Home | Away

Even mixeder messages

In the comments to my last post, a preternaturally alert reader tries to straighten out my confusion from last night’s bad dream.  He writes:

[T]here is a difference between Al-Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 and the organization of Al-Qaeda itself.  The 9/11 panel said that there were no apparent connections between Hussein and the actions by Al-Qaeda on 9/11.  However, they did point out that there are some apparent connections between Hussein and the organization called Al-Qaeda.  That distinction is present in any of Cheney’s discussions of the connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, including in the debate last night.  [Emphasis mine.]

You can’t say that since there’s no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, there’s no evidence at all.  That’s simply sloppy, fallacious thinking, no matter what your political views are.

Well, folks, I did say that I was confused, didn’t I?

And today it gets even worse:

First there’s Fred Kaplan’s essay in Slate:

Cheney gained ground, though, a few minutes later, precisely at a moment when he should have lost still more. Edwards charged Cheney with repeatedly drawing a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Cheney replied, “The senator’s got his facts wrong. I’ve never suggested there’s a connection.” This was a bald lie. Yet Edwards didn’t call him on it. He could have quoted Cheney on a dozen occasions wrongly claiming an absolute connection-- but he didn’t cite even one.

A bald lie!  Get it?  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 

But what about those occasions-- like, say, the time in September 2003 when Cheney said 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”?  That was really confusing-- so much so that, as the Boston Globe reported, “Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney’s ‘willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It’s astounding.’”

And then this afternoon I came across this truly surreal item in Reuters:

CHENEY STICKS WITH AL QAEDA, SADDAM LINK

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday linked prewar Iraq with al Qaeda in the vice presidential debate, despite assessments from the CIA and the Sept. 11 Commission that have found no conclusive tie.

Cheney, often criticized for saying Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies to justify last year’s invasion of Iraq, said of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein: “He had an established relationship with Al Qaeda.”

Cheney’s opponent, Democrat John Edwards, repeatedly said the vice president was trying to mislead the public because there were no definitive links established between al Qaeda and Saddam or Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“You’ve gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not,” Edwards said. “And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best.”

. . .

“What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action,” Cheney said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday said he knew of no “strong, hard evidence” linking Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.

But on Tuesday, in a statement, Rumsfeld said he was misunderstood. “I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq,” Rumsfeld said.

The Sept. 11 Commission report in July said there was no evidence of a “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.

Just when I thought I’d figured out Cheney, along comes Rumsfeld to mess me up again!  The messages just keep getting mixeder and mixeder.  Well, as Alice says after reading “Jabberwocky,” “somebody killed something, that’s clear, at any rate.”

Posted by on 10/06 at 07:47 AM

  1. maybe you need to find humpty dumpty to clarify things for you.  or maybe you could unleash humpty dumpty on cheney and co.  that would be an interesting conversation…

    “Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs: they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’”

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  10:05 AM

  2. Hey, Berube, lay off, will ya?

    It’s hard work being VP in a government where you’re actually the Prez and making all the decisions.  And I’ve had a really hard week (and it’s only Wednesday). 

    First off, yesterday, the day I’m to debate this trial lawyer, that putz Bremer we sent over to run Iraq until our puppet government got established comes back over here and blabs about how we needed more troops in Iraq to control the looting, establish law and order, blah, blah, blah. 

    Then, today, the morning after I should be gloating over my ‘I never met you till tonight’ barb, my own CIA comes out and says there was no connection between Zarqawi-Saddam and another weapons inspector puts out another report saying Iraq had no WMD, and that in particular, it’s nuclear program was about as far along as the Tampa Devil Rays’ World Series Victory Plan. 

    And these damn blogs!!  They caught me fibbing on not ever having met that North Carolina good ole boy before the debate, snagged the Senate records showing I’ve only been at my post two times (people forget I was hiding out in my undisclosed location a lot), and tracked down the ‘hometown’ newspaper quote and made me look like a schmuck.  The Internet. It’s a good thing. Be a shame if something happened to it.

    And now I’ve gotta get junior ready for another debate with Kerry on Friday.  I mean, did you see the first one?

    So give me a break.  It’s hard being the president.

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  10:27 AM

  3. don’t you mean “hard work”?

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  10:57 AM

  4. Hey, Berube, one other thing:

    While I know you and your pals (Marshall, Kos, Atrios, Pandagon) are getting a big laugh at my expense today, none of yous has yet called me out on one of my bigger bunker-busting flubs last night.

