam and 9/11, just as Bush never said "imminent threat."

But as I mentioned in a previous comment, you're denying the existence of implicit meanings. And that's the problem we should be addressing.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

Leftist delusions will no doubt survive the coming November landslide. They're just going through the motions of whining now, while someone is still willing to respond to their lies and half-truths.

After November, all they'll get is derisive laughter.

When you have an adminsitration that includes words such as "terrorists", "Iraq", "Hussein" in one or two breaths, a case for inference, linkage and suggestion is being constructed. No, I'm not going to scour for quotes to "prove" this--it's just plain obvious to anyone who's been listening. You guys want to play a prove it with facts game etc to make yourselves appear like argumentative theorists but it's ludicrous and out of place....George Bush has never even proved Osama and Al Queda were behind 9-11 except for saying so which could never pass muster in a court of law or People's Court either. Even wonder why the focus immediately went from 9-11 to evildoers and there was never a major criminal investigation? And all the evidence was carted off? And no Boeing 757 could ever has struck the Pentagon according to the original shots? And those towers never should have collapsed from a fire (firefighters stated the fires were pretty much out), etc etc. Gotta wonder why the man has from the outset stonewalled 9-11 investigation...call the Bush administration the Hiders....trying to hide their own foul deeds. So much energy gfoes into talking about terrorists and Osam a and Hussein but we still haven't really figured out the first principle: who did 9-11?

Bush speicifcally linked Hussein to Al Queda: even says it on this WH website. Go, and scroll down:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html

read it and weep

the right is so full of shit