BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 12:50 AM

" a lot of people in the USA would be dumb enough or ill informed enough to think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11...

And what's worse, a large segment of the U.S. population STILL DOES so think - despite absolute proof to the contrary."

... and the 'faked moon landings', 'building 7 demolition', 'creationism', and so much more...

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 05:52 PM

I think McCain might approve of the Inquisition. He likes waterboarding.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Alice
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:31 AM

Webster Tarpley, a conspiracy theorist in the Lyndon LaRouche cult.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:30 AM

a lot of people in the USA would be dumb enough or ill informed enough to think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11...

And what's worse, a large segment of the U.S. population STILL DOES so think - despite absolute proof to the contrary.

Oh, ye generation of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: GUEST,Mark Calendar
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:13 AM

McCain is intended to lose. That's his purpose in this election. If it's a close one, he'll throw in the towel the morning after. Just like Kerry did. Kerry won the election. Go back and look at Ohio. Turns out he won the state after all (a recount was done, people went to prison, etc.), but Kerry did his job and threw the election to GWBush. McCain will do the same.

And THEN we'll have true fascism. Look up Webster Tarpley's writings on Obama. Obama is a true corporatist. A fascist. His running mate is an arch-fascist. Biden's state of Delaware is the home of the credit industry in America. Obama will use environmentalism as the new hammer against American society (same way the neocons have used terrorism), and the fascism will continue. Obama, not McCain, is GWBush's third term.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 01:45 PM

I don't see anything in the description of the Safwan Agreement in the posted link that supports what people are saying about it here in this thread and elsewhere in the Mudcat.

There is nothing in that description that could be taken to mean that the Safwan Agreement could be used as a justification for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 12:21 PM

A Few Words in Defense of Our Country

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: pdq
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 12:01 PM

It may be that the exact text of the Safwan Accords was not published so that Saddam Hussein could "save face".

However, there is a good description of the contents here:

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31641.pdf

(Report for Congress: RL31641 if you want to do a web search)

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 01:18 AM

I've Googled "Safwan Accords" as well, and also "Safwan Accord". Neither of these searches produced the text of the accords.

As I said before, I suspect that the reason some people are using the Safwan Agreement (Accords) in arguments like this one is because they know that it isn't possible to produce the text of that agreement (because it was never publicized) and for this reason they know that no one can examine the text and see for themself whether or not it is being represented accurately by those who are using it to support their arguments.

Unless the people using the Safwan Accords (Agreement) can produce the text of that agreement, their use of it in support of their arguments is entirely without merit.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 07:32 PM

A younger better McCain...http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/mccain.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: pdq
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 07:05 PM

Actually, I believe the agreement will be found under "Safwan accords".

Here is a website with a very good discussion of the topic:

                                       Gulf War

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 06:51 PM

( ...my guess is the reason they keep using that particular agreement to back up their arguments is precisely because nobody can read it in order to verify what it says)

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM

I've Googled the Safwan agreement quite a few times. I have not been able to find the text of that agreement. I think those who keep using that agreement as a pretext for our invasion and occupation of Iraq should either provide the text of that agreement so we can see what it says for ourselves, or they should stop using it as proof or even as evidence of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 06:42 PM

"We took him out..." Oh, bravo, PDQ, you little hero. But in what sense is the world a better place? (Apart from the fact that it has scores of thousands fewer Iraqis than before.)

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 05:08 PM

It's a wonder to me that anyone can take it.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 04:10 PM

If he can't take it, he can always drop out of the race.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 02:46 PM

Sounds like you might be onto something there, Donuel. Anyone would get tired and stressed out on such a campaign, let alone a guy as old as John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 10:16 AM

Mc Cain is working too hard. It is killling him. He can not keep this up.

He needs a rest. This is not Alzheimers, it is embarrasing fatigue.
It is fear. It is neurotic mixed messages. It is too much for John right now.

Barack is in a sense killing him. Poor John is set up with 6 questions about radical Latin American leaders an then is hit with a question about another mexican sounding name?

Well guess what, your grandfather would have fallen for that trick too.

