Saturday, September 16, 2006

"I Never Said There Was An Operational Relationship"

A week ago, I noted in this post the contrast between comments President Bush made at a press conference in August, and the facts contained in the recently-released Senate Intelligence Committee report. To recap, Bush said the following on August 21st:
I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi.
The Senate report said this:
Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. Postwar information from an al-Qa'ida detainee indicated that Saddam's regime "considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw" and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, for two bombings in Baghdad.
This past Friday, ABC's Martha Raddatz asked the president the following:
Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
Bush's response:
The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. I was making the point that Saddam Hussein had been declared a state sponsor of terror for a reason, and, therefore, he was dangerous.
Denial wrapped in circular reasoning and non sequiturs. When confronted with the inconvenient truth, just say anything.

By the way, if you didn't catch the press conference live on Friday, watch the tape here. It really was something -- the gesticulating, the glowering, the shouting, and the desperation. Listen, I know the "Bush is dangerous/insane/drinking again" meme is a popular one on some of the more strident liberal blogs. But if you saw that press conference and didn't worry that this is an executive-in-chief on the edge and in need of a major brake job courtesy of the midterm elections, you're a lot more optimistic than I am.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm. I don't think he's drinking again. I haven't seen anything to indicate that, but is he insane or mad or unhinged or delusional? I think that could be up for debate. After all, his gang are the people who famously mocked their opponents for being "reality-based." And he's the leader of the gang, so is he the least reality-based? And proudly so? Does that mean he's fantasy-based? At what point does that become madness?

9/16/2006 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Hedley Bowes said...

There are myriad crimes committed within U.S. borders. By Bush's logic, that makes his government a 'state sponsor' of those crimes.

I understand the U.S. Marshall's Service hass jurisdiction.

9/16/2006 10:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I heard the "I never said there was an operational relationship" quote from Bush I was immediately reminded of "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" -- such parsing by Clinton was cited by many conservatives as proof positive of Clinton's moral bankruptcy -- yet, now, the silence from the right speaks volumes....

9/16/2006 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I heard the "I never said there was an operational relationship" quote from Bush I was immediately reminded of "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" -- such parsing by Clinton was cited by many conservatives as proof positive of Clinton's moral bankruptcy -- yet, now, the silence from the right speaks volumes....

9/16/2006 11:44 PM  
Blogger kaimu said...

ALOHA !!

What is deafening is the fact that the two party aristocracy, both Dems and Reps, have had more than sixty years to bring this country back to "reality" ... back to fiscal responsibility, back to a foreign policy rooted in US Consitutional values, back to a lesser government of "We The People", back to liberty, back to free markets, back to moral values once respected worldwide. Yet over sixty years we get US military presence in 133 countries and staggering deficits to be paid by many future generations ... moral and financial bankruptcy is the legacy of both parties.

What is the definition of lunacy again? Welcome to the USSA !!!

9/17/2006 4:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No evidence he's drinking again??? Does that mean you bought the choking on a pretzel story? In all your life have you EVER heard of anything like it before...or since? Aren't you just waiting for the drunken Oval Office stories in a few years...ala Kissinger and Nixon? As far as 'loyality to the Bush Family' goes, I suspect that will be sold to the highest bidder not long after 2008...or sooner if we can get some indictments going.

9/17/2006 10:03 AM  
Blogger Michael Plank said...

Did you say BRAKE job?

9/17/2006 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

W has a new poodle...tony could get jelouze..

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/19/france.sarkozy.reut/index.html

9/20/2006 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

al queda's new branch kills palestinian

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3306861,00.html

9/21/2006 9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kills turk and new leader announced (verfied?)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/23/iraq.execution.ap/

9/23/2006 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and chirac says he's verifying whether osama died...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/france_bin_laden_report

9/23/2006 10:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home