Note the goalposts moving quickly backward.

The goalpost hasn't moved, JadeGold - you just want to call a single a homerun.

The reward is offered for:

a quote from a senior figure (in a legitimate news source, such as a major newpaper, network news, or newsmagazine) that explicitly links Hussein and September 11. Not links between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but a quote that states that Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks.

That's not difficult to understand, is it?

I see that the oft-banned blogroach JadeGold has found your site, Bill. My condolences.

Bill: The terms have changed since yesterday. I suspect it's because yesterday's criteria were satisfied.

I have no doubt my CBS cite yesterday met yesterday's criteria. I also am under no illusion I'll be paid because those goalposts will continuously retreat.

Want to see the goalposts move again?

Watch.

Mohammed Atta met Saddam prior to September 11: US official Sunday, 08-Sep-2002 4:40AM

MILAN, Sept 8 (AFP) - Mohammed Atta consulted Saddam Hussein prior to leading the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, according to Richard Perle, an advisor to the US defense secretary.

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn‘t just there for a holiday," Perle told Italy‘s business daily "Il Sole 24 Ore".

"The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq," added Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board and consultant to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of an attack on Iraq.

"The main objective of the American administration is to avoid weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands," said Perle.

I suspect tomorrow's moving of the goalposts will include the caveat that the senior administration offial must be at least 6'10" tall.

Nice.

Poor Jade, still can't read can she?

The quote you provided says that Atta consulted Hussein. Wonderful. Now where is the quote where the senior official says that that means that Hussein is responsible for Sept 11?

You gripe about the administration playing connect-the-dots and now you're gonna gripe becuase they didn't play connect-the-dots eh?

Man, you just can't buy this kind of entertainment.

JadeGold also failed to provide any URL for the (supposed) quotation.

This particular quote was delivered to Il Sole 24 Ore and picked up by the AFP.

Google is your friend.

Look at those goalposts move outside the stadium.

Rob Crocker: Why don't you nail down the challenge terms?

By all accounts, Atta was the leader of the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. So, when Richard Perle says that "Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn‘t just there for a holiday," ---what do you think Perle was trying to say?

Do you think it likely Perle was merely suggesting Atta and Saddam got together two months before 9/11 because Atta was dropping off Saddam's Avon order?

Dr. Weevil: Would an URL satisfy you that I've met the criteria to get the reward? Or what new conditions do you intend to place on this challenge?

When was Perle a senior Bush administartion figure?

JadeGold: It doesn't matter what Richard Perle said. He is NOT, repeat NOT a "senior official" in the Bush administration.

Once again, JadeGold, the reward is offered for

The reward is offered for:

a quote from a senior figure (in a legitimate news source, such as a major newpaper, network news, or newsmagazine) that explicitly links Hussein and September 11. Not links between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but a quote that states that Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks.

THe original post offering the reward also used the words "high-ranking" or "spokesman" for the administration.

Perle is not a "senior" figure in the administration - indeed he was not in the administration at all. And even if he was, the quote you cite does not explicitly link Saddam specifically to the 9/11 attack.

The goalposts have not moved, JadeGold, and you have not won.

JadeGold says: Do you think it likely Perle was merely suggesting Atta and Saddam got together two months before 9/11 because Atta was dropping off Saddam's Avon order?

Doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what was explictly said. You must find a quote from a senior or high-ranking Bush administration official or spokesman claiming explicitly that Saddam had involvement in the 9/11 attack. Not fore-knowledge of. INVOLVEMENT. Involvement of course means he participated in some way - he funded it, or helped plan it, or helped make it happen in some way.

You do not "win" this contest by reading into some non-administration official's quote a meaning you would like to ascribe to it. You win it by, well, by finding a quote that meets the criteria. You, JadeGold, have not done so.

Mr. Hobbs: Naturally, I disagree (I bet you didn't see that coming).

At the time Perle gave the interview, he was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. He had a rather nice office in the E-Ring (the Broadway and Park Place real estate) of the Pentagon. Perle's office was two doors down from Rumsfeld's.

From the Defense Policy Board's Charter:

The Defense Policy Board will serve the public interest by providing the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. It will focus upon long-term, enduring issues central to strategic planning for the Department of Defense and will be responsible for research and analysis of topics, long or short range, addressed to it by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy.