So comon give McCain a break, or you'll have Palin for president, sooner rather than later.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 10:06 AM

Oh yes WLD undoubtedly, but in the case at point they (the government didn't - didn't have to - unless of course they were just practicing)

And we the population tell lies to the government, we do it on a more regular basis and in far larger numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 09:59 AM

If we followed that argument to its logical conclusion - there would be no need for any government ever to lie to us. but we know they do - some more than others.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 06:37 PM

It has got nothing whatsoever to do with who I "like" or who I "don't like" it's a simple statement of the reality of the situation.

Here we are on this forum being regaled about how the current administration has lied and manipulated the American people in order to get into a war with Iraq so that the USA could supposedly "steal" Iraq's oil.

Now as it was a committee consisting of members from both Houses of Congress and all of the intelligence agencies of the US Government that identified Iraq as being a threat. And taking into account that both houses of congress have to be convinced of that threat why does the public have to be lied to?? The public formed no part of the decision making process in 2002 and 2003. They did in 2004 and judging by the results of that Presidential election came to the same conclusion as both houses of congress, the US intelligence agencies and the Administration did in 2002.

So the simple rational question that has to be asked is who had to be lied to and manipulated and for what purpose - the answer from the current administrations perspective of course is nobody, it achieves nothing, it's a waste of time and effort, a pointless exercise.

OK so being perfectly impartial, let's examine the other side of this. Is there any mileage to be gained by opponents of the current administration in making people believe that the current administration has lied and manipulated the public, of course there is - that's politics and there are elections to be won, cast doubt, muddy the waters. But none of it stands up to close examination.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:57 PM

I feel all warm and fuzzy when we agree on some stuff, Teribus. ;-D

And we agree whenever I decide to be unpartisan and criticize both sides in politics equally. Then you agree with approximately 50% of what I'm saying. The process is very predictable. As long as I criticize the people you don't like, I'm right....

You're quite right that "The public are never consulted in such cases, both houses of Congress on the other hand are, so what the public thought didn't matter a damn".

Ah! Dead right. It really doesn't ever matter what the public thinks, because the public has nothing to say about it. The public is powerless. However, efforts are still made to get the public onside if at all possible...because it simply looks bad in the media if they're not. No politician wants to look bad in the media if he can help it. If he can't help it, well then, public opinion be damned. As long as Congress is onside, then things go ahead regardless.

That makes it pretty easy, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:47 PM

The concerns the US had relating to Iraq post 9/11 had and never have had anything to do directly with the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 11th 2001. That being so there was absolutely nothing whatsoever to be gained from them having people believe that Iraq had something to do with 911 when patently they did not.

So of the three points made above by Little Hawk

1. "The Bush administration was delighted that a lot of people in the USA would be dumb enough or ill informed enough to think that Saddam had something to do with 911, so they implied it in various ways, but..."

Pointless it is of no advantage whatsoever. A number of very senior members of the Bush Administration put themselves on record very early on stating that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 911 - the so-called implications were all spin by the MSM in the US, Olbermann included.

2. "They were not stupid enough to directly say it in a literal and undeniable statement, they just helped create a convenient sort of general rhetorical climate so that a lot of ill-informed people would imagine that it was the case, and..."

Now the first part of this is true, because they had stated from the outset that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 911, and having said that they could hardly back-track and imply anything different, which makes the second part of the above nonsense.

3. "Olberman, for his part, was eager to attack and damage Bush and Cheney in any way he possibly could and was probably willing to be quite unscrupulous and manipulative in doing so, just as Bush and Cheney were willing to be quite unscrupulous and manipulative in doing and saying things that would get the public onside for an invasion of Iraq."

Again first part of this is "dead-on-the-money". The second part is nonsense for the following reasons:

- In order to protect the United States of America from any perceived threat the President of the United States does not have to get "the public onside". The public are never consulted in such cases, both houses of Congress on the other hand are, so what the public thought didn't matter a damn.

- It was the Intelligence and Security Services and Agencies of the United States Government that specifically identified Iraq as posing a threat to the United States of America in 1998

- Post 911 it was all 19 of the USA's intelligence services and the Joint House Security Committee that independently assessed and evaluated Iraq as being the country that represented the greatest threat to the United States of America - Not the Bush Administration. Therefore as the only people the Administration had to "get onside" were the Senate and the House of Representatives it would appear that they were already there ahead of them - so they didn't have to fed any implied references or have any climates created for them, they had already presented their findings to the President and were waiting for him to act - The President did, he went to the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:09 PM

Heh! ;-D

3 things are fairly clear here to me.

