Home

Neil Boortz and the RIGHT leaning media spin . . . "AGAIN"

Thu, 06/17/2004 - 10:05 — charlie.collins

Today on Neils Nuze:


Thursday, June 17, 2004

BIAS FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... AGAIN.

We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.

Uh, ok captain bullshit, SO George W. Bush NEVER linked Iraq to 9-11? Boortz states "So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place." Ok, hmmm, I can find about 95,000 instances of where Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Rice have made that correlation, Iraq == 9-11. Quotes from the President himself being MOSTLY an indirect association of the two but clearly aimed at creating the impression that Iraq was involved in September 11 and may be involved in future terrorist attacks via Al Qaeda. AND NOTE THAT EVEN AS MOST STATEMENTS ARE INDIRECT ASSOCIATION A FEW QUOTES ARE A DIRECT CORRELATION AND A DIRECT HIT AND THUS PROVE NEIL IS THE SPINNER AND NOT THE AP.

In the interest of keeping things clear and not quoting all 95,000 I will simply use a few quotes:

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (Bush letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate before the war - March 21.)

THIS ONE IS INDISPUTABLY A DIRECT LINKER
"we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." (Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome 10/14/2002.)

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. (Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office 9/25/2002.)

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. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. (October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati.)

And of course there are a plethora of the indirect quotes, including such high profile things as the STATE OF THE UNION:

January 28 2003 State of the Union "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."

Even if we allow Neil his little ruse that the President never DIRECTLY said Iraq == 911 then his logic is that Bush can lie outright time and time again and claim Iraq has Al Qaeda ties but as long as he doesnt DIRECTLY call them responsible for 9-11 thats quite acceptable? He can even in the same sentence mention Iraq and Septemeber 11 and Al Qaeda so long as he does not call Saddam directly responsible, is that it? Bullshit Neil. The obvious intention of the entire administrations campaign of falsehoods about Iraq and terrorism was directly intended to create the impression that Iraq had involvement or influence in September 11. Its not a leap, its not based on any ambiguity, the statements are very clear in their intention.

Now I will grant you that Bush has been careful 99% of the time not to make the actual link, just to lead people to it indirectly, but on a few occassions that were unscripted he clearly DID make the DIRECT link.

A recantation from Neil is forthcoming? Uh, yeah right.

  The strategically ambiguous George W. Bush

Comments

Thu, 06/17/2004 - 12:47 — cooper (not verified)

RE: Neil Boortz and the RIGHT leaning media spin . . . "AGAIN"

The thing is, too, is even when they DON'T say it, they obviously muddle the words. One of my favs:

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.

Thu, 06/17/2004 - 21:20 — anonymous (not verified)

RE: Neil Boortz and the RIGHT leaning media spin . . . "AGAIN"

Also, since Neil is making such a fine point of the commission stating that there is no AQ-911 connection it is interesting to note that what the commission actually said is that there was no credible collaborative relationship between Iraq-AQ, NOT JUST Iraq-AQ-911. Clearly by the quotes in this story, and myriad others, the Bush admin as made that assertion, and it is in "blunt contradiction" to the commissions findings.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.