Again, Mr. Hobbs--the goalposts have moved. Perle's quote cannot seriously be taken in any other way but as a direct assertion Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

Look, I'm not out to take your money. But I'd ask that you quit pretending to issue a challenge you have no intent on honoring.

Having looked at Chris W.'s Google results, I can only observe that:

1. Even Counterpunch admits that one likely possibility is translation problems. Given that Perle's supposed words have gone from English through Italian and French and back into English again, and that no one seems to be able to come up with a copy of the French version, much less the Italian or Perle's original English, it seems unlikely that the final version, quoted by JadeGold, has much resemblance to what Perle actually said. And of course, as Counterpunch also observes, he may have misspoken in the first place.

2. One of the other Google links, the amusingly-named 'Lying Media Bastards', observes:

"I see. The Bush administration, which wants war with Iraq so badly that it can taste it, finally has a smoking gun linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. And instead of having Bush or Rumsfeld or Powell take this evidence to the NY Times or CNN or the UN, they have Richard Perle make vague reference to it in an Italian business daily.

"Sounds... unlikely."

In short, JadeGold's "evidence" is obviously bogus. We are supposed to agree that the lying Bush administration fooled the American public into thinking that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 by slipping an ambiguous one-sentence assertion into an interview with an Italian business journal and waiting for it to be translated into French and then into English for the Times of India, after which it would presumably wiggle back into the U.S. and do its dirty propagandistic business. Wouldn't it have been easier just to have Perle -- or Bush -- tell us all directly in a news conference?

By the way, I am still waiting for JadeGold to:

1. Send me a copy of her resume so I can mock it as she has mocked mine. She pretends that there is a "hole" in mine, but hers is nothing but hole.

2. Answer a direct question from Dafydd on a previous thread that she has been reminded repeatedly is still unanswered.

Once again, Dr. Weevil (of the eight and not fifteen year resume gap) leaps into the breach.

Let's see...what have we here? Dr. Weevil uses opinions that Perle's words may have been mistranslated and that because Perle gave a quote to an Italian Business Journal that it ought to be fogotten.

Nope.

Review the terms of the challenge. It does not matter where Perle asserted the link between 9/11 and Saddam. Nor is there any stipulation the assertion had to sway the American public.

As to mistranslation--highly doubtful. Perhaps if Dr. Weevil were better travelled, he'd understand many in Europe speak English quite well. And it's suspect a business journal on the continent would not have translators that very competent in this era of globalization.

JadeGold: Yes is DOES matter where the quote was published. It also matter WHO said it.

As to the first part, the quote must be published

in a legitimate news source, such as a major newpaper, network news, or newsmagazine. That's in the terms of the original challenge.

As to the second, we've already established that Perle was not a "senior" or "high-ranking" administration official when he said it, so it really matters not where it was published nor what he said.

One more time:

1. Stop talking about my resume if you're not willing to provide your own. Or keep talking, if you like. It just makes you look like a hypocrite and a fool.

2. Answer Dafydd's question.

3. Most important, stop pretending that the quotation proves anything. It doesn't matter how well "most Europeans" know English, no text can survive being translated three times without losing something along the way. Given the propensity of some journalists (not you, Bill!) to "sex up" their interviews by putting words in the mouths of their subjects, I seriously doubt that Perle said what he is quoted as saying.

In any case, the quoted words do NOT state that Saddam Hussein had prior knowledge of the attack, still less that he facilitated it in any way, just that he had contact with the one who carried it out. It shows (if it is accurate at all) that Saddam Hussein had some extremely sinister friends, and we knew that already.

Anyway, I would have given up arguing with JadeGold long ago, since there is no point in arguing with a contemptible troll such as herself, but I hope to shame Chris W. and others into realizing that having JadeGold on your side on any issue is ipso facto evidence that you are likely to be wrong.

Just to clarify, my last message was addressed to JadeGold, not our long-suffering host.

Mr. Hobbs:

I refer you back to your own words earlier today:

a quote from a senior figure (in a legitimate news source, such as a major newpaper, network news, or newsmagazine) that explicitly links Hussein and September 11. Not links between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but a quote that states that Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks.

Nowhere in these words even suggest "where" and it refers to a "senior figure."

