I’m sorry, furt. I believe you are sincere. But the bush administration, beginning with Bush himself, have misrepresented, obfuscated and deliberately misled the country and the world since that weasel took office. If you didn’t read the links ElvisL1ves provided several posts ago you would profit from doing so now. These are only a few examples of the deliberate deception we have been bombarded with since Bush took office. I repeat, DELIBERATE deception. As I said before, every time Bush and Co. get caught in a “misleading” statement (to use the term you prefer) they have managed to repeat it. It is going to take the “L” word to jar some people into looking up the statements and the timeline. Sometimes the only way to make the point that a person is a damn liar is to say he’s a damn liar.
It indeed does. It seems the wiser course to divide an docnquer rather than lump together disparate groups. If we had come out with a strong campaign exclusively against groups who target Americans there’d be more deterrent value against targetting Americans. Groups would be less likely to get involved with someone who’d bring the wrath of the US down on them. As it is now, groups without a great gripe against America are labelled our enemy and thus are given a greater interest in collaboration with anti-American groups.
We can force them all to find common ground or we can peel off the ones who’re actually a threat to the US.
They’re the same people.
Tell that to Cheney who says that he disagrees with the comission’s conclusions re of whether or not there was a general relationship between Hussein and and al Qaeda.
Second, some of the authors recognize that there’s a discrepancy between the WH position and the committee’s position as well- it not just Cheney and members of the Press.
FYI, there actually are such thing as ‘lies of ommission.’
I’m glad that Sullivan finally got over his desire to lob nukes on Iraq for the anthrax mailings.
Many of those who post here are voters who have decided for themselves already. Shirley, you’re not saying that these people should sit on their tongues instead of speaking out for fear of alienating those who’re potentially of like mind, are you?
I think there is much to be said for your argument; not sure I agree 100%, but that’s a hijack…
Well, obviously; but they are different roles. But as I say, I think most people understand that politics is messy; but they expect a little better once someone’s in office.
Sorry; yes in re: the “general relationship.” But since they’re now asking for more information on that, it can’t get better for the dem position. For sure no one is ever going to say that there is conclusive evidence for there *not *being a relationship, since you can’t prove a negative. In any event, the issue at hand is involvement in 9/11.
Sure; but I still say it’s best not to deploy the L word unless you have a tape of someone telling an explicit “Grass is not green.”
That was a reader, not Sullivan. Though Sullivan has also said he’s not supporting Bush.
No, I was referring more generally to the way the left/democrats were handling this in the media. But even here, there are people who are undecided, and insofar as some the SDMB as their table in the marketplace of ideas (and not just a place to vent) it behooves them to think more politically.
All ten from Cheney? Hmmm… Okay. I’d accept that raising of the bar. Test my research skills.
Lets be clear here: I’m not saying disavowals of a connection (“there is no connection”) … I’m saying disavowals of evidence, as in “There is no firm proof of connection regarding 9/11,” often as not followed by an implication that there really was, or a determined assertion of connections in general. If I get ten of them, I win.
I’d request a week to find them, as I’m going to be very busy the next 3-4 days. You set the stakes, cash value not to exceed $50. I’ll accept any of the Pit mods as arbiters.
I think you kinda dropped the ball, furt. You were supposed to say “. . .and don’t call me shirley.” 
Regarding the supposed 9/11 Commision poo-pooing of the Al-Queda ties.
Bolding mine.
Good on Safire.
Now when will the others retract their misguided little rants about this matter?
Damnit, I’m always forgetting my lines.
My God, Brutus, you mean to say that Saddam and Al Queda were actually aware of each others existence! Gasp! How could we have been so blind?
Here we have William Safire, who’s reputation for non-partisan devotion to fact is the stuff of legend, coming out swinging in defense of the Administration! Golly gee, color me astonished! Turns out that the “runaway staff” put out something pretty much almost sorta different from the real findings. Which were not, repeat, not, that there were no connections between the Dastardly Duo, but only that there was no collaboration.
Good thing we nipped that in the bud! And all it cost was a gazillion dollars and some 800 of our soldiers lives! And several thousand Iraqis, of course. Which is kind of a shame, since they weren’t available for the rose-throwing ceremonies. But, heck, can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right? And they’re not even our eggs!
