60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)

Subject: 60 Minutes tonight
From: kendall
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:39 PM

Do they dare tell the truth about that diversion called war in Iraq?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Blackcatter
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM

Well, of course they will. The problem isn't that the truth is out there, it's that most people don't care.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: greg stephens
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:44 PM

What is "truth"?is this BS? who are "they"? do we care?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: open mike
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 07:34 PM

60 minutes is an in-depth news show in the U.S.
and yes, we care.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 08:00 PM

I think you will get more depth from NPR and the various news program---and here in NYC we are lucky to have the likes of a Brian Lehrer for in depth interviews---no rants.   And YES we do care or at least we should.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Cruiser
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 08:25 PM

I am watching the Richard Clark interview now. If you get a chance watch it. Mr. Bush was focused on Iraq as a terrorist threat, not Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Art Thieme
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 09:33 PM

It was quite an indictment.   But doesn't it come down to what you believe??

Once again, we're talking about FAITH.

It opens the can. Then it shakes some of the contents out. Is it a can of worms? We will see.

Fascinating

Though.

Whatever!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 12:36 AM

Can someone post a precis of what occurred? I don't get much TV.

A

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 01:04 AM

There's lots about it on google news, Amos, but here's a short bit:



NEW YORK : A former White House anti-terrorism adviser has accused president Bush of ignoring terrorism threats before the September 11 attacks and of making America less safe.

Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS "60 minutes" in an interview he thought Bush had "done a terrible job."

"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the US should have taken out Qaeda and its training camps in Afghan long before the attacks of 9/11, for which the militant network was blamed.

"I think the way he has responded to Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS.


Clarke is already being attacked, supposedly because he worked for Clinton, too, and basically said Clinton dropped the ball. I think I'd reserve judgement until I read his book and research it more.

Just for fun, take a look at Democratic Underground.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 11:23 AM

The WHite House is issuing floods of persuiasive denials, but I kind of think that Clarke is speaking sooth.

A

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 02:33 PM

I saw the interview with both Clarke, and Clarke's boss in the Bush White House.

Clarke definitely came across as MUCH more credible.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 02:59 PM

Here is the BBC version.

This includes a (RealPlayer) video clip, in which Clarke says "US soldiers went to their deaths in Iraq thinking that they were avenging 911, when Iraq had nothing to do with it." And asked if this meant they had gone to their deaths in vain Clarke replies "Not that they died in vain. They died for the President's own agenda."

I imagine that people who want to vote for Bush will find some way to rubbish this, or ignore it.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 05:50 PM

Ho hum. Another disgruntled former staffer, another book that will probably set him up for life. Clarke is upset because Bush wouldn't let him run the country, and particularly would not call a cabinet meeting when HE thought one should be held.

DougR

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:07 PM

Watched 60 Minutes. Got it on tape.

Bush:   "Find me a connection between the 9/11 attack and Iraq."
Clarke:   "Mr. President, there is no connection."
Bush:   "Find one. Saddam. Iraq."

Following day—

Bush:   "Well?"
Clarke:   "Mr. President, we are unable to find any connection whatsoever between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks."
Bush:   "Wrong answer! Look again!"

And there was another equally damning conversation Clarke spoke of. Leslie Stahl interviewed a spokesman for the White House who denied that the conversation ever took place. Lesley Stahl said, "but we have confirmation from two sources that say the conversation did take place, and that you were there at the time." The guy hesitated for a moment, then repeated his denial, but the two-second look of shifty-eyed horror on his face was priceless!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:20 PM

Didn't I say so? "..people who want to vote for Bush will find some way to rubbish this..."

If critics weren't part of the system, they don't know what they are talking about. If they were part of the system, they are disgruntled ex-employees. If they are still part of the system, but talk out of turn, they are traitors or Walter Mitty characters, like the late Dr David Kelly. What's left? I suppose Bush could put his hand up and say "I cannot tell a lie. I did it with my little hatchet" - but then of course it'd show what a fine and honourable man he was.

True Believers are pretty impressive really - in all parties, in all countries. But sometimes they must have a really hard time keeping the faith. Reminds me a bit of the old-time Communists when people insisted on spreading these stories about Stalin...