Perle is an 800 lb gorilla in this administration. At the time he linked saddam and 9/11, he was chairman of the DPB. He had unfettered access to SecDef and the WH. He frequently appeared on the Sunday AM talking head shows to explain this appointed administration's policies and act as an advocate for them.

BTW, Dr. Weevil's "lost in translation" excuse is, as Nixon's press secretary used to say, inoperative.

How can I say that? Aside from the fact I'm always correct?

Well, let's take a look at a "blurb" written by Richard Perle for Laurie Myroie's book Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack & Saddam Hussein's War against America.

"Laurie Myroie has amassed convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. If she is right — and there are simple ways to test her hypothesis — we would be justified in concluding that Saddam was probably involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks as well."

Oooooh, that's gotta sting, Dr. Weevil.

Anyway, I would have given up arguing with JadeGold long ago, since there is no point in arguing with a contemptible troll such as herself, but I hope to shame Chris W. and others into realizing that having JadeGold on your side on any issue is ipso facto evidence that you are likely to be wrong.

My position on this is quite clear. This little game is amusing, but irrelevant. The implied association between Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein is well documented in a vast body of quotes.

Incidentally, your evidence is not "ipso facto". It's actually an ad hominem fallacy.

I thank you, Mr. Wage. Naturally, I agree.

BTW, your review of OutKast's Speakerboxxx/The Love Below has convinced me top pick it up.

Can you please qualify, in unambiguous terms, what is meant by senior official?

A list of names would help, or positions....whatever. Oh and while we're at it,please define 'legitimate news source'. Again, names appreciated.

JadeGold- is English your first language? Or is there some other reason you can't grasp the concept that "explicitely stating" something is NOT the same as implying it or saying someting that could possibly be interpreted to mean something? It's really not that difficult. Honest, it isn't. Hell, I went to public schools in Louisiana and I can get it. Why can't you?

Dave: I feel your pain.

But the sad truth is I've fully satisfied the criteria for winning this challenge. Of course, I also understand that those who issued this challenge wouldn't honor it if Bush were photographed with 'Saddam planned and committed 9/11, for sure' tattooed across his forehead.

You see, this isn't about trying to show up or put down those who disagree with Bush; instead, this whole challenge is meant to assuage the hurt and confusion of Bush's ardent followers. Understand that Bush's adherents have invested a lot in their man and it's been proven that he badly misled the nation. That's a pretty bitter pill for Bush's followers to swallow. So, they create these little contests where they can continuously change the rules and arbitrarily fiddle with semantics. In a small way, they can pretend they've scored a 'victory' after being duped so badly.

Truth is the only casualty in this game. The sad part is that those who issued this challenge wouldn't want their colleagues, coworkers, family or children to lie or cheat in the manner they have.

I keep seeing JadeGold claiming to win the reward, even though the criteria have not been met. The original criteria are very clear.

Also, two points:

1) Perle is not a senior administration official. Mr. Hobbs proved that.

2) The quote JadeGold gives does not explicitly link Saddam with 911.

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn‘t just there for a holiday," Perle told Italy‘s business daily "Il Sole 24 Ore".

Atta meeting with Saddam Hussein prior to 911 does not prove Saddam explicitly had a part in 911. You can claim that it implies that all you want, but the simple truth is it does not say that.

As far as I know, no one in the administration explicitly said that Saddam was behind 9/11. However, they and their staff did one heck of a good job mentioning the two in the same sentence. Or conflating the two together and making it seem like somehow Saddam was involved in 9/11.

No one is going to get the reward money from Mr. Hobbs. The ties between Saddam and 9/11 were never explicitly stated, but they were implied in numerous, highly public speeches.

This one from Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" (cited in the Washington Post) is pretty close:

"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."

Since it was I who issued the original challenge, I will clarify a few things.

1. "Senior administration official" and "spokesperson" would include Department heads, Deputy heads, and anyone in the administration with the title of "spokesperson". "Major Newspaper" is a daily (US or foreign) newspaper with widespread readership that is intended as a source of news (not propaganda). Despite the disdain many have for the New York Times and the Washington Times, (to name two examples)or Le Figaro and The Guardian (two European examples) they are all major newspapers. Worker's World Daily is not, nor is The Daily Howler. Any TV network (except Al Jazeera) qualifies. I exclude Al Jazeera because of their extreme bias. Newsmagazines include Time, Newsweek, US News, The Economist, and the like. (I am sure that there are non-US newsmagazines out there, but I do not know their names.)

