April 30, 2007

"Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm."

Fred Barnes has Karl Rove's perspective on that encounter with Laurie David and Sheryl Crow (which we talked about last week here). He recounts the details of the conversation and goes on:
Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm. She said Rove worked for her. Rove said he worked for the American people. Crow said she and David were the American people. And at that point, Rove turned and sat back down at his table, where he was a guest of the New York Times.

The point of recounting this stunt by two of Hollywood's most prominent limousine liberals--who have accused Rove of rudeness--is to put him in the proper political context. He is the chief target of Democrats, liberals, and the left, and they burn with a desire to see him discredited, fired, and jailed....

Even in Watergate, no single aide in the Nixon White House was pursued as relentlessly as Rove has been. Yet these investigations have uncovered one dry hole after another. And unless beating Democrats by ordinary political means becomes a crime, Rove will remain at large and at work. The best Democrats can hope for is to insult and assault him at a Washington dinner.
Barnes -- appropriately -- thinks it's ridiculous that Sheryl Crow and Laurie David claim privilege access as the embodiment of "the American people." But by the end of his article, he's blithely presenting them as the embodiment of Democrats. I'm sure plenty of Democrats are irritated by the way Crow and David displayed themselves at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and preened about it afterwards and, more broadly, by the way they're trying to make themselves the face of the Global Warming issue.

163 comments:

Roger said...

To revive the comment made earlier: If Crowe is only using one sheet, you want her touching you?

Sloanasaurus said...

I thought Rove worked for the President and the President worked for the people?

The Bush Administration has been mostly scandal free. Only Scooter Libby who was prosecuted on trumped up charges by Fitzmas (aka Nifong), has seen any potential jail time.

Contrast that with Clinton... yikes.

Ann Althouse said...

"Rove said he worked for the American people. "

MadisonMan said...

The Bush Administration has been mostly scandal free.

sloan, you have little memory, and remarkable tolerance for sleaze in your government when it's lead by Republicans.

Here are some names. Do a web search on them. I won't even include the current AG stuff.

David Safavian. Claude Allen. Lester Crawford. Carl Truscott. Joseph Schmitz. John Korsmo (and his wife!). Darlee Druyun. Roger Stillwell. Susan Ralston. Tom Scully. And on. And on.

Scandal is okay in your book, though, if Clinton's appointees were also sleezy?

Joan said...

But by the end of his article, he's blithely presenting them as the embodiment of Democrats.

How is that inaccurate? It has been obvious for some time that the Democrats want to destroy Rove. All Democrats may not share David and Crow's fervor regarding global warming, but I would be surprised to learn many Democrats don't agree that their prospects would be improved if Karl Rove could somehow be removed from politics.

Freder Frederson said...

The Bush Administration has been mostly scandal free.

Because for six years a Republican Congress absolutely refused to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing by this administration. And anyone who even questions this Administration is shouted down as a traitor and unAmerican by the likes of you.

George said...

MadisonMan--

I looked up two of the folks you mentioned...

Druyun was the civilian chief of USAF acquisitions. She was first investigated in 1993 (during the Clinton administration) for corrupt purchasing practices. She got off. She retired in December 2002 and later was successfully prosecuted while working for Boeing.

Don't see how that reflects badly on the current President. Seems like it reflects badly on how both parties and the military interact with defense contractors.

Stillwell pled guilty to a misdemeanor regarding acceptance of inappropriate gifts while an Interior Deptartment "desk officer" "in charge of" the Northern Marianas Islands during the current administration.

I don't know much about that, but it sounds pretty penny ante, especially considering that the gifts were....restaurant dinners.

C'mon, the President is personally responsible for that?!?

Roger said...

I feel reasonably safe in saying that sex is the aqua regia of scandals and touches (no pun intended) Ds and Rs alike.

I for one am salaciously awaiting the publication of the DC madam's phone list!

Freder Frederson said...

Barnes doesn't say who his source is for Rove's perspective on the incident.

Ann Althouse said...

Oh, take a wild guess.

Freder Frederson said...

I feel reasonably safe in saying that sex is the aqua regia of scandals and touches (no pun intended) Ds and Rs alike.

As an example of how teflon coated this administration is, can you imagine the fuss if it was revealed that a gay male prostitute had frequent unfettered visits to the Clinton White House, in apparent violation of all normal security procedures. Yet when it happened in this administration, it blew over quickly.

bill said...

Yet when it happened in this administration, it blew over quickly.

That's what he said.

Too many jims said...

George said...
Stillwell pled guilty to a misdemeanor regarding acceptance of inappropriate gifts while an Interior Deptartment "desk officer" "in charge of" the Northern Marianas Islands during the current administration.

I don't know much about that, but it sounds pretty penny ante, especially considering that the gifts were....restaurant dinners.


Yes. It is the Northern Marianas and just restaurant dinners. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Freder Frederson said...

Oh, take a wild guess.

I assume you think it came directly from Rove and not just from a second or third hand source.

Even if it did come from Rove, we're supposed to take at face value the unattributed account of a man who is a documented liar? He has demonstrated that he has absolutely no qualms about lying under oath. How many times did he lie in front of the Plame Grand Jury before he finally told the truth?

MadisonMan said...

george: Is it your assertion that the Bush administration has been free of scandal?

AlphaLiberal said...

I think it's silly to even comment on this episode not knowing what actually happened. Ann chooses to believe JKArl Rove, others choose to believe these two women. I choose to skip the whole thing.

And a Fred Barnes column is hardly reliable information. The guy makes the term "partisan shill" look bad.
--------------------
Anyone making anything like this comment is not paying attention:
The Bush Administration has been mostly scandal free.

Just from the top of my head, we have:
- Invading and occupying a sovereign nation based on trumped up accusations and lies.

- Supressing scientific evidence on global warming.

- Hiring Iraq occupation officials based not on competence, but on party loyalties. (And then letting the hire immigrant labor in a country where they need jobs! Duh!)

- Letting Osama bin Laden go in Tora Bora.

- Violating the law in several ways involving warrantless wiretapping, national security letters and other unConstituitonal acts.

- Lying to Congress about the cost of the Medicare deform bill.

- Continually lying aboaut a non-existent link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

- 16 words to the effect of Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger.

- Aluminium tubes? A scandal in itself. Or how about those drones who would attack us? Mobile chemical weapons labs? Oh the lies!

- Letting the munitions dumps in Iraq go unguarded in the wake of the invasion. Scandalous stupidity.

- Exposing a CIA agent working on nuclear weapons.

- Setting up an offshore gulag - Gitmo- where individuals can be stripped of human rights -- and dignity. Including many innocent people who were impriseond without access to legal council.

- Repealing habea corpus - a human right won in medeival days -- now THAT'S rolling back the clock!

- The August 6 memo that bush ignored, titled "bin LAden determined to strike US." Bush reads, ignores, then stays on vacations and fishes.
- To exploit Terry Schiavo's persistent vegetative state, Bush left his vacation early to fly back to DC. (priorities)

- Walter Reed Hospital, know about for years by the "support the troops" Bush Administration.

- Enron trading and Bush-Cheney refusal to help California end energy company extortion.

I'm *just* getting warmed up. Bush is one of the most corrupt Presidents we've ever had. He has no respect for the American Constitution or the rule of law.

And, frankly, anyone at this point who continues to make excuses for him. Sloanasaurus, is doing a disservice to the country.

Freder Frederson said...

Is it your assertion that the Bush administration has been free of scandal?

Why of course. And nobody anticipated the breach of the levees and the war has been paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues.

AlphaLiberal said...

d'oh! Typos galore.

"(And then letting the hire immigrant labor in a country where they need jobs! Duh!)"

should have been

"(And then letting the contractors in this privatized war hire immigrant labor in a country where they need jobs! Duh!)"

AlphaLiberal said...

Geez, I forgot Katrina!

Freder Frederson said...

But of course the most important scandal is operating secret prisons and sanctioning torture, or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. For that one crime alone, he (along with numerous others, including that scumbag Tenet who practically admitted to it last night on 60 minutes) should be impeached, removed from office, charged with crimes, and if found guilty, serve a long jail sentence.

John said...

Alpha Liberal,

You might want to get your news from somewhere besides Air America sometime. As far as GUITMO, perhaps we should just close the place down and re-locate the charmers confined there to a half way house in your neighborhood? Afterall they are just innocent people deprived of their dignity, what do you have to fear?

As far as the non-existant link between Al Quada and Iraq, perhaps you missed the NYT article this weekend about Anbar province and the local sheks turning against Al Quada there. We are currently at war with Al Quada in Iraq and have been since at least 2004. There were al Quada elements all over Iraq under Saddam. There has never been an established link between Saddam and 9-11. But, 9-11 is not Al Quada. But hey don't let the facts get in the way or anything.

The famous August 6th memo claim is laughable. Of course people knew Bin Ladin was going to strike the US you idiot. He had already struck US citizens overseas repeatedly in the 1990s and all Bill Clinton could do about it was bomb asprin factories and empty camps. Besides his attorney general was too busy burning small children to death in Waco and trying to blame Oklahoma City on talk radio to be bothered with Bin Ladin. No one knew how or where Bin Ladin was going to hit, that was the problem. After 9-11 when Bush actually did something abotu Bin Ladin and Al Quada, like wire taps and GUITMO, you have a fainting fit. IF Bill Clinton had been willing to kill Bin Ladin or take him from the Sudanese and lock in up, there would have never been a 9-11. What do want for it to be harder for the governmetn to track and lock up people like Atta and Bin Ladin but have a greater risk of terror attacks or do you want to go after them and have a lower risk? You can't have both. Either there is a terrible threat in which case you need to shut the hell up about the measures to stop it or there wasn't a threat in which case you need to shut the hell up about memos and letting Bin Ladin go.

