Dick Cheney Spins the Pentagon Report
It's not everyday that the Portland Freelancer lands in Time magazine, but I suppose for a joke writer, that's way up there. It happened last year and I only noticed because the same joke was reprinted in the Oregonian's editorial page with a little reference to Time under it and a nice ink drawing of Saddam. It just referred to a report that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, released by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the punch line was, "Thank God we found that out before we did anything crazy."
I thought about that joke again today after reading about the Pentagon's new report saying that Saddam was not working with al Qaida and thus the basis for the Iraq War as revenge for 9/11 is just spin that spun out.
This report was noteworthy because it shows how far the Bush administration's influence on the Pentagon has waned. Do you think Donald Rumsfeld would have put this out? We now have the Pentagon discrediting the civilian leaders, which is interesting. It's a sign that they don't want to take the blame for the failure in Iraq, and don't kid yourself, Republican spin masters wouldn't be talking about how much better things are there, if it were true.
The McCain visit to the marketplace in Baghdad represents the almost comical level of spin coming out of the Republicans and this White House. McCain's attempt the other day - for sheer comic value - rivals the shots of the Minister of Information reassuring everyone that the invasion was being handled even as American tanks rolled in behind him. Years from now when this is all just a hideous memory, that scene with McCain will get similar treatment in the documentaries: "Look at me in my flak jacket with my 100 soldiers and 3 helicopter escort! I'm safe in Baghdad!"
So if the pro-war group is starting to look just plain ridiculous, how is our old lawyer-shooting buddy, Dick Cheney doing? The Pentagon report was a direct slap at his power, wasn't it? Where do you go when your own military treats you like this? Wasn't this a sign that you're loosing control?
Cheney was like a little piglet with no nipple left to suck, so he turned to the warm, ample bosom of Rush Limbaugh for the milk of jilted chicken hawks. There he proceeded to say that al Qaida was "present" in Iraq before we invaded. So that's the new threshold to justify this tragedy? Hell, they were present here. He didn't even try to say Saddam had harbored them. They were just present. You know, like in Minnesota.
Dick Cheney's counter spin on Limbaugh will be good enough for that last 29% - the ones that just don't get it, and will never get it. The ones that don't want to get it. We're onto the new spin now which is that the tide of victory is just ahead if those darn Democrats don't pull out the troops and run first.
Okay, Dick, but there was a time when you controlled the spin of the entire federal government. You and your little buddy Donald Rumsfeld would never have let the Pentagon report something like this. Now Donald is gone, and you're left running to Rush Limbaugh. Please, be a compassionate conservative for once. Rush's nipples have to be pretty sore by now.
posted by Bill McDonald @ 8:29 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
i can’t believe the same old line again… if you repeat it often enough does it make it true??
check out this column
http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/the-taunts-of-a-coward/
and “A Challenge” on the same site. The author is a conservative who makes some great points….
Mia
McCain's walk reminds me a lot of Dukakis's tank ride. Same dumb look on both of their faces.
That is a good article, Mia. I like the line "the time for rhetoric is over."
Thanks, Mia. The problem with Dick Cheney is he goes on lying even in the face of the facts, He has no qualms about that.
You put Dick Cheney in hell and he’d tell you it was just a warm day in heaven.
Funny how all intelligence reports supporting Democrat talking points are 100% correct and gospel, while every intelligence report opposing them is “manipulated”,”cherry picked”, “falsified” and “Agenda driven”.
And I don't think anyone is disputing that Al Quaeda leader Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded which is what Cheney was saying. Of course that will be spun by the left into his having said, 'Saddam helped Al Quaeda carry out the 9-11 attacks', which of couse is not at all what he said.
Butch, You've taken some weak positions before, along with many strong ones. This is one of your weaker ones. If you're trying to say this administration didn't sell Saddam as having an al Qaida connection, you're so far into Clinton country you might as well say it depends on what is is.
Now now, Bill, don't put words in my mouth. This administration 'sold' Saddam having an Al Quaeda/terrorist connection because he absolutely did. That is, unless you don't count letting them habitate your country freely and allowing them to set up training facilities a "connection". This is also a regime that directly compensated the families of suicide bombers, remember?
The administration did not sell that Saddam was directly involved in 911. But at the very least, he turned the other way as they roamed his country and trained their men.
So you're saying the suicide bombers were al Qaida?
650,000 dead iraqis, Butch, and the John Hopkins study is probably low.
Is this one of those things where it's okay as long as they were from the Middle East?
al zarqawi was in the northern part of iraq,the part that wasn't in sadddams control.Roger Cressy was on Oberman tonight and said the Bush adminasration new about al zarqawi's terror training camp and choose not to take it out.Because they wanted to be able to use it as a one of the justifcation for going to war.Cressy also said had they taken zarqawi out they could have saved 75-100 american soldiers.
Hmmm....citing Roger Cressey on Olberman is to me what me citing Scooter Libby on O'Riley is probably to you...ie meaningless. As equally meaningless as the 'study' that Bill cited estimating 650K dead Iraqis. Not even most fervent anti-war fringe groups jumped on that number because the study was so shoddy and flawed. Most accept that at worst, the number is about 1/10 that.
And Bill, you did it again. I never said the suicide bombers were Al Quaeda....and you're smarter than this. I said Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda AND terrorists. Saddam admitted to giving cash awards to the families of suicide bombers.
And before you try to spin the above as "oh...it was ONLY 50K dead" or whatever trying to paint me a callous, the continued sanctions against Iraq were killing more civilians than this war ever has. Every civilian innocent death is a horrible tragedy, but don't pretend they were non-existent before the war began.
Try getting the Guardian's take on that 650 thousand figure. It's from England. The British government belittled it and tried to dismiss it much as you have, but then they studied it and realized it was solid. In fact the methods used were the same for other areas of combat in the past.
This isn't some fringe thing. In fact the anti-war crowd is the mainstream and you're in the fringe, Butch.
In fact, you were very revealing today by supporting Cheney over the Pentagon. I knew that support for the military thing was just a load of neo-con crap.
Why don't you snap out of it and put America ahead of your delusional love affair with George W. Bush. Who knows? You might respect yourself more in the morning.
butch, which parts aren't true al zarqawi in northern Iraq.Bush adminasration knowing about it and doing nothing.perhaps you could give me a "legitmate" source to correct what Cressy said. i knew i shouldn't have beleived him, afterall he is aformer member of the Bush-Chenny national security team.As far as the libby- O'reilly thing,well if they use facts verifble facts like Cressy on Oberman than what could i do, oh ya attack them personally.
goddam the propaganda poison pusher.
Pentagon report says no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda .
Iranians Behind Sept. 11 Attacks: Rudy Giliani
Post a Comment
<< Home