# Sadam didn't have links with Al-Qida, now it's a relationship **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 17, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888 "2004-06-17T16:34:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/61 "2004-06-20T06:28:59Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Cite? I’ve only heard them say they cannot verify or disprove the Czechs. The requested cite was in post #38 0on page 1 of this thread. > [@](#): > > The Vice President Appears on NBC’s Meet the Press December 9, 2001 > RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11? > CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report **that’s been pretty well confirmed,** that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Bolding mine -DG A little later (refer to the same post) Cheney said “I didn’t say that.” I guess you missed it on the first reading. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/62 "2004-06-20T07:20:36Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > I don’t know any way to read that except as, to paraphrase, we are attacking Iraq because Iraq is a nation that planned, authorized, committed or aided in the September 11 attacks. Then you need to read closely and understand what the word “including” means. > [@](#): > > Let me suggest that you take a look at this staff report from _The Christian Science Monitor_, that speaks to the whole “correct the record” issue. There’s not a single word in it I disagree with. You seem confused because you think I’m defending Bush. I’m not. Please check and see who it was who used the term “unacceptable weaseling” > [@](#): > > I will flat guarantee that no body from the Administration was saying that before 11:00 AM this past Wednesday. I’ve offered a bet on this … care to take me up on it, or are you just blustering? ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/63 "2004-06-20T13:28:45Z")
**Furt** , do you understand that the reference to September 11 in the President’s message to Congress is meaningless in the absence of an assertion that Iraq had a hand in September 11? To think other wise is to think that the September 11 reference is just gratuitous, like a boob shot in a dull movie that does nothing to move the story along but does keep the audience’s attention. As stated above, I can not read the message as anything other than a claim that the invasion of Iraq was premised (at least in part) on Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attack. If my reading of this is supportable it pretty much leaves the President’s public rational for the war in shambles and relegates the announced basis for the invasion and occupation to the level of fevered imagination and shoddy marketing techniques. As far as your bet is concerned, do you want to bet that no one from the Administration ever flat footed said that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, or that someone from the Administration did deliberately and publicly announce that Iraq’s involvement with terrorists had nothing to do with September 11, or that the Administration was careful to attach a September 11 disclaimer to its public drum beating about Iraq and terrorism? Apparently, at least in this instance, you and I agreed about this Administration’s attitude toward honesty with the electorate and transparency intentions. ---
**Author:** ![Chimpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9adbd/32.png) [@Chimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimpy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/64 "2004-06-20T13:46:30Z")
I think Tony and George need to talk about their own relationship before they get onto others, Tony seems very submissive. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/65 "2004-06-20T14:04:18Z")
> [@](#): > > As far as your bet is concerned, do you want to bet that no one from the Administration ever flat footed said that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, or that someone from the Administration did deliberately and publicly announce that Iraq’s involvement with terrorists had nothing to do with September 11, or that the Administration was careful to attach a September 11 disclaimer to its public drum beating about Iraq and terrorism? I think he wants to bet that the statements from the administration have been so duplicitous that he can find 20 to support pretty much any position he chooses. though quite who he thinks is disagreeing is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/66 "2004-06-20T14:12:56Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Though quite who he thinks is disagreeing is beyond me. **furt** is either going through the painful process of admitting that his heros in the administration are full of shit, or he’s just being his usual, stupid disagreeable self. I’m guessing it’s the latter. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/67 "2004-06-20T16:04:24Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Yes, they were “connected” But Morocco had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, Vichy France was an independant legal entity separate from Nazi Germany. Vichy France never declared war on the US and there were diplomatic relations in effect when US troops hit the beach. These countries were aiding the war effort of Germany by providing money, trade routes, supplies etc. > [@furt](#): > > The analogy is by no means perfect, but the idea in both cases has always been that while we were attacked by one group/nation, the larger threat is an ideological one… I bet we went into Africa to cut funds and supplies for the German war effort rather than because Morocco was part of National Socialist Party’s ideological threat. > [@furt](#): > > …to kill the threat you follow whatever route is expedient and you don’t necessarily care about the fine differences between alliances, affiliations and affinities. Such is the fundamental difference in warfare and police work. Hussein and UbL