AlphaLiberal said...

John says:
Afterall they are just innocent people deprived of their dignity, what do you have to fear?

That's a dishonest statement John. I rather clearly said "many" innocent people.

I absolutely did not say "they're all innocent," as you reply.

You, sir, are a liar and a bad one.

rcocean said...

I'm sure SOME democrats are unhappy about Crow and David's behavior, but not enough to actually speak out and condemn the behavior.

The fact is, almost no one on the right has any respect for most liberals because they WILL NOT condemn bad behavior by their fellow lefties.

They will, however, get upset, when conservatives tar them with the same brush. So, they are never REALLY upset at the their fellow lefties bad behavior, its all just a PR worry.

AJ Lynch said...

Jeez:

I am surprised Madison man and Alpha Liberal forgot to mention Jack Abranoff. He epitomized sleaze, scandal and corruption.

Madison Man- you included petty criminal/ shoplifter Claude Allen- that is a big reach- he was just stupid but not the admin's fault.

And Katrina was not scandal nor corruption perhaps just ineptness. Unless you find truth in Elizabeth Edwards' line that those people were "held down" by the system or guvmint (i.e Bush).

AlphaLiberal said...

John also said:

As far as the non-existant link between Al Quada and Iraq, perhaps you missed the NYT article this weekend about Anbar province and the local sheks turning against Al Quada there.

I said that the alleged link between Iraq and al Qaeda was made continually and intended to bolster the case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

For the record, I klnow al Qaeda is now in Iraq, using American troops for target practice, fighting with the militias and otherwise causing trouble.

That is a result of Bush's failed invasion and occupation. Saddam did not have anythinig to do with 9/11 as Bush, Cheney, et all insinuated repeatedly.

But it's a waste of time debating with modern right wingers. You guys have lost all integrity and continue to sink into the morass of lies, deceit and contradiction that is the modern conservative movement.

Sloanasaurus said...

I don't think it is fair to call a scandal something you are in political disagreement with. Why not just call the entire Bush administration a scandal...or the Social Security Act a scandal...blah blah blah..

Bush is one of the most corrupt Presidents we've ever had. He has no respect for the American Constitution or the rule of law.

Wow, what a statement! Based on your standards and laundry list, FDR, Truman, Lincoln - they are all crooks.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jack Abramoff is not yet clearly enough tied to Bush. Though his corruption did turn on access to the Bnush Administration.

The conviction of Republican Duke Cunningham has also led to indictments of top officials at Bush's CIA.

But I'm sure Bush's defenders here will make some lame ass defense of this, too.

Remember your talking points! George Bush didn't know Ken Lay or Jack Abramoff! (and ignore those pictures and videos showing him with both men).

Methadras said...

Liberal shallowness has it's privileges, now that style over substance is the name of the political game.

AJ Lynch said...

Ann:

You should consider a post on Elizabeth Edwards's comments on Hardball about Bush's trip to VA tech.

Edwards is an attorney and her words were very carefully parsed and selected. And nutty in my opinion.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sloanasaurus, really. You're only deceiving yourself. These are factual accounts of the Bush Administration's actions.

So you don't think it's a scandal that the Bush Administration lied to Congress about the costs of the Medicare Bill?

I guess I just don't share your low standards.

Well, this eexchange has fueled my disgust for the right weing early in the week.

Sloanasaurus said...

Saddam did not have anythinig to do with 9/11 as Bush, Cheney, et all insinuated repeatedly.

Is that your response to whether Saddam had ties to terrorists? That seems like a response of misdirection:

Q: Did Saddam have links to terrorists?

A: (from Alpha Liberal) Saddam did not have anythinig to do with 9/11 as Bush, Cheney, et all insinuated repeatedly.

Hmmm....is that answering the question?

Saddam did have ties to terrorists. Maybe he did not have anything to do with 9-11, but he supported terrorists, he funded them, he provided safety for them, and he needed them. His willingness to support terrorists was one reason among many for taking him out.

Jeff said...

You, sir,

Seriously, man, watch less Olbermann. The pretentious nature of that ass rubs off on his viewers.

Although if you want to go all out, try to work in a "how... DARE... you!" every now and then.

Roger said...

AL: if that list you laid out comprises the "facts" as you believe them to be, that they could not be subject to other interpreations, or acknowledge other possible "facts" may be relevant, there is clearly no need for further discussion, and were such discussion to be undertaken it would rapidly descend into a series of slurs and insults.

By all means, push for impeachment of Bushco now! And look on the bright side: your long national nightmare will be over in one way, shape, or form in Jan 2009.

George said...

Madison--

Of course, I do not mean to assert that the present administration is scandal-free.

That's an impossibility, considering the gargantuan size of the federal government.

I randomly picked two of the names you mentioned. One of the miscreants was a career civilian bureaucrat in the Pentagon who'd been doing corrupt stuff under both Dem. and GOP administrations, and the other guy was some totally obscure paper-pusher (?) "supervising" the Northern Marianas Islands and getting free dinners.

I'm a swing voter who loves a juicy political scandal as much as the next guy, but as earth-shattering scandals that call for impeachment or resignations of senior-appointees, I'm sure you agree the two above don't quality.

Zeb Quinn said...

David Safavian. Claude Allen. Lester Crawford. Carl Truscott. Joseph Schmitz. John Korsmo (and his wife!). Darlee Druyun. Roger Stillwell. Susan Ralston. Tom Scully. And on. And on

Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? And there are other lesser knowns that you didn't bother to mention?

What about the inexplicable laxity with which Bush, et. al. blithely let a list of truly big-name perps from the Clinton administration skate, as most recently shown with Sandy Berger? But it's more than Berger, and it goes all the way back to Jan 20, 2001. To the extent that the Bush administration has been scandal-ridden, that's it.

Fen said...

alpahliberal: Saddam did not have anythinig to do with 9/11 as Bush, Cheney, et all insinuated repeatedly...You guys have lost all integrity and continue to sink into the morass of lies, deceit and contradiction that is the modern conservative movement.

No one ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. You're the liar. Keep projecting. Keep repeating your "Bush Lied" lie. Then chastise us about integrity. Its rich, coming from you.

Sloanasaurus said...

So you don't think it's a scandal that the Bush Administration lied to Congress about the costs of the Medicare Bill?

The Bush administration lied to us about the prescription drug bill in the same way that Johnson lied to us about the cost of Medicare, in the same way that my kid lies about the ultimate cost of owning a dog.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It is pretty obvious that history isn’t taught much anymore since evidently corruption in DC never occurred prior to the Bush/Cheny cabal. Get off it people, to say that the current administration is corruption free is a idiotic as those who claim it is the most corrupt in history. Clearly no one read about the Whiskey Ring, Teapot Dome, Watergame or Whitewater just to name a few. Lincoln actually did suspend habeous corpus. FDR pretty much did the same thing in addition to locking up tens of thousands of American citizens with no trial. I suppose all those claims by Clinton about Iraq’s WMDs were just as full of lies in 1998 as they were in 2003 right?

Just a tip for some of you folks, history didn’t start on your birthday. To think that somehow Bush is trying to create the Fourth Reich is simply absurd when faced with the likes of what Lincoln and FDR did in times of national conflict.

As an aside considering this post has been hijacked, I wonder what Al, Sheryl and David think of Mars losing its southern polar cap?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

SGT Ted said...

So you don't think it's a scandal that the Bush Administration lied to Congress about the costs of the Medicare Bill?

If underestimating the cost of a broad entitlement program is criminal, then most of the House and Senate belong in jail.

Look Alpha Lib, leftwing parrot talk leavened with hardly proven accusations isn't the equivalent of actually crimes, much less convictions.

The idea that political corruption involving cash is currently only unique to the Republican party, well, shows your grasp of reality is questionable at best.

The bottom line is that a Democrat controlled Congress is trying to criminalise policy decisions with which they disagree. They set up these show trial "investigations" to set up perjury traps by going into the minutae of who said what to whom on a specific day and go "aha!" If we were subject to such, we'd all be going to jail.

So, until there are actual indictments and then trials, spare me the sanctimonious prating about moral purity in politics.

Roger said...

Hoosier D: its the carbon footprint from those two rovers we put there a while back--I blame Bush and Halliburton

Fen said...

The bottom line is that a Democrat controlled Congress is trying to criminalise policy decisions with which they disagree.

That true. Murtha wants to impeach Bush because he intends to veto the pork/surrender bill.

Roger said...

I personally would love nothing better than for the Murtha, Conyers and company to go forward with articles of impeachment--except for Kucinich, the rest of them are all blow and no show. IMPEACH BUSH NOW--Please!

AlphaLiberal said...

Fen said:

No one ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. You're the liar.

How do you guys manage to maintain this world view after all the facts, news and discussion showing how false this is?

From Washington Post
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."


Somehow in the lead up to war, nearly half the American people got the impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and that's why we were invading Iraq.

Bush and Cheney and the gang fostered that misimpression. See also:

Christian Science Monitor
Cheney: Saddam had strong al-Qaida ties
Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link

Granted, Bush didn' often make as statements as blatant as Cheney's. But it's amazing anyone would even try to say that the Bush-Cheney Administration never tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. It takes either deceit or ignorance to say such in the face of a clear, easaily accessible historical record.

If you're that shamefully ignorant of current events, you might want to read more and write less. This is a major issue for our times.

AlphaLiberal said...

fen lies again
That true. Murtha wants to impeach Bush because he intends to veto the pork/surrender bill.

