| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Cheney pissed at NYT version of 9/11 commission report | |
| 2004-06-18 | |
| Via Drudge. I’ve got my own problems with the commission. Vice President Dick Cheney said that there were clearly ties between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists, and he called the New York Times coverage of the story "outrageous."
| |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #18 "I'm not sure if it will be an October surprise, but it will be timed to benefit Bush's reelection campaign, and it will succeed. Events could intervene, of course, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that Bush, who's been described as an excellent poker player, has a few cards left to deal. For all of our sakes, I hope I'm right." I hope so too, but I'm beginning to lose faith in the "rope-a-dope" thing: there's been so much erosion in the public's support for what Bush is doing, I'd think he'd have already done something to bolster it. Instead, all we get out of this inarticulate administration is passivity. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-06-18 6:55:44 PM |
| #17 Cheny should be mad. The NY Times has an agenda to help Kerry win, and if they lie a little to do so - so be it. Their purpose is to undermine public confidence in the Iraq war, the WoT, and our stature in the world community - all for the sake of an election. Well enough is enough. How many heads have to roll before people begin to understand? For me, I guess it took three. No more mindless dissent uttered with the naive belief that it does no harm other than to the Bush campaign. |
| Posted by: Jennifer 2004-06-18 6:26:35 PM |
| #16 Our good Veep has got to wonder what the h*** is going on. The Cabalist AP has an article showing a Pew Poll : Poll Suggests Bush Support Has Grown in which they, with left-polluted braincells state, "What's not clear, however, is the effect the Sept. 11 commission's Wednesday statement that it has found no credible evidence Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida had a collaborative relationship will have on the polls." Appearently Lurchy is starting to leak at the seams, and even "Nurse Fuzzy-Wuzzy" in her "dog-wannabe" mode can help. {ARF!} |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-06-18 12:33:36 PM |
| #15 The bottom line is that MOST Americans, who aren't members of the press or "Dean for America" campaign, dont' give a damn if Sadaam and AQ represent a story of blood brothers or a blood feud. Bottom line for normal people is that Sadaam, a man who mass raped, tortured and murdered, is gone. The End. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-18 11:42:26 AM |
| #14 Yesterday, my wife, who is pretty well informed and not stupid, said that she thought the 9/11 Commission's report would hurt Bush since the administration has not come forth with more evidence of an Iraq/al Qaeda connection (or of WMDs for that matter). My response was that the administration has to have evidence that they will spring on the doubters and naysayers in the media (and the electorate) at the appropriate time. I'm not sure if it will be an October surprise, but it will be timed to benefit Bush's reelection campaign, and it will succeed. Events could intervene, of course, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that Bush, who's been described as an excellent poker player, has a few cards left to deal. For all of our sakes, I hope I'm right. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-06-18 11:35:43 AM |
| #13 #6 Well, you might ask, what ever became of the Scoop Jackson Democrats? It is my understanding that Lieberman is trying to reenvigorate the Commttee on the Present Danger, the bipartisan group that fought the Soviets tooth and nail. |
| Posted by: Tancred 2004-06-18 11:33:42 AM |
| #12 NMM are you going to nY to pretest the rethuglican convention? This blog had a good article about classes for prespective activists yesterday. I hope to see you there. |
| Posted by: Juneifer 2004-06-18 10:15:50 AM |
| #11 Verlaine, Cheney has pushed back hard on several occasions, including his flat statement that Saddam had WMD, period. Caused an uproar at the time, State Dept. was ... umm ... discombobulated etc. It seems to be both his belief and his role in this Administration, as he has made it clear he has no aspirations to other office & can say what he feels needs saying. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-06-18 10:10:10 AM |
| #10 ..even the right wing nutz that run the Times.. It appears you have more in common with the real Mike "Asshole" Moore than you think. Haaahahahahahahhahahaaa..... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-18 10:08:53 AM |
| #9 NMM - alternate universe full of lies and Bullshit. NYT run by right wing nuts LOL - you're an idiot |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-18 10:00:56 AM |
| #8 These sorts of statements by Cheney are about 3 years over-due. The distortion of "news," as Cheney says sometimes malicious and sometimes just incompetent, has mushroomed to unprecedented levels. Read the whole interview pertaining to Iraq/AQ. Towards end of that segment -- in unwitting illustration of what Cheney's talking about -- Borger AGAIN repeats the mistake Cheney had been discussing. It's hilarious, and also a reminder of a key problem in the media: the preponderance of ... uh ... rather unintelligent people in the business. Three years of silence leave me pessimistic that this is anything more than an anomalous outburst by Cheney. The breaking point was reached a year ago in July, when the preposterous Joe Wilson non-flap over nothing was met not by correction and derision ("Niger" not mentioned in SOTU) but by utterly bizarre finger-pointing between Rice and Tenet. I can't believe we're going to see that intern or whoever he is working as press sec. start taking on the press aggressively and substantively. Just as 9/11 changed the rules for security and intelligence, the morphing of media into little more than propaganda called for a change in media relations strategy -- one that is still not systematically in evidence in the administration. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-18 9:35:11 AM |
| #7 What ever happened to the Franklin Roosevelt democrats? They are now the dreaded neocons. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-18 9:06:07 AM |
| #6 What ever happened to the Franklin Roosevelt democrats? Have they vanished from the face of the earth? Or are they, without moving from their political position, simply the 'Centralists' of the spectrum now that the 'liberals' have gone so far left? |
| Posted by: Don 2004-06-18 8:05:32 AM |
| #5 BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know? Vice Pres. CHENEY: Probably. That's the most telling statement in the entire interview. He no doubt knows a bunch the commission doesn't, and for intellegence reasons I'd bet they'll never know. Would anyone want that BenVineste idiot out there grandstanding with sensitive material? Additionally, it should come as no suprise to anyone here that the old gray bird cage liner comes down on this the way they did. They should be ashamed of themselves, and are apparently to stupid to realize that they have just demonstrated once again that they have zero credibility. If the Times said water was wet - I'd have to check for myself. By the way Ben, you're wasting your time responding to NMM, in all the time I have been lurking here, he has shown himself to be impervious to even the most reasoned arguments. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-06-18 8:04:13 AM |
| #4 What Ben said. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-06-18 7:26:28 AM |
| #3 Right.. But lets say you are right Mike, so what? The best you can say is that Iraq was unfinished business that needed to be dealt with. That he was America's enemy and was in the process of developing WMDs. He did have links to groups like AQ, and allowed Answer Al Islam to operate in his country. So even if Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, he still needed to be dealt with, sooner or later. The fact still remains that there were plenty of good reasons for removing Saddam, some even a lefty like you should applaud, but won't because it was not your guy who had the balls to do a damn thing about it. There were no good reasons to NOT remove Saddam. |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-06-18 6:04:21 AM |
| #2 First it was "acting in concert" now it's "links" and the NYT is a GOP mouthpiece with Ms Miller banging the drum for the war in Iraq--remember--even the right wing nutz that run the Times had to apologize for her lies!? |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2004-06-18 3:03:45 AM |
| #1 Great! Give em hell. Another overreach by the bias big press. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-18 2:02:35 AM |