Cheney Makes Me Sick

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

Why do many people think that Iraq may have had something to do with 9/11? Cheney provided the answer today. It’s the media’s fault! That’s right. According to Cheney, the anti-Bush liberal media has been making an argument for war against Iraq that the White House never made.

THEN, in the same press conference, Cheney goes on to suggest that, despite the 9/11 Commission assertion to the contrary, he is still of the opinion that Iraq might have had something to do with 9/11.

Yet, according to Cheney, it’s the MEDIA’S fault for planting that connection in the peoples’ minds.

Go figure. Here’s the story.

Oh, and here’s a few Cheney quotes where he tries to dispel the Iraq-9/11 connection that the media has so stupidly foisted on the American people:

"If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

"QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. You’ve repeatedly cited such links. . . . I wanted to ask you what you’d say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: . . . . With respect to . . . the general relationship. . . . One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard . . . That goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That’s your best source of information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Source: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of ’01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been — we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, . . . new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. . . . There is — again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan — we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. . . ." QUESTION: But no direct link? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I can’t — I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments." Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

There are also dozens of examples where Cheney, quite intentionally it seems, speaks about Saddam/Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. In fact, it is quite common that a question about Saddam invokes a response which references 9/11 (and vice versa).

And it’s the MEDIA’S fault for blurring that distinction?

And speaking of distinctions:

"You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". – George Bush, September 2002

Gingko Trees?

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/Idiocy, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online shows what a total imbecile he is in this article.

The nut says, in a nutshell, that the Geneva Convention is like a contract. And since al Qaeda didn’t sign the contract, the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to them. Which means, he says, we should be able to torture AQ. Goldberg’s words:

If you sign a contract with your neighbor agreeing that neither of you will plant stinky ginkgo trees on your property, that contract is binding on you and your neighbor. It’s not binding for the guy who lives across the street.

Therefore, Goldberg concludes, we can plant our stinky ginkgo trees and the guy who lives across the street can’t complain (although the neighbor who signed the contract can).

The argument is simply wrong. The Geneva Conventions compel the signers to treat ALL prisoners of war humanely. It does not limit it to the prisoners of co-signers.

The argument is also stupid. Under that logic, the U.S. could sign a nuclear test ban treaty with Russia, and then conduct nuclear tests in violation of the treaty, arguing that Madacasgar was not a signer of the treaty.

Put another way, if I contract with my neighbor to NOT plant ginkgo trees on my property, I cannot plant gingko trees on my property. If I DID violate ginkgo trees on my property, I have violated the contract.

But of course, the Geneva Conventions are more than just a "contract". They, like all international treaties, have the force and effect of United States law. Goldberg, I suspect, knows better than to suggest otherwise.

Well, maybe not.

Bush’s Cheat Sheet

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

An alert reader of Atrios saw this picture of Bush

b3.jpg

from yesterday’s cabinet meeting.

He captured and blew up Bush’s notes from the meeting (heh heh). Here they are:

BUSH1.jpg

As best as I can tell, the left hand page says:

"Saddam was a threat . . . sworn enemy of U.S. . . . destabilizing force in volatile part of the world . . . (?????) . . . has WMD – used them . . . ties to terrorist orgs . . . contacts with al Qaeda over last decade"

The right hand page is a list of reporters, including Deb Reichmann (AP), David Morgan, John Roberts, Ann Compton . . .

At the cabinet meeting press conference, Bush took two questions from two reporters. They just happened (coincidentally) to be "Deb" and "Morgan", the top two names on his right-hand-page list. Here’s the partial transcript:

BUSH (continuing): Yet our military on the ground has done an excellent job of making sure the conditions are such that an Iraqi government can emerge and lead their nation to the better days.

I’ll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb, why don’t you lead it off?

Q Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There’s numerous contacts between the two.

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections — not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power.

Let’s see — Morgan.

Q Mr. President, given your administration’s assertions that it works closely with the International Red Cross, are you disappointed that Secretary Rumsfeld instructed military officials in Iraq to hold a member of Ansar al-Islam without telling Red Cross officials?

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. And he’s going to hold a press conference today to discuss that with you. I’m never disappointed in my Secretary of Defense. He’s doing a fabulous job, and America is lucky to have him in the position he’s in. But the Secretary will hold a press conference today, and you might want to ask him that question at his press conference.

Thank you.

The other right hand page, I can’t make out, but I can see at the bottom "Contacts with Al Q . . . (?????) to share (information?)"

Now, what does all this mean?

It means that the President still needs to take notes on his standard line, one which even I could recite by heart. In other words, he’s an idiot or he has some memory problems.

It also means that much of the WH press pool are merely stenographers. Well, think about it. If you are a reporter and ask, you know, PROBING questions, you don’t get invited to the cabinet room. So you curry favor with the White House by pitching softball questions — questions to which the President has already prepared an answer. The top right hand page is a list of reporters that was obviously handed to the President before the press conference (the writing is different, the paper siae is smaller). Who wrote the list (Scotty McClellan, I’m guessing), and why are THOSE names on the list?

Clinton Haters v Bush Haters

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

Chicago Sun-Times reviewer (and Roger Ebert compadre) Richard Roeper loved "Fahrenheit 9/11" (as did some folks at Fox News, by the way). The response was hundreds of vitriolic e-mails. Richard Roeper responds here, making several astute observations about anti-Bush people vs. anti-Clinton people.