Yesterday, Murtha said on a talk show (FtN) that impeachment is one of four ways Congress can influence a President.

Murtha was aked if he wanted to impeach and his reponse was to clarify he was only listing the ways Congress can affect a President.

So, fen, have I missed something? Can you please back up your charge and show you're not lying by proividing a Murtha quote saying he wants impeachment? And, please post a link.

No doubt such a position would be clearly laid out at his House web site, so you might want to start looking there.

Otherwise, you're just spewing more falsehoods.

AlphaLiberal said...

p.s. I don't support impeaching Bush. I support a simultaenous impeachment of Bush and Cheney so that crazy bastartd Cheney doesn't get the Oval Office for a second.

Sloanasaurus said...

Bush and Cheney and the gang fostered that misimpression.

No, the impression that they fostered was that 9-11 was a warning that we need to take care of the Saddam situation. Saddam was a proven manufacturer of WMD, he wanted nukes, and that he was a lunatic. Clinton said all the same stuff about Saddam in his support to bomb Saddam in 1998.

9-11 was a reminder that we can be hit badly, and that it could be worse. Therefore, in light of 9-11 we need to do something about Saddam sooner rather than later (we need to do something before the threat becomes imminent).

I personally believe that Saddam (who has attacked almost all of his neighbors), although not directly tied to 9-11 is responsible for much of the chaos in the middle-east and that 9-11 stems from that Chaos.

ricpic said...

Isn't Crowe the broad who wants me to use only one tissue when I wipe? Terrorist!

AlphaLiberal said...

sgt ted said:

If underestimating the cost of a broad entitlement program is criminal, then most of the House and Senate belong in jail.

That's not what happened. The bush Adminstration had more accurate cost estimates, but they muzzled the professional staff who had the informaiton and presented bad data to Congress.

It's a crime to lie to Congress.

Lying is also, you know, immoral? And your gang likes to tell us hwo much more moral you are than everybody else. Except for the lying, larceny, abuse of government for partisan gain, thousands of people dead in an illegal occupation, etc.

If Ann Althouse is a "political moderate" it's pretty telling that her fanbase consists of Bush and Cheney's core supporters - a dwindling minority of the country who lack the ability to be embarassed, apparently.

Sloanasaurus said...

Yesterday, Murtha said on a talk show (FtN) that impeachment is one of four ways Congress can influence a President.

This is unconstitutional. The founders did not intend that Congress be able to impeach a president to "influence" him. Impeachment was reserved for high crimes. Bush still has the higher moral standing. The American people elected Bush with the highest number of votes ever, far more were cast for Bush in 2004 than the Democrats in congress in 2006.

Clinton's impeachment still has a fig leaf of a crime - a felony - perjury that is beyond doubt because of the video Clinton made.

SteveR said...

I'll see your Claude Allen and raise you Craig Livingstone and Mike Espy

AlphaLiberal said...

Sloanasaurus said;

No, the impression that they fostered was that 9-11 was a warning that we need to take care of the Saddam situation.

What sturbborn ignorance!

I posted links to at least four news stories showing your statement is false. But you ignore that and continue to insist on some "1984"-type historical revisionism.

The memory hole is fictional. Too bad for you and Cheney.

Go back and read the articles. Allow the facts to affect your worldview.

Bush and Cheney lied to the American people about a Saddam-al Qaeda link to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

AlphaLiberal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger said...

AL Sayeth with all the certainty of the ideologue: "And I'm done trying to talk sense to deluded people who lack the intellectual dishonesty to read collections of articles showing their statements are false."

To which I respond: Really? I think a lot of folks on this board hope you are serious with your promise here--begone! And if you show up again, does that mean you are a liar? Please dont be like Alec Baldwin who promises to leave and never does.

Phew--peace in the echo chamber at last!

Sloanasaurus said...

I posted links to at least four news stories showing your statement is false. But you ignore that and continue to insist on some "1984"-type historical revisionism.

I don't get your complaint. Are you saying that Bush needed to go out of his way to make sure that Americans did not have the false impression that Saddam caused 9-11? Are you implying that it was this false support that led 25 Democratic senators to support the invasion of Iraq? Were the Senators also duped?

People believe all kinds of crazy things. Some people believe that Joe Wilson is an honest individual and that his Op-ed in the NY Times exactly mirrors his testimony to the Senate.

AlphaLiberal said...

Mike Espy was cleared of all charges. Yet, you continue to bear false witnbess against him. That says more about you than him, stever.

----

Patrick Moynihan said:
"You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts."

The intellectual dishonesty show here this morning by Bush backers is stunning. The offense is only slghtly lessened knowing these people first deceive themselves.

I don't know what it will take for you guys to stop clinging to your partisan and warped version of reality.

But when someone posts four articles showing your argument is wrong and you keep making it then you demonstratye yourselves to be intellectually dishonest. And that's Bush's base; stubbornly ignorant and dishonest.

Roger said...

Hey--AL: you said you were thru! Leave already.

SteveR said...

"In Dec. 1997, Tyson Foods Inc., the nation's largest poultry processor, pleaded guilty to giving Espy more than $12,000 in illegal gifts, and agreed to pay $6 million in fines and investigative expenses."

I'm just baiting you into long posts. Try Webster Hubbell.

Monkeyboy said...

I recall a comment somewhere that in thirty years or so all this "Bush is the ultimate evil!!" stuff is going to get revived ironically, like Reefer Madness.

Hopefully I'll still be tottering around saying "no really! people actually beleived it"

reader_iam said...

her fanbase consists of Bush and Cheney's core supporters

I honestly do not get this. There are numerous regulars at this blog who wouldn't fall into that category--including you, Alpha.

There are numerous regulars who don't comment on the political threads, and /or the war-related ones either way.

And there are at least a number (probably more than I'm aware of), who, while they support certain aspects of Bush's program, utterly decry others. Among conservatives here, there are those who believe there is a WOT, but think Iraq is a disaster AND who support certain elements of conservatism (smaller, more local government, for example), but can't abide social conservatism in its religious right flavors. I don't think its reasonable to classify people like that as part of Bush's "core base." In some respects, they are antithetical to that base.

As for corruption, I'll bore you all again for the nth time: In modern times, we could go a good way to helping control some of that by getting rid of 2nd term presidencies (whether we lengthen the one term to five or six years or not). There's not a single one in my lifetime that hasn't ended up in the mire.

'Course, that personal desire of mine is just pie in the sky. A girl can dream, though.

paul a'barge said...

Althouse:I'm sure plenty of Democrats are irritated by the way Crow and David ...

And, that roar you hear is the flapping of wings, as an entire horde of monkeys fly out of my butt.

nick danger said...

AlphaLib - the intellectually dishonest one is you, for attempting to obfuscate the fact that there was no lie told to anybody. In the interest of clarifying the issue, why don't you answer these simple, yes-or-no questions:

1. Can you actually provide any evidence of the Bush administration claiming that Saddam was directly involved in the WTC attack?

2. Do you dispute that Saddam and Al-Quaeda had cooperative connections, and if so, what is your basis for this?

reader_iam said...

Paul:

I guess I know a unique set of Democrats. Some of the more serious enviros and progressives that I know wince at such antics, precisely because they think it undercuts the bigger message among the less political masses of people.

Where did Althouse declare today "broad brush Monday"? Guess I missed that.

Bissage said...

Way back in the olden times, Sipp would do battle with quxxo. Eventually, Sip came to believe it was pointless and he began taunting quxxo with links to the cover of a phone book which was screaming out loud funny.

The joke got even funnier when Sipp explained the meaning; that quxxo’s eccentric combination of fervor, web-based knowledge and lunacy reminded him of some pro se litigant who kept trying to introduce the phone book into evidence, even though the trial judge kept sustaining opposing counsel’s objections.

AL, you really do sound like a pro se loon when you spray arguments all over the place, craft your rhetoric as if you’re batting oppression, and presume to declare your own victory.

You’re smart enough to know there’s nothing much to win with this sort of game and yet you persist, which arguably makes you a bigger loon than Sipp’s pro se litigant. At least he was fighting for money or something. Is speaking truth to power so rewarding? Is it all about the attention? It can’t simply be fun. Seriously, I really don’t get it.

Just saying.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: From Washington Post. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

Hey moonbat, where does your Wapo article say Bush claimed AQ was responsible for 9-11? Is your reading comprehension really that bad?

Bissage said...

Close enough!

Thorley Winston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thorley Winston said...

I'm sure plenty of Democrats are irritated by the way Crow and David displayed themselves at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and preened about it afterwards

While it’s certainly possible that there are “plenty of Democrats” who are (silently) upset with the way Crow and David behaved, for the most part the reaction on the Left seems to be “this confirms everything bad we’ve been saying about Karl Rove for the last 7 years so what Crow and David said must be true.”

Roger said...

Fen--I suspect you meant where did Bush say Saddam was responsible for 9/11; AQ, of course, are the perps. The problem (The problem? oops, one of many) that AL has really goes to what he uses for evidence: newspaper articles rather than direct quotes from principles. But evidence is not important to the AL types who really don't deal much with, dare I say it, nuance. Bush = EVIL; anti-Bush = GOOD; very simplistic world view, that.

Fen said...

Fen--I suspect you meant where did Bush say Saddam was responsible for 9/11;

Yes, thats what I meant to say. Thanks for correction. Very busy on this end today.

Sloanasaurus said...

Way back in the olden times, Sipp would do battle with quxxo. Eventually, Sip came to believe it was pointless and he began taunting quxxo with links to the cover of a phone book

Excellent reference. Although, I believe that quxxo is still alive and well on these boards. Perhaps he is the Alpha Liberal.