    Did you hear me criticize Edwards about opposing the weapons systems that “won” the cold war?  Do you remember any shots being fired in that war? Was the cold war finale a military victory?  Did the missile shield “win” the cold war?  How many of them “weapons” did we ever use or could have ever used?  Gosh you guys are dumb. What do you want me to do, produce your commercials for you?

    Anyway, Zell said the same loony thing at our convention and Karl like it and wanted me to include it. 

    I wasn’t crazy about it, but, hey, I’m gettin’ out.  This whole thing’s crashing harder and faster than a Saddam Hussein statue.  We’re in full meltdown here.  I don’t even think any more terrorism alerts are going to help.  On November 3 I’ll be a free man.  Gonna go back to Wyoming or Texas, do some fishing, maybe get an occasional “consultant” gig for one of those cable-TV deals.  I’ll see you around.

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  11:01 AM

  5. For the sake of piety, I will readily grant that my previous post lacked the precision I would wish for, especially in debating the arguments against Cheney’s statements.  While I stated that “You can‚Äôt say that since there‚Äôs no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, there‚Äôs no evidence at all,” I should have stated that you can’t say “there’s no evidence at all of any connection between Hussein and the Al-Qaeda organization itself.” Again, the organization and its actions are two different things for the sake of argument, so a statement about one can’t be used to disprove a statement about the other.  If you look at the 9/11 commission report, specifically page 66, it states that the commission has seen no evidence of any “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al-Qeada, nor was their evidence of cooperation between the two “in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” But, the same page states that Al Qaeda members contacted Irag in March of 1998, and in turn Iraq sent people to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban and Bin Laden.  So, there appears to have been a lull in the “hating [of]each other’s guts” that bellatrys asserts to have existed.  Also, there seems to be some “feeling each other out” between the two.  Finally, Bin Laden stayed in Afghanistan because of the support the country and the government there gave to him and Al Qaeda-- once they were gone with the American military actions in Afghanistan, and with his escape, it was likely that he would set up shop elsewhere.  Iraq was a likely suspect because of past events, and so the adminstration apparently took steps to wipe away Hussein’s government from the list of possible supporters.  Again, Cheney refers to the link being between Iraq and the organization, not the specific attacks.  He may speak very sloppily at times, as in the cited quotation from September 2003 where he asserts that Iraq is a “geographical base” for Al-Qaeda.  But, culled quotations aside, his statements overall have given the impression of Iraq as a fertile soil from which terrorists could take root and thrive.  I believe the words I am skirting around are “pre-emptive action”? 

    And to the Cheney doppleganger’s posting, the words that may help you understand just how the development of military weapons can win without being used, are “cold war” (rather than a “hot” war, mmm-kay?), and “arms race.” The situation was much like when police park their cars in view of speeders while the officers sit in their cars and do paperwork-- they are reinforcing the speeding laws without actually writing tickets.  For a cold war as well as in this example, the mere possibility of action on their part produces the desired results.  Cheney would know that . . .

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  11:54 AM

  6. It isn’t just me - there’s this little business of having tried to organize a brigade to go fight against Saddam back in GWO which isn’t generally the sign of interaction between bosom companions and best buds. Nor is “infidel” generally considered to be a compliment.

    But since the principle evidence of the linkage at the time was Condi’s assertion that prisoners in Gitmo had yielded it - and since we now know that they’ve been torturing ignorant footsoldiers to force them to tell them what they wanted to hear, and have got nothing useful by torture - that alone is enough to make any reasonable person conclude that the “linkage” was nothing more than wishthink on the part of an administration committed to going to war against Saddam from the start, and desperate enough for a connection to fabricate one.

    Oh, and Jorge, remember - paragraph breaks are your friend. You don’t want to be remembered with Anne Rice, now, do you?

    Posted by bellatrys  on  10/06  at  03:22 PM

  7. bellatrys:

    I think the only reply to muster on this end would be that

    1) who hasn’t been called an infidel by them?

    2) why can’t Al-Qaeda be as fickle as anyone else in their views about certain governments?  why can’t their views oscillate like anyone else’s?

    3) the attempt to fight Saddam shows their opportunism rather than any principled allegiance or aversion.  Being a secular state surrounded by other states ran by islamo-fascists, Saddam’s Iraq was ripe for picking.  That may also explain his deception to the world regarding WMD’s and inspections.

    There.  Nice short paragraphs.  I’ll admit that the above missive needed paragraph breaks.  But the Anne Rice comment?  That was just, damn . . . that was,

    ... low.

