Comments on: People, get ready http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:00:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: nameless http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4430 nameless Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4430 Great job Thorley, you pit your spin on one comment. Now deal with the other 350. Great job Thorley, you pit your spin on one comment. Now deal with the other 350.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4429 Thorley Winston Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:10:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4429 Matt Weiner wrote: <blockquote> As for Dick Cheney’s clarity—he said, “It’s not surprising that people make the connection” between Saddam and September 11, and then said “we don’t know” whether Baghdad played a role in the attacks. This is like saying I don’t know whether Dick Cheney has ever eaten human flesh—I don’t have the slightest bit of evidence for it, and it seems damn unlikely, but it is logically possible that he has. </blockquote> Actually here is what Vice President Richard Cheney said: <blockquote> MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection. MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection? VICE PRES. CHENEY: <b>We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that</b>. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. <b>We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.</b> We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. <b>The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.</b> </blockquote> A couple of points. First the statistical claim that 69 percent of the population believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks is misleading. The poll breakdown is actually something like 30 percent think it is very likely that he was involved and 39 percent thought it was something likely that he might be involved. That latter of which IMNHO is not an unreasonable point of view. Nowhere in this exchange does Vice President Cheney state that he believes Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 (in fact he says repeatedly that he does not know and the intelligence is not sufficient to prove or disprove SH’s involvement which has been pretty much consistant with what the rest of the administration has said all along). He does point out and rightfully so that Saddam Hussein was tied to Al-Qaeda and that there were possible liinks between SH and the 1993 attack on the WTC. There is nothing in Vice President Cheney’s comments which can reasonably construed as trying to hype a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Rather since this is a War on Terrorism and since the administration has stated its intent since the Axis of Evil speech to go after members of terrorist groups (such as Al-Qaeda) and the States which harbor and support them, it is perfectly appropriate to show the connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. <blockquote> That’s just one example, and it comes after the Saddam-9/11 link has been thoroughly discredited—we’ve been searching for evidence, and have found nothing. </blockquote> Which is a strawman argument since you have not shown that anyone from the Bush administration ever claimed that the two were linked. <blockquote> And here’s Bush in the State of the Union: Saddam “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” </blockquote> Which is true and since the conflict in Iraq was part of the “War on Terrorism,” why should not the president of the United States point out the fact that the Baathist regime in Iraq aided and protected terrorists including members of Al-Qaeda? <blockquote> You’re correct, I think, that the Administration never stated Saddam was linked to September 11. They tried furiously to create that impression—constantly mentioning them in the same sentence—without ever making an outright assertion. The purpose was to deceive without technically lying. The Cheney comment alone is a clearer case of a deliberate attempt to deceive than Clark’s comments. Perhaps the group can help point Thorley to other examples. </blockquote> Actually you’ve offered nothing to show that the administration was trying to deceive anyone. Vice President Cheney’s remarks were accurate and when presented in their full context (as opposed to snipping out a couple of phrases to distort their meaning) show that he never said or implied that the evidence showed a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 while rightfully pointing out though that the intelligence showed a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaead which by your own quote from President Bush was all anyone from the administration alleged. That some of the critics of the administration may find it inconvenient to their Bush bashing that intelligence shows that Iraq was in fact tied to Al-Qaeda does not justify their perpetual attempt to distort this connection and falsely claim that the administration ever claimed or alleged that the former Iraqi regime was tied to the 9/11 attacks. Matt Weiner wrote:
As for Dick Cheney’s clarity—he said, “It’s not surprising that people make the connection” between Saddam and September 11, and then said “we don’t know” whether Baghdad played a role in the attacks. This is like saying I don’t know whether Dick Cheney has ever eaten human flesh—I don’t have the slightest bit of evidence for it, and it seems damn unlikely, but it is logically possible that he has.