AlphaLiberal said...

Fen addresses my point in a very disingenuous way:
Hey moonbat, where does your Wapo article say Bush claimed AQ was responsible for 9-11? Is your reading comprehension really that bad?

Fen, meet your words:
No one ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

You keep shifting your terms. Now it's "was responsible" and what Bush said.

I listed a series of news stories showing how the Bush Administration - especially Cheney - came out and deliberately tried to make the case that Saddam supported al Qaeda. Using Google provides hundeds more examples.

So, the evidence is there. Yet you and others here ignore it to cling to your ignorance. So it's a waste of time for me to post yet more evidence when you will clearly ignore it.

It's willful ignorance on your part.

Nick Danger: I addressed your first point above here and in my previous post listing the articles.

To your second point, Saddam and al Qaeda had no operational connections. The 9/11 Commission concluded this. Bush has even come out and, belatedly, said this, after insinuating (though not often directly saying) for years that Saddam aided al Qaeda.

Again, I could post plenty of evidence but you guys won't believe it anyway. You've got your own alternative universe going and that view is not affected by facts.

I suggest balancing your news diet more by cutting back on news from biased right-wing sources and getting more from a wider variety of sources.

Freder Frederson said...

1. Can you actually provide any evidence of the Bush administration claiming that Saddam was directly involved in the WTC attack?

Doesn't take much searching to find this:

"On Meet the Press in December 2001, Cheney said 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official. The administration's assertions about a connection continued as recently as last year. President Bush in February 2003:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Iraq has also provided al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training."

Or this:

"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Now of course the Bush Administration never came right out and said that Saddam was directly involved (where did we ever say that--as usual you put words in our mouths). No, they just implied it so frequently that by the time of the invasion over 60% of the country thought he was (and I bet Sloan still does).

Of course they couldn't say that, because there was absolutely no evidence of it. And it didn't make the least bit of sense. Of course what they were saying was all lies and nonsense, but at least it was deniable lies and nonsense. Five years later you, and they can claim, "they never lied, they were just mistaken."

AlphaLiberal said...

reader_iam, you're right that not all of Ann Althouse's fanbase and regular commenters are of the lockstep, stop thinking, Republican variety. I should have qualified that some. (Maybe it's just the loudest).

And, I'm not qan Althouse fan, ("exactly").

As for getting rid of second terms for Presidents you might want to google around on some of General Zinni's comments to this effect. He proposes a single six-year term.

Worth thinking about but there's plenty of downside there, too.

Beth said...

paul a'barge: And, that roar you hear is the flapping of wings, as an entire horde of monkeys fly out of my butt.

Reader--Paul's monkey purge is the traditional kickoff to Broad Brush Mondays. How've you failed to notice that before now?

Freder Frederson said...

While it’s certainly possible that there are “plenty of Democrats” who are (silently) upset with the way Crow and David behaved

Gee, It's not like Crow and David told Rove to "go fuck himself" on the floor of the Senate. I don't remember Republicans being outraged when Cheney did that.

AlphaLiberal said...

freder, good work finding more of the mountains of evidence out there that the Bush-Cheney Admin lied to the American people on Saddam-al qadea links.

But the "thinking processes" we're encountering here are not based on facts. Actually, they don't take kindly to being confused with facts.

I really do find the inability of the Bushies here to face the real hard, cold facts to be stunning and indicting. If people sense a llack of respect in my postings, well, that's why. This is just not a practice that engenders respect.

Mindsteps said...

I have a couple questions for the blog and it's contributors.

1. Is Fred Barnes a journalist? If not, what exactly is his job?

2. What would prompt Professor Althouse to spotlight Mr. Barnes in her blog?

Monkeyboy said...

No, they just implied it so frequently that by the time of the invasion over 60% of the country thought he was

Anyone have a link to the original poll?

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

AlphaLiberal said...

For the record, I klnow al Qaeda is now in Iraq, using American troops for target practice, fighting with the militias and otherwise causing trouble.


I am in shock; a lefty who admits we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq; did you miss the memo about not admitting that 'fact'?

I for one would rather have al Qaeda in Iraq, fighting with our armed troops, rather than our unarmed civilians here.

And, since they are now fight al Qaeda in Iraq, what's the problem with leaving our troops there? Wasn't that the whole point, to fight al Qaeda?

Too many jims said...

Anyone have a link to the original poll?

This story (from March 14, 2003 about a week before the war started) says that 45% of Americans believed there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.

This story (from September 6, 2003) says the number was up to 70% at that time.

AlphaLiberal said...

Redneck:
First, there's no dispute al Qaeda is now in Iraq. The dispute is whether you contribute 100% of the violence in Iraq to them (lockstep Republican talking point) or some mote realistic fraction.

I think al Qaeda is a small fraction of the problem there today. And I think they would get their asses kicked by various militas if the Americans weren't around.

I for one would rather have al Qaeda in Iraq, fighting with our armed troops, rather than our unarmed civilians here.

Nice. So let's go make someone else's coutnry a living hell on earth so we can pretend to be defending ourselves.

And why wouldn't they like us for that? Can you think of one reason why Iraqis may not appreciate that?

Fen said...

freder, good work finding more of the mountains of evidence out there that the Bush-Cheney Admin lied to the American people on Saddam-al qadea links.

But Freder didn't do that. And the adminstration has been telling the truth about AQ links to Saddam:

/begins, via AceOfSpades:

President’s Daily Brief (PDB)

Sept, 21, 2001
Just 10 days after the 911 attacks this summary assessment clearly suffered from lack of intelligence gathering and analysis since at the time it still wasn’t 100% clear that Al Queda was behind the 911 attacks.

NESA Report on Iraq’s Ties to Terrorism (terrorism in general/not specific to Al Queda).

This was basically a preliminary draft of the CIA’s “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002” and “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2003” reports.
October 2001
Formed no conclusions
lack of evidence gathered

"Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship"

6/12/02
Formed no conclusions
specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered

“Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002”

9/18/02
Formed no conclusions
specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered

Letter from DCI Tenet, head of the CIA, to Sen. Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee

10/7/02
Formed no conclusions, simply reiterated closed door testimony from CIA officials to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the more time passes, the more likely it is that Saddam would make WMD and use Al Queda to covertly and deniably attack the United States
Lists several examples of Saddam’s support for terrorism, Al Queda, and its proxy terror affiliates

“Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001-By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence”

December 2002
Reiterated the comments from the 9/21/01 PDB and the 10/7/02 Tenet Letter
Added more reports of possible Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks
Cited a lack of evidence gathered as a problem that prevented forming any conclusions

“Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2003”

January 2003
This was basically a rehash of the 2002 version with a little new info since the CIA finally got a spy back into Iraq just a few weeks prior to its release
Formed no conclusions
specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered

“Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Investigation Into Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq (Phase I report)”

July 7, 2004
confirmed the various reports of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda as presented in other reports (including confirmation of most of the comments made by Feith and his office), and repeatedly stated that the Bush Administration’s claims were “reasonable” as well as often accurate reflections of the intelligence reporting at the time.
“Due to the limited amount and questionable quality of reporting on the leadership intentions of Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Ladin, the CIA was unable to make conclusive assessments in Iraqi Support for Terrorism regarding Iraq's relationship with al-Qaida. The CIA stated in the Scope Note: ‘Our knowledge of Iraq's ties to terrorism is evolving DELETED. . . . ‘”

“911 Commission Final Report”

July 22, 2004
Formed no conclusions regarding regime ties to Al Queda
members later specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered and asked that the question of regime ties to Al Queda be examined further-not dismissed or otherwise closed.

“Iraqi Perspective Project Report” (DoD)

March 2006
Confirmed many of the previously reported ties between the regime and Al Queda
Found many more examples of ties and further demonstrated that there was in fact a relationship between the two, that it was dangerous, and that it was growing faster than expected
Cited a lack of intelligence gathered before the war, and an even larger, more deliberate, and more unexplained refusal to investigate the relationship after the invasion given the wealth of captured intelligence and detained regime members.

“REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ON POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ’S WMD PROGRAMS AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS (Phase II report)”

September 9, 2006
Cited the post-war refusal of any and all intelligence agencies to investigate the depth and threat of the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda
Used the refusal of intelligence agencies to investigate pre-war intelligence and the causes for the lack thereof, the Senate Intelligence Committee openly, freely, and admittedly took it upon itself to act as an intelligence agency and form an intelligence assessment on its own.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/15/saddams-ties-to-al-quedadebunk/

Roger said...

Alpha Liberal: YOU ARE A LIAR--you promised to stop talking--Alpha Liberal Lied, Conservatives Died....But you have a lot in common with that other liberal Icon Alec Baldwin, serial child abuser, and liar who keeps promising he will leave the US.


Hey--at least have the courage of your convictions and STFU--we'll respect you in the AM.

And by the way, if you those quotes Freeder pull up are anything approaching "proof," your standards for proof are even less than you standards for honesty.

You DID promise to STFU.

Its upthread!

Sloanasaurus said...

Now of course the Bush Administration never came right out and said that Saddam was directly involved (where did we ever say that--as usual you put words in our mouths). No, they just implied it so frequently that by the time of the invasion over 60% of the country thought he was (and I bet Sloan still does).

Even if you want to fault Bush for not attempting to convince the country that Saddam was not involved in 9-11, that does not excuse the 75 Senators (25 Dems) who voted for the war in Iraq. Your argument about public opinion is therefore moot, unless you believe that the Democrats voted for war precisely because of public opinion, which is maybe not that crazy considering that many Democrats who now oppose the war are doing so because public opinion has moved against it. If that is the case you can't accuse Bush of "evil ways" when it's your own Senators who are the evil ones.