    Your little infidel,
    Jorge

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  04:58 PM

  8. I asked a girl called Sharon at school out a couple of times but she just laughed.

    Now thanks to Jorge I now realise that in fact we had a relationship all along!

    Posted by  on  10/06  at  05:16 PM

  9. That’s, like, so weird, harmonia!  Saddam also had a relationship with Sharon.  Her first name was Ariel, right?

    Posted by Michael  on  10/06  at  07:14 PM

  10. Harmonia:

    In your rush to insult rather than argue, I’m afraid your posting leaves me confused.  Perhaps that is because the analogy you draw falls somewhat short.  For your analogy to actually work against my statement, someone else besides you and Sharon would have to make the judgment about the status of your relationship, just as someone else, i.e. the White House, made a judgment on the relations between Al-Qaeda and Hussein.  However, you made the judgment about your relationship with Sharon, so I’m not seeing the point you are trying to make.

    Also, the fact that Sharon told you ‘no’ years ago does not mean that you will never reconcile and come together-- just like an Al-Qaeda statement years ago concerning Hussein does not mean that their attitude about Hussein could change with circumstances.

    Let’s all remember how heartbroken Stalin was when his good buddy Hitler invaded.  According to these postings, Hitler couldn’t have invaded since his earlier statments concerning Stalin were quite warm and fuzzy.  And yet, he did . . .

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  05:50 AM

  11. Jorge’s invocation of Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, we should all thank him for helping to demonstrate why American lives are wasted by an administration whose foreign policy is based on inference from faulty information and the futile attempt to prove a negative.

    Way to go Jorge! Keep reaching for that star!

    Ta

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  08:42 AM

  12. For your analogy to actually work against my statement, someone else besides you and Sharon would have to make the judgment about the status of your relationship, just as someone else, i.e. the White House, made a judgment on the relations between Al-Qaeda and Hussein.

    Well if it’s good enough for the White House, it’s good enough for me. After all, by Jorge’s logic, just because the stocks of weapons we were told existed in Iraq were never found doesn’t mean that Saddam didn’t frantically flush them down the toilet just before the Marines came knocking at the door.

    Please note that I said “weapons stocks,” Jorge--not weapons-related program activities, not plans, not intentions, not capabilities, not daydreams, not random notes scribbled in a Day-Runner. We were told the evidence was “irrefutable” that such stocks existed, even as there were any number of people in the know who very much doubted their existence.

    his statements overall have given the impression of Iraq as a fertile soil from which terrorists could take root and thrive

    1,000 dead US soldiers, 20,000 dead Iraqis, and the prospect of a bloody, multi-decade quagmire--all on the basis of a “could.” Some of us have slightly higher standards than that, Jorge.

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  08:58 AM

  13. Dear Jorge,

    Thanks for your comment about Cold War/Hot War.  I don’t normally respond to the unwashed masses, but I thought I’d make an exception in this case.

    But first, I have to tell you how much I miss the Cold War. Miss it real bad.  The essense of any oligarchy is the existence of, or the continual threat of, war.  And the point of the eternal war or pseudo war is not whether it is won or lost in the sense that these words are usually meant, or even if the so-called war is even real.  It only matters that the war be continuous.  I know some author laid out this argument about the time the whole thing started, but, anyway...Now, as to the Cold War, like I said, it was a dream.  It sucked up huge resources, it kept people afraid, and it made billions for my friends and friends of my friends. To tell you the truth, we never expected the Soviets to just shut the thing down. We kinda counted on their always being there, forever playing the foil for our fear and money schemes.

    Now as to the end of this so-called Cold War, yes, I and many of my associates have been fond of the argument you advanced.  We’ve argued it many times ourselves. You know, the one where the end of the Soviet Union stemmed from our awesome military toys.

    This argument rested on two causal assumptions.  The first, that our awesome and shocking military power deterred the Soviets from ravaging Europe or bombing us.  The second, that our spending on military goods, caused the Soviets to expend even greater money, which ultimately bank-rupted them.

    The first assumption probably had some merit at least in the early years of the Cold War, maybe even into the 1960’s.  Of course the intentions of the Soviet empire will always be, much like our own, a messy compilation of theories, reported quotes, real or imagined military plans, and such things.  But by the 1970’s, the Soviet empire was crumbling.  It’s list of military arms was impressive, but it’s economic structure was collapsing.  We didn’t let anyone in on this, naturally, for reasons I’ve discussed above. The invasion, and ultimate failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, was the final token of this reality.  So while we worried about Germany and England in the early years, nothing much came of those fears and our skirmishes with the evil empire was confined largely to peripheral contacts in Latin and South America and some places in the Middle East.  Of course it is always problematic to make an argument along the lines of “well because of X type of military equipment, the Soviets didn’t do Y”.