Actually here is what Vice President Richard Cheney said:
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection. MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection? VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
A couple of points. First the statistical claim that 69 percent of the population believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks is misleading. The poll breakdown is actually something like 30 percent think it is very likely that he was involved and 39 percent thought it was something likely that he might be involved. That latter of which IMNHO is not an unreasonable point of view. Nowhere in this exchange does Vice President Cheney state that he believes Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 (in fact he says repeatedly that he does not know and the intelligence is not sufficient to prove or disprove SH’s involvement which has been pretty much consistant with what the rest of the administration has said all along). He does point out and rightfully so that Saddam Hussein was tied to Al-Qaeda and that there were possible liinks between SH and the 1993 attack on the WTC. There is nothing in Vice President Cheney’s comments which can reasonably construed as trying to hype a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Rather since this is a War on Terrorism and since the administration has stated its intent since the Axis of Evil speech to go after members of terrorist groups (such as Al-Qaeda) and the States which harbor and support them, it is perfectly appropriate to show the connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
That’s just one example, and it comes after the Saddam-9/11 link has been thoroughly discredited—we’ve been searching for evidence, and have found nothing.
Which is a strawman argument since you have not shown that anyone from the Bush administration ever claimed that the two were linked.
And here’s Bush in the State of the Union: Saddam “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.”
Which is true and since the conflict in Iraq was part of the “War on Terrorism,” why should not the president of the United States point out the fact that the Baathist regime in Iraq aided and protected terrorists including members of Al-Qaeda?
You’re correct, I think, that the Administration never stated Saddam was linked to September 11. They tried furiously to create that impression—constantly mentioning them in the same sentence—without ever making an outright assertion. The purpose was to deceive without technically lying. The Cheney comment alone is a clearer case of a deliberate attempt to deceive than Clark’s comments. Perhaps the group can help point Thorley to other examples.
Actually you’ve offered nothing to show that the administration was trying to deceive anyone. Vice President Cheney’s remarks were accurate and when presented in their full context (as opposed to snipping out a couple of phrases to distort their meaning) show that he never said or implied that the evidence showed a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 while rightfully pointing out though that the intelligence showed a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaead which by your own quote from President Bush was all anyone from the administration alleged. That some of the critics of the administration may find it inconvenient to their Bush bashing that intelligence shows that Iraq was in fact tied to Al-Qaeda does not justify their perpetual attempt to distort this connection and falsely claim that the administration ever claimed or alleged that the former Iraqi regime was tied to the 9/11 attacks.

]]> By: nameless http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4428 nameless Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:49:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4428 "The issue of Saddam's involvement has been a long-standing source of contention between London and Washington. In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. "He probably was behind this in the end," he said. In his State of Union speech in January, Mr Bush made the case for confronting Iraq, saying: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'eda." This belief has been the driving force behind Washington's determination to seek "regime change" in Baghdad, particularly after Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated in February that he had received intelligence reports that al-Qa'eda operatives had approached Iraq about co-operating on chemical and biological weapons. Washington's insistence that Saddam had links with bin Laden was not reciprocated in London, where Tony Blair, acting on the advice he received from British intelligence, was more circumspect about the links. During his appearance before a Commons select committee in January, Mr Blair said that while "there is some intelligence about loose links between al-Qa'eda and various people in Iraq", he was unaware of any evidence linking Saddam to September 11. Until now, most of the evidence presented by Washington to prove the link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda has been inconclusive. In the weeks immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was keen to draw attention to a report issued by the Czech Republic's interior ministry claiming that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year. The report later turned out to be false. Washington was similarly frustrated earlier this year when it claimed that an al-Qa'eda cell called al-Ansar al-Islam was operating in Iraq. It later transpired that the group was active in a region beyond Saddam's control." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq327.xml “The issue of Saddam’s involvement has been a long-standing source of contention between London and Washington. In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. “He probably was behind this in the end,” he said. In his State of Union speech in January, Mr Bush made the case for confronting Iraq, saying: “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa’eda.” This belief has been the driving force behind Washington’s determination to seek “regime change” in Baghdad, particularly after Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated in February that he had received intelligence reports that al-Qa’eda operatives had approached Iraq about co-operating on chemical and biological weapons. Washington’s insistence that Saddam had links with bin Laden was not reciprocated in London, where Tony Blair, acting on the advice he received from British intelligence, was more circumspect about the links. During his appearance before a Commons select committee in January, Mr Blair said that while “there is some intelligence about loose links between al-Qa’eda and various people in Iraq”, he was unaware of any evidence linking Saddam to September 11. Until now, most of the evidence presented by Washington to prove the link between Saddam and al-Qa’eda has been inconclusive. In the weeks immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was keen to draw attention to a report issued by the Czech Republic’s interior ministry claiming that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year. The report later turned out to be false. Washington was similarly frustrated earlier this year when it claimed that an al-Qa’eda cell called al-Ansar al-Islam was operating in Iraq. It later transpired that the group was active in a region beyond Saddam’s control.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq327.xml