9-11 gave Bush the political capital to get the authorization from Congress to attack Iraq and take out Saddam, something Clinton never had even though the policy of the Congress and Clinton's had been regime change. (FDR got the same political capital to attack Germany from Pearl Harbor - something 80% of Americans were against).

America had the moral right and duty to take out Saddam because Saddam broke all of his treaties and agreements he had signed after Gulf War I.

Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.

Freder Frederson said...

2. What would prompt Professor Althouse to spotlight Mr. Barnes in her blog?

Because she is a right wing shill?

Sorry, she is actually a moderate who is dedicated to being fair and balanced. It's not her fault if the left wing blogosphere is so unbalanced and mean to her.

Of course if you are looking for unbalanced, when was the last time you saw a leftwing blogger dress up like a cheerleader and rant?

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus burped...
"The Bush Administration has been mostly scandal free. Only Scooter Libby who was prosecuted on trumped up charges by Fitzmas (aka Nifong), has seen any potential jail time".

What's the use. Read the papers much? get your news from Faux?...and by the way, ahhh yes, Fred Barnes...certainly the most reputable of witnesses.

Lame sloanie....lame and pathetic.

Jeff said...

I'm surprised no one has addressed this: "Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm."

The feminist double standard in action. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed?

"Rove was ... insistent, poking Crow in the chest and pinching her arm."

They expect chilavlry on top of "equality", while abandoning any notion of gentility on their own part.

Freder Frederson said...

America had the moral right and duty to take out Saddam because Saddam broke all of his treaties and agreements he had signed after Gulf War I.

Actually it didn't. Not under international law. Not under any conceivable "Just War" concept as it has developed under western thought. Not even close. You are blowing smoke out your ass.

And where on earth did you get the idea that I wasn't disgusted by the Senate capitulating to the Administration with the AUMF. Actually, as a technical matter, I was not so upset by the original authorization but that Congress did not demand that he come back to them prior to the invasion and get a formal declaration of war against Iraq.

Jeff said...

"chivalry"

Freder Frederson said...

Even if you want to fault Bush for not attempting to convince the country that Saddam was not involved in 9-11

Huh? the Bush Administration (especially Cheney) actively promoted the idea that Saddam was somehow involved with 9-11, not just passively let the impression grow.

Invisible Man said...

Of course if you are looking for unbalanced, when was the last time you saw a leftwing blogger dress up like a cheerleader and rant?

Freder,

If Malkin jumping around providing fetish material for Neo-cons wasn't a cry for help for her and conservatives, I don't know what is. Can you only imagine what Ann and others would have said if Feministe or Jane Hamsher had done the same?

As evidenced by Sloanasaurus's delusional statements and David Brooks's Sunday column, conservatives ain't doing to well right now..

hdhouse said...

Freder....these fools can't even remember to put the toilet seat up or down much less remember anything that happened a year or more back...and specially anything that has to do with Rove, Bush and Cheney.

They are fools and clods. don't waste electrons on them. They don't get it.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm surprised no one has addressed this: "Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm."

Well then I'll address it. This is ludicrous on its face. Do you really think anyone would get away with poking and pinching Rove without immediately getting thrown out on their ass (if not arrested)?

Freder Frederson said...

Can you only imagine what Ann and others would have said if Feministe or Jane Hamsher had done the same?

Yeah, I guess it's a good thing Malkin's breasts are less than "spectacular".

Sloanasaurus said...

Not under international law. Not under any conceivable "Just War" concept as it has developed under western thought.

What theory under international law or just war doctrine says you cannot enforce treaty violations? Saddam agreed to such conditions so that he could save his regime. He then violated his conditions. The only argument you could make was that the conditions he agreed to were unjust. Are you prepared to make those arguments?

Where is that link to the phone book?

Roger said...

Dayum: once again I am in agreement with Freeder: Congress has, IMO, abdicated its authority to declare war--and its true on both sides of the aisle. When congress discovers and decides to reuse the power, rather than cede it to the executive, this country may be a lot better off. Had they declared war against Iraq, they could not now say "....oh wait, King's X, we didnt really mean it..." God forbid that craven bunch known as the Congress of the United States should ever take responsibility.

They could still: (1) cut off funding (even if the President vetoes it which he will; (2) they could impeach---now, for my liberal colleagues here--WHY DONT THEY DO THAT? Only answer I can see, other than lack of courage, is political advantage; and neither of those choices say a hell of a lot on their behalf.

Sloanasaurus said...

Huh? the Bush Administration (especially Cheney) actively promoted the idea that Saddam was somehow involved with 9-11, not just passively let the impression grow.

Wait, didn't we just finish debating this? You just feel the need to restart the debate by reposing the same argument as if the debate never happend.....where is that phone book.

Freder Frederson said...

What theory under international law or just war doctrine says you cannot enforce treaty violations?

The consequences of not complying were spelled out. And they did not include "any means necessary", which means military force is authorized. Recall that Bush and Blair promised they would go back to the UN to get a further authorization because they knew the one they had did not authorize an invasion. They never did get the second authorization.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Alpha says: I listed a series of news stories showing how the Bush Administration - especially Cheney - came out and deliberately tried to make the case that Saddam supported al Qaeda

Making the case that Saddam supported and encouraged al Qeada is NOT the same thing as saying that Saddam was INVOLVED with the actual planning and implementation of 9-11.

Those are two completely different arguments and I still have not seen any proof that the Bush administration made the claim that Saddam was INVOLVED in 9-11. Articles written by people who want to make that claim are not proof. I want it from the horse's mouth.

The left seems to have a reading and listening comprehension problem.

Sloanasaurus said...

Congress has, IMO, abdicated its authority to declare war--and its true on both sides of the aisle. When congress discovers and decides to reuse the power,

We leave it up to you to take this argument to the U.S. Supreme Court. Anything less it is just your opinion. Congress knew what it was doing.

Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.

nick danger said...

Huh? the Bush Administration (especially Cheney) actively promoted the idea that Saddam was somehow involved with 9-11, not just passively let the impression grow.

Lies. Find a quote, a memo, a transcript, ANYTHING.

You won't, because you can't, but that won't stop your efforts to try to convince people of your Great Lie. If saying "links to AQ" actually mean you said "involved in 9/11" then words apaprently have no meaning any more, and I can just feel free to interpret your statements to be saying that you want to smoke George W. Bush's cigar.

Sloanasaurus said...

Stop it!

Pogo said...

One-Sheet Sheryl ought not to be poking anyone with her fingers. I mean, really.

But that kerfuffle matters not, except in how it exemplifies much of the Left. 19 guys named Mohammed blow up our 2 biggest buildings and kill 3000 people, but they still want to treat that event as a criminal act, one that we can reduce in frequency to a "minor nuisance".

Forget the Mulsim youths rioting in France, Muslim train bombing in Spain, and the Muslim Tube bombing in England. That all these are done by unrelated guys named Mohammed is just a pointless coinicidence.

It's far more important that we talk about toilet tissue and carbon credits. Forget the guy with the scimitar posting videos of his latest beheadings to the shouts of "Allahu Akbar".

Much better to bitch at W. and Karl, the Most Evilestest Mens What Ever Existed.

Roger said...

Sloan: at the risk of being a bit facetious, IMO = in my opinion. I do happen to believe that this country would be much better off if presidents went to congress to ask for a declaration of war and congress deliberated with a seriousness worthy of the issue.

This is not a new phenomenon in US History--it goes back to the undeclared naval war with France in 1798. The reason I think it is important, is that a declaration, at least conceptually, puts the congress and the american people on record that they are committing to a war--It makes it easier to clamp down on the backsliders and copperheads.

With respect to the US and war fighting there is one lesson I would take away since 1960: the US does not have the stomach for any conflict lasting much over 3 years (and had the cold war resulted in a more apparent body count, we would have backed out of that one). Perhaps a declaration of war could deal with that part of the issue.

Freder Frederson said...

You won't, because you can't, but that won't stop your efforts to try to convince people of your Great Lie. If saying "links to AQ" actually mean you said "involved in 9/11"

So I guess trying to link the Iraqi government to Mohammed Atta or Cheney calling Iraq (not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan) the "geographic base" of the terrorists who attacked us 9/11 doesn't count. And if the Administration didn't promote the theory, how exactly did so many people end up believing Saddam was involved in 9/11?

Oh yeah, and those "links to AQ". Even those were a lie (or a mistake if you are that gullible).

Invisible Man said...

But that kerfuffle matters not, except in how it exemplifies much of the Left. 19 guys named Mohammed blow up our 2 biggest buildings and kill 3000 people, but they still want to treat that event as a criminal act, one that we can reduce in frequency to a "minor nuisance".

Um, ok. So Sheryl Crow poking or stabbing Rove with her finger over the environment is evidence of the Left's response to 9/11. That's makes a lot of sense.

John said...

Fred, so that's all you can come up with is some offhand remark from Meet the Press? I read the transcript and it seems to me Cheney was talking about the whole Middle East as the geographical base. In fact right after that Russert asks him "So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" And Cheney says "No, I was careful not to say that."

Craig Ranapia said...

Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm. She said Rove worked for her.

Ewww... Putting the politics aside for a moment, am I the only person who finds this flat out weird. I don't find it very hard to imagine that if I waslked up to her in the street, as acted like owning a couple of her CDs gave me groping rights I'd a) be firmly encouraged to move on and keep my hands to myself, and/or b) be served with a restraining order and defending stalking charges if particularly insistent.