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM

I've long said that Bush is going to lose this Nov. I still think that's true, but the interesting part of the 60 Minutes last night was the Ed Bradley story on al Queda. I think the graphic reality presented of an irrationally wild Islamic terror machine did more to make America think twice about voting Democrat than the First 40 Minutes of 60 did in convincing new people not to vote for Bush.

The Clark revelation was more of the same ol' same ol' -- cheerleading to the Bush haters, and nothing we haven't read here on the 'cat ad nausuem.

The Bradley piece reminded the very few undecided that may have watched it that terrorism is scary and evil as hell. and I think it probably awakened the long-held knowledge that Democrats don't believe it's a threat to us -- and even if it becomes one, they won't deal with it.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM

Are there really people who actually think that Al Qaeda isn't hoping that Bush will be elected for a second term?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:56 PM

There's lots of damfool Democrats in this here town who think they're more likely to be killed by a drunk or enraged automobile driver, or by one of the local meth-heads, for instance, than they are by a terrorist, just because that's the way it's been so far.

But if the terrorists do become more of a threat we know what to do all right; we'll attack some country that has more targets than the country where the terrorists actually are holed up.

clint

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: harvey andrews
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:58 PM

The truth rolls like thunder.
Will the lightning strike Blair?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: kendall
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:05 PM

Disgruntled ex employee? dont you wish, Doug. The man refused to make up a link between Al Queda and Hussein so Bush could go to war, and when his 30 years were up, he retired.
He servered under three republican presidents and one democrat, what does that tell you?

Doug, what do you think of Bush's refusal to debate Kerry?
"             "            " refusal to appear before the whole commission? he wants to appear, in private, to only the two flunkies that he hand picked.
Condo Rice also refused to appear in public.

COWARDS!!

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:11 PM

Some sad thoughts re: this topic. We may well be the choir when it comes to the hopeful departure of Bush from our scene. However, while having lunch with some people today our discussion evolved to the Democratic Pres. candidates.   We asked the waitress---and then some other people at random---the names of some of them. They never even heard of Kerry---and the others were in that same category.   

So--sadly---our unnoficial poll makes me think that TV ads will influence the general public just like they buy products from ads.   I hope I am wrong---but I am reminded of a book of many years ago written by an early TV exec. wherein he used the term "...The Great Unwashed" for the viewers who lap up everything the boob tube can offer.

ONe cute story though---one of the respondents to my comment ---don't you think that ,physically at least, Kerry looks Linolnesque replied---"...what the hell are you talking about anyway?"   I doubt he even knew who I was talking about.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: harvey andrews
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:18 PM

And isn't that the real problem with democracy? Everybody gets the vote. So no matter how much you read, think, discuss, argue...your one vote gets cancelled out by a waitress who's never heard of one of the candidates? I know the knee jerk reaction to that is..yep, that's democracies strength. But might it not be its weakness?
Maybe the vote should be something you have to qualify for by more than age..like the driving test, a little work involved so its something you value and use with discretion and knowledge?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 08:11 PM

Was it Kerry he hadn't heard of, or Lincoln? Or neither?

Actually that similarity is why I think the man would be well advised to grow a beard, the same way Lincoln was advised to. Anyone know any similarly persuasive 11 year-old girls?:

Hon A B Lincoln...

Dear Sir

My father has just home from the fair and brought home your picture and Mr. Hamlin's. I am a little girl only 11 years old, but want you should be President of the United States very much so I hope you wont think me very bold to write to such a great man as you are. Have you any little girls about as large as I am if so give them my love and tell her to write to me if you cannot answer this letter. I have got 4 brother's and part of them will vote for you any way and if you let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you you would look a great deal better for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husband's to vote for you and then you would be President. My father is going to vote for you and if I was a man I would vote for you to but I will try to get every one to vote for you that I can I think that rail fence around your picture makes it look very pretty I have got a little baby sister she is nine weeks old and is just as cunning as can be. When you direct your letter direct to Grace Bedell Westfield Chatauque County New York

I must not write any more answer this letter right off Good bye


Grace Bedell

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: open mike
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 08:11 PM

there was a news story last night on world link t.v. showing that the Iraq "news" was manufactured at a media center in Quatar. And when reporters asked pointed questions about conflicting information, they
were "dismissed". Reports from the "imbedded" reporters were sent to this press headquarters.But they were only toreport on certain scenes . they were not allowed to give details of certain stories such as "friendly fire" casualties, and the "rescue" of the injured female private.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 08:19 PM

"Another disgruntled former staffer..."