]]> By: nameless http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4427 nameless Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:26:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4427 "it looks as if Clark is saying that the people speaking to him were from and around the White House." No it doesn't. He said there was a concerted effort to link Saddam to 9-11, which came from the White House, people around the White House, and from all over. He then decribes a phone call he received. He never said the phone call came from the White House, and when some people misintpreted his comments he immediately corrected them. It is nonsense to call this "an obvious smear." "Please share with the group how the White House supposedly tried to create the impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11." Right out of the box, Donald Rumsfeld was looking for a way to pin 9-11 on Saddam: "CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. [snip] With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml On the very day of 9-11, the Administration was looking to pin the blame on Saddam, even though there was no evidence. For the past two years, various administration officials (including the President) have dropped coy statements intended to create the impression that Saddam was involved. Knowing that they had no evidence, of course they were no going to make outright assertions that he was involved: "Yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post last month found that 69 percent of Americans believe Hussein probably was personally involved anyway. So where do people get this zany idea that Saddam and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were connected? [snip] The White House has never definitively declared a link between Iraq and Sept. 11. Yet, Team Bush has chosen its words in ways that expertly avoid declaring such a link even as they strongly suggest one anyway. "We know Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy: The United States of America," Bush said in his televised address in which he made his case for an invasion of Iraq last October. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and still goes on," he said from the deck of an aircraft carrier on May 1, in a speech in which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq. "With those attacks" on Sept. 11, Bush said, "the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," the president said in his Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati. "And we know that after Sept. 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." Vice President Cheney didn't let up last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," when he said, "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 have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09242003/commenta/commenta.asp "Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, "The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias." Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction." Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions." Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5&notFound=true “it looks as if Clark is saying that the people speaking to him were from and around the White House.” No it doesn’t. He said there was a concerted effort to link Saddam to 9-11, which came from the White House, people around the White House, and from all over. He then decribes a phone call he received. He never said the phone call came from the White House, and when some people misintpreted his comments he immediately corrected them. It is nonsense to call this “an obvious smear.” “Please share with the group how the White House supposedly tried to create the impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11.” Right out of the box, Donald Rumsfeld was looking for a way to pin 9-11 on Saddam: “CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. [snip] With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” – meaning Saddam Hussein – “at same time. Not only UBL” – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn’t matter to Rumsfeld. “Go massive,” the notes quote him as saying. “Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml On the very day of 9-11, the Administration was looking to pin the blame on Saddam, even though there was no evidence. For the past two years, various administration officials (including the President) have dropped coy statements intended to create the impression that Saddam was involved. Knowing that they had no evidence, of course they were no going to make outright assertions that he was involved: “Yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post last month found that 69 percent of Americans believe Hussein probably was personally involved anyway. So where do people get this zany idea that Saddam and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were connected? [snip] The White House has never definitively declared a link between Iraq and Sept. 11. Yet, Team Bush has chosen its words in ways that expertly avoid declaring such a link even as they strongly suggest one anyway. “We know Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy: The United States of America,” Bush said in his televised address in which he made his case for an invasion of Iraq last October. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001—and still goes on,” he said from the deck of an aircraft carrier on May 1, in a speech in which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq. “With those attacks” on Sept. 11, Bush said, “the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.” “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases,” the president said in his Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati. “And we know that after Sept. 11, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.” Vice President Cheney didn’t let up last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” when he said, “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 have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11.” http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09242003/commenta/commenta.asp “Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer’s congressional report on the attacks states, “The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias.” Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq’s “weapons of terror,” Bush said: “If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.” Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001—and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men—the shock troops of a hateful ideology—gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions.” Moments later, Bush added: “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th—the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.” A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence “overwhelming.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5&notFound=true