Gee, with Iraq out of the way, now all we have to worry about is Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Chechnya, Pakistan, and a few others. What a relief, huh, guy?
Praise the Leader!
Looks like I guessed correctly.
Man get this bullshit out of here. Contrary to what you, along with those stupid assholes in the WH believe, we don’t live in some black and white, good vs. evil world. It’s usually in your best interest to tell a lie in such a fashion that gives you wiggle room should a different story come to light.
Statement -
-
- “There in no doubt SH and AQ had a relationship”
Good: People will believe you
Bad: No wiggle room
Escape: “We were wrong”
- “We believe that SH and AQ had a relationship”
Good: People will believe you
Bad: none really
Escape: “we received flawed intel from Tenet, we were under the belief it was correct, but he was wrong”
Both give the impression that there was a link, but which saves Bush’s ass more?
It seems to me that this discussion must inevitably devolve to a parsing of particular words or phrases:
How do you define “ties?” What do you mean when you say “link?” What is your view of “contacts?”
Throughout the run-up to the war members of the Bush administration sought to portray the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida in their worst possible light. When Cheney claimed to possess evidence of a decade-long “contact” between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime, he did so in order to convey to his listeners the impression that al-Qaida and Iraq were cooperating as enemies of the US. That is the plain common-sense implication of such statements, is it not?
In addition, these claims were made almost exclusively in a context of justification – that is to say, they were deployed as one of the reasons why the US ought to invade Iraq. *We must invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, * it was argued, because he cooperates with al-Qaida, and might some day give them “WMDs.” These “contacts” were the evidence provided to justify this assertion.
But the commission’s report makes it plain that while there were, indeed, some “contacts” made between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime, they in fact all came to naught. From Staff Statement No. 15:
Now then. Obviously, had Iraq responded positively to bin Laden’s requests, the Bush administration might have something of a case. But, since this meeting failed to result in a collaborative relationship, it seems to me that it in fact strengthens the arguments against the invasion. It also strengthens the views of those who have doubted a collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida from the very beginning. Apparently the ideological differences between Hussein’s regime and bin Laden’s network were so large that they couldn’t form a meaningful alliance, despite the fact that they were both deadly enemies of the US. This was what many of us suspected all along.
And so how can one refer to this failed attempt at collaboration, involving a total of three meetings taking place ten years ago, as proof of ongoing contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, and as justification for the invasion? Well, of course, that depends on how one defines the word “contact,” I guess.
Continuing:
To reiterate: the point of Cheney’s claims have been to imply the existence of a “collaborative relationship.” Why invade otherwise? But he has done so by insinuating the existence of such a relationship without ever flatly stating “Iraq and al-Qaida are cooperating.” Seriously: if he knew that these alleged contacts had failed to produce a cooperative relationship, why would he cite them as a reason to invade Iraq?
So what we have here, then, in my opinion, are two different understandings over what, precisely, the “contacts” between Iraq and al-Qaida implied. Did they imply a “tie,” as in a functioning, cooperative relationship? Or did they actually reveal that the two organizations simply could not, despite their common enemy, find a way to cooperate?
I vote for the latter interpretation, me.
Shall we now apply the Administration’s own standard for “contacts” and “alliances” to the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
If we do, the headline of this story: Abu Ghraib officer says White House, Pentagon pressured interrogators, about Condi Rice’s aide visiting the prison in an attempt to sex-up interogation results would read something like “Bush Forms Alliance With War Criminals”.
Somehow, I think the president would object to that characterization, yet the connection is even clearer here than it is in the case of Saddam and bin Laden.
There’s no need to wander into that bog. The relevant questions are simple, and the answers are known.
Who attacked us on 9/11? Al Qaeda.
Was Saddam/Iraq behind 9/11? No.
Was Saddam a sponsor or supporter of Al Qaeda? No.
Was the invasion of Iraq part of the campaign against Al Qaeda? No.
Did the administration know that? Yes.
Did they conflate Iraq and 9/11 anyway in their public statements? Yes.
Did they try to make us think something that wasn’t true? Yes.
Call that “rhetorical device” whatever name gives you comfort.