Would it be correct to assume that any statements by "satisfied current staffers" which might happen to say the kind of things Bush would like said will also be dismissed by Doug for the same kind of reasons?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 08:31 PM

I guess my other post never arrived.   

In response to Harvey---I had said that he was correct except that his thoughts might creat other problems---think Poll Tax and other restrictions to eliminate voters.

Computerized voting can also be a fright given that there is no paper trail. The incumbents can surely find "geeks" to negate any voting.

I suppose the question---once again is---will the end of Dubyas term become a Landlord/Tenant dispute over the White House.

Bill Han

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 08:56 PM

Yeah, bad day fir Bush. Like he cares. Just remember two things:

1. The one with the most money wins 94% of the time and.....

.....2. Diebold.....

Hate to tell ya all but we're in for 4 more years of stupidity, corruption and lies.

Bobert

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 07:21 AM

"The Clark revelation was more of the same ol' same ol'..."

I have to disagree. The term "national security" has been misused and abused by our political leaders for so long, it has nearly been rendered meaningless. The real danger from that is this very example: of the country's top counterterrorism expert not being believed, because he is accused of being 'political'.

What this man is saying is that we might have been able to prevent 9/11, if the Bush White House hadn't been so mired down in their own ideological agenda. And that Bush invading Iraq as response to 9/11 is akin to if Roosevelt had invaded Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.

These are the most serious charges levelled at the administration since he took office, by the highest ranking official yet. Despite the Democrats desire to impeach Bush for parking tickets, this charge truly does rise to the level of needing to be investigated as high crimes et al.

The testimony to the 9/11 commission should be interesting. As the Washington Post's correspondent who has been following the counterterrorism story for nearly a decade pointed out in yesterday's edition, despite the virulence of the Bush machine's attacks against Clarke, they have not refuted a single fact. Just disagreed over the interpretation of the facts.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 07:47 AM

And from today's story in the Washington Post, there is this:

"Although some Republican leaders defended the White House and joined in denouncing Clarke, others expressed concern that the former aide's accusations would compound a recent fall in Americans' perception of Bush's honesty that began with the flawed charges about Iraq's weapons and the understatement of the costs of Bush's prescription drug initiative.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he believes the White House has to respond directly to Clarke's allegations rather than question his credibility. "This is a serious book written by a serious professional who's made serious charges, and the White House must respond to these charges," he said."

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:04 AM

And then there is the White House's refusal to let Condoleeza Rice testify publicly before the 9/11 commission. Are they claiming national security? No, they are not. They are "citing constitutional prerogatives" according to the Post.

And even former President Carter, breaking with the tradition of former presidents not criticizing sitting presidents, had these scathing remarks about Bush, Blair, and Iraq:

"That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," Carter told the Independent newspaper of London, where the Clarke allegations were causing new trouble for Prime Minister Tony Blair, a Bush ally. Carter said Bush and Blair "probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence."

There is no doubt that these are the most damning, most serious charges ever levelled against Bush. You can't just dismiss former presidents remarks like Carter's, as partisan politicking in a presidential campaign, because former presidents don't play that game.

An estimated 16 million people watched the Clarke interview on 60 Minutes, which contradicts the claims above that no one is paying any attention to this story. To the election, no--people aren't paying attention. There is no need for them to pay attention to it right now. But at least 16 million Americans are most definitely paying attention to this story.

And finally, here is this revealing fact about the story, again from the Post:

"The (Bush) campaign's defense strategy was that although Clarke could not be roundly refuted on the facts, enough doubt about the issue could be raised by portraying him as reckless and partisan."

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:09 AM

Re Don Firth's post above, here's what Clarke himself said about it:

"Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Now taking out all the opinion regarding what Mr. Clarke THOUGHT was being said you arrive at the following (Immediate aftermath of 911 remember):

BUSH: 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.'
CLARKE: 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
BUSH: "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.'