2. Jade, simply repeating over and over again that Perle is a member of the Bush administration does not make it so. He is a member of the DPB, which is influential, but not part of the administration. The CEO of Tyson Foods was influential in the Clinton Administration, but he was not a member of said administration.

3. There is no "moving of the goalposts" here. If you visit my weblog and look at my links, you will not see HobbsOnline listed. Horologium is not on his links list either. I've never made any statement that tied the two together (check my archives if you believe otherwise). This is the first time I've spoken of the matter, so I cannot be accused of changing the dialogue.

4. I've seen links from a few people (here, and one on my blog), but none of them make the case that I clearly specified in my original post. I am quite willing to pay if someone can meet the terms of the post, but I'm not paying someone because they can't meet my terms, and resort to insulting me instead.

Timekeeper: No insult was made or intended. But the plain fact is you've decided that you will not honor the terms of the challenge---in any circumstance. It's been apparent since the day it was issued as the terms have sometimes 'evolved.' The goalposts will always move.

1. At the time Perle issued his remarks, he was chairman of the Defense Policy Board (DPB). He has since resigned as chairman (due to some ethical improprieties) but remains a member of that board.

2. The DPB Chairman has an office (paid for by the US taxpayers) two doors down from the SecDef at the Pentagon. Offices surrounding Perle's are those of various Asst. SecDefs as well as uniformed heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The DPB has full and unfettered access to classified defense information. The Chairman of the DPB serves at the pleasure of the SecDef; indeed, when Perle resigned his Chairmanship, he submitted his resignation to Rumsfeld directly.

3. Previously, I've posted an excerpt of DPB's Charter which makes it clear its functions and reponsibilities are in "the public interest." This is an important detail; it means the DPB is part of the US Government.

4. In the events leading up to Perle's resignation from the Chairmanship, DoD's Inspector General (IG) investigated several of Perle's business activities for alleged conflict of interest or misuse of public office. Kindly note the term 'public office.'

5. Perle is, and has been, a frequent guest on the various news/pundit shows where he is introduced as a Senior Advisor to the SecDef and a spokesman for this appointed administration.

6. WRT AFP; AFP claims to be the world's oldest news agency. It provides coverage to some 165 countries. It also provides news services to outlets such as Yahoo USA as well as outlets in Europe, Japan, and Taiwan. Until recently, AFP was teamed with the Associated Press (AP). It certainly is considered a reputable, large, and established news service. Further, this same story was picked up by Reuters, the Australian Associated Press (AAP), the South African Press Association (SAPA), Times of India, and many others.

7. Perle's comment cannot be construed as anything but an explicit charge that Saddam was informed about and/or a participant to the attacks of 9/11 by a reasonable person. Here, again, is Perle's comment:

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn‘t just there for a holiday,"

I believe we both can agree Mohammed Atta was considered to be the operational leader of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. And I think we have consensus as to who Saddam is and what country Baghdad is in.

The timing of this alleged meeting is also important. According to Perle, it happened about 2 months before the attacks. What conceivable reason would there be for Mohammed Atta, who was not an Iraqi citizen and had no apparent ties to Iraq, to meet with the dictator of Iraq a few weeks before one of history's most terrible acts of terrorism? We can rule out a vacation, according to Perle.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not out to take anyone's money. Everyone can see this 'challenge' was never intended to be honored.

I'm in on this offer as well and in response to JadeGold's nonsense, Perle was NOT a senior administration official. First, his position on the Defense Policy Board is unpaid. Second, and more importantly, his position does not involve Senate confirmation, which I would consider indicative of a senior position in the administration like secretaries and undersecretaries. Third, Perle's office is not two doors down from Rumsfeld, unless of course, he has the ability to burrow through a floor. He's one floor below Rummy. As such, unpaid, unconfirmed, and remote, do not make Perle a senior official. From where I sit, the goalposts remain and the money is unclaimed. (Geez, I'm sounding like Jessie).

Chuck raises some interesting points, though most are not germane to this 'challenge.'

First, Perle's position was unpaid. But how is that is germane? I don't seem to recall part of the challenge incorporating a certain salary threshold.

