Today on Blogcritics
Home » Tony Tells Tale of Terrorist Ties

Tony Tells Tale of Terrorist Ties

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Last week, a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Report was released that stated there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and either Al-Qaida or terrorist Zarqawi. They said quite clearly that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support."

In relation to Zarqawi it says, "Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

That seems very clear to me. Almost cut and dry even in fact. It does not appear that way to Condi Rice as I reported on Sunday. It does not appear that way to Cheney in a story I decided to skip in honor of 9/11.

According to Tony “Tar Baby” Snow it does not appear to the President that way…or maybe it does. Things are rarely clear with Tony Snow. You can ask the man a question and get every possible answer there is.

A great example of this gift was reported by Editor and Publisher and took place at the press briefing on September 12, 2006. Tony Snow was asked if the President still believed there was a connection between Saddam and Zarqawi. Here is Tony’s answer. Follow the bouncing ball.

The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two. And this is important. …But did they have, you know, a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship.

Ok, so the President does believe they did not have a working relationship, but does believe they had a passive aggressive type of mutual ignoring relationship of nothing? Did I get that about right?

The important questions are simple, and Tony did answer them and honestly, in fact. It is in there if you look at it. You must break it apart. It is like the Bible code. You must know the answer before you ask the question to see the answer. Um, never mind that analogy.

The first question Tony Snow answers is: Was there a working relationship between AQ and Saddam? The answer is no. “The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two.”

The second question Tony Snow answers is: Was Saddam funding Zarqawi? The answer is no. “You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship.”

No funding and no working ties according to Tony Snow’s own words. The relationship he describes is one of the terrorists operating within Iraq with Saddam’s knowledge. According to the Senate report he was trying to capture the terrorists. This would mean of course he knows they are in his country if he is trying to capture them.

Tony Snow stresses many times that Bush never said there was an operational relationship between the terrorist group and the deposed leader. When Cheney speaks or Rice speaks, are they speaking for Bush? When Bush speaks, is he speaking for Bush? Or are all of them supposed to be speaking for us and telling the truth?

When Cheney said “We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions" on 1/9/2004, was he not giving an example of an express working relationship between AQ and Saddam?  When Cheney says Saddam and Zarqawi were working together like he did on 1/22/2004 wasn't he speaking the truth for Bush as well?  Or are there different truths?

Tony Snow goes on to say that Bush has admitted that "they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff.” Last time I checked being in cahoots and planning stuff and doing stuff is called an “operational relationship.” Say it with me Tony. “OP-ER-A-SHUN-AL Re-LAY-SHUN-SHIP”.

Tony Snow is a great White House press guy, and I mean that honestly. He tries so hard to lie and somehow the truth slips out every time. I mean we learned today that Saddam had no relationship with AQ, gave them no funding, and that Bush has lied about that. Thank you Tony and keep up the good work.

Powered by

About Brad Schader

  • Nancy

    The entire BushCo operation is one big lie. Why anyone would want to destroy their personal credibility by getting mixed up with them is beyond me. The kicker is that BushCo will even lie to their own people & leave them to twist in the wind when expose comes, as it inevitably does.