    The second causal assumption about our military spending causing their military spending and leading to their collapse, is, well, a comforting thought to some, but mostly unverifiable as well, and rife with spurrious inference due to the multitude of financial, ideological and social problems in the Soviet Union that led to its change of government.

    At the risk of beating this argument to death, I’ll wrap up here.  But I do want to say how delighted we were with the change of events leading to the new eternal war, the so-called war on terrorism.  Now, me and the gang at TPFNAC had the Iraq invasion all ready to go.  It would have been hard pulling off under normal circumstances, but the events of 9-11, as we say, changed everything. So while the Cold War is unfortunately behind us, we in the ruling sphere are encouraged by the prospects of an everlasting and unwinnable war against radical Islam. 

    Unless, of course, Osama gets himself caught.  He’s useful to us, out there in the imagination.  Maybe he’s dead.  Or alive.  But we just want everyone to know that the enemy is everywhere. 

    Sincerely,

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:23 AM

  14. Unless, of course, Osama gets himself caught.

    Take heart, Mr. Vice President, Sir. Iraq promises to provide us with a virtually unlimited supply of boogeymen with which to scare the children. Already the debate is whether Zarqawi or Sadr better represents the true face of Evil on this earth--Osama? Osama who?

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:33 AM

  15. I always thought that Godwin’s law was the comparison of someone or something TO N***s or H****r (mmmm, see how I don’t use the words!), rather than the mere mention of the words.  I was actually reaching for another leftist regime in my posting (and don’t bore me with arguing that somehow National Socialists were not leftists), that being Stalin, but, then again, whatever.  I’ll gladly take my spanking on the Godwin invocation, Mr. Rather. 

    Not sure what to make of the fact that the assessment of Hussein was an evil plot hatched by the adminstration.  Does that mean he somehow tricked Democrats, Republicans, other countries like Britain, Russia, France, and even the UN itself into thinking that Hussein had used WMD’s before, would use them again, and very likely did have them before the invasion?  Now, I’m a Pynchon fan, but come on . . . how is someone like the W seen to be a complete moron, yet at the same time able not only clever enough to fool America, but also other countries and organizations, into thinking that innocent little Hussein was actually a danger to the world?

    Oops.  Long paragraph.  Anyways, I’m kind of disappointed that no one noticed my call on Hussein’s feigning stocks of WMD’s being his way of warding off surrounding countries, e.g. Iran.  See the NYTimes story on the Duelfer report to see what I mean.

    Pseudo-Cheney, I’d point you to Gorbachev’s comments on the arms race, but your postings are so darn cute. “Gosh, I guess they just ran out of money by magic.  Odd, too, since they were one of the largest countries, with vast resources.  Where did the money go if not to its infrastructure?”

    And I thought it was going to be a slow posting day . . .

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  10:20 AM

  16. Does that mean he somehow tricked Democrats, Republicans, other countries like Britain, Russia, France, and even the UN itself into thinking that Hussein had used WMD’s before, would use them again, and very likely did have them before the invasion?

    No. There were varying degrees of suspicion that Hussein had not been fully above-board in his dealings with the weapons inspectors. And, in fact, he had not. It’s a mighty big stretch from those suspicions to “thinking that Hussein...very likely did have them before the invasion.” Bush and Blair chose to make that stretch, the other aforementioned parties did not. Turns out France, Russia et al. were right to be cautious. They were right, and we were wrong.

    And now that we know that there are no weapons, and there were none before the invasion, the best you can come up with is “well, the French thought so too.” The French didn’t choose to invade Iraq, Jorge, we did.

    Hans Blix said just yesterday that had his team been given just a few more months to continue with the inspections, he would have been able to certify that Iraq, in fact, had no WMDs. That’s what the UN wanted. It’s what France and Russia and the overwhelming majority of world opinion wanted. But for reasons known only to true initiates like yourself, that just wasn’t good enough: we had to invade, and we had to do it NOW.

    I’ve never heard that decision adequately defended, Jorge. No supporter of the Iraq invasion one has ever explained to my satisfaction why we couldn’t have given Hans Blix 6 more months to do his job. Would you like to try?