Second, Senate confirmation was also not a criteria in this challenge. As Timekeeper noted above: "Senior administration official" and "spokesperson" would include Department heads, Deputy heads, and anyone in the administration with the title of "spokesperson".

Third, Perle's office is indeed one deck down from Rumsfeld's. It is, however, in the E-Ring which is flag territory. His office is paid for by taxpayers--just as Rumsfeld's is.

OT:

James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, regarding Bush's attendance records:

"As you mentioned there is some question about his attendance records. The White House has responded in a rather confusing way by saying that these records have been lost.

I can tell you having spent three years as assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs in charge of the guard and the reserve programs it would be very unusual to lose these records.

They are important for monitoring pay, also for the credit that you get for drill that goes against satisfactory performance in the guard and these sorts of things, so there are a lot of questions out there."

And I'm going to repeat my previous post, with a little addition at the end:

As far as I know, no one in the administration explicitly said that Saddam was behind 9/11. However, they and their staff did one heck of a good job mentioning the two in the same sentence. Or conflating the two together and making it seem like somehow Saddam was involved in 9/11.

No one is going to get the reward money from Mr. Hobbs. The ties between Saddam and 9/11 were never explicitly stated, but they were implied in numerous, highly public speeches.

A very interesting tactic is being employed here... The question as it stands is very specific, and most people realize that there are few or no actual instances of the Bush Admin. explicitly linking Saddam to 9/11. The only problem is that by concentrating on that word "explicit" you are denying the application of the word "implicit." And that means that no one will get the reward money, because the question itself ignores the problem.

JadeGold - Timekeeper at the Horologium blog established the goalpost, it hasn't moved, and you've not scored. However, if he ever determines you or someone to have one, I'll also pay my offered reward. I won't pay if he doesn't declare a winner.

Perle is not an administration official or spokesman.

His quote is not an explicit statement, which is what the challenge requires. It implies it in your mind but it does not explicitly state it.

Y'all get your points in fast and well-made - this thread closes after 50 comments.

Hey, I've got a similar reward:

Find me some administration official before or during the war on Iraq (i.e. the day that Chimpy declared "Mission Accomplished!") that went out of his way to DISPEL the widely held impression that Hussein was connected to 9/11.

The truth is, Bill, that this connection - which while invoked at every turn, was never made explicit by the administration - served the aims of the administration quite nicely. The American people were always far from united on this asinine war (and for good reason), so Chimpy had a real interest in maintaining this canard.

Also, look at how low you're having to stoop, Bill. Instead of "Look at how the Iraqi war has validated all of our predictions!" it's "Hey, here's a really skimpy award I'm putting out for kicking one through the goalposts that have long since been moved outside the stadium!"

Your boy's going down, Bill - all the king's men and even his 400 million dollar war chest can't put Humpty back together again. I think the moment Monkey
Boy suggested we launch a mission to Mars (from the MOON! - with all the money we have just lying around) will be remembered as the moment that he and his atrocious administration finally jumped the shark.

A few points.

1. AFP qualifies as a reputable news source, JG, as do AP, Reuters, UPI, and most of the other wire services (I explained why Al Jazeera was specifically excluded in my previous post).

2. Perle fits into neither category I listed above. He does not (and did not) draw a paycheck from the government, he is not the head of an agency or department, he was not confirmed by a senate vote, and he did not carry the title of "spokesperson". One of the reasons he appears on TV so much is because he is a reliable interviewee; he likes speaking in front of a camera, and he's at least somewhat interesting to hear. He's a publicity hound, and TV producers love him for it.

3. For those of you who are slamming Bill for the way the challenge was constructed, don't blame Bill. I was the one who conceived it, and I am the one to whom your squawking should be directed. However, I'm not apologizing for it. The left is very concerned with parsing words when it's their boy on the line, just as the right is equally concerned when it's theirs. The anti-Bushies here need to simmer down and realize that they were the ones who started the whole "carefully nuanced statements" thing during the Bill and Monica show; the Bush administration is just refining the techniques of the opposition.

Jade Gold reminds me of the snow that I must shovel off the walk almost daily here in the mid west. Next day it's back again. I hope s/he melts away before it does.

Frankly, Bill Hobbs owes an apology to us all.

TimeKeeper: Apparently, you're under the misconception that the presence of a salary means someone is an employee or Government official.