]]> By: Matt Weiner http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4426 Matt Weiner Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:31:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4426 Thorley, I apologize--I left out "It came from people around the White House" accidentally, due to a cut-and-paste error. However, I don't think the omissions change a thing. Clark wasn't reading a speech. Immediately after mentioning the phone call, he says where it came from--Middle East Think Tanks and such. He just does not say that he got a call from anyone in the White House. As for Dick Cheney's clarity--he said, "It's not surprising that people make the connection" between Saddam and September 11, and then said "we don't know" whether Baghdad played a role in the attacks. This is like saying I don't know whether Dick Cheney has ever eaten human flesh--I don't have the slightest bit of evidence for it, and it seems damn unlikely, but it is logically possible that he has. That's just one example, and it comes after the Saddam-9/11 link has been thoroughly discredited--we've been searching for evidence, and have found nothing. And here's Bush in the State of the Union: Saddam "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." You're correct, I think, that the Administration never stated Saddam was linked to September 11. They tried furiously to create that impression--constantly mentioning them in the same sentence--without ever making an outright assertion. The purpose was to deceive without technically lying. The Cheney comment alone is a clearer case of a deliberate attempt to deceive than Clark's comments. Perhaps the group can help point Thorley to other examples. Thorley, I apologize—I left out “It came from people around the White House” accidentally, due to a cut-and-paste error. However, I don’t think the omissions change a thing. Clark wasn’t reading a speech. Immediately after mentioning the phone call, he says where it came from—Middle East Think Tanks and such. He just does not say that he got a call from anyone in the White House. As for Dick Cheney’s clarity—he said, “It’s not surprising that people make the connection” between Saddam and September 11, and then said “we don’t know” whether Baghdad played a role in the attacks. This is like saying I don’t know whether Dick Cheney has ever eaten human flesh—I don’t have the slightest bit of evidence for it, and it seems damn unlikely, but it is logically possible that he has. That’s just one example, and it comes after the Saddam-9/11 link has been thoroughly discredited—we’ve been searching for evidence, and have found nothing. And here’s Bush in the State of the Union: Saddam “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” You’re correct, I think, that the Administration never stated Saddam was linked to September 11. They tried furiously to create that impression—constantly mentioning them in the same sentence—without ever making an outright assertion. The purpose was to deceive without technically lying. The Cheney comment alone is a clearer case of a deliberate attempt to deceive than Clark’s comments. Perhaps the group can help point Thorley to other examples.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4425 Thorley Winston Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:36:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4425 Matt Weiner wrote (quoting Clark on “Meet the Press”): <blockquote> It came from the White House. [Indisputably true. If you think the White House didn’t try to create the impression that Saddam was linked to 9/11, you’re posting from Uqbar.] </blockquote> Actually I’m posting from Minnesota and if you want to make such a claim, it is up to you to provide some evidence to back it up. Please share with the group how the White House supposedly tried to create the impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. I’ve heard nothing from anyone in the administration stating that he was linked to it and the administration officials (such as the Vice President) have been pretty upfront with saying that they don’t know if we linked to it or not. <blockquote> It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. [If he’s implying that this is from the White House, why did he say ‘It came from all over’? In my book, that means ‘It came from the White House, and also from other places.’]… And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. [Doesn’t it sound like the “people” he’s talking about are from Middle East think tanks?]” </blockquote> Actually it might help if you quoted the full Clark remarks instead of selectively editing them. Here is the entire portion of what Clark Said (and I’ve bolded the parts you deliberately removed: <blockquote> "Well, it came from the White House, <b>it came from people around the White House.</b> It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. <b>I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.</b> And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection." </blockquote> You see when you read Clark’s entire comments including the “it came from people around the White House” which preceded the “it came from all over,” it looks as if Clark is saying that the people speaking to him were from and around the White House. This is <b>before</b> he mentions any think tanks. I agree his comments were poorly constructed but since he was unwilling to name any of the supposed "sources" from the White House, I'm not willing to give him a pass on what seems to be an obvious smear on his part. Matt Weiner wrote (quoting Clark on “Meet the Press”):
It came from the White House. [Indisputably true. If you think the White House didn’t try to create the impression that Saddam was linked to 9/11, you’re posting from Uqbar.]
Actually I’m posting from Minnesota and if you want to make such a claim, it is up to you to provide some evidence to back it up. Please share with the group how the White House supposedly tried to create the impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. I’ve heard nothing from anyone in the administration stating that he was linked to it and the administration officials (such as the Vice President) have been pretty upfront with saying that they don’t know if we linked to it or not.
