Friday, June 18, 2004
The Lies Continue
Here's a laugher from the New York Times:
Remember what I wrote about the law of reversion to the meme.
Now the meme is that the President somehow argued that 'Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.'
This meme is a lie.
No senior administration official ever made such a claim, nor implied it.
More from the same article:
The idea that there is a contradiction between the Bush administration's position and the commission's position is another lie. It is perfectly possible for there to have been a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda without that relationship being "collaborative" w/r/t attacks on the United States.
The commission even states as much.
The report is hundreds of pages long, and the Times is focusing so much energy on the contents of this one paragraph which itself is 1.) Beyond the scope of the commission's expertise, and 2.) a nonissue anyway, because it doesn't tell us anything new. It provides no new information whatsoever. Not a shred.
Far be it for the Times to actually bring that into perspective, though.
Far be it for the Times to do their f^#%ing job.
The New York Times is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to itself.
Splash, out
Jason
Now, in 17 preliminary staff reports, that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.
Remember what I wrote about the law of reversion to the meme.
Now the meme is that the President somehow argued that 'Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.'
This meme is a lie.
No senior administration official ever made such a claim, nor implied it.
More from the same article:
In the face of those findings, Mr. Bush stood firm, disputing the particular finding in a staff report that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization. "There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush declared.
The idea that there is a contradiction between the Bush administration's position and the commission's position is another lie. It is perfectly possible for there to have been a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda without that relationship being "collaborative" w/r/t attacks on the United States.
The commission even states as much.
The report is hundreds of pages long, and the Times is focusing so much energy on the contents of this one paragraph which itself is 1.) Beyond the scope of the commission's expertise, and 2.) a nonissue anyway, because it doesn't tell us anything new. It provides no new information whatsoever. Not a shred.
Far be it for the Times to actually bring that into perspective, though.
Far be it for the Times to do their f^#%ing job.
The New York Times is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to itself.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Too much of "The Media" is hoping that our memories are as short as their dislike of this administration is long. And at least one member of the commission wrote to a blogger (Cluelss, I think) to point out that the whole foo-for-aw is about one sentence, taken out of context, that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11 - which is what the administration has said all along - while ignoring that the report also stated that there were contacts: possibly not fruitful, the comission does not yet have conclusive evidence (and it is not in their scope), but certainly talking went on.
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - President George W. Bush, September 2002
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 3:42 PM
: 3:42 PM