do no share an ideology. Hussein was not providing funds or supplies to UbL. What is the connection? > [@furt](#): > > Cite? I’ve only heard them say they cannot verify or disprove the Czechs. Well, that is the _currently_ operable statement. [cribbed from here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4980838#post4980838)[SIZE=1]**[CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE ‘OUTRAGEOUS’](http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm) _Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET_** “…responding to a report from the 9-11 Commission saying it had found no evidence of ‘collaboration’ between Iraq and Al Qaeda” “Vice President Dick Cheney… called the New York Times coverage of the story ‘outrageous’.” **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed. _\_ There’s clearly been a relationship. There’s a separate question. The separate question is: Was Iraq involved with al-Qaida in the attack on 9/11? _\_ What The New York Times did today was outrageous. … **The press wants to run out and say there’s a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said**. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who’s since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And **there’s no conflict**. **What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11**. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. **They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways**. **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : But that is a separate question from what the press has gotten all in a dither about, The New York Times especially, on this other question [of whether or not there was a general relationship between UbL and Hussein]. What they’ve done is, I think, distorted what the commission actually reported, certainly according to Governor Thompson, who’s a member of the commission. **BORGER** : But you say you disagree with the commission… **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship. **BORGER** : Yes. **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : Yeah. **BORGER** : And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know? **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : Probably. **BORGER** : And do you think the commission needs to know them? **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : I don’t have any–I don’t know what they know. I do know they didn’t talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report. **BORGER** : They did talk with people who had interrogated sources. **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : Right. **BORGER** : So they do have good sources. **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true. [INDENT][Since there actually _is_ a diagreement between “what the president said and what the commission said,” and if it _is_ outrageous that the NYT would say that ‘there’s a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said,’ this means that the VPotUSA is just outraged that the NYT would say it?] **BORGER** : Well, let’s get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. **You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."** **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : **No, I never said that.** **BORGER** : OK. **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : \*\*Never said that. \*\* **BORGER** : I think that is… **Vice Pres. CHENEY** : **Absolutely not**. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down. \*\*[The Vice President Appears on NBC’s Meet the Press](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:S7isUp5lO-4J:www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html+%22pretty+well+confirmed%22+cheney+site:.gov&hl=en) \*\* _December 9, 2001_ **RUSSERT** : Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11? **CHENEY** : Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was **that report that’s been pretty well confirmed** , that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.[/size][/INDENT] > [@furt](#): > > Yes, and we’re into “meaning of is” territory there. Actually, we’re not. When there’s a duty to see that someone’s informed, allowing a fundamental misconception to persist, (if not flourish), is an example where the obligation to inform was not fulfilled. > [@furt](#): > > The question is, who would have won an election between Clinton and Ken Starr? And Clinton gets yet another pointless cameo. > [@furt](#): > > A politician’s job is to get votes, period… Actually, they have an entire set of obligations to the constitution, the electorate, and the nation. > [@furt](#): > > Painting your opponent as a weasel is a good way to win an election. Painting your opponent as a liar, when in fact he’s only a weasel, is a good way to lose one. There’re a number of instances where the only defense available to the Admin against charges of lying is the one of incompetece or ignorance. This defense turns what would be a lie into a something that’s merely ‘imprecise’ or a “mis-statement.” The bounds of plausible deniability are stretched perilously thin. Take the example provided above. Was Cheney lying? Or did he merely forget what he had said? If there were only a few of these types of instances of past operable statements soming in conflict with current operable statements then the plausibility of the denial would be intact. However… ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/68 "2004-06-20T16:11:47Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > **Simon X** in the hours since you posted that there were people on these boards who said that the Osama-Saddam connection the Administration was talking about was not related to September 11, I have been reviewing the bidding on this thing. I cannot for the life of me recall any poster here who flat footed said that the President et al were right to say there was a connection but that the President et al were not saying that Saddam was involved in September 11, either on his own or through Osama. I may be wrong (God knows I have been often enough), or I may have missed it, but I just have no recollection of that sort of a statement. I can’t recall a specific one either. maybe I’m wrong. I’m just speaking to my current impressions of the past. > [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > I will flat guarantee that no body from the Administration was saying that before 11:00 AM this past Wednesday. Depending on how exactly you phrase your guarantee… Note that the Admin’s denial always take the form of implying that they think that there’s a connection between the two, but that they just can’t prove it yet. The use negative pregnants to deny the connection. This is yet anopther deliberate attempt top keep the issue clouded. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/69 "2004-06-20T16:40:51Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > **Furt** , do you understand that the reference to September 11 in the President’s message to Congress is meaningless in the absence of an assertion that Iraq had a hand in September 11? To think other wise is to think that the September 11 reference is just gratuitous, like a boob shot in a dull movie that does nothing to move the story along but does keep the audience’s attention. In a way, yes. What you’re seeming to have a problem with is that you think I’m defending Bush. I am not. I am saying is that he is guilty of smarmy political weaseling of exactly the sort Clinton was with “meaning of is,” (only on a far more important issue) … but he is not guilty of lying in the strictest sense, because like Clinton, he parsed his words carefully and phrased everything just so. The larger point is, who came out of the Clinton fiasco looking better, the guy who did the weaselly thing, or the opponents who tried to capitalize on it and ended up overreaching? You can insist that lying and misleading are exactly the same thing all you want, and in the eyes of some crucial moderates who are not satisfied with Bush but do not hate him, you’re just going to look just like the Pubs who insisted that lying about sex was the same thing as lying about affairs of state. Whether you’re “right” or not is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > … the announced basis for the invasion and occupation to the level of … shoddy marketing techniques. Pretty much the way I’d put it. Except, sadly, it’s not shoddy if it works. > [@](#): > > As far as your bet is concerned, do you want to bet that no one from the Administration ever flat footed said that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, or that someone from the Administration did deliberately and publicly announce that Iraq’s involvement with terrorists had nothing to do with September 11, No they didn’t; they said there was no evidence of involvement. Which is correct. > [@](#): > > or that the Administration was careful to attach a September 11 disclaimer to its public drum beating about Iraq and terrorism? Yes, they did, which is misleading and wrong, but not lying in the strictest sense. > [@](#): > > Apparently, at least in this instance, you and I agreed about this Administration’s attitude toward honesty with the electorate and transparency intentions. I supported the war and still do; but I felt in “selling” it, they were sneaky about it, and that was wrong. IIRC I said so on these boards. In 1939, FDR knew a war had to be fought, but he waited until the public was on board. In the end, that waiting probably cost thousands of lives; nonetheless I think it was the right thing to do. Bush short-circuited that process. > [@Avenger](#): > > I think he wants to bet that the statements from the administration have been so duplicitous that he can find 20 to support pretty much any position he chooses. To repeat: try to find one single unambiguous statement where they say explicitly and with no wiggle room that Iraq was behind 9/11. I have never seen one, and I bet you never have either. Don’t believe me? Prove me wrong. Someone may have misparsed when speaking extemporaneously (such are the hazards of cutting the truth so fine), so I’ll allow you may find one (no doubt clarified the next day), which is why I said I can find ten times more where they have said unambigously that there was no evidence of cooperation in re: 9/11. I’ll make that twenty. > [@desmo](#): > > furt is either going through the painful process of admitting that his heros in the administration are full of shit, or he’s just being his usual, stupid disagreeable self. I’m guessing it’s the latter. Stupid and disagreeble? You resort to an ad hominem and the best you can come up with is “stupid and disagreeable?” Don’t you know I’m malodrous, ignorant and rude, too? As for “my heroes” … that’d be amusing if it wasn’t sad. Would you care to provide a link to anywhere that I’ve described GWB as anything better than “adequate?” How about one where I said I was planning to vote for him? I know I can provide one where I said who my first choice for president was … guess which party that guy’s in? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/70 "2004-06-20T16:43:21Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Note that the Admin’s denial always take the form of implying that they think that there’s a connection between the two, but that they just can’t prove it yet. The use negative pregnants to deny the connection. Bingo. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/71 "2004-06-20T16:54:55Z")