Remember to ask Cheney as well when he will retract his assertion that there are discrepancies between the 9-11 commission’s views on the general relationship between alQaeda and Hussein and his own:
cribbed from here
[SIZE=1]CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE ‘OUTRAGEOUS’
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.
<snip>
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?
<snip>
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.[/size]
But, of course, as others have pointed out, the real issue is hidden by the language. What is a ‘contact’? Has anyone gotten around to asking Cheney to describe the significance of these contacts between al Qaeda and Hussein? Has anyone pined that down yet? The US itself has had numerous, extensive, detailed, intimate and cooperative contacts with al Qaeda as well as an operational relationship.
You need to read again; this is what I’ve been arguing they’ve already done.
Please note that I am not Brutus.
I must have missed this in the “fog of flamewar”. I’ll just say that the reason I pray Bush is struck down by a meteorite is that I believe his best interests, and those of the majority of Americans, are totally at odds.
Earlier in this thread I had understood our friend Furt to be saying that the Administration had never unequivocally said that Saddam had somehow collaborated with Osama and AlQida in the September 11 attacks, only that there was some sort of a relationship between then and that the rest of it was just innuendo. If I have misunderstood our friend’s stance and if I am putting words in his mouth I trust somebody will point that out. Our friend was arguing, I think, that the outright lie was more reprehensible than allowing a false impression to arise through silence or, to use a favored phrase, weasel wording. My position is that if there was intent to deceive and mislead it makes no difference whether the misleading results from affirmative statements of fact or from or concealment of facts.
For instance, take a look at the standard jury instructions for fraudulent misrepresentation. The elements of the cause of action are:
- The making of a false representation
- That the representation was material
- That the maker knew it was false
- That the maker of the statement intended to deceive
- That some one else acted in reliance on the misrepresentation
- That damage resulted
The instruction goes on to say that generally a “representation” is words or conduct asserting a fact, but it may include silence when there was a duty to disclose and if the other person has reason to think the maker will disclose. Opinions can also be misrepresentations when it is a statement of belief that a fact exists or a judgment as to quality, value, authenticity or a similar matter.
It seems to me that when you realize that the failure to disclose facts is as actionable as a flat footed lie the distinction our friend tries to draw is without merit. When the Administration says that Iraq had a connection to AlQuida in the same breath as a reference to September 11 there is a misrepresentation by silence that was intended to deceive. That is just what was going on in the President’s various statements as well as in the statements and comments of various members of the Administration. I just to not see anyway around it. Just as soon as you accept that the language use by the Administration is weasel language you are compelled to confront the whole idea that the Administration deliberately with held information from the nation that it had a duty to disclose with the intention of deceiving the nation and in the hope aqnd expictation that the nation would rely on the misrepresentation.
All this, including the Administrations mangling of the “collaborative relationship” conclusion by the 9/11 Commission staff, the search for loopholes in the Geneva Conventions, the double talk about US jurisdiction at Gitmo, and God knows what else, goes far beyond “I did not have sex with that woman” and “We do not trade weapons for hostages,” and approaches “I am not a crook.” Lyndon Johnson had his Pentagon Papers [not really but you will see the point directly], Richard Nixon had his tapes, Ronald Reagan had his Ollie North, Bill Clinton had his Monica, and George Bush – let George Bush profit from their example.
Sometimes it takes the electorate a while to figure out it is being played for a bunch of fools, but once they figure it out they are very resentful and do extract vengeance.
Fair enough – though of course they have to be ten separate instances.
As for the bet, I say we agree to either (a) donate the money to charity or (b) donate it to the political party of the winner’s choosing. (In my case, I assume that would mean sending GW a check, which would hurt more than you can know. Of course, that doesn’t mean I can’t send Kerry twice that amount… 
)
And let’s make it 25 bucks, since we’re halving everything anyway…
For the sake of privacy, we can e-mail each other proof of the transaction, or something of the like.
(Dear leander, thank you so much for your generous contribution to the re-elect GW campaign. You will now be receiving ten phone calls a day, and more letters than you can possibly imagine. Your mailman will love you. Please send more money so we can insure the future of our country. God bless us everyone. GW)
Oh, and as for a time limit, take as much as you like. I’ll be leaving for Australia in a few days, and I’ll be gone for at least three weeks. So my computer access will be limited, though I’ll try to check in as often as I can.
So, is it a deal?