9-11 Commission just can't seem to corroborate Bush lies

[Lefty48197]

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0406/17/a03-186789.htm

I can't remember the last time I heard a Bush administration official talk about Iraq, without referring to terrorism. The WMD and "imminent threat" lies have been fully refuted, so now Team Bush is pushing the "al Qaeda ties" lie.
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans - this time armed by Saddam", said Bush in the State of the Union speech in 2003. Just this week, Cheney said that "Saddam had long established ties with al-Qaeda". Bush defended that statement.
Remember, it was Cheney who had the nerve to say, "It's not surprising that the American people make that connection", when referring to the fact that a majority of Americans now believe there is a Hussein-al Qaeda connection.
The Bush administration has even tried to blur the line between the two, by only offering a single military award to the troops that fought in both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Sorry troops, but Bush's lie is more important than your awards.
In spite of the lies of Bush and Cheney, both recent, and farther in the past, the 9-11 commission concluded that there, "was no evidence Iraq and al-Qaeda had a collaborative relationship." In fact, the commission said Iraq had ignored bin Laden's request to establish training camps in Iraq and for help in obtaining weapons.
Last fall, Cheney claimed that Mohammad Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attacks.
The 9-11 commission concluded that the meeting never took place.
In spite of all of the conclusions of the 9-11 commission, the Republicans are keeping up the charade. Bush said on Tuesday that Zarqawi was "the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda". "Saddam's support for terrorism and his association with al Qaeda have been documented", said Bush campaign spokesman Ken Mehlman.

It's amazing how Republicans can just keep repeating something over and over, and they and their sheep just continue to believe all of their own bullsh*t, in spite of all the facts to the contrary.

[Stephanie]

1. Nuh-uhhhhh

Q Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

President George W. Bush meets with members of his Cabinet during a Cabinet Meeting at the White House Thursday, June 17, 2004. White House photo by Eric Draper. I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power.

Let's see -- Morgan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040617-3.html

[Jesse_W]

2. Debunking Stephen Hayes "The Connection" book

The biggest trumpet that the RW has been bashing people over the head with recently is a book by Stephen Hayes called "The Connection". I have not been able to find any progressive, liberal debunking of it anywhere on the net. I would post a separate thread requesting such debunking, but I don't have privileges to do that yet. But we on the left should really get to work on this book. I'm sure there's stuff to be attacked in it, and we should make sure people know how to fight it.