Teribus blabbers on:

Alas, Arne, my little viking - you have got it exactly 180 degrees out:

Oh, yes, Teribus, my little pin-head, I wuv U2! Happy now?

[Arne:]"You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots."


I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement.

Just a FYI, so we have some context here for Teribus's "straw man" stategery, here's what Ron Davies did say, back a year ago:

From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM

So far Teribus has stubbornly-- (indeed, beyond "stubbornly",-- as I noted earlier) refused to accept the fact that the Bush "administration" engaged in a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and the invasion (March 2003) to convince the US public of a link between al Queda and 11 September 2001 on one hand and Saddam on the other.

Here's Teribus's "straw man" (and what he demands as an explicitly stated position of the maladministration): A statement asserting positively that "...there was a link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 in the run up to 20th March 2003." (the words of Teribus).

Note the use of the conjunction "and" by Ron. And the use of the words "propaganda campaign". Now Teribus is a real stickler for accuracy, and about how words have meaning. But propaganda campaigns are in fact sometimes more successful in what they don't say than for what they do explicitly say. Detailed previously have been many examples of attempts by the maladministration to link Saddam and al Qaeda (that's hard to deny, but Teribus will probably do it). In fact, mentioned above have been details on this effort as a propaganda campaign (not to mention the famous Powerpoint presentation, as well as Andrew Card's unintentionally revealing comment about "introduc[ing] new products in August"). Teribus ignores this. And since al Qaeda and the Sept. 11th attacks are quite obviously linked, once you link al Qaeda to Saddam, you have in fact linked Saddam to Sept. 11th of necessity, even if you didn't say that explicitly!

But Teribus does the ol' "Simon Says" game, and demands evidence that Dubya and his handlers tipped their hand by explicitly stating their strategy and desired results (this maladministration be honest and open in their strategery? LOL)....

Here's the way Teribus puts it:

CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

"Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)."

This apparently is a FACT - CarolC please substantiate it.

Anything less than a direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America to the effect that what you have stated above is true will not be accepted - because you see just because CarolC says so doesn't make it true.

Not cricket. Just Teribus hefting that goal post back another 10 yards. Or playing Calvin-Ball.

OTOH, Teribus has been asked for a quote that shows that Dubya and the maladministration tried to dissuade people from making such a link. So here's what he proffers:

Example 1 - One Quote as requested - Dick Cheney:
From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Interview excerpt quoted from - Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

A). It refers to whether Saddam was linked to the attacks, not to al Qaeda more generally.

B). It asks for "evidence". Not whether there was an al Qaeda/Saddam link (a position that Cheney did in fact assert; in fact, Cheney publicly pushed the Mohammed Atta [where have I heard that name before .... hmmm, have to think about it...] supposed Prague meeting with Iraq agents, since discounted). So Cheney here is denying that there is evidence, but not denying the link.

C). It had to be pulled out of Cheney; it wasn't volunteered. And hardly a detailed exposition of Cheney's views (except in Teribus's tortured mind).

So Teribus's "clear statement" from the maladministration that discounted the Iraq/9-11 tie (or, more to the point, the al Qaeda/Iraq tie) is not any such thing. Instead we have the plethora of quotes that pushed the contrary view(s).

So Teribus continues:

I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911.

Teribus, clue for you: No one cares what you believe.

What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks.

Hmmmmm. "Statements". Changed my mind, Teribus. How about more than one quote from the maladministration trying to set things straight.

Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement.

OK. Out wi' 'em....   Let's hear these quotes, Teribus. Now, since "words have meaning" and we're getting literal, we need at least two!!!

But I'd point out that Cheney continued to push the Iraq/al Qaeda connection for quite a while, even after the war, including the supposed Prague meeting with its quite obvious insinuation.

More later (sorry, Mirsy, you'll have to wait ... but you seem to enjoy that).

Cheers,