1. The Bush administration was delighted that a lot of people in the USA would be dumb enough or ill informed enough to think that Saddam had something to do with 911, so they implied it in various ways, but...

2. They were not stupid enough to directly say it in a literal and undeniable statement, they just helped create a convenient sort of general rhetorical climate so that a lot of ill-informed people would imagine that it was the case, and...

3. Olberman, for his part, was eager to attack and damage Bush and Cheney in any way he possibly could and was probably willing to be quite unscrupulous and manipulative in doing so, just as Bush and Cheney were willing to be quite unscrupulous and manipulative in doing and saying things that would get the public onside for an invasion of Iraq.

Look...most politicians are lawyers. And they have lawyers to advise them. Media people have lawyers to advise them too. So the rhetoric they both use is usually fashioned to create an impression in the minds of people, while not stating anything that can literally be found later to be a 100% out and out lie. (but occasionally even lawyers and media people slip up)

Bush and Cheney would have been happy to create the false impression in the minds of a lot of people that Saddam was connected with 911. Olberman would have been happy to create the false impression in the minds of another set of people that Bush and Cheney lied about Saddam, and also that they drink blood, sacrifice children on altars, and practice Satanic rituals afterhours in the Green Room at the White House....and probably kick their dogs too.

In other words...there are partisan scoundrels on both sides of the line, eager to make hay with whatever propaganda and innuendo suits their chosen cause. What else is new? ;-)

Bush, Cheney, and Olberman probably ALL overstated their case many times if they are anything like most of their colleagues and peers.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:44 PM

As I said before, the original charge in this thread against Olbermann by the above poster was that he was responsible for the people in the US believing that Saddam and Iraq were involved in 9/11. It looks to me like the poster who made that claim is now capitulating and saying that Olbermann had nothing to do with the people of the US believing that Saddam and Iraq being involved in 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

Seems pretty clear to me CarolC that time, after time, after time, when pressed to state in some way shape or form that Iraq had something to do with 911 Cheney keeps saying no they didn't. Olbermann then goes off and neatly edits the interview to give the opposite impression - seems pretty clear to me.

As is this media spin and complete misrepresentation:

"   On Hardball the night after the vice presidential debate, Matthews informed his viewers: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press."

OK then CarolC let's take a look at how Cheney said "in no uncertain terms" that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 shall we:

    Matthews had cited Cheney's reference to how the Iraq war hit at "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11," as proof that Cheney was blaming Iraq for 9/11. In the fuller clip from the 2003 interview, however, Russert asked Cheney if "the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney rejected the notion: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that."

    Nonetheless, the MRC's Geoff Dickens observed, Matthews refused to back down, going only so far as to put it in the hands of the audience: "I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one."

Well if asked by Mr Matthews I say that from what was actually said, the Vice President most assuredly stated that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Which oddly enough CarolC accords with what he said five days after the attacks on 11th September 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:39 PM

The original claim about Olbermann in this thread is that Olbermann is one of the main reasons that Americans believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911... that it was Olbermann himself who caused the people of the US to believe that Iraq and Saddam were connected to 9/11. The person who made that original claim is now saying that Olbermann is responsible for people believing that Cheney said that Saddam and Iraq are connected to 9/11.

Interesting evasive maneuver, but pretty clumsy, if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:11 PM

Here ya go:

Olbermann Uses Selective Edits to Show Cheney Tied Iraq to 9/11

    On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection.

    On Hardball the night after the vice presidential debate, Matthews informed his viewers: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press."

    Matthews had cited Cheney's reference to how the Iraq war hit at "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11," as proof that Cheney was blaming Iraq for 9/11. In the fuller clip from the 2003 interview, however, Russert asked Cheney if "the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney rejected the notion: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that."

    Nonetheless, the MRC's Geoff Dickens observed, Matthews refused to back down, going only so far as to put it in the hands of the audience: "I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one."