    Posted by  on  10/07  at  10:43 AM

  17. Uncle Kvetch, I’ll have a try at it, but I want to take care of some things like straw men and red herrings.  First, the straw man is yours.

    Tell me, just where do you see me saying “the French thought so, too” as a defense of going into Iraq? I gave the reference to France in a response to the suggestion that Bush “lied,” not in a defense of the invasion.  And, the Duelfer report just out supports my claim that most other countries, including France, Germany, Russia, previous US adminstrations, and even the UN, all believed that Iraq did have WMD’s.  So Bush and Blair were not alone in that “stretch” you talk about.  They (as well as other countries-- shout out to Poland, dawg) did, however, make the “stretch” from near universal assumptions about WMD’s to the invasion.  Two different things.

    The red herrings?  All over the place.  This line of postings started because I pointed out that Cheney et. al. never made an explicit connection between Hussein and 9/11, only between Hussein and the war on terrorism.  But somehow, the argument turned into me defending the rationale for the war, defending charges that I invoke France as a legitimation of the invasion, and so on.  Fun is fun, kids, but let’s not shirk simple duties here. 

    As for Uncle’s challenge, the reason why no one has satisfactorily responded is because you are the only one with such peculiar faith in the magic of Blix.  Do you seriously think that one or two more inspections would have done the trick?  One more sanction would have taught Hussein a lesson?  Are you really surprised that Blix is sure that he was close to solving the problem?  Hell, if he was just months away from discovering the absence of WMD’s, I was months away from the NFL draft, for that matter.  Do you really think that Hussein, after playing the entire world for fools for a decade, would suddenly turn to Blix, roll his eyes, get all warm and fuzzy and say “Gee, Blix, I can’t lie to you anymore-- you’re just so darn persistent”???  Aren’t you simply operating based on the conjecture that we “could” have found that absence of WMD’s?

    You suggest that the invasion was done on the basis of a “could.” Given the legitmacy of perceptions at the time, why gamble with WMD’s, terrorists, and maniacal dictators on the basis of a “could”?

    Not convinced of those “higher standards” you’re touting . . .

    Oh, and the first one to post something along the lines of “Come on, guys, lay off Jorge.  He’s getting upset,” is a Nader voter.

    Posted by  on  10/08  at  04:40 AM

  18. This line of postings started because I pointed out that Cheney et. al. never made an explicit connection between Hussein and 9/11, only between Hussein and the war on terrorism.

    Bullshit. He repeatedly drew explicit connections between Hussein and al-Qaeda, and in the process repeatedly drew an implicit connection between Hussein and 9/11. You know this.

    I’m not bothering with the rest of your post--you’re obviously not taking any of this seriously.

    Posted by  on  10/08  at  11:57 AM

  19. Uncle Kvetch-- let’s see, you said that Cheney “repeatedly drew explicit connections between Hussein and al-Qaeda,” and I said that “Cheney et. al.” only made “an explicit connection . . . between Hussein and the war on terrorism,” or, to be specific, on al-Qaeda. Hmmm, we agree there.

    You said that Cheney “drew an implicit connection between Hussein and 9/11.” Let’s see, implicit is pretty much the opposite of explicit.  Let’s look at what I said.  I said “Cheney et.al. never made an explicit connection between Hussein and 9/11.” Hmmm, we agree there, too. 

    How do you blame Cheney for the inference that can be drawn?  How does one merely “imply” such a specific thing like a direct connection between 9/11 and Hussein?  Can’t you just imply things only in general? What, did he wink at the camera during interviews whenever he talked about it?  Did he ever say something like “I am not saying that there is not a connection, know what I mean?” If so, I missed that.

    I think we a have an agreement about the disagreement-- you blame Cheney for an inference you draw, while I credit Cheney for leaving some wiggle room when it comes to that topic.

    Enjoyed the discussion, Uncle, and I hope you did as well.  Have a good weekend.  And to Michael, hearty congrats on the book.  I’ll be sure to pick it up soon.