It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. [If he’s implying that this is from the White House, why did he say ‘It came from all over’? In my book, that means ‘It came from the White House, and also from other places.’]… And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. [Doesn’t it sound like the “people” he’s talking about are from Middle East think tanks?]”
Actually it might help if you quoted the full Clark remarks instead of selectively editing them. Here is the entire portion of what Clark Said (and I’ve bolded the parts you deliberately removed:
“Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You’ve got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’ I said, ‘But—I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.”
You see when you read Clark’s entire comments including the “it came from people around the White House” which preceded the “it came from all over,” it looks as if Clark is saying that the people speaking to him were from and around the White House. This is before he mentions any think tanks. I agree his comments were poorly constructed but since he was unwilling to name any of the supposed “sources” from the White House, I’m not willing to give him a pass on what seems to be an obvious smear on his part.

]]> By: Bob http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4424 Bob Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:45:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4424 Novak's article is a joke. Will go down as well as the Washington Times "scoop" about the French handing out passports to Saddam's regime. I like seeing the scared f^&kers scrambling. Novak’s article is a joke. Will go down as well as the Washington Times “scoop” about the French handing out passports to Saddam’s regime. I like seeing the scared f^&kers scrambling.

]]> By: Max Sawicky http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4423 Max Sawicky Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:59:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4423 Two things are true: 1. Novak spun the facts to create false impressions. 2. Clark met with Mladic after he was known to have committed numerous crimes. I don't fault Clark for doing his job. The signal-to-noise ratio in this whole 'debate' is pretty low, IMO. Two things are true: 1. Novak spun the facts to create false impressions. 2. Clark met with Mladic after he was known to have committed numerous crimes. I don’t fault Clark for doing his job. The signal-to-noise ratio in this whole ‘debate’ is pretty low, IMO.

]]> By: Katie http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4422 Katie Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:13:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4422 As I understand it, Samantha Power's book, "A Problem From Hell", credits Clark with being one of the only people in the White House or Pentagon to want to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and gives him a lot of credit for stopping a genocide in Kosovo....anyone have the book want to post some excerpts or summarize? As I understand it, Samantha Power’s book, “A Problem From Hell”, credits Clark with being one of the only people in the White House or Pentagon to want to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and gives him a lot of credit for stopping a genocide in Kosovo….anyone have the book want to post some excerpts or summarize?

]]> By: nameless http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4421 nameless Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:43:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4421 About the fake White House phonecall controversey being ginned up by uberhacks Novack, Safire and Will, see: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092303.shtml No, Wesley Clark didn’t say that the White House pressured him on Iraq (text below). And when people began to think that he’d said it, he explained what he actually meant. And yes, there really is a Middle East think tank with an office in Canada (Montreal). And as of last Thursday, we knew who called Clark on September 11 (or 12), 2001. The Toronto Star explained the matter. “Thomas Hecht, founder of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, told the Star he placed the call to Clark and drew his attention to a potential link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda suicide hijackers,” the paper reported. “The Begin-Sadat Centre has its headquarters in Israel and its only office elsewhere is the one Hecht established in Montreal.” All in all, a nothing-burger of a story. But lying liars are very busy trying to make Wesley Clark a liar, emulating the winning strategy they pursued in their trashing of Gore. How fake are our current conservative “pundits?” Here was the feckless and phony George Will, telling the world in the Washington Post that there is no Middle East think tank in Canada—that Wesley Clark, like Al Gore, is a liar: WILL (8/31/03): As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him…he compounds the confusion that began when he said on June 15 that on 9/11 “I got a call at my home” saying that when he was to appear on CNN, “You’ve got to say this is connected” to Iraq. “It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.” But who exactly called Clark? July 1: “A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank.” There is no such Canadian institution. Clark is a liar, Will was saying. And he was saying this too: Hey, rube! But then, so was the worn-out old hack William Safire, peddling this political porn in yesterday’s inept New York Times: SAFIRE (9/22/03): As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone “around the White House”; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy. But Clark did not “begin by claiming to have been