> [@furt](#): > > but he is not guilty of lying in the strictest sense, because like Clinton, he parsed his words carefully and phrased everything just so. About a WAR. People are DEAD. Lots of them. More to come. It is NOT the same as “misrepresenting” a blowjob. > [@](#): > > The larger point is, who came out of the Clinton fiasco looking better, the guy who did the weaselly thing, or the opponents who tried to capitalize on it and ended up overreaching? See above. The guy who “misled” us into a war is going to look worse than those who questioned him. What the hell else do you think? > [@](#): > > you’re just going to look just like the Pubs who insisted that lying about sex was the same thing as lying about affairs of state. Whether you’re “right” or not is irrelevant. “Affairs of state” my pasty white ass. It’s a WAR. You’re doing the same sort of wordsmithing you acknowledge Bush has done. Being right or wrong is irrelevant? For a personal vendetta like the Clinton impeachment, _maybe_. For a _war_? Quit kidding yourself. > [@](#): > > To repeat: try to find one single unambiguous statement where they say explicitly and with no wiggle room that Iraq was behind 9/11. I have never seen one, and I bet you never have either. Don’t believe me? Prove me wrong. Cut the shit. You’ve been given ample examples already. Need your face rubbed in more? Here are some quick references for your perusal: [http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003\_03\_10\_weblog\_archive.htm](http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm) [http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/](http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/) > **[FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/)** > > Get the latest legal news and information, and learn more about laws that impact your everyday life by visiting FindLaw Legal Blogs. [http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27\_lies.html](http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html) [http://www.alternet.org/story/16274](http://www.alternet.org/story/16274) How much more foolish are you willing to look? ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/72 "2004-06-20T17:19:28Z")
So **furt** , are you saying that it is wrong to call our current administration liars because they’re just too good at it? They are obsfuscating, prevaricating knowing twisters of the truth. But they’re not _liars._ ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/73 "2004-06-20T17:28:49Z")
Thank you for that exercise in missing the point. I continue to wait for the cite of an unambiguous statement connecting Iraq to the events 9/11 – not imply or suggest, but state flatly – none of which I saw in skimming your links. I continue to offer anyone to put money on it. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/74 "2004-06-20T17:38:51Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > So **furt** , are you saying that it is wrong to call our current administration liars because they’re just too good at it? No. I’m saying it’s bad _politics_. Politics is not a moral crusade, and it’s not about being right. Those who actually think it is (as opposed to just blustering as such) often lose. IMO, when your opponent is in the process of self-destructing, the thing to do is not to gleefully pile on; in so doing you will often garner him sympathy. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/75 "2004-06-20T19:23:10Z")
**furt** , I find your “bet” irrelevent. Even if I cannot find a single explicit, specific, and unambiguous reference to Bush and his administration connecting Saddam Hussein to 9-11 (and even if none exist), I am well within the standard use of the English language to suggest that Bush lied about the same issue. Any native English speaker beyond kindergarten recognizes the definition of “lie” is broader than an explicit statement known to be untrue. Before you continue perpetuating this definitional fallacy, please point to any popular dictionary that limits the definition of “lie” so narrowly. For example, I note that the dictionary I use by default, Merriam Webster, defines “lie” (third usage) as: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression Another popular dictionary, The American Heritage dictionary (found at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie)) shows: 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie. What you define as “standard political weaseling”, easily fits the dictionary definition of lying. Your rebuffs to the contrary are without merit. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/76 "2004-06-20T20:33:46Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Thank you for that exercise in missing the point. I continue to wait for the cite of an unambiguous statement connecting Iraq to the events 9/11 – not imply or suggest, but state flatly – none of which I saw in skimming your links. I continue to offer anyone to put money on it. I know you will probably dismiss this as well, but… > [@](#): > > Interestingly, US Vice-President Dick Cheney continued to encourage the belief that Hussein helped bin Laden, saying on NBC television that Iraq was the ‘geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.’ (from [here](http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/18iraq.htm)) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/77 "2004-06-20T20:50:54Z")
Now, look here, **Leander** , if you’re going to go around trying to palm off direct quotes as if they were “unambiguous statements”, you will only foster negative credibility for our leadership. Bad **Leander**! Bad! Go lie down by your water dish. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/78 "2004-06-21T00:00:46Z")
Personally, I think [Maureen Dowd](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/opinion/20DOWD.html) hit the nail squarely on the head: > [@](#): > > In his “60 Minutes” interview, Bill Clinton calls his intern idyll “a terrible moral error,”…I did something for the worst possible reason," he told Dan Rather about his march of folly with Monica. “Just because I could.”…The former president engaged in a relationship of choice, not necessity…The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong. > The folks at 1600 Pennsylvania didn’t have Osama’s address. They couldn’t go after Iran or North Korea because those countries could defend themselves and retaliate, maybe with nukes. They couldn’t invade [Pakistan or Saudi Arabia](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-alqaeda20jun20,1,440629.story?coll=la-home-headlines) because they’re our “allies.” But the Bush team knew that it wouldn’t be hard to get rid of the second-rate dictator and romance novelist who posed no real threat. > They went after Saddam just because they could. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/79 "2004-06-21T00:07:46Z")