Now considering the circumstances (which were pretty earth shaking) my take on that is that I have asked somebody to do something specific, pursue a line of enquiry that will connect or eliminate a prime suspect. That person then comes back and tells me that it has been looked into previously and can be dismissed (i.e. in as many words he is saying that he is not going to do what I have specifically requested him to do). If I thought my original request was reasonable, I would certainly come back, letting that individual know in no uncertain terms what I fully expect of him and his department. In the above exchange G. W. Bush did no more, and no less, than that.

On the final report, the report of the conversation (Clarke/Bush) that Don's got taped did not take place according to Clarke, who goes on to say that he does not even know if the President saw the final report.

But one thing I do remember was that very shortly after the attacks of 911, Colin Powell on interview clearly stated that Saddam Husein and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:18 AM

What is your point Teribus?

There is this depiction of Clarke, in a different article in today's Washington Post:

"Most acquaintances do not regard him as a partisan. Clarke was viewed as a hawk and "true believer" by many within the Clinton administration, and Clarke himself says he is an independent who is registered as a Republican.

"You can't accuse him of being passive or too liberal on foreign policy," said Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA official who worked with Clarke in the Reagan years. "He's very abrasive and aggressive and pushes his point of view very hard."

Now, is that the description of a Kerry dove? I think not.

These are damning charges, and as many are beginning to point out, these charges demand answers from the White House, not scurrilous, ad hominem attacks on the messenger. It is ESPECIALLY important that this book be released before the elections in the US in November. Yet, that is just what the White House, through it's inferences that the timing of the book's release is politically motivated, seems to be suggesting. That criticism of the president's handling of the war on terrorism should be withheld from the public until after the election.

Sorry, but that ain't gonna fly.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:26 AM

BTW, I do agree with the Bush administration's assertions that Clarke's book is politically motivated. It should be. The Bush administration's response to 9/11 was political, and so was it's invasion of Iraq without provocation. Political acts all.

What these charges are not though, is partisan.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:36 AM

So - You can't just dismiss former presidents remarks like Carter's, suggests GUEST, 23 Mar 04 - 08:04 AM.

Damn right you can if what he states is absolute bullshit.

Point Number 1:
"That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11,

Guest, or Jimmy Carter, please provide evidence that Bush, or Blair, EVER stated that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Point Number 2:
"claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,"

At the time the world and his dog fully believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, having been told so by UNSCOM and the Iraqi's themselves, please do not forget that.

Point Number 3:
Carter said Bush and Blair "probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence."

In any given situation you run with what intelligence you have. Intelligence is rarely, if ever, "certain"; 100% reliable; 100% verifiable. Just because it may happen to be "uncertain" does not mean that you disregard, or ignore it. If you would, then you would be the biggest fool in creation.

Oddly enough it was under Carter's stewardship, that the biggest blow to US intelligence was struck - from within. The policy decision to abandon efforts to improve and develope human-intel links on the ground in favour of technological-intel, was accepted and adopted by the Carter administration. That decision once made meant that in quite a large chunk of this planet the intelligence agencies of the United States of America went blind, deaf and mute.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:37 AM

And finally, this one from today's Post:

"In a broader context, Clarke sounded concerns expressed by (former Bush Treasury Secretary) O'Neill and John J. DiIulio Jr., the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: that Bush is running an insulated White House driven by conservative ideology and politics. DiIulio, the first former Bush official to publicly criticize the president, said in a 2002 magazine interview that "it's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

The most damning criticism of this president and his administration, is coming from his own people.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:47 AM

Teribus, you do love your crackpot theories. I'm not going back out onto the internet AGAIN to prove to you that Bush administration officials, including Bush, routinely made deliberately misleading statements that the American public interpreted to mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

There is plenty of "proof" out there from impeccable sources, including verbatim quotes of Bush administration officials' remarks in this regard, and it has all been reproduced here before.

You just refuse to accept that there was an orchestrated effort on the part of the Bush and Blair administrations, to mislead their governments, other governments, the UN, and the public, about the war on terrorism, and the intelligence used to justify a profoundly bad choice to invade Iraq, setting off an unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks, and damning Europe, Israel, and the US to what will likely be decades of terrorism against us from Islamic terrorists.

