White House paparazzi still claiming a "relationship." SH and