boiled meat

And earlier post elicited a comment about Dear Leader's and Cheney's steadfast "delusion" that Iraq and Al Quada had some connection -- I tried to respond in the comment section itself, but alas, I pontificated a bit too much; however, this is an important point that should be fully explored.

Here's the comment:

Come on BM, at least be fair. The prelim report says there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated ON ATTACCKS against the United States" (emphasis added). It does not say there is no connection between al Qada and Iraq. In fact is describes exactly the opposite. Bush has NEVER said Iraq participated in 9/11 attack. Now ask yourself why this isn't being reported this way?

First let me say, go bolts -- and how the heck did what's-his-name from the Devils get the award for the best goalie when the Bulin wall shut them out in the finals? Raw deal.

Next, there seems to be a parsing of words much the same way of administration lines including: "depends on what you mean by 'torture' or 'leak' or even 'law'. Remember the jolly good time folks had when the discussion of what 'is' is? This is 10 times that. Let me explain.

As far as I can tell the premise here is that Dear Leader believes there is some connection, however tenuous or strained it might be is up for debate, and although they did not cooperate on attacking us during 9/11, the terrorists were in Iraq, Saddam supported them or had some "connection" to them, and they ultimately needed to be dealt with. Let's go to Bush's own presidential letter that acts as his declaration of war where he not only says they cooperated, but makes Saddam and terrorist on 9/11 one in the same.

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

Look at the section I emphasized where the President explicitly makes the connection.

Still not convinced?

Here's another nice line by, as Atrios notes, flightsuit boy:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said.



"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror," he said. "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

Now if we are defining this war as a campaign against terror, I would expect a clear, cogent connection between Iraq and Al Quada. But it seems as though 'connection' is merely "talking to" individuals who might be involved in Al Quada. This stretches it a bit, doesn't it?

At some point we have to stop parsing words. There are associations and there are associations. If there was no collaboration, no direct action or link, then the association is like Howard Stern being a feminist because he associates with women all the time. Or Rush Limbaugh associates with doctors who will prescribe him oxcontin, does that mean he supports drug dealers? Or if you associate with people in the gay community, does that mean you support the "gay agenda"? If you have been in contact with people with fetishes, does that mean you support want to try out some bondage? No. If Saddam paid them, if he trained them, if he gave them weapons, shit, if he gave them intelligence on how to hijack planes, then we can say they were 'associates' and we should invade, but the thing is, Iraq didn't do any of those things.

Ok, but harboring terrorists--he did that. Did he harbor, or were they just there? Pakistan harbors. Saudi Arabia harbors. Afghanistan used to harbor. Al Quada is on every continent -- probably in the US right now -- does that mean we harbor them? We have right wing militias armed to the gills, are they terrorist organizations? Do they threaten livlihoods? Is the state of Texas harboring them because they live there? There is an implied action/connection that essentially turns out to be misinformation.

Dear Leader continues in his misinformation so well, in fact, he responded to reporter's questions today thusly:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush said.

The president denied ever alleging that Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks, but added that he had asserted "there were numerous contacts" between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaida. "For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden ... in the Sudan," he said.

Again, as his own letter dictates above, he actually did.

After his State of the Union address before the invasion, there were questions specifically about Bush's "connect the dots game" -- Here's the Mercury News on January 29 -- "However, U.S. officials and private analysts said Bush's suggestion that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein might give such weapons to terrorists -- and the implication that the risk of American retaliation can no longer deter him -- stretches the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies to, and perhaps beyond, the limit." But he made no such assertion--the paper is biased, one might say. Ok, how about this site? Or this one?

Now one name Dear Leader pulls out is Zarqawi. This is the guy who supposedly, was dead, wasn't dead, had no legs, had legs, beheaded Berg, and was a most wanted terrorist who collaborated with Saddam. However, a quick search on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list -- nada. He's not on it. Likewise after reading a great deal about him, there seems to be little to no evidence he had any support from Saddam, nor any massive ties to Osama -- he wanted to attack Jordan, his home country, and close targets, not the US -- which didn't sit well with his boss, Osama. Of course, I am not an expert here, but there seems to be enough information here to highlight the fact that there wasn't any tie.

One of the issues seems to be that the big media is suddenly interested in this story and it's huge news. To many who have been following the whole premise for war very carefully since the beginning this is actually old news.

The problem is that the misinformation and misleading nature that both Cheney and Dear Leader give actually affects people's basic understanding of this very important issue. If they cloud it up enough, make it so murky that a vast majority of people won't know what to believe or have time to look for the answers, they may find themselves or their kids or grandkids in another war. I don't even think it matters who is in office -- the next pres will look at this misinformation campaign and see how successful it was in duping people and use a similar tactic in the future (shoot, we know a large percentage of people still think we found WMD's -- but we haven't; not to mention, do we ever talk about Osama anymore? The mastermind? The man who started this whole mess? Why not?).

Bush used a scare tactic -- Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists so we must take him out -- to take us to war. He implied there was a connection to 9/11 even though Saudi Arabia and Pakistan harbor more terrorist and are more likely to sponsor and or leak weapons to terrorists. Obviously it's time the news called him on the deception.

We have to wonder: why do Cheney and Dear Leader stick to their obviously flawed story? (A quick tangent -- when i was a teenager i was out driving while slightly intoxicated and wrecked my car. when i told my mom about the vehicle and how it need to be fixed, she asked the logical question: what happened? i replied, i swerved to miss an animal. she nodded then asked, "what kind?" caught slightly off guard i said "a furry one." i stuck to that story till about 5 years ago -- why? good question.) I have a better idea on why Bush sticks to his lie; he rode his "credibility", his "truthfulness" into office, and if that goes, he's got nothing to run on.

To be fair, Dear Leader is not a three year old, he's a teenager caught lying and doesn't see any way out. Might as well keep telling the lie, flightsuit boy. As Goebels said, you tell a lie often enough and forcefully enough, people will believe it.