> [@AZCowboy](#): > > What you define as “standard political weaseling”, easily fits the dictionary definition of lying. Again; you’re trying to prove yourself right on the facts, which is not what I was addressing. I was addressing the potential for political blowback. > [@leander](#): > > I know you will probably dismiss this as well … No, actually, that’s the sort of thing when I was talking about misparsing. Speaking off the cuff, Cheney came verrry close to making an explicit connection. If you want to take me up on the bet, that might well be submision #1. Let me know, and I’ll start gathering disavowals. Beg pardon **SimonX** , somehow I missed your noon post… > [@](#): > > These countries were aiding the war effort of Germany by providing money, trade routes, supplies etc. … [Iraq/AQ] What is the connection? Iraq has supplied other terrorist groups; Not AQ; but groups with similar values and goals, and I accept the premise that AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah are all manifestations of the same root threat, much as “fascism” as an ideology was the root threat in the 1940s. This may be where we have differing premises, so YMMV. > [@](#): > > I bet we went into Africa to cut funds and supplies for the German war effort rather than because Morocco was part of National Socialist Party’s ideological threat. It was mostly geography; Morocco enabled control of North Africa, which in turn enabled the Italian campaign. > [@](#): > > Well, that is the currently operable statement. Yep, Cheney told one there. And saying it is confirmed does come close to suggesting a direct connection; but even in the earlier line, they were still sourcing the Czechs as the CYA. > [@](#): > > When there’s a duty to see that someone’s informed, allowing a fundamental misconception to persist, (if not flourish), is an example where the obligation to inform was not fulfilled. Agreed 100%, which is what I hold against Bush. > [@](#): > > Actually, they have an entire set of obligations to the constitution, the electorate, and the nation. No, those are an _officeholder’s_ responsibilies; what I was getting at was that when it was time to be statesmanlike, W was thinking/acting like a politician, getting support by hook or by crook. I submit we sort of assume candidates will say whatever it takes to win; but I think we expect better of them once they’re in. > [@](#): > > And Clinton gets yet another pointless cameo. Not pointless at all; it is the most immediate example at hand of political overreach. Another would be McCarthy, who had popular support at the start but lost it when he was seen as going too far. The point I’m making is not about the specifics of those cases, but that you never want to risk making yourself look like Javert. > [@](#): > > There’re a number of instances where the only defense available to the Admin against charges of lying is the one of incompetece or ignorance. This defense turns what would be a lie into a something that’s merely ‘imprecise’ or a “mis-statement.” The bounds of plausible deniability are stretched perilously thin. Of course. But what I’m saying is that that’s a conclusion you let the voters reach for themsleves. For most people, calling someone an out-and-out liar is a very, very big step. When you do it you’re placing a very large burden of proof on yourself, very possibly for no gain. If you say "Some of my opponents’ claims have been a little questionable,” and someone concludes for themselves that your opponent is a damn liar, you look like a bigger man for holding back and being polite. The crucial factor is the person who agrees that your opponent was misleading, but is hesitant to use the L word. That guy should be inclined to you … after all, he agrees that the opponent misled. But by upping the stakes, you’re forcing him to ask whether or not he thinks “liar” is too strong. For that guy, the issue is now not your opponent’s behavior, but your characterization of that behavior. To make this plainer: several members of the 9/11 commission have already said that their report does not contradict the Admin. I don’t think you’re going to get much traction by relying on the media’s interpretation of the report over its author’s. You _can_ get traction by saying “surely you’re aware that poll after poll showed Americans did have this misconception. Why didn’t you work harder to clear things up?” That question gives less of a visceral thrill for the hardliners, but it has a better chance of making headway with the moderates who will decide things. Many voters, including[this guy](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_13_dish_archive.html#108749383395288351) and myself, are frustrated with and disappointed in Bush, yet do not hate him. But the impression I get from the dems is that Bush is evil and I ought to repudiate everything about him; the implication I get is that if I don’t agree, I ought not vote for them. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888/80 "2004-06-21T00:31:09Z")
> [@furt](#): > > No, actually, that’s the sort of thing when I was talking about misparsing. Speaking off the cuff, Cheney came verrry close to making an explicit connection. If you want to take me up on the bet, that might well be submision #1. Let me know, and I’ll start gathering disavowals. Okay, if you agree to find ten disavowals from _the same source_ (Cheney, or office of the VP), then I’ll take that bet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-didnt-have-links-with-al-qida-now-its-a-relationship/250888.md?page=5)