The money quote:

Folks, do you not see the hypocrisy at work here?

This makes about as much sense as a bully taking a kid’s lunch money for eight years — only to complain when the kid finally lands a counterpunch during freshman year in high school. "Ow! You’re mean!"

(Hat tip to Lizard Queen)

Fox News Loves “Fahrenheit 9/11”

Ken AshfordRight Wing and Inept MediaLeave a Comment

Yup. It did. Some excerpts:

It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

***

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat.

***

More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker.

Not bad for Fox News. But then again, this website is reporting that Bill O’Reilly, who went to the NY premiere, walked out one-quarter of the way through. Pussy.

Today’s WH Press Gaggle

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Iraq, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Q Can I ask about Vice President Cheney, because yesterday he repeated what is a very controversial claim. He said that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda. Does the President believe that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda?

MR. McCLELLAN: We certainly talked about the ties with terrorism between the — between the regime that was removed from power, and we talked about those ties prior to the decision to remove that regime from power. So that was well-documented. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and talked about some of those ties to terrorism, as well. And Zarqawi is certainly a senior al Qaeda associate who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go in and remove the regime from power.

Q There’s also al Qaeda in the United States. That does not mean the United States is cooperating with those members of al Qaeda. Just by the presence of someone does not mean there’s a cooperation.

Zing! Hello, logic.

But check out McClellan’s non-answer answer:

MR. McCLELLAN: But, remember, we’re talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country.

Well . . . yes . . . Scott . . . when we talk about Saddam’s Iraq, we are talking about an oppressive regime. But even Saddam’s Iraq didn’t exercise control over the entire country, because it couldn’t. No system of government, no matter how hard it tries, can possibly have command and control over every single corner of its region.

So the reporter’s point still stands: "Just by the presence of someone does not mean there’s a cooperation".

President Obama

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

Sounds like the leader of some distant "third-world" country, no?

Nope. We might be talking about "U.S. President Barack Obama" 20 years from now (or less). The bright new wunderkind of the Democratic Party is getting all kinds of good press, and deservedly so.

Starting in November, and until he decides to move onward and upward, you’ll be hearing much about Senator Obama.

Hold On To Your Hats . . .

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly. . . . "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration’s approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."

– Daily Telegraph

Shock & Awe Report Card

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Yes, the "Shock and Awe" campaign that opened the Iraqi War was shocking and awesome. But according to this, it was also not very successful. Not only did ALL the airstrikes miss their mark, but they resulted in "significant civilian casualties".

What’s to blame? Bad intel. What else?

High Praise Indeed

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

Question: Who was Bush talking about when he expressed these words today?

"As a candidate for any office, . . . he showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."

"[He] could always see a better day ahead and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that [he] loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He’s a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service."

Answer: Bill Clinton. No kidding.

SCOTUS Punts The Pledge Issue

Ken AshfordConstitution, Godstuff, Supreme CourtLeave a Comment

Court dismisses Pledge of Allegiance suit
Justices sidestep church-state issue in tossing atheist’s case

Read more here.

The opinion is not available yet, but it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the justices said about the merits of Newdow’s case. Apparently, Rehnquist wrote about it, but his views were already pretty well-known.

Torture Memos

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

More on the torture memos. On this blog, I have been focussing on the Draft Walker Group Memo, but of course, there are others. Discourse.net has a good analysis of the Bybee Memo. It also has a good analysis of the Draft Walker Group Memo. Although, really, all you need to know is that both memos consider torture to be legal and justified in the guise of (a) the nation’s self-defense/national security interests, and/or (b) the President’s (supposedly) sweeping powers as Commander-in-Chief.

The Bybee memo, available here in PDF format, is interesting in its appendix, starting at page 47. The appendix lists several U.S. cases in which U.S. courts have concluded that the defendant tortured the plaintiff. Reading the descriptions of those cases (and the torture involved), it is hard to see a distinction between those examples, and what we have been hearing about from Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Yet, the DOJ memos certainly ignore the obvious similarities.

It’s sad when Jay Leno makes more sense than our best government lawyers:

According to the New York Times, last year White House lawyers concluded that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even kill people in the interest of national security – so if that’s legal, what the hell are we charging Saddam Hussein with?

Good question.

Torture Scandel Just Keeps Getting Worse

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

From here

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, issued a classified order last November directing military guards to hide a prisoner, later dubbed "Triple X" by soldiers, from Red Cross inspectors and keep his name off official rosters. The disclosure, by military sources, is the first indication that Sanchez was directly involved in efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross, a practice that was sharply criticized by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba in a report describing abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Taguba blamed the 800th Military Police Brigade, which guarded the prison, for allowing "other government agencies"–a euphemism that includes the CIA–to hide "ghost" detainees at Abu Ghraib. The practice, he wrote, "was deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law." Taguba’s report did not cite the November 18 directive issued by Sanchez to hide Triple X, identified as a high-ranking terrorist. It is not known if Taguba saw the directive. He declined to comment. The Army said it could not discuss a classified order.

I find it difficult to believe that Bush Administration, as well as its supporters, can spin their way out of this ever-devolving story. A few bad apples? Puh-lease.

This is only one aspect of the story. Live Journal has an excellant torture link dump about all that relates to the torture scandal.