Oh, and I'd find it equally bizarre if (for the sake of argument) Hilary Clinton was being subjected to this kind of obnoxious and bizarre treatment at the hands of some celebrity right-wing nut.

AlphaLiberal said...

So now we're playing the game where the Bush followers continually shift the target as they lose arguments.

So now the question is whether Bush, Cheney and the Republicans said Saddam was tied to 9/11.

a) First, a tie to al Qaeda is a tie to 9/11. Bush has effectively said so.

b) Secondly, there's this from the Authorization to Use Military Force:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq".

c) There's this...

"In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," "
Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link

d) And, here's Bush:
"We know that Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."

I know, Sloan. Backing up an argument with too many facts is like... the phonebook. Ooooookay...

You know, it's respectable to concede a point rather than shifting the argument, ducking, running.

(Love the cheerleader line!)

Here's a link showing more connections falsely alleged by Bush and minions between Sadam/Iraq and 9/11.

Ann Althouse said...

"What would prompt Professor Althouse to spotlight Mr. Barnes in her blog?"

Obviously, as my second link shows, I've already discussed the incident with only the Crow-David perspective on it. Barnes has the other side of the story, almost certainly from Rove himself. I wanted to show that.

And why am I not getting credit for my pro-Democrat conclusion which criticizes Barnes?

Roger said...

C'mon now, Alpha lib: you PROMISED you would leave us to our echo chamber--stop lying, stop being an alec baldwin--let us listen to our echos in peace; Since we are all idiots who cant think, read or write, we aren't possibly going to understand the sophisticated arguments you are making. Theres a good spots for you on KOS, Hufpo or DU, where your sophistry will be met with wild acclaim (oops--sophistication)

AJ Lynch said...

Invisible Man said:
"Um, ok. So Sheryl Crow poking or stabbing Rove with her finger over the environment is evidence of the Left's response to 9/11. That's makes a lot of sense."

Actually it does show without a doubt that two of the left's brightest lights view melting idebergs as a way higher national priority than terorism.

These dim bulbs are elevated to sainthood by much of the left because they carry the banner of global warming. Do they give a rat's ass about war on terrorism? I doubt it.

Freder Frederson said...

And why am I not getting credit for my pro-Democrat conclusion which criticizes Barnes?

Well first off, you are crediting Barnes' account, which may or may not be Rove's, as being accurate. Now, we know Rove is a pathological liar. So how you can believe him when he recounts the incident under the cloak of anonymity is beyond me.

And this is "pro-Democrat"?

"I'm sure plenty of Democrats are irritated by the way Crow and David displayed themselves at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and preened about it afterwards and, more broadly, by the way they're trying to make themselves the face of the Global Warming issue."

If that's what you consider being "pro-Democrat", then no wonder most left wing bloggers find you annoying and some say mean things about, and make fun of, you.

Pogo said...

Re: "So Sheryl Crow poking or stabbing Rove with her finger over the environment is evidence of the Left's response to 9/11. "

Congrats, you got my point.
The Left fiddles (or wipes) while Rome burns.

Freder Frederson said...

Actually it does show without a doubt that two of the left's brightest lights

Since when are Sheryl Crow and Laurie David "two of the left's brightest lights"?

Fen said...

Freder: the Bush Administration (especially Cheney) actively promoted the idea that Saddam was somehow involved with 9-11

Nope. Didn't happen. Thats your fantasy. And if you insist on posting links that "prove" your point, please post links that do so in this reality.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: So now we're playing the game where the Bush followers continually shift the target as they lose arguments.

No. The game is: you insist Bush claimed links between Saddam and 9-11. We ask you to prove it. You post links proving that AQ had ties with Saddam. Then naturally, you complain we are being unfair.

You really shouldn't have brought your Saddam didn't cause 9-11 strawman out into the sunlight.

AlphaLiberal said...

Fen:

If the words of Bush, Cheney and other Administraiton spokespeople are not enough to convince you that they lined Saddam and 9/11 then what, exactly, would you need to see to be convinced that they linked Saddam and 9/11?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So now the question is whether Bush, Cheney and the Republicans said Saddam was tied to 9/11.

No one is shifting the argument other than you. You said that Bush and Cheney insinuated that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 Quote: Saddam did not have anythinig to do with 9/11 as Bush, Cheney, et all insinuated repeatedly.

Now you want to change that assertion? It seems to be the main issue...Bush lied, people died. Yada Yada Yada. If you can show where BUSH himself or CHENEY himself said that Saddam was involved in 9-11 then do so.

You can't because it never happened and repeating it over and over is not going to make it true.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If the words of Bush, Cheney and other Administraiton spokespeople are not enough to convince you that they lined Saddam and 9/11 then what, exactly, would you need to see to be convinced that they linked Saddam and 9/11?

I would be convinced if you could provide a link to a speech or YouTube video of them ACTUALLY saying these things. Not links to other people who are making assumptions on what they think Bush and Cheney said. Anyone can twist the meaning of their words as has been amply demostrated by you and the others who insist on this delusion.

No one is denying that the Administration has said that Saddam was a supporter and enabler of Al Qaeda, because this is true. He was.

Mindsteps said...

Prof. Althouse wrote:

Obviously, as my second link shows, I've already discussed the incident with only the Crow-David perspective on it. Barnes has the other side of the story, almost certainly from Rove himself. I wanted to show that.

And why am I not getting credit for my pro-Democrat conclusion which criticizes Barnes?

Prof. Althouse...Thank you for directing me to the link where you share your sympathetic views of Crow-David. Although I scanned it before, it was worth a second look.

I cannot get my alarm to shut off. I try to ignore it's signals and focus on the contents of your blog but it is difficult for me. I keep getting this feeling that you are frequently gratified at getting those liberals all worked up.

Revenant said...

Here's a link showing more connections falsely alleged by Bush and minions between Sadam/Iraq and 9/11.

Er... none of the statements quoted in that article are notably false. Iraq did train terrorists (al Qaeda and otherwise), did harbor al Qaeda members, was a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, etc. The only "controversial" line is the bit about Atta meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague -- a meeting which the Czech government continues to claim happened, and which the bipartisan 9/11 commission was unable to confirm as either true or false.

AlphaLiberal said...

Dust Bunny Queen. Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda.

See previous posts. Or post something besides your opinion to rebut.

And the idea that they didn't link Saddam to 9/11 is a joke not worthy of rebuttal.

And, to clarify, sticking your fingers in your ears, head in the sand or otherwise ignoring proof contrary to your belief system is not a rebuttal.

Fen said...

Alpha: If the words of Bush, Cheney and other Administraiton spokespeople are not enough to convince you that they linked Saddam and 9/11 then what, exactly, would you need to see to be convinced that they linked Saddam and 9/11?

Oh call me silly, but perhaps words of Bush, Cheney and other Administration spokespeople linking Saddam and 9/11. That we be a good start, because despite your assertions, you haven't provided that yet.

AQ planned/caused 9-11
AQ had contacts with Saddam
Saddam did not plan/cause 9-11.

The logic is not so difficult. I don't understand why you keep muddying it up.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Nice. So let's go make someone else's coutnry a living hell on earth so we can pretend to be defending ourselves.

And why wouldn't they like us for that? Can you think of one reason why Iraqis may not appreciate that?


Define 'A living Hell'. Based on the reports of living under the Saddam regime I would think THAT wa a living Hell, especially if you were Kurdish.

Now is tough, but at least they have the weapons to fight back; a stable, elected government and a rule of law. I haven't heard of the current government digging any pits for mass burials or opening any torture halls (real torture, not just discomfort).

Why is al Qaeda fighting? Because democracy is the enemy of tyranny, and if we have a functioning Arab/Moslem democracy in the Mideast we are one step closer to running terrorism out.

Roger said...

Good heavens--I clearly can't embarass AL into leaving! Man--can't have a good echo chamber when you want one.

Let me try to get my non-functioning mind around this statement from one of the BBC links AL provided:

"Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks."

In my limited understanding of the English language (even that used by the BBC) that statement tells me only (1) that Saddam had ties with al-queda; BUT those ties notwithstanding, the President specifically rejects "any clear links" between Saddam and 9/11. now we know that al-queda took responsibility for 9/11--Is that about it?

In fact, the very BBC links AL cites as "proof," are more interesting for what they don't say, rather than for what AL asserts they say.

Now I am sure a sophisticated thinker like AL can reconcile those quoted statements; however, I cannot; they prove absolutely nothing to me except that the BBC tied together a couple of true, but non-causal points.

Try it as a syllogism, AL, and see what you come up with. Or, call us stupid, mouthbreathing, drooling automatons--thats a powerful argument. The reason we are in an echo chamber is so we dont have to listen to your alternative realityi.

Are you really going to go away?

Please? You promised.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda.

"First has to be the high level meetings where the highest and most powerful members of Saddam’s Intelligence Services were meeting with Al Queda (and going to extreme measures to do so). When high level leaders meet, they do so for strategic reasons, and I think Iraq’s leaders were meeting with Al Queda to try and get Al Queda to attack the US on their behalf (the lesson of Desert Storm HAS to be that fighting the US in a conventional war is suicide). Illustrating this point well is the 1998 request by Iraq to Al Queda to have UBL moved to Iraq for his protection (similar to the offer given and accepted by Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, Yasin, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and others).

On the other hand you have Al Queda leaders traveling at great expense and effort to meet with Iraqi leaders sometimes even IN Baghdad. Interestingly enough, after each of the highest level meetings in Iraq…there was always one of two things: a new declaration of war (fatweh) from UBL or a new attack plot on the US was set in motion.