That's a mighty fine line you're trying to walk since US history is filled with people who served as cabinet members, advisors, ambassadors, or representatives of the Government for little or no salary.

FDR had a number of cabinet-level officers who worked for the token sum of a dollar per year. These men included the Secretary of War, the Secretary of State and others.

A number of people appointed to panels, commissions, and other organizations (like Perle) also have done so at no salary (although they do get reimbursed for travel and expenses).

The fact that Perle has an office at the Pentagon and works for an organization which is subject to DoD and US Govt rules indicates he is a public official in this appointed administration.

Jade Gold reminds me of the snow that I'm dealing with here in the midwest. I shovel it off my walk and the next day here it is back again. I guess that I'm lucky though. One day this spring the snow will melt away and I won't have to deal with it for several months. Bill Hobbs should be so lucky.

MikeO: Comparing me to snow in the MidWest wasn't clever the first time; do you believe it improves with repetition?

WRT TimeKeeper's recent comments:

1. Agreed, AFP is a reputable news source.

2. Disagree. Perle is a senior advisor to Donald Rumsfeld. Perle has a Pentagon office. He enjoys unfettered access to defense classified material.

He wasn't confirmed by the Senate--nor was Richard Armitage who is the Deputy Secretary of State and the number two man at State.

The issue of pay is irrelevant.

The notion that Perle is a "news hound" is speculation and not germane. The fact that when Perle resigned his Chairmanship--he submitted his resignation to Rumsfeld is far more germane.

3. Our last democratically-elected President is irrelevant to this discussion as well. But it does point out TimeKeeper's motivation and bias.

An added note on this "challenge:" As several have previously--and quite correctly--noted, this 'challenge' is somewhat dishonest. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that demonstrates this appointed administration strongly, and repeatedly, implied an association between Saddam, al Qaeda, and the events of 9/11. Given numerous opportunities to back off or distance themselves from such implied associations, this appointed administration invariably chose to fan the flames of suspicion.

To demand an "explicit" assertion is really pointless. For example, one could make a strong implication that Bill Hobbs is a thief without ever using the word "thief" or even accusing him of a crime. However, I'm certain Bill Hobbs would react just as negatively to the implication as he would if someone explicitly deemed him a thief. Thus, an explicit assertion and a strong implication are distinctions with very little difference.

Dear Jade Gold
Sorry, computer glitch on the first one so I didn't think it registered and repeated myself. On the other hand you have repeated yourself so much on this site that it may well have been appropriate though unintended. Snow is a minor irritation in my life at the moment
The comparison seems apt if not clever.

(Responding to Jade Gold)

I'm not surprised at any of your arguments. You agree with my assessment of AFP, which makes sense since I was agreeing with you. you disagree with my assessment of Richard Perle, which is the crux of the issue here.
Here is a PDF of an organizational chart for the entire Department of Defense (from the DoD website). The Defense Policy Board is nowhere to be found. Nor is the current chair of the DPB (can you name her, BTW?) listed on the "top leaders" page of the DOD site. Going a bit deeper, I finally found the DPB in an organizational chart. It's located five levels below the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Sorry, that does not constitute a senior administration figure.

BTW, the org chart is a bit out of date, as Ann Hansen is no longer the chair of the DPB. Another woman heads the board. Who is she?

(A bit more)

I will allow that I was wrong as to Perle's status in the administration. However, the fact that the DPB is buried so far down the DoD pecking order does not invalidate my original claim*#151that he is not a SENIOR administration figure or spokesperson. The fact that I had to do so much digging to find it in the organizational charts is proof of that. It's not a classified operation, so it wasn't hidden for security reasons.

Some may find it amusing, others may find it disgusting, to see JadeGold:

1. Trying to change the question. The question was whether Bush or his top advisers ever explicitly linked Saddam to 9-11. Talking about what they may or may not have implied is an obvious and blatant case of "moving the goalposts" -- just what JadeGold keeps falsely accusing his (or her?) opponents of doing.

2. Accusing our host of being "somewhat dishonest" when she (or he?) has twice assured us that Richard Perle works "two doors down" from Rumsfeld. She has now admitted that their offices aren't even on the same floor. Normally people caught making mistakes (misrepresentations? lies?) as gross as that offer some kind of excuse or apology. Not our JadeGold. Apparently, he thinks it's sufficient just to change his story and keep on arguing.