    In MSNBC's next hour on Wednesday night, Olbermann insisted on the 8pm EDT Countdown that "Cheney's forceful performance at the debate was also self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has." But to make his case, Olbermann distorted and selectively edited a series of Cheney quotes.

    First, a rundown of Wednesday's Hardball segment and then a full comparison of Olbermann's Cheney quotes to what Cheney really said.
    -- Hardball, October 6. Chris Matthews noted: "Also last night after the vice presidential debate we aired a report by NBC's Brian Williams pointing to cases where the candidate said things that were contradicted by previous statements."

    In fact, the Williams segment ran several times: During NBC's post-debate coverage, a bit later on the Matthews-anchored MSNBC post-debate coverage and again on Wednesday's Today show.

    Matthews replayed the Williams segment. Williams had asserted: "The first exchange we're gonna show you came during the second round of questions. What you're about to see is Vice President Dick Cheney, who Senator Edwards charged tonight has repeatedly Iraq linked Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. This was the Vice President tonight in his own defense."

    Dick Cheney in the debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    Williams: "But here is the Vice President on Meet the Press, one year ago, September 14, 2003. He was asked to define success in Iraq."

    Cheney on the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."

    Williams: "So Vice President Cheney from tonight's debate and from Meet the Press just over a year ago."

    As I noted in the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: "But that doesn't contradict what Cheney said in the debate since in 2003 Cheney was simply arguing that Iraq lies in an area of the world which spawns terrorists, including those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, not that the Iraqi regime specifically contracted the attack."

    Tuesday night, Matthews soon harangued Ben Ginsberg of the Bush campaign about it, pounding him incessantly. For those "questions," see the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org

    On Wednesday's Today, Matthews blasted Cheney: "We have the record from Meet the Press, thank God, to base the truth on. To find the truth. Last night was an argument, the evidence suggests, states in fact, that the Vice President wasn't telling the truth." See the October 6 afternoon edition of CyberAlert for a full rundown of Matthew' rant on Today: www.mediaresearch.org

    Now, back to Wednesday's Hardball. Matthews acknowledged: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press."

    MSNBC then played a lengthy 1:50 excerpt from the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press which showed that Cheney was talking about making the Middle East region less hospitable to terrorists:

    Tim Russert: "Can we keep 150,000 troops beyond next spring without, in effect breaking the Army?"

    Dick Cheney: "Tim we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure is not an option. And, and go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just about Iraq. Or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq. If we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at stake here. It's one of the reasons they are putting up as much of a struggle they have is because they know if we succeed here that, that's gonna strike a major blow at, at their capability-"

    Russert: "So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?"

    Cheney: "OH I WOULDN'T, I WAS CAREFUL NOT TO SAY THAT. With respect to 9/11, 9/11 as I said at the beginning of the show changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world in particular, given the problems we've encountered in Afghanistan which forced us to go in and take action there as well as in Iraq that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it's a global operation."

    Matthews then opined: "So when the RNC says that when the Vice President said quote, 'we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11,' he wasn't saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. When I first heard the Vice President say that on Meet the Press of September of last year I was struck by the assertion that the tragedy of 9/11 was based in Iraq, that the Vice President was pointing a finger at Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. The RNC says that's not true. I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one."
    Minutes later, Hardball repeated the same slap at Cheney using the same clip in question. David Shuster checked in: "Chris, it was indeed a feisty debate but it was also a one where the experts say the truth got stretched most prominently by the incumbent Dick Cheney. From Vice President Cheney the misleading statements started with this."
   
Dick Cheney during the debate: "The Senator's got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

Shuster: "But Cheney suggested exactly that a year ago on Meet the Press when he described Iraq as:"   Cheney, on Meet the Press in 2003: "The base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."
   
    -- Countdown with Keith Olbermann, October 6. Olbermann claimed that Cheney was "self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has."
    Cheney, during Tuesday night debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and the 9/11."
    Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips:
    #1: Cheney, from September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
    #2: Cheney, from September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."
    #3: Cheney, from March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: "One of the lead hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."
    #4: Cheney, from December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."
   