The second best example of ties between Iraq and Al Queda is probably the embassies. It’s no secret that the Iraqi embassies around the world had long been IIS branches. This is the case with most nations. What makes their situation is unique is that the IIS was caught making frequent calls to Al Queda affiliate/branch groups. In some cases-like in the Philippines-this lead to expulsion of IIS “diplomats,” There are many more examples going all the way back to 1990.

There’s been extensive evidence of their relationship found in Iraq, and some in Afghanistan. This claim of no evidence of ties stems from the Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war Iraq intel as well as the 911 Commission report. Those reports said that there was “no evidence of a collaborative relationship” and “no evidence that the two worked togther”, but the reason for the lack of evidence wasn’t that none existed (since evidence has been found in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.), but rather because there was no evidence sought between 1998 and 2002. Since then, more than one 911 Commission member has said that the issue of Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda should be re-examined because of the new evidence being made public.
Similarly, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have said the same thing, and the House Intelligence Committee has sought to have documents captured from Saddam’s Intelligence Headquarters made public so that the world can see the evidence of the ties for themselves.
Those documents are very clear in proving that Saddam’s regime and Al Queda had a relationship, a mutually supportive relationship, and a relationship far closer than many are willing to admit.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/06/question_and_answer_with_autho/

Roger said...

I am sorry: I forgot to provide a link for the assertion about Saddam's "operational ties" to AQ:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/18/saddams-ties-to-al-quedadebunk/

The bottom line, however, is that AL isn't going to convince me, nor I him. So why are wasting all of this effort. I want my echo chamber back!

Fen said...

Roger: Good heavens--I clearly can't embarass AL into leaving!

And you won't. The Moonbat species, when engaged in revisionist history, is immune to shame.

Freder Frederson said...

I am sorry: I forgot to provide a link for the assertion about Saddam's "operational ties" to AQ:

Now I am really confused. The administration never claimed or implied that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or that there were operational ties with Al Qaeda or that the fact that the administration had nothing to do with most Americans coming to believe that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

But if the administration had done so, they would have been perfectly justified, because all those things are true.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006218.php

"The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages. The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators." On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan. And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006998.php

"Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq. The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Mr. bin Laden "also requested joint operations against foreign forces" based in Saudi Arabia....The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states. The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

The Iraqi document states that Mr. bin Laden's organization in Sudan was called "The Advice and Reform Commission." The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden in 1994 after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein, the leader's son, as well as the director of Iraqi intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

A former director of operations for Iraqi intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, the document states"

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/008063.php

"Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists."

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017333.php

"Although there were differences on the subject between Feith and the CIA, both agreed that there were links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda and both were concerned about these links. CIA director Tenet's position was set forth in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. Tenet reported, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." He added that Iraq and al Qaeda "have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Tenet went on to warn, "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." Looking ahead, Tenet concluded, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action."

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006935.php

"President Bush repeated his assertions Thursday that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a relationship before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The president added that he did not infer that the two had a "collaborative relationship" on the attacks, a conclusion rejected by the commission investigating the intelligence failures that prevented the United States from warding off the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Bush insisted to reporters following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with [Usama] bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda in Sudan."

The president added that Saddam gave safe haven to Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

All of which is unquestionably true.

Press coverage of the commission staff's report universally says or implies that it contradicts, and refutes, statements made by the Bush administration about the Iraq/al Qaeda connection prior to the Iraq war. However, if one reviews what the administration actually said on the subject prior to the Iraq war--for example, Colin Powell's United Nations speech of February 2003--it is striking how little the staff report even purports to contradict, let alone refute, the administration. Here is what Powell told the U.N. in February 2003:

Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. This was the main focus of Powell's discussion of al Qaeda; what he said was indisputably true. Astonishingly, the staff's discussion of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda never mentions Zarqawi or his network. This omission renders the staff's conclusions meaningless, if not laughable.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. Going back to the early and mid-1990s when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al-Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al-Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al-Qaida ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaida. These statements are repeated, in substance, in the commission staff's Statement No. 15.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. The staff report doesn't contradict these statements; it alludes vaguely to "reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan...."

A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Nothing in the staff report contradicts these statements.

A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to al-Qaida members on document forgery Nothing in the staff report contradicts this statement.

Al-Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it. This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes firsthand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Muhammad Atif, did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that this detainee describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdallah al-Iraqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdallah al-Iraqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

AlphaLiberal said...

Fen:

Powerline is not an information source. Powerline is an opinion source.

And, it's not credible, IMNSHO. (And you're justing pasting their posts, not really filtering the BS out).

I'll look it over some tonight when time permits but most of what I see you promoting here was discredited long ago, such as the "Atta in Prague" meeting.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Again, Saddam was not allied, involved with, or supporting al Qaeda.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/016745.php

"LtCol in the Saddam Fedayeen, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, attended the key planning meeting of the Sept. 11 plotters

In any event, Saddam's response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam's most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime's terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in "The Four-Day War." Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam's conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.

The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam's regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.


Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden's possible "boogie to Baghdad." A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam's VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies' Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media's late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: "Again [ack]...Saddam was not [gah] allied...involved with [boolooloo]... or supporting [urp] al Qaeda." [Head explodes]

Fen said...

Fen: Powerline is not an information source. Powerline is an opinion source

Yes, but all these posts are links to Wapo, NYTs, 9-11 report, Sen Intel, etc through Powerline. Have fun.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Freder - But of course the most important scandal is operating secret prisons and sanctioning torture, or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. For that one crime alone, he (along with numerous others, including that scumbag Tenet who practically admitted to it last night on 60 minutes) should be impeached, removed from office, charged with crimes, and if found guilty, serve a long jail sentence.

Yet Tenet and others have said interrogating Islamoid terrorists and not giving them the 5th and a team of ACLU lawyers saved 10's of thousands of lives from planned attacks at Heathrow, in Singapore, the US West Coast, Jordan, and Spain.
Of course as an enemy lover, you are upset over their treatment, Freder. Can't do much about that except hope the next big Islamoid attack takes out more like you, and less regular Americans.

***********************
I always wonder if Sheryl got her one square a day idea from Lance:

"He's pulling away!" "Alors, that is because we want him to...he is too smelly even for us true Frenchman or their Belgian poodles" "Mein gott, his sheiss butt up in the air it is! Holden der breath!" "Who you call Poodle, it makes Belgians sad and scared....Ah, wind is on our backs..time to close with Aromastrong.."

*******************
Roger said...
Sloan: at the risk of being a bit facetious, IMO = in my opinion. I do happen to believe that this country would be much better off if presidents went to congress to ask for a declaration of war and congress deliberated with a seriousness worthy of the issue.


Pity is we created the UN Charter that says declaring war is illegal. No nation has declared war since July of 1945 (Soviets against Japan) because we made it illegal to do so.
Fix the archaic language in the Constitution to make new "magic legal words" acceptable to Lefties....
OR
Withdraw from the UN and give our permanent Council Seat up to Japan or India. Then go home and say we don't have to fix the words in our old national operating manual. And can once again say the "magic words" of declaring war since for some reason the "story is" that almighty Congress did NOT debate majestically in past wars like Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Gulf War, or Iraq ENOUGH! Though any casual observor notes we had months of debate.
Of course, with the Magic of Declaring War satisfied, the Holy verbiage of the Sacred Founders literally complied with rather than fixed and updated for the times - we would do so with no allies ever again since we withdrew from the UN. And illegally declared war in their eyes....



9:33 AM

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

Kirby was commenting elsewhere on the critical importance of humor in presidential debates (i.e., he thinks there aren't enough jokes, particularly by Democrats). So, as a way of easing the tension that's been building here as Democrats and Republicans bicker about the war in Iraq, I (as a peacemaker) offer these fine jokes by George Bush from his debates with Al Gore.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

"I am worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use."

"I think one way for us to end up being viwed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, "We do it this way, so should you."

"The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

Ann Althouse said...

"If that's what you consider being "pro-Democrat", then no wonder most left wing bloggers find you annoying and some say mean things about, and make fun of, you."

Exactly! It's NOT pro-left-wing. It's pro-Democrat, in that it recognizes the existence of Democrats who don't eat up the David-Crow shenanigans. The sensible adults in the party.

Revenant said...

I (as a peacemaker) offer these fine jokes by George Bush from his debates with Al Gore.

It is, indeed, difficult to see what might have prompted Bush to make the switch from neo-isolationism to nation-building and democracy promotion... why, it's almost as if there was some major event between 2000 and 2003 that affected the way Bush and millions of other Americans viewed the dysfunctional nations of the world.

Sadly, what this major event could possibly have been remains a mystery. Scientists have narrowed it down to some time in late summer or early autumn of 2001, but an exact date remains impossible to pin down...

Freder Frederson said...

I just love how this thread has gone from "the Bush Administration never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11" to an exposition of all the "evidence" that indeed there was such a connection (even though the President never said there was).

So apparently this means the administration is so incompetent they never made the connection when they should have.

I think my head will explode.

Paco Wové said...

"I just love how this thread has gone from "the Bush Administration never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11" to an exposition of all the "evidence" that indeed there was such a connection..."

I thought that what Fen., et al., were trying to show was evidence of a link between Hussein and al Qaeda in general, not a link between Hussein and 9/11 specifically.

Related but not identical things, kind of like how Niger and Africa are not the same thing.

AlphaLiberal said...

Freder, no kidding. First they say no-one ever linked 9/11 and Iraq. Then, it morphs to several different permuations as the record is laid out.

And, Fen, I just can't take seriously these Powerline attempts to spin the facts. It's just sad. Saddam and al qaeda did not mix. They've been lying to you.

Let's back up and look at who did attack us on 9/11 and who really backed them. If you want to pin it on any one nation, the should be Saudi Arabia. Most of the hijackers were Saudi, much of al aqeda funding is Saudi. This i think we can agree on.