pressured…by someone ‘around the White House.’” And, four days after the Toronto Star actually named that Canadian think tank, the hapless Safire continued spreading the impression that Clark had just made that one up. (Safire was clever enough to use the weasel-word “fuzzy,” being craftily fuzzy himself.) Meanwhile, how hapless is this tired, worn-out old man? In this passage, Safire conflates two separate incidents involving Clark—Clark’s (unwise) suggestion that the White House tried to get him removed from CNN during the war, and Clark’s statement about Saddam and 9/11. But at the degraded New York Times, this kind of messy, nursing-home prose is just fine to dish out to its readers. Al Gore was a Great Big Liar! And, Wesley Clark is a Big Liar too! Surely, by now, you all understand it—your “press corps” is spilling with rank propagandists, and they plan to retell their favorite dim tale. The question: Will America’s cowering “good guy” pundits—the Peter Beinarts, the E. J. Dionnes—dare to challenge their faking this time? Last time, they stepped aside as the corps’ lying liars made a sick joke of your White House election. Will the “good guys” cower and hide once again? The liars will lie until they are stopped. Will these cowering “good guys” dare to stop them? WHAT CLARK SAID: For the record, we are generally skeptical about first-time candidates, and Clark has made some clear mistakes. (For example, he shouldn’t have repeated the “rumors” that the White House tried to get him canned from CNN.) But when Clark appeared on the June 15 Meet the Press, he did not say that the White House called him about Saddam and September 11. Here is the relevant passage: CLARK: I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that? CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection. Can you read? If so, you will note that Clark didn’t say that the phone call came from the White House. And when people began to think that he had, he clarified what he had meant. That’s the way that decent people conduct a public discussion. But as we learned in the last election, your “press corps” is full of lying liars and fools. For example, note what Ben Fritz pointed out in Spinsanity: Note the way Will rearranged the order of Clark’s Meet the Press remarks to make it seem that he’d tied that call to the White House. In a real professional sector, people get fired for frauds of that type. But at the Washington Post, it’s OK. By the way, Fred Hiatt “edits” Will at the Post, Gail Collins “edits” the worn-out old Safire. Read much, Fred and Gail? And do you really think that American citizens are prepared to put up with this clowning again? Your papers made a joke of the last White House race. Do you really think that you’ll be allowed to produce this lying lying once again? About the fake White House phonecall controversey being ginned up by uberhacks Novack, Safire and Will, see: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092303.shtml No, Wesley Clark didn’t say that the White House pressured him on Iraq (text below). And when people began to think that he’d said it, he explained what he actually meant. And yes, there really is a Middle East think tank with an office in Canada (Montreal). And as of last Thursday, we knew who called Clark on September 11 (or 12), 2001. The Toronto Star explained the matter. “Thomas Hecht, founder of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, told the Star he placed the call to Clark and drew his attention to a potential link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda suicide hijackers,” the paper reported. “The Begin-Sadat Centre has its headquarters in Israel and its only office elsewhere is the one Hecht established in Montreal.” All in all, a nothing-burger of a story. But lying liars are very busy trying to make Wesley Clark a liar, emulating the winning strategy they pursued in their trashing of Gore. How fake are our current conservative “pundits?” Here was the feckless and phony George Will, telling the world in the Washington Post that there is no Middle East think tank in Canada—that Wesley Clark, like Al Gore, is a liar: WILL (8/31/03): As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him…he compounds the confusion that began when he said on June 15 that on 9/11 “I got a call at my home” saying that when he was to appear on CNN, “You’ve got to say this is connected” to Iraq. “It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.” But who exactly called Clark? July 1: “A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank.” There is no such Canadian institution. Clark is a liar, Will was saying. And he was saying this too: Hey, rube! But then, so was the worn-out old hack William Safire, peddling this political porn in yesterday’s inept New York Times: SAFIRE (9/22/03): As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone “around the White House”; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy. But Clark did not “begin by claiming to have been pressured…by someone ‘around the White House.’” And, four days after the Toronto Star actually named that Canadian think tank, the hapless Safire continued spreading the impression that Clark had just made that one up. (Safire was clever enough to use the weasel-word “fuzzy,” being craftily fuzzy himself.) Meanwhile, how hapless is this tired, worn-out old man? In this passage, Safire conflates two separate incidents involving Clark—Clark’s (unwise) suggestion that the White House tried to get him removed from CNN during the war, and Clark’s statement about Saddam and 9/11. But at the degraded New York Times, this kind of messy, nursing-home prose is just fine to dish out to its readers. Al Gore was a Great Big Liar! And, Wesley Clark is a Big Liar too! Surely, by now, you all understand it—your “press corps” is spilling with rank