    Olbermann's distortion of Cheney's point in #1 was fully outlined earlier in this item in the section on Chris Matthews.
    For the others, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth tracked down the original interviews and compared the full text to what Olbermann and his MSNBC producers selectively played. The portions run by Olbermann on Wednesday's Countdown are displayed in ALL CAPS.
   
    On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.
    From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
    Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"

    Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"

    Cheney: "No."
    Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did APPARENTLY travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have REPORTING that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi Intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The DEBATES about, you know, WAS HE THERE OR WASN'T HE THERE, again, it's the intelligence business."

    Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"

    Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I THINK a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED at this point."
   
   
    On #3, in fact it was Russert, not Cheney, who raised the question of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda link. Cheney, in parts of his answer Olbermann didn't share with his viewers, declared that "WITH RESPECT TO THE CONNECTIONS TO AL-QAEDA, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PIN DOWN ANY CONNECTION THERE," and he labeled the Atta matter an "ALLEGATION."
    From the March 24, 2002 Meet the Press:
    Russert: "Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When we spoke on September 16, five days after the tragic day of September 11, I asked you if any evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. AT THE TIME YOU SAID NO. There's an ARTICLE in The New Yorker magazine by JEFFREY GOLDBERG which CONNECTS IRAQ AND SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH AL-QAEDA. What can you tell me about it?"

    Cheney: "I've read the article. It's a devastating article I thought. Specifically, its description of what happened in 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, against some his own people. I was aware that he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. That's been general knowledge, but what the article is very good at is pointing it out in depth that he may have struck, if the article's correct, as many as 200 towns and villages over a 17-month period of time and killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis.
    "What's even more depressing is the apparent medical legacy that's left of continuing increased rates of infertility, birth defects, rates of liver cancer among children, etc., as a result of these attacks. It demonstrates conclusively what a lot of us have said is, that this is a man who is a great danger to the region of the world, especially if he's able to acquire nuclear weapons.
    "With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PIN DOWN ANY CONNECTION THERE. I read this REPORT (The New Yorker) with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, THE ALLEGATION that ONE OF THE LEAD HIJACKERS, MOHAMED ATTA, HAD, IN FACT, MET WITH IRAQI INTELLIGENCE IN PRAGUE, but we've NOT BEEN ABLE YET FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO NAIL DOWN A CLOSE TIE BETWEEN THE AL-QAEDA ORGANIZATION AND SADDAM HUSSEIN. We'll continue to look for it."
   
    On #4, which took place just three months after the 9/11 attacks, so well before debate over going to war with Iraq started, Cheney did state his belief that Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence service, but in a caveat excluded by Olbermann, Cheney cautioned: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point." In addition, Cheney was responding to a challenge from Russert not to defend the position that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but to evidence that it had been. Russert cited a series of claims about ties to al-Qaeda and then pressed: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
    From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:
    Russert: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THERE'S 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 – It's been pretty well confirmed (by 'The Czech interior minister') that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior Official of the Iraq Intelligence Service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. NOW, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS, WHAT TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THEM, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

    It looks like Olbermann "self-sabotaged" his accuracy with such selectively misleading soundbite clips.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:08 AM



...spoken like true BS of a "partisan."

Proof for both claims? McCain appears to have forgotten what you claim he must know and, have you given Obama a geography test? I'm sure Plain must know all about the world's geography and would be so much better to have as a possible president, not!

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: pdq
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 10:01 AM

George W. Bush was so tired of this false claim (again, promulgated by the New York Times) that he yelled out "nothing!!" when asked what Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11. He was sick of the same misleding question over and over again for 5 years. Again, If anybody does not know what happened, Google "Safwan" or maybe "Safwan Surrender Agreement" and study the truth for yourself. The ceasefire was conditional on Saddam's good behavior. He played games and killed people. We took him out as the agreemen suggested we would. Much better world for it.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:42 AM

PDQ alleged:


Noboby of any standing in the current administration ever claimed that Iraq or any of its leaders was behind the 9//11 atrocity against the Trade Towers.