We're funding both sides of the fight with al qaeda, once through the Pentagon and once at the pump.

And that's where I prefer we focus our attention.

George said...

Doesn't matter whether or not Saddam was/was not/was somewhat involved with al-Qaeda.

He himself was a terrorist and had to go. He's dee eee aye dead.

The Iranians (and Syrians) back Hezbollah. All three are rogue terror entities. They've gotta go too. Only question is when.

As for the Saudis, they're pumping oil like crazy to help us and weaken the Iranians. In short, they're useful to us. For the time being.

Thems is the hard cold facts, gentlemen and ladies.

George said...

Oh, and one last thing....

Who was it again a few weeks ago who strapped those children (babies?) in a car and blew them up at a checkpoint in Iraq?

Ba'athists loyal to Saddam?
Iranian terrorists?
al-Qaeda terrorists from Syria?

That's the scum we're fighting.

Shame on us forever if we surrender to such evil.

Synova said...

I love how this has gone from Crow poking Rove to a fight about Saddam and 9-11.

I didn't believe Crow's version of events for even a moment because she presented her behavior as having an expectation of Rove being a sympathetic audience. That can only have been a lie. Everyone *knows* that Rove is the Dark Lord (except when Cheney is the Dark Lord, maybe they take turns).

So describing her sweet demeanor while talking to Rove and how she went from being hopeful to heartbroken that he wouldn't listen after all... it has no credibility what-so-ever.

*Funniest* diversion from the topic in this comment thread... Michelle Malkin's breasts. For what it's worth, if she starts to whine about the comments saying how cute a cheerleader she made, I'm sure Ann will criticize her for dressing up cute and then being upset that men were looking at her body.

Personally, I didn't think the cheerleader thing was that clever though Malkin is undeniably cute. Some of Mary-Katherine Hamm's recent videos are fabulous. The Dr. Seuss take on Reid was too funny.

Paco Wové said...

"I love how this has gone from Crow poking Rove to a fight about Saddam and 9-11."

"Althouse vortex" or no, at the bottom of it all is the black hole of Iraq; no comment thread escapes its irresistable pull forever!

reader_iam said...

Raise of hands!

How many of you--leftrightcenterwhatever--primarily get your info from blogs/general newspapers, etc. Of those, how many diversify?

How many of you go outside to obvious sources of sustained argumentation and information-gathering? And from diverse examples of both?

How LONG have you been doing that? Regardless of that, what's your starting point (place it in history, your personal and more generally)? OK, that was a duck: How old are you and how long have you had exposure in real time?

Certain parts of what's being debated--from whatever stance--makes me really wonder.

Words, words, words, words. (Etc.--links are an extension of words.) They signify just so much, and no more.

Yet they count for so much!

Well, at least there's one way in which the loudest left/right, partisan voices perfectly overlap.

How lovely is that?

Bissage said...

Synova said: “I didn't believe Crow's version of events for even a moment because she presented her behavior as having an expectation of Rove being a sympathetic audience. That can only have been a lie.

That is a brilliant insight. I am going to commit its structure to memory and tuck it into my bag of tricks.

Synova, I owe you money.

The Exalted said...

Sloanasaurus said...

I thought Rove worked for the President and the President worked for the people?

The Bush Administration has been mostly scandal free. Only Scooter Libby who was prosecuted on trumped up charges by Fitzmas (aka Nifong), has seen any potential jail time.


this same exact comment was made on NRO or its like. sloan, are you a real person or just a talking point conveyor? i mean, honestly, how could anyone be serious with that statement. even my die-hard GOP parents take a "better than the dems" attitude with their eyes open...

The Exalted said...

ann,

do you really think fred barnes is a neutral observer?

you teach law, right?

MadisonMan said...

reader -- I get my info from anywhere except TV, which I do not watch, and drudge, which I won't read (a prejudice picked up when I read alt.showbiz.gossip).

The partisan moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The partisan moderate said...

While Crowe and David may focus on different aspects of the encounter, nothing they have said seems to contradict Rove's claim that they were rude.

Additionally, given that both women have been vocal in their dislike of the President, I am not sure why Rove should listen to either one.

I think he made a mistake by not making a few points then ending the conversation by saying, "we will have to agree to disagree" and then moving on.

If Laurie David really cares that much about this issue, she should make drastic changes in her lifestyle instead of basically advocating policies that hurt working people in this country and cause her little to no discomfort.

Liberals always claim that war supporters (should send their own sons to war), which is a faulty argument given that we have a volunteer army (no one is actively avoiding going to war like in the 1960's when war supporters got their kids preferential treatment) and few if any children will enlist because their parents tell them to do so.

But be that as it may, along this same logic, if liberals care about global warming they should use less fuel and resources than the average person in the world. Until they do this, they should not be surprised when they are not taken seriously.

reader_iam said...

Oh, good--whatever.

Does no one understand that this encounter does not matter at all, not at all? It doesn't.There is no larger meaning that could remotely claim large as its description.

Except for what it says about people who are more interested in spinnin' the spinnin' thang, from whatever POV.

Jokes, that's what you all are about. Jokes. (Like a rose, by any other name: oh-so-knowing, righteousness, irony, cleverness, aesthetics, kewlnishnes, imrighterthanyou, imlefterthanyou, mydogisbetterthanyourdog: whatever.]

What is it about for you people? Making room for a better life for people in general and making room for individual people, or making sure that your idea of "room" specifically limits those whose ideas you don't like and to hell with idea of exceptions that could fit quite well enogh--except that, well, you just don't like the very idea?

Of those people.

Zealots of all sides do it. Oh, yes, you do.

Phooey.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

revenant wrote:

Sadly, what this major event could possibly have been remains a mystery. Scientists have narrowed it down to some time in late summer or early autumn of 2001, but an exact date remains impossible to pin down...


Hmmm. I've reviewed the news from the summer of 2001 and the "major event" that apparently held Bush's full attention at that time was a massive invasion of brush in Crawford Texas.

People who claim "9/11 changed everything!" are simply reactionaries. Terrorism wasn't invented on 9/11. Terrorism is nothing new, and terrorist attacks on the US are nothing new. The only "new" aspect of the 9/11 attack was the nature and magnitude of the attack.

The idea that Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened is fairly preposterous IF you take Bush at his word. His main justification for the invasion was WMD. Do you think somehow Bush would have overlooked this if we hadn't been attacked on 9/11? And as far as Bush's other excuses for the invasion (e.g., Saddam is a brutal tyrannt, Iraqis are suffering), do you claim 9/11 somehow changed those factors?

My take on this is that Bush's debate comments ("jokes") should never have been taken seriously by anyone. I didn't believe then and I don't believe now that they honestly reflected his thinking. And I doubt 9/11 significantly changed Bush's ideas about the use of US military power throughout the world. My suspicion is that Bush cynically used 9/11 as cover to pursue objectives that he had already been considering. This is consistent with reports from administration insiders.

In any case, I'm glad you enjoyed the "jokes."

Revenant said...

I just love how this thread has gone from "the Bush Administration never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11" to an exposition of all the "evidence" that indeed there was such a connection (even though the President never said there was). So apparently this means the administration is so incompetent they never made the connection when they should have.

The intelligent explanation, of course, is that the evidence connecting Hussein to 9/11 is not strong enough to say for certain that he had anything to do with it. We know that he had the means, motive, and opportunity, and that he had connections to the right people -- but there's no smoking gun. All we can say for certain, based on the evidence we have, is that the people who keep bleating "there was no connection between Hussein and al Qaeda" are talking out of their ass.

Revenant said...

People who claim "9/11 changed everything!" are simply reactionaries.

I'm amused by your belief that a supermajority of Americans are reactionaries. Also amusing is your claim that people who reacted to 9/11 by setting out to rebuild the Middle East qualify as "people opposed to political change".

His main justification for the invasion was WMD. Do you think somehow Bush would have overlooked this if we hadn't been attacked on 9/11?

Apparently you're one of these lefty mouth-breathers who thinks the President just gets to invade whatever country he wants to, whenever he wants to. Even assuming you buy into the paranoid conspiracy theory that Bush had planned to invade Iraq all along, he would not have been able to if Americans had not been rudely awakened to the threat of nutty Muslims with WMDs. So yes, 9/11 did change things.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

revenant wrote:

I'm amused by your belief that a supermajority of Americans are reactionaries. Also amusing is your claim that people who reacted to 9/11 by setting out to rebuild the Middle East qualify as "people opposed to political change".


I never said any of this. But, to address the point you raise, I don't have any evidence, and neither do you, that a "supermajority" of Americans believe "9/11 changed everything." We can agree, though, that people who change their fundamental beliefs in reaction to an event, are by definition, reactionary. I'll leave it to you to count them.

I have no idea what your second sentence means since it doesn't relate to anything I said, yet it is posted as a response to me. Very strange.

Apparently you're one of these lefty mouth-breathers who thinks the President just gets to invade whatever country he wants to, whenever he wants to. Even assuming you buy into the paranoid conspiracy theory that Bush had planned to invade Iraq all along,

Stripping away the insults and the rhetorical garbage from your comment, I'm left only with your opinion that Americans weren't concerned about WMD prior to 9/11. Do you have any evidence of that?

Oh, and by the way, in your eagerness to try to be clever, you thoughtfully confirmed my statement that Bush used 9/11 as cover to invade Iraq:

[Bush] would not have been able to [invade Iraq] if Americans had not been rudely awakened to the threat of nutty Muslims with WMDs. So yes, 9/11 did change things.

Bravo Revenant!