Loose the Hounds -or- Let Lying Dogs Lie
Published March 25, 2004
MORE LIES:
The White House claimed it was applying pressure to the Taliban in 2001.
They haven't been asked why in May of 2001, the Administration pushed for $43 million in aid to the Taliban because of their announced campaign against poppy growers.
IN MAY OF 2001!
[the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan] "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden." ---Newsday, 5/29/01
MORE LIES:
PRESIDENT LIAR: "Had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September the 11th, we would have acted."
Even though there was no information as to an exact time or locale, Bush's statement tries to cover over the fact that he received repeated warnings before 9/11 that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent.
The President received a CIA warning on August 6th, 2001, headlined, " Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." noting the "plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
The White House was warned in July of 2001 that Al Qaeda had considered using hijacked airliners as missiles.
Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that "there had been information coming in that a big operation was planned".
Meanwhile PRIOR TO 9/11, the Administration never once convened its own counterterrorism task force.
The Administration threatened to veto bills diverting national missile defense funds into counterterrorism.
The Administration delayed arming the unmanned Predator drone flying over Afghanistan.
The Administration terminated "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States."
And as if that wasn't enough, the Administration downgraded Clarke's counterterrorism office within the White House.
MORE LIES:
Scott McClellan, when asked about Clarke's charges that "the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq," responded:
"That's part of his revisionist history."
The reporter then asked, "Are you saying it's not true?"
McClellan: "Yes, that's right. I am. That's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that."
SO WHO IS DOING REVISIONIST HISTORY? The pathological liars, of course.
According to the 1/12/03 Washington Post (quotes senior Administration officials) "...six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."
CBS News also reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, and it is consistent with the President's thinking."
- Loose the Hounds -or- Let Lying Dogs Lie
- Published: March 25, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Shark
- Shark's BC Writer page
- Shark's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
1st -- 9/11 is being used by the Presiden't Opponents . . . no one has clean hands here.
2nd- The Taliban Aid claim has been laid to rest numerous times, but here is a good rundown.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, Chris.
It was the administration that said "let's use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq."
How can anyone support that?
HP:
Postitioning Statement: I don't think Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Nor do I think the current Administration thinks so.
However, it does appear that this Admin. views Iraq as a simply a point on the continum of terrorism. In this case, state sponsored terrorism: allowing groups to train within the borders of Iraq, paying the families of suicide bombers, etc.
Now, did the Admin make the right decision in invading Iraq, right now? Maybe/Maybe not. But, it probably seemed like the right thing to do, and as long we were going to try and reshape the Middle East, might as well start there. The wisdom of this action is what is in play, and I am of the opinion that we won't know for probably 20-30 years whether we did the right thing.
Are there benefits to the Invasion? Clearly. Are there drawbacks? Clearly. Do some people think American Soldiers are dying for no reason, or trumped up reasons? Clearly.
One of the reasons I responded to your comment was because it appeared to me to be of a mindset that drives me crazy -- the blithe dismissal of any other thought by lumping in an entire group of people who you know nothing about. Especially the ill-informed use of the word Neocon.
And, your question, How Can Anyone Support That, is a classic Did You Stop Beating Your Wife question.
Actually, it's a reasonably well-informed use of the term neocon.
I've been paying attention, particularly because of the heavy concentration of neocons in the Bush administration. I've blogged a few Items on the topic:
'WHAT THE HECK IS A "NEOCON"?' - Part I
'WHAT THE HECK IS A "NEOCON"?' - Part II
'WHAT THE HECK IS A "NEOCON"?' - Part III
The invasion of Iraq was sold as part of the 'war on terror' but as the truth comes out we find that invading Iraq was simply neocon policy going back years, and the tragedy of 9/11 was cynically used as an excuse to advance that policy.
Can anyone support such loathesome opportunism?
Neoconservatism was spawned in NYC? That's very interesting Hal. Ty for the info.
Sheri, if you read that article you probably know more about neocons than many of their supporters :-)
Let's not forget the new neocon meme that's starting up: postponing the elections if there's another terrorist attack.
David Brooks got the ball rolling in the Times with his remark that it was ridiculous for Spain to hold elections right after 3/11.
Today Peggy Noonan picks up the theme in OpinionJournal.com with the observation that they shouldn't even hold 9/11 hearings because we're at war!
Expect more of this as the election nears. Maybe I'll even start a website: Neocon Military Coup Watch.
This is incredible. Shark, great post. I remember the Taliban/poppy thing! Jesus. Why hasn't anybody else brought that up? My God. This story just keeps growing. It's like watching a mushroom cloud in slow-mo.
Fisher: It's like watching a mushroom cloud in slow-mo.
DOH!
Bad choice in the ol' metaphor category. Too close to reality.
I must admit -- the idea that the Bushies are suffering a melt-down has me relatively optimistic for the first time in three years: everything I said on Bush Junta, Day One turned out to be true: these people are the most criminal liars in American Presidential history -- and that's saying A LOT!
PS: Can't wait to see Condo-leaser "Call me Dr. Tibbs!" Rice indicted for perjury.
Oh wait, no, she refuses to testify under oath. (The White House's official reason: "she's busy getting coffee for the boyz.")
Nevermind.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14052)
Part of what bothers me about this issue is that it does not bother the right.
In my mind, using the real tragedy of 9/11 for political gamesmanship is unspeakably contemptible.
I guess the neocons know their flock better than I do.