If this sounds familiar it is because the nation has been lead down this road before, Bush ties Iran, Al-Qaeda, among ‘greatest threats’
US President George W. Bush on Thursday lumped Iran with the Al-Qaeda terrorist group as “two of the greatest threats to America in this new century” and said both hoped for a US defeat in Iraq.
I’m not sure who has who’s hand up who’s back. McCain has recently confused or purposely conflated AQ with Iran. While Bush is not on record as saying that Iraq was connected to 9-11 he and Cheney both have carefully massaged their rheoric over the years in speech after speech always speaking of Iraq and AQ in the same context. Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
Bush’s opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer’s congressional report on the attacks states, “The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias.”
Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq’s “weapons of terror,” Bush said: “If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.”
Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 –– and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions.”
It is not unusual to still see Bush supporters take two different tacks in discussing Iraq. That Iraq had connections to 9-11 or defenders that will claim that neither Bush or Cheney has tried to connect the two. Those same apologists and perennially misinformed have reason to celebrate at this recycled attempt to cast all Middle-East issues as an us versus them narrative. As recently as this past January much of the public doesn’t know who is who, 5 Years Ago: Why Was Public So Misinformed on Facts Leading to War?
In a Jan. 7 Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll, 44% of respondents said they thought “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17% of those polled offered the correct answer: none. This was remarkable in light of the fact that, in the weeks after 9/11, few Americans identified Iraqis among the culprits. So the level of awareness on this issue actually plunged as time passed. Is it possible the media failed to give this appropriate attention?
There is little wonder then that if on his way out the door Bush is relying on the same propaganda techniques that made his first go round so successful. This is frequently defended by the Doug Feith of right-wing historians like the National Review’s Victor Hanson as Bush’s great vision of a “contextual” battle against terrorism. In other words if you had a mosquito infestation and and raccoons in your chimney they’d be spraying the raccoons with bug repellent.
The Iraqi government has dismissed 1,300 soldiers and policemen who deserted or refused to fight during last month’s Shiite-on-Shiite battles in Basra, it said Sunday.
Click your ruby slippers together and say we’re making great progress in Iraq.
“You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I’m from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they’re gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they’ve been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country’s coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, ‘What happened to everybody’s job? What happened to everybody’s income? What … have … you … done … to … our … country?'”
Why Bill Clinton can be a hero of the working class for a presidency that represented those sentiments and Barack can’t is a mystery the media needs to explain.
Conservative John Podhoretz has been irrelevant for years unless you think his alleviation of racism and greed to mystic cult is worthy of praise. That doesn’t seem to stop him from making a regular fool of himself, He declares that Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. In which Pod-man doesn’t realize what a ringing endorsement that is.