PDQ, you're either rewriting history, or you haven't been listening to GWB every time he talks about why he went into Iraq, or you're saying that Bush is "Noboby [sic]" of any standing in the current administration.   Or all three.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Alice
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM

The Bush administration portrayed Iraq connected to 9/11 by portraying Iraq connecting to Al Qaeda.
USATODAY.com Bush administration quotes linking Iraq and al-Qaeda

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Bee
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:16 AM

I've got no horse in this race, though if I did I likely would swing towards Obama. That said, I wonder if McCain is just at that stage where he's so exhausted from the strain of campaigning that he is mis-hearing and mis-speaking when he makes these unlikely responses, as opposed to losing his marbles, which is the interpretation some are placing on these gaffes.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Schantieman
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:09 AM

Well, let's hope he doesn't get in.. We've just had one idiot with his finger on the button; we could do without two more.   My vote goes to Barry Banana.   Or it would if I had one.


Steve

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Alice
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:01 AM

McCain's campaign followed up with Randy Sheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser saying that this is not a gaffe but an intentional expression of policy toward Spain.

In an email to the Washington Post, Sheunemann said, "The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview,"

Spain is a NATO ally and has 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, and just to cover up a simple mistake in the interview, now they are saying he really meant he would not meet face to face with the prime minister of Spain. Instead of admitting he misspoke, they are digging in stubbornly into a deeper hole. McCain even told El Pais, Spain's major newspaper, in April that he would bring Prime Minister Zapatero to the White House. Now because he was confused and misspoke they are trying to recreate his policy toward Spain just to make it look like he was not confused in an interview.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: pdq
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 08:47 AM

"Olbermann debunked Cheney's claims that Iraq was connected to 9/11."

How long do we have to listen to this piece of c**p.

Noboby of any standing in the current administration ever claimed that Iraq or any of its leaders was behind the 9//11 atrocity against the Trade Towers. Except for a passing mention of a portion of a Boeing airplane located in Iraq that was used (apparently) to train Islamists in the art of hyjacking planes, nobody in US government has said that Iraq was even "connected" to the Trade Tower atrocity. We are there militarily as a direct result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and a subsequent series of events. Please go back and read UN resolutions from 1990 through late 2002. Thank you.

This choice piece came from the New York Times and was intentional disinformation. Unfortunately, no matter how how untrue a claim is, somebody will believe it. It's called propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 08:19 AM

I have never heard the term "policy wonk" used here in the States. Ever.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:45 AM

THe situation in US political campaigning is actually worse than Teribus allows (and it is rapidly headed that way here, compare Cameron's vacuous purported cuddliness) in that if a candidate does seek to address the details of policy he or she is immediately derided as a "policy wonk".

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:26 AM

Olbermann debunked Cheney's claims that Iraq was connected to 9/11. Olbermann has consistently challenged the propaganda being put out by the Bush administration and the mainstream media in this country in their efforts to implicate Saddam and Iraq in 9/11.

I also agree that there isn't much substance in the political debate in this country. It's mostly smoke and mirrors (or bread and circuses).

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Stu
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:19 AM

Spot on Teribus - I agree.

The worry is this sort of vacuous posturing that passes for political campaigning is imported into this country. In fact, it's already here.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:16 AM

Isn't this the way its always been. Kennedy looked like a winner. Nixon didn't.

Did Reagan get boooked for his perspicacity and intelligent approach to everything. I think people just liked the look of him. he looked a bit like Marlborough man - albeit without the cowboy hat.

Clinton was gorgeous, a living doll, and he played a saxophone.

Anyway - no one can really say what they're going to do as a president. When you get there its different. You just hope to get someone who's got all his short change upstairs.. A decent bloke.

An inability to answer simple questions is a bit of a giveaway. It finished off Kerry.

An inability to come up with populist answers can be another drawback. Look how that guy from Boston, Michael Something came unstuck over refusing to back capital punishment.... worst mistake America ever made, not choosing him. Best human being on the block.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:08 AM

I don't belong to or identify with any particular party. And I used to really like McCain (would probably have voted for him in 2000 had he gotten the nomination then). But I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out in what ways Senator McCain is displaying ignorance or more than the normal amount of forgetfulness, or cluelessness about the world. He is running for president, after all. Or does he expect to be coddled?

We've had too many years of presidents who were not fully functioning upstairs. That's something we definitely need to change.