    Posted by  on  10/08  at  03:50 PM

  20. So what then is your point Jorge? Other than indulging an obviously large ego in what is really a case of academic hair-splitting (after all “the organization and its actions are two different things for the sake of argument") that you seem to have abandoned (maybe its just the choice of words, but “some wiggle room” seems to me to undo the rather hard and fast distinctions you claim “for the sake of argument") here in the end, I’m really at a loss to understand what you ever hoped to prove or even argue. Very sad…

    By the way, you might want to consult a dictionary. Implicit is not the opposite of explicit, your rather weak qualification ("pretty much") notwithstanding. Indeed, one might even use them to the same effect as when one makes an explicit declaration of their implicit distrust of Cheney, et. al. because of a consistent effort on his and other administration officials part to allow an incorrect inference to be drawn. You might want to read over the report Rep. Henry Waxman prepared awhile back detailing the pattern of behavior that lays the ground for making such problematic inferences. Find it at

    http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/ pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

    You’ll need to cut and paste it into one line. I’m not technically proficient enough make it all work as a link.

    Ta.

    Posted by  on  10/08  at  08:04 PM

  21. George, after you first posting, I thought that I would have so much to learn from you, but you have let me down dramatically. 

    First, you call me a hair-splitter, but then you split hairs with my assessment of the difference between explicit and implicit.  I found a dictionary, and what do you know, I am right.  There is a difference. Explicit, ("explicare," to unfold) means to state directly.  Implicit ("implicare" to involve) means understood, not expressed, or implied.  The former is directly stating a thing; the latter is not directly stating a thing.

    Now, here’s where it goes bad for you.  Your citation of Nostrildomus’s report (which I had to find at talkleft.com’s archives, though thanks for the link) actually proves me right.  You cite him as a source, though he is splitting hairs by saying that the administration did not use “essential qualifiers.” However, his report only shows how the White House put forth Iraq as a possible future threat to America.  Notice my word “future” there.  The attacks of September 11th happened before, in the “past.”

    The closest we come to seeing Cheney make a link from Saddam to the “past” 9/11 atacks is on page 30 of the report, with a statement Cheney made on September 14, 2003.  It regards Czech reports that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague a few months before the 9/11 attacks. He said:

    “With respect tp 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there.  The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.  We just don’t know.”

    Somebody tell me how “we’ve never been able to confirm or discredit it” actually means “you betcha it’s true”???  Again, Cheney said “We just don’t know.” That’s not an implicit statement that Iraq or Hussein had a connection to the “past” attacks of 9/11.  That’s not even an explicit statement about a connection.  That’s a statement saying that no connection betwen Hussein and Iraq can be confirmed or denied. 

    Ego has nothing to do with it, so leave the ad hominem attacks out of this discussion.  I’m right.  That’s the point I am making.

    Posted by  on  10/09  at  02:07 PM

  22. Blah, blah, blah...Whatever.

    Posted by  on  10/09  at  06:03 PM

  23. Jorge, Jorge, Jorge...Here’s one that’s a little more current than the one you cite:

    “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.”

    That’s Cheney on January 9 of this year in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News.

    Here’s another little chestnut from 2003 by the same:

    “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.”

    And then finally this little nugget:

    “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).

    Now let’s turn to the definition you so painfully dug up from the dictionary: “Explicit, ("explicare," to unfold) means to state directly.¬† Implicit ("implicare" to involve) means understood, not expressed, or implied.¬† The former is directly stating a thing; the latter is not directly stating a thing.” According to your own offered definition, both explicit and implicit make statements about “a thing.” Further, nothing in the definition that you offer forbids that thing from being the same thing. Now pay attention here Jorge, cause this is where you show yourself to be a fucking moron. The “difference” that you point out as existing between explicit and implicit is not in the object but rather in the manner by which that object is expressed; one “directly” states a thing, the other “is not directly stating a thing.” There are thus two different ways to refer to the same thing, only one of which requires any sort of direct statement.

    Now I could go into a discussion of how the above quotes make indirect (or implicit) connections between 9/11 and Iraq, but I frankly I think any such discussion would be lost on you as your ability to deploy, and understand, language and how it works both in the real world and in the space reserved “for the sake of argument” seems really rather limited. First year undergraduates have a better understanding of, and ability to recognize, implicit and explicit statements than you do. If you can’t see the statement that Iraq formed the “geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11” as an implicit, if not explicit, connection between Iraq and 9/11, then I should demand a refund of what little money you spent on your “education” as clearly it didn’t take.

    Posted by  on  10/09  at  09:06 PM

  24. Hate to break up a good party, folks, but I think it’s time to move on.  And if anyone says, “let me finish,” I’m going to suspect they’re wearing an earpiece.

    Posted by Michael  on  10/10  at  04:43 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Finally, real progress in Iraq!

Previous entry: Mixed messages

<< Back to main