How the hell can the White House refute the 9/11 commission re:

[oustemnow]

their "no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda" conclusion?

I know that Cheney has towed the bullshit line on this issue all along, but I read a report within the past couple days that the Admin as a whole is now claiming that the 9/11 commission's claim is false.

Problem is, didn't Bush come out months ago and admit that there was no connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda? Are they just that arrogant that they think no one will bother to remember or look up an admission made less than a year ago?

I know that there's Putin's recent claim that supposedly backs up the White House's new stance (I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars of that), but supposedly, according to reports, this was information that Putin made available to the White House a couple of years ago. Doesn't that beg the question of why the White House didn't cite Putin's claims before? After all, they were nothing less than desperate to prove a SH/AQ link to justify the Iraq invasion.

[NMDemDist2]

1. Putin's claims are news to the State dept

there was something on LBN yesterday re: that

[shraby]

2. How in the hell does the Administration

do all the other stuff it does? Boggles the mind doesn't it?

[LittleApple81]

3. Please look at this thread in DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1819155

There is another NYT article that I posted (post 7 in the above thread) where the 9/11 commission seems to be wondering the same thing. In this article there is a paragraph where they mention Putin's lie (it HAS to be a lie, because he would have supported the war if it had been true.)

[LittleApple81]

9. There is a more complete discussion of this matter in the thread

cited in the above post. Check it out.

[Mad As Hell]

4. The 9/11 videos will be

reappearing shortly. They will not let the 9/11 commission interfere with the campaign plans. Unless the furor is too great. Which it will be. Too stupid for words.

[baldguy]

5. By saying "Yes, there is!" a million times.

The neocons have the mentality of a four year old.

[Kazak]

6. Sounds a bit to me like...

inviting impeachment trials.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. The facts are against them; common sense is against them

Since they can't beat on the facts and they can't beat on common sense, they're beating the table.

"We've been saying there is an al Qaida connection because there is an al Qaida connection," said the Commandeer-in-Thief. No reason, just rhetoric.

Pathetic.

[oustemnow]

8. Yeah, but beyond the lame, "Because I said so" logic,

is the fact that the Bush Admin already admitted previously that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda; they're actually refuting their own on-the-record comments. Are they going to resort to a "because I say so now" defense?

In fact, it's particularly stupid to do so, because by and large they got away with making that admission the first time, when it should have been a bombshell statement. This new claim is bound to resuscitate that previously (for the most part) ignored statement and give it a new public airing.

I mean, I know they're not the brighest bunch, but are they that foolhardy?

[Jack Rabbit]

17. I have a small quibble with that

(B)eyond the lame . . . logic is the fact that the Bush Admin already admitted previously that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Bush has said publicly that there is nothing to show that Saddam had anything to do with the September 11 attacks; he still maintains that Saddam had a an association with al Qaida.

It is refutable. The Commission rightly states that there is no credible evidence that there was such a connection. Bush is now citing Zarqawi's presence in Iraq as evidence that Saddam had an association with al Qaida. However, the Iraq-al Qaida connection, and Zarqawi's part in it, exists through Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist organization that operated in Kurdish regions of Iraq under the Anglo-American no-fly zone and beyond Saddam's control. There is no association that can be established here, in spite of what Fearless Leader says.

[caffefwee]

10. You should have watched Capital Gang today

The way they try to parse everything to make it look like the commission agrees with Bush. They're connected, no they're just associates, no they conspired. :puke:

[Sparkly]

11. They use terms like "tie, link, connection" with no meaning

My husband says they'd consider looking somebody up in the phonebook a "tie" in this case.

[caffefwee]

14. Robert NOOOO vak is pathetic

You ever see when he starts foaming at the mouth and drools. Literally he spits sometimes and you can see the saliva on his lip. I'm not making this up.

[Kool Kitty]

21. Revolting little troll, isn't he?

Between him and Chris Matthews, you'd have to wear a raincoat just to have a conversation with them. Yuck.

[Lancer]

12. Why are * and Crashcart pulling this ****?

To defend the indefensible? To justify invasion of the wrong country? To project an image of staking out the "moral high ground" in an enterprise which is neither moral nor elevated?

I don't think this is multiple choice, but "all of the above."

[donhakman]

15. OMISSION COMPLETE

[Poiuyt]

13. I would love to hear Bush talk about

the ties between Saddam and the US, and al Queda and the US. Wouldn't that be interesting?

[arwalden]

16. Self Deluded? Psychotic?

[Catshrink]

18. Nope, just effing morans.

[arwalden]

19. You're Too Polite... Too Genteel... Can't We All Just Say "FUCKING"??

When it comes to Cheney and Bush... they deserve nothing but the best. Not "frig"... not "friggin'"... not "effn"... but FUCKIN'!

Yes, they are FUCKIN' Morans!

-- Allen

P.S. Besides a good FUCK or two relieves tension. (And I'm not talking about the sexual kind... although that might help as well.)

[Catshrink]

20. Well, okay than...

The jackass and crashcart are fucking morans!!! Damn, that does feel good to say.

[Kool Kitty]

22. Fucking morons and FUCKING LIARS!!!!