They will move beyond Iraq, as the bombings in the wake of the invasion of Iraq has shown. They can and will take it to our homelands. What these two leaders have unleashed, is a world war three scenario, complete with the blackmarket nukes from "our friend and ally" Pakistan.

But some head in the sand types, like yourself and other conservative hawks, just can't face up to the facts: you were wrong in the way you said the war on terror should be prosecuted.

Dead wrong, for far too many people, who are the victims of these misguided policies, from 9/11 to 3/11.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:55 AM

My point GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 08:18 AM, was that, under the circumstances, what Richard Clarke was asked to do by the President was reasonable, rational and logical.

By the bye, has anyone asked Mr. Clarke, who else he, and his department were asked to check out?

As to timing of publication, Richard Clarke has just retired, he has written a book based on his view of things, he obviously wants it to sell, so now, probably affords him the best publicity possible. All of those factors however, does not guarantee that what he has said in that book is the whole story.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:47 AM

GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 08:47 AM

Crackpot theories? I specifically asked you to come up with one documented instance of either President Bush, or Prime Minister Blair laying the blame, or responsibility, for the attacks of 9/11 at the door of Saddam Hussein.

On the other hand I have given you a specific instance of an extremely senior official in the Bush Administration coming out, very shortly after those attacks, with a clear statement that Saddam Hussein was NOT responsible.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:49 AM

It also doesn't mean that what he has said is untrue, or sour grapes.

Not even the Bush attack dogs are refuting the facts in Clarke's book. They are attacking his character. That should send off all the alarm bells, in matters this serious.

As I said, this should be political. The public has a right to know if they have been misled into war, and if the president and his men (even the ones in skirts) have intentionally spun the intelligence to further their political agenda.

We have the right to know that, and to vote accordingly on those issues.

Damn right, it's political.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:51 AM

No Teribus, I won't give you the proof. It has already been provided to you, numerous times in this forum, and you simply refuse to accept it. So there is no point in presenting it again and again and again, now is there?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:56 AM

Fuck it. Here it is Teribus. Took me two seconds to google it. This is but one of tens of thousands of hits on the subject.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
By Greg Miller *
Los Angeles Times
September 18, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.

Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

Bush's comments were his most direct on the issue to date. He drew a clear distinction between alleged Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda and the lack of evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. That is a distinction administration officials did not emphasize in the months before the war. The issue has come to a head amid recent polls showing that most Americans believe — despite the lack of evidence — that Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed Wednesday that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link. McClellan's assertion appears to be factually correct, but many administration critics, including some in the intelligence community, said it was also somewhat misleading.

A reading of the record shows that while senior administration officials stopped short of accusing Hussein of complicity in the attacks, they frequently alluded to the possibility of such a connection, and consistently cast the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in stronger terms than many in the intelligence community seemed to endorse.

Even Bush's remarks Wednesday were challenged by lawmakers and other officials who have reviewed the White House's prewar claims and have access to the underlying U.S. intelligence. Responding to Bush's statement, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said any alleged ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda "are tenuous at best and not compelling." And while he agreed that administration officials never made an explicit connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, Rockefeller said the White House "led the American public into believing there was a connection in order to build support for the war in Iraq."

The issue, which had been dormant for several months, has been revived in recent days by a number of factors, including a fresh effort by the White House to shore up support for the increasingly costly military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq by casting the operation as a part of the response to Sept. 11. In a speech last week, Bush described Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism, even though few in the counter-terrorism community described it as such before the U.S. invasion.

In his appearance Sunday on "Meet the Press," Cheney vigorously defended every aspect of the war, saying the administration's prewar claims about banned weapons held by Iraq would be proved true. He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Cheney said.

The White House has been on the defensive for months over the failure so far to find banned weapons in Iraq, which has fueled criticism that the administration hyped the threat posed by Hussein. Perhaps fearing that Cheney's comments might trigger a new public relations problem, the White House has moved quickly in recent days to clarify its position on Iraq and Sept. 11.