In other unfinished business:

3. Chris Wage thinks I've indulged in an ad hominem in pointing out that having JadeGold on his side doesn't exactly help his argument. He apparently has no problem with JadeGold's repeated lying sneers about a supposed hole on my resume, which are a clear and blatant example of an ad hominem. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

4. JadeGold insists that Agence France-Presse is the source of the supposedly damning supposed Perle quotation, without admitting that there's a problem: AFP reports should be in French, shouldn't they? So where did the quoted English come from? JadeGold refuses to provide a URL, or to admit that someone or other's English version of a French report of an Italian story of an interview with an English-speaker is questionable, at best.

Besides what may be lost or scrambled unintentionally in translation, we have the possibility of tendentious misreporting, an example of which can be seen right in the story JadeGold quotes. Compare the words in quotations, in which Perle supposedly asserts that "Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad" while the previous paragraph, written by some journalist or other (who?) says he "consulted" him. That's a far more damning word than "met", and it doesn't seem to be justified by what's in the quotation marks. JadeGold and her allies don't even notice the problem.

5. JadeGold quotes Perle on a book blurb saying that if Laurie Mylroie is right in pinning the 1993 World Trade Center attack on Hussein, then "we would be justified in concluding that Saddam was probably involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks as well" and adds "Oooooh, that's gotta sting, Dr. Weevil." Why? That's just about exactly what I wrote on a previous thread. Those who pretend that it has been proven that Hussein was not involved in 9-11 are simply wrong. They cannot possibly know any such thing. There is no proof one way or the other, so either he wasn't involved or he has so far successfully concealed his role. He would have a strong incentive to conceal any involvement. As I have said before, it is possible, but not probable that he was involved, and Perle obviously agrees. He certainly approved after the fact -- note the murals found in Iraq that combine flaming World Trade Center towers with a grinning Hussein -- so if he wasn't involved it's only because either (a) he didn't think of it himself and Osama didn't tell him in advance, or (b) didn't think he could get away with it.

TimeKeeper makes a few key errors in his determination not to honor the terms of his 'challenge.'

First, he claims the "the DPB is buried so far down the DoD pecking order does not invalidate my original claim*#151that he is not a SENIOR administration figure or spokesperson."

This is an admission DPB is part of the Pentagon as I previously noted and TK had previously argued against.

Second, if DPB is so far down the list on the Pentagon's pecking order--why was Richard Perle on virtually every talking head/pundit show? Why did he repeatedly appear in interviews in the media? After all, anyone within DoD (or any other Govt. agency, for that matter)giving interviews or opinions to the media must go through that agency's public affairs office? This demonstrates, at the very least, Perle was a Senior Spokesman for this appointed administration.

TK is also a bit dishonest by saying DPB doesn't show up on an abbreviated DoD org chart. DPB falls under the Office of the Secretary of Defense (http://www.defense.gov/policy/policy_org_chart.html) and is, organizationally, at the same level as a Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense.

And so JadeGold gets what s/he wants. It's worthless, folks. This blogroach claimed to have attended the Naval Academy once at Balloon Juice but, when challenged to prove it by answering a simple question, just quit posting in that thread. Don't waste your valuable time arguing with this nincompoop - it's like punching a bag of feathers; the only thing you'll change is the direction it swings back at you from, never the contents.

Jealousy makes you look petty, Dodd.

Why deprive people of my wisdom when you've demonstrated you don't have the intellectual acuity to keep up?

(Cross posted at Horologium)

Jade Gold,

The link you provide is essentially the same as the one I provided. The person at the top of that chart, Douglas Feith, is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Underneath him is the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense (Policy Support). Underneath are three more levels, International Security Program, Special Advisory Staff, and Organizational Management and Support, then we get to the DPB. By trying to obscure this, you are the one who is being dishonest, as the DPB is not anywhere near the same level as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, but rather four levels below the Deputy, and five levels below the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

JadeGold: Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day. Perhaps one day, if I am ever involved in a car accident or other mishap that turns me into a liberal requires a neurosurgeon to remove a large portion of my brain, I might become capable of being jealous of you. As Denis Healey famously said of Sir Geoffrey Howe, being insulted by you is "like being savaged by a dead sheep."