In this particular case, he is right, but we don't know if that's because he actually knew what he was talking about. I agree, though, that by itself, it isn't all that important. Taken with his many other incidents of cluelessness, though, it could be taken as a part of a broader, troubling pattern, if it could be clearly shown that he was thinking of Latin America when he tried to answer the question. Which at this point, it apparently hasn't been.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:06 AM

"McCain knows a fairly large number of world leader and will start office well-informed and ready to lead."

... until he exits feet first in a coffin... and the the rest of us will follow his lead when Sarah pushes the Big Red Button "You're Kidding! Does it REALLY do that?"

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:54 AM

"People shouldn't lose elections over momentary slips of the tongue. They should lose elections because their overall policies are simply not as good as those of their opponents." - Little Hawk

Absolutely correct, and so far in the "race to the White House" I have not seen or read anything that remotely resembles a real debate throughout the entire process. What we have seen and read over this side of the pond have been TV spots where the various candidates are given the opportunity to mouth their "sound bytes" - That folks is not a debate.

So far no-one from either side has put any meat at all on the bones of their so-called policies, no-one has gone into detail. Without either of those things happening you cannot have a proper debate on policies because you do not have the detail to actually carry out a critical examination of those policies, and that is what a real debate is about. It requires people to stand up and clearly state in detail what they are going to do and how they are going to accomplish it. They then have to defend their policies and means of achieving the implementation of that policy against informed critical examination of it. This requires both honesty and integrity on the part of both sets of candidates. This is what should have been happening in the US since the start of both political parties campaigns - instead of which we get reams on types of glasses, lipstick and a whole load of other completely irrelevant crap, which only ensures that by the time the election comes round most people have completely switched off. But worst of all it robs the electorate of the chance to be informed and see what lies ahead.

Example Amos - Easy, take a look at how Olbermann dealt with Dick Cheney and the ALLEGED/REPORTED meeting between Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi Intelligence Official in Prague - absolutely scandalous.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: pdq
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:50 AM

What Little Hawk said is essentially correct. Most of the rest of this thread is the same partisans throwin s*** at their boogeyman. Partisan BS. McCain knows more about foreign policy than the other three candidates combined and has been to countries that Obama can't identify on a map. McCain knows a fairly large number of world leader and will start office well-informed and ready to lead.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:44 AM

LOL

Apparently, the US State Department, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the Library of Congress don't consider Spain to be in the Western Hemisphere...

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/c17099.htm

IMF

http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/luso/westhem.html

I wonder how the people of Spain feel about that...

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:22 AM

When did Olbermann conflate Iraq and Saddam Hussein with 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:54 AM

Technically speaking, as Teribus alludes to, the Western Hemisphere includes most of the British Isles & Ireland, part of western France, Spain, Portugal, and a large chunk of west Africa. That's because the dividing line between the Western and Eastern Hemispheres runs straight through Greenwich, England which puts most of England west of the line.

Here's what Wickipedia has to say about it:

The Western Hemisphere, also Western hemisphere[1] or western hemisphere,[2] is a geographical term for the half of the Earth that lies west of the Prime Meridian (which crosses Greenwich in London, England, United Kingdom), the other half being the eastern hemisphere.[3] It is also used to specifically refer to the Americas (or the New World) and adjacent waters, while excluding other territories that lie geographically in the hemisphere (parts of Africa, Europe, Antarctica, and Asia); thus, it is sometimes referred to as the American hemisphere.[4] Western hemisphere is sometimes used as an equivalent for the geopolitical construct, the Western World, which typically includes the Americas, Europe and Australia.

In the western hemisphere live only approx. 15 % of worlds population.

Any definition of eastern and western hemispheres, however, requires the selection of an arbitrary meridian and a corresponding meridian on the other side of the Earth. The Prime Meridian at 0° longitude is typically used, which runs through Greenwich; this is used to define the International Date Line (or End Meridian) on the other side of the Earth at 180° longitude. In its proper geographic sense, the western hemisphere includes not only the Americas, but the western portions of Europe and Africa, the easternmost tip of Russia, numerous territories in Oceania, and a portion of Antarctica while excluding some of the Aleutian Islands to the southwest of the Alaskan mainland. Often, the meridians of 20° W and the diametrically opposed 160° E are used,[4][5] which excludes the European and African mainlands but also excludes a small portion of northeast Greenland and includes more of eastern Russia and Oceania (e.g., New Zealand).