Bush's remarks Wednesday followed nearly identical comments by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday that the administration had no evidence tying Hussein to Sept. 11. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice also spoke on the issue Tuesday, saying on ABC's "Nightline," "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." Recent administration statements, however, have prompted new questions about whether the White House contributed to and capitalized on public perception that Iraq was involved in the attacks.

Polls over the past year have shown that a persistent, perhaps even growing, majority of Americans believes Hussein was somehow involved. The latest, an August survey by the Washington Post, found that 69% of Americans believed Iraq was "likely" behind the attacks.

Polling experts say the numbers reflect the strong animosity many Americans have felt toward Hussein since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "The American public has always been prepared to think the worst of Saddam Hussein," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "They think he's a dangerous guy, and he comes from the Mideast, where the people who are dedicated to hurting us come from, and [their belief that he was behind Sept. 11] is less conviction than, 'Yeah, probably.' "

Asked whether he believed the administration contributed to that perception, Kohut replied: "Well, they didn't have to hint very much to have Americans draw that inference. I don't know if people were already there [in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11], but they were prepared to go there really quickly."

Though Bush and his top aides did not say directly that Hussein took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, they often combined the two subjects in speeches and interviews leading up to the war. In a key speech in Cincinnati in October, the president said: "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." After Hussein's regime was toppled, Bush reinforced the perception of a link between the two in his May 1 speech aboard an aircraft carrier off San Diego, saying, "We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

Critics argue that such juxtapositions encouraged people to tie Hussein to Sept. 11. "It was the close association in the same thought, the same sentence, that led to that incorrect conclusion," said Greg Thielmann, a former senior intelligence official at the State Department who retired last year. "And I think it was done with great skill and deliberation."

The administration also seized on shards of evidence that seemed to suggest Iraqi complicity in the attacks, evidence that has since come into serious question. In perhaps the most important example, Cheney has repeatedly cited the allegation that the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague several months before the attacks. "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 in Czechoslovakia last April," Cheney said in an appearance on "Meet the Press" three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

The CIA says it can find no evidence that such a meeting took place. The FBI says that financial and other records indicate that Atta was in Florida when the meeting allegedly took place. Nor has the account been supported by information from the Iraqi agent, who has been in U.S. custody for several months. "If we had gotten confirmation that there was such a meeting, I think you would know," a U.S. official said Wednesday.

Cheney raised the issue of the meeting again Sunday, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." To be sure, there is evidence of some contact between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. An Al Qaeda affiliate, Abu Musab Zarqawi, operated from Baghdad, where a cell he controlled orchestrated the killing of a U.S. diplomat last year, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody have told interrogators "that there was some training of Al Qaeda types offered by Iraq, and perhaps received," a U.S. official said. There are also reports of contacts between Iraqi agents and Al Qaeda operatives in Sudan dating back a decade or more. But none of the senior Al Qaeda operatives in custody, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, nor any of the senior Iraqi officials being detained, have described significant cooperation between the two, according to intelligence officials. "Nobody has alleged that Al Qaeda was working hand in glove with Iraq," the U.S. official said.

White House Quotes Past and Present
[Compiled by Times researchers Cary Schneider and Joan Wolff. Sources: Facts on File, news reports.]

President Bush

Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Sept. 16, 2003: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that" Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Sept. 16, 2003: "And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them."

*Times staff writers Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:29 AM

Brilliant GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 09:56 AM,

Here it is - All summed up in the following:

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed Wednesday that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link. McClellan's assertion appears to be factually correct.

FACTUALLY CORRECT - Do those two words mean anything to you Guest?

Now what was it that Jimmy Carter was wandering the globe telling anyone who wanted to hear:

"That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11,"

Thank you very much Guest, please by all means run with opinion and theory, I am perfectly content with the facts of the matter.

For my own part having followed this topic from the start can clearly and honestly state the following:

1. I do not consider that I have at any time been deliberately lied to, or misled.

2. I have been under the impression, formed within days of the attacks of 9/11, that the current American administration firmly believed that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks.

3. That the United Nations and member states firmly believed that Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist regime did possess WMD and had programmes active in the development of those weapons and of delivery systems to employ them.