propagandists, and they plan to retell their favorite dim tale. The question: Will America’s cowering “good guy” pundits—the Peter Beinarts, the E. J. Dionnes—dare to challenge their faking this time? Last time, they stepped aside as the corps’ lying liars made a sick joke of your White House election. Will the “good guys” cower and hide once again? The liars will lie until they are stopped. Will these cowering “good guys” dare to stop them? WHAT CLARK SAID: For the record, we are generally skeptical about first-time candidates, and Clark has made some clear mistakes. (For example, he shouldn’t have repeated the “rumors” that the White House tried to get him canned from CNN.) But when Clark appeared on the June 15 Meet the Press, he did not say that the White House called him about Saddam and September 11. Here is the relevant passage: CLARK: I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that? CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection. Can you read? If so, you will note that Clark didn’t say that the phone call came from the White House. And when people began to think that he had, he clarified what he had meant. That’s the way that decent people conduct a public discussion. But as we learned in the last election, your “press corps” is full of lying liars and fools. For example, note what Ben Fritz pointed out in Spinsanity: Note the way Will rearranged the order of Clark’s Meet the Press remarks to make it seem that he’d tied that call to the White House. In a real professional sector, people get fired for frauds of that type. But at the Washington Post, it’s OK. By the way, Fred Hiatt “edits” Will at the Post, Gail Collins “edits” the worn-out old Safire. Read much, Fred and Gail? And do you really think that American citizens are prepared to put up with this clowning again? Your papers made a joke of the last White House race. Do you really think that you’ll be allowed to produce this lying lying once again?

]]> By: nameless http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4420 nameless Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:25:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4420 BTW, Milosevic was the biggest war criminal of them all. Was it poor judgment for everybody to negotiate with him? Eagleburger didn't think so: "MARGARET WARNER: Do you see, Secretary Eagleburger, any alternative to dealing with Milosevic to make this deal, if there is a deal to be made? LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: No. Not as long as he's in power. And what the discussion here tonight shows is how this whole mess, which is called our bombing of Serbia, has become so complicated that there are no easy answers to anything. Do we negotiate with him, don't we negotiate with him? Ambassador Zimmermann says we have to win the war first. I agree with that, but I don't see any evidence that we intend to win it any way other than to continue to bomb, and as that goes on, make ourselves look to the rest of the world as the big bully on the block. This is an unholy mess in every regard -- and now having indicted Milosevic, which as I say should be done, largely as a warming to the next Milosevic, as much as it is to this fellow. But now that we've indicted him, I think it is probably clear that it's more difficult if we're going to follow the line here that we shouldn't negotiate with a war criminal. As long as he's running Serbia, we're going to have to negotiate with him. But we're doing so in very odd and awkward circumstances. This whole war has turned out to be an odd and awkward circumstance. And there are no easy answers to any of the problems." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/warcrimes_5-27.html BTW, Milosevic was the biggest war criminal of them all. Was it poor judgment for everybody to negotiate with him? Eagleburger didn’t think so: “MARGARET WARNER: Do you see, Secretary Eagleburger, any alternative to dealing with Milosevic to make this deal, if there is a deal to be made? LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: No. Not as long as he’s in power. And what the discussion here tonight shows is how this whole mess, which is called our bombing of Serbia, has become so complicated that there are no easy answers to anything. Do we negotiate with him, don’t we negotiate with him? Ambassador Zimmermann says we have to win the war first. I agree with that, but I don’t see any evidence that we intend to win it any way other than to continue to bomb, and as that goes on, make ourselves look to the rest of the world as the big bully on the block. This is an unholy mess in every regard—and now having indicted Milosevic, which as I say should be done, largely as a warming to the next Milosevic, as much as it is to this fellow. But now that we’ve indicted him, I think it is probably clear that it’s more difficult if we’re going to follow the line here that we shouldn’t negotiate with a war criminal. As long as he’s running Serbia, we’re going to have to negotiate with him. But we’re doing so in very odd and awkward circumstances. This whole war has turned out to be an odd and awkward circumstance. And there are no easy answers to any of the problems.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/warcrimes_5-27.html

]]> By: nameless http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4419 nameless Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:15:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4419 Robert Novack is a contemptible hack. That is what he is paid to be. The person who called Clark has already come forward, so the repetition of that fake controversy is inane. Robert Novack is a contemptible hack. That is what he is paid to be. The person who called Clark has already come forward, so the repetition of that fake controversy is inane.

]]> By: phil http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4418 phil Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:15:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4418 When Rumsfeld met Saddam, Saddam had already started gassing the Kurds and Reagan had already approved the use of all legal means to help Iraq defeat Iran. Sometimes diplomats have to meet with tyrants and monsters, and as far as I know Rumsfeld was just there on orders rather than out of any love for Saddam. But as these things go, the Rumsfeld/Saddam photo is a hundred times more damning than the Clark/Mladic photo, since Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam as our genocidal ally, whereas Clark was meeting with Mladic as our potentially genocidal adversary. But even the Rumsfeld/Saddam picture doesn't hold a candle to the pictures of Bush meeting with Uzbekistan President Karimov, whom the Bush administration is funding and counts as an ally in the so-called War on Terror, but whose regime has resorted to literally boiling dissidents alive. (Do a google search on "objectively pro-boiling".) When Rumsfeld met Saddam, Saddam had already started gassing the Kurds and Reagan had already approved the use of all legal means to help Iraq defeat Iran. Sometimes diplomats have to meet with tyrants and monsters, and as far as I know Rumsfeld was just there on orders rather than out of any love for Saddam. But as these things go, the Rumsfeld/Saddam photo is a hundred times more damning than the Clark/Mladic photo, since Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam as our genocidal ally, whereas Clark was meeting with Mladic as our potentially genocidal adversary. But even the Rumsfeld/Saddam picture doesn’t hold a candle to the pictures of Bush meeting with Uzbekistan President Karimov, whom the Bush administration is funding and counts as an ally in the so-called War on Terror, but whose regime has resorted to literally boiling dissidents alive. (Do a google search on “objectively pro-boiling”.)

]]> By: JP http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4417 JP Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4417 Well, first of all, Ted is explicitly saying that he <i>doesn't</i> see the Rumsfeld photo that way. He said it a long time ago in this thread, and you've been rather conveniently ignoring it. Second of all, on the merits, Rumsfeld was wrong and Clark wasn't (just not because of the photos per se). Rumsfeld was following an intentional policy of supporting and arming Saddam's regime in the '80s. All Clark did was talk to Mladic. He gave him no weapons, no money, no moral support, no nothing. And he did it at a time in which the Clinton Administration was clearly hostile, albeit insufficiently aggressive, towards the Serbs. In fact, as I remember it one of the main reasons why they were insufficiently aggressive towards the Serbs throughout the '90s was that they were opposed every step of the way by the Republican Party. ("We don't have a dog in that fight." -- <a href="http://www.time.com/time/classroom/article/0,12422,201958,00.html">James Baker</a>; "Give peace a chance." -- <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2079324/">Trent Lott</a>; "[The U.S. is] starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army." -- <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2079324/">Tom DeLay</a>) Well, first of all, Ted is explicitly saying that he doesn’t see the Rumsfeld photo that way. He said it a long time ago in this thread, and you’ve been rather conveniently ignoring it. Second of all, on the merits, Rumsfeld was wrong and Clark wasn’t (just not because of the photos per se). Rumsfeld was following an intentional policy of supporting and arming Saddam’s regime in the ‘80s. All Clark did was talk to Mladic. He gave him no weapons, no money, no moral support, no nothing. And he did it at a time in which the Clinton Administration was clearly hostile, albeit insufficiently aggressive, towards the Serbs. In fact, as I remember it one of the main reasons why they were insufficiently aggressive towards the Serbs throughout the ‘90s was that they were opposed every step of the way by the Republican Party. (“We don’t have a dog in that fight.”—James Baker; “Give peace a chance.”—Trent Lott; “[The U.S. is] starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army.”—Tom DeLay)

]]> By: Terry http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/22/people-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-4416 Terry Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:28:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=321#comment-4416 Hey, I dealt with this <a>here</a>. Hey, I dealt with this here.

]]>