The two major regions of Antarctica are named after their positions mainly within a single hemisphere; West Antarctica is named for the Western Hemisphere.

****

McCain may have been confused about whether he was talking about Latin America or part of Europe in the interview...or he may not have been. He may even have been confused about what he was being asked due to the accent of the Hispanic interviewer who was asking the questions. It's a little hard to tell.

*****

It's convenient for anyone in the media who wants to embarrass McCain, of course, but I doubt it's of much significance in the larger scheme of things.

I have much more substantial reasons than that to not want him elected...like his general policies and his general attitude. ;-) This is just another little juicy tidbit of passing controversy for the partisan minds out there and the media to chew on.

And many more yet to come, I'm sure. Both sides are eager to catch any possible unfortunate slip of the tongue that Obama, McCain, Palin, or Biden might make, and then crucify them over it. They watch for it like a hungry dog. That's standard election tactics.

People shouldn't lose elections over momentary slips of the tongue. They should lose elections because their overall policies are simply not as good as those of their opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:49 AM

Teribus, I saw some of the footage. The quotes are correct. You may read more about it, HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:43 AM

Thta's absurd, IMHO, T. The conflation was ramrodded by Bush, Cheny Rice, Wolfowitz, and to a lesser degree Rummie and a few others.

Can you provide any evidence of this odd claim?


A

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:32 AM

As far as I know CarolC Spain and the rest of the "pre-Cold War" European democracies think of themselves as being in the "Western Hemisphere".

The clip you linked to is a typical Olbermann piece of selectively cut clips designed to suit the point that he wishes to promote.

By the bye, Olbermann is one of the main reasons that Americans believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911, by using exactly the same tricks.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:20 AM

I think he's loosin it or he's lost it..
"The economy's strong, the economy's weak"

I'm a TeePee, I'm a WigWarm"

"No, he's to tents"

Ok, old joke but it applies.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:46 AM

It can be heard here (at least today it can)...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26781918

He's clearly talking about the Western Hemisphere after being asked if he will meet with the prime minister of Spain.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:22 AM

All of these are supposedly "transcripts" of what he said:

McCain: Obviously I'd have to look at the relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. I know how to do both.

McCAIN: Uh, I don't, I, ya know, I, honestly, I have to look at the situations and the relations and the priorities. But I can assure you, I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

McCain: Uhh.. I honestly have to look at the relations and the situations and the priorities but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. I know how to do both.

McCain: I don't, honestly, I'd have to look at the relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you, I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. I know how to do both.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:10 AM

Hard though it is, to be fair, Hagel is about as much a main-stream Republican as Lieberman is a doctrinaire Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Alice
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:49 PM

Yes, he's had a tough day. One of the Hillary supporters, Lady Rothschild, who went over to support McCain, today called rural voters - rednecks. Gee, with friends like that showing up... maybe he'd rather have the Spanish Inquisition.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM

It's been a tough day for him. His own party is now saying he made a wrong decision in his pick for VP:

From Sen. Chuck Hagel (R - Nebraska)In the interview, Hagel strongly criticized Palin's lack of foreign policy credentials and called her suggestion that the view of Russia from her home qualifies as international experience "insulting to the American people." From HERE.

McCain also said if he was president he'd fire the head of the SEC, which NO president can do!

And, Elizabeth Drew, a biographer of his, a great admirer at one point, has a lengthy article on how he lost her. You may read it HERE. It ends with this:

McCain's recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition – has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.
In fact, it's not clear who he is.

Subject: RE: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Alice
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:32 PM

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2007/07/nobody-expects.jpg

Subject: BS: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
From: Alice
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:24 PM

In an interview today, John McCain responded to a question about meeting with the prime minister of Spain by talking first about Mexico, then about the security of Latin America. huh? The interviewer pointed out she was talking about Spain... you know, senator, in Europe. He seemed confused. Then he seemed to veer off in talking about standing up to those who would harm the US. Huh? Spain is not our friend?