4. That under the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was necessary and justified.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM

"Ten days in, it was all about Iraq'.

Paul O'Neill, speaking about 'George' meeting 'with the principals of this national security council for the first time'
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:45 AM

FYI... 'George's' first NEC session was held on the afternoon of January 30th, 2001. Iraq was the main topic of discussion.
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM

Ah, so the Great and Wonderful Oz claims something that is factually correct cannot also be deliberately misleading?

Bullshit.

The American people did not come to believe that Iraq and Saddam were responsible for 9/11 for no reason. They came to believe that because the Bush administration told them it was "possible, even probable".

That is deliberately misleading the country into war. But hell Teribus, don't take my word for it. I mean, there must be a reason why all the major media keeps publishing these stories.

The bare majority of Americans don't yet feel they were lied to or misled by the Bush administration--but those numbers are changing fast. Why? Because once they get this information, they do what any reasonable person would do, which is to change their minds to fit the facts, not a predetermined political ideology, which is what you cling to Teribus, despite all the facts being presented.

The Bush and Blair administrations deliberately manipulated the facts to suit their political agendas, which was to persuade the world that they had legitimate reasons to invade Iraq. They did not. The truth is coming out, and the truth that is coming out is that you Teribus, along with the Bush and Blair administrations, are wrong.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM

Teribus, it boggles my mind that you can rest in the comfortable belief that the POTUS has not once lied to you. The clique in the White House have falsified almost every important issue. Just boggles my mind.

But, hey, that's what makes the world an interesting place, innit. You and Dougie hold fast to that sense of security, as it seems to suit you.

Me, I think he's lied to me at every hand, non-stop, to a pathological degree.

A

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM

No Amos, it doesn't boggle the mind. Teribus is an ideologue. He isn't swayed by new information, because his mind gets made up once, and for all time, regardless of the facts that emerge later.

And actually, what should boggle the mind is how many ideologues just like Teribus there are voting. They make up their minds once, and for all time. There will be many people who will not change their minds about the conduct of the Bush and Blair administrations, even when their own administration's experts come out and say the Bush and Blair administrations manipulated and spun the intelligence to fit their political agenda.

Which HAS happened in both countries. Personally, I fault the media and it's acquiesence to the media titans and kings (including in the now infamous case in Britain over the BBC & WMD constroversy) insistence before the war, that the Blair and Bush administration stories were not only not to investigated independently, but that they shouldn't even be challenged, despite all the red flags that were sent up in the lead up to the war.

The media establishment is colluding with the political establishment, to further the agenda of the wealthy elites in Europe and the US. The only reason why France, Germany, and Russia weren't on board was because they weren't getting a piece of the action.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:05 PM

Oops... make that NSC will ya? "National Security Council" Sorry.
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:26 PM

1441 explained

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, what GUEST says about the T-Bird. We all know his tactics. Whenever he is cornered he pulls out his tried and true defense of assigning the one who has cornered him a danged lengthy homework assignment. But if you do the homework assigment then he finds the tiniest of details and thrie to get you to focus on them... It's just the same diversionary song and dance routine time after time...

Now he trying to revise recent reports and discoveries that with the exception if T-Bird and the Bushites, the entire *sighted* population now understands to be facts in the case. I love listening to Scott McClelland. He dose the exact same thing and when that doesn't work he just glosses over the question with non answers...

Now I'd just like to bring up one small point. Lets go back to before the invasion of Iraq. What was going on? Were folks just standing around supporting an invasion? Well, heck no they weren't. Millions took to the streets in cities across the US and in hundreds of cities around the world. Our European allies warned the US not to invade Iraq. The UN inspectors were doing their job. The US could not get the UN behind invading Iraq... I mean, had I been president, I'd have been mighty sure that every "t" was crossed and "i" dotted but we all now know that wasn't on any imporatnce to the Bush folks...

Now they are having to expalin themselves and I guess for folks like the T-Bird the explainations are just as believable as the lies he believed before the invasion. We tried to tell him then and he wouldn't listen then either. Meanwhile, most of the world sees what is going down here and it does not shine a credible light on the Bush administration...

And the more stories they come up with the less credible they look... And I might add, those who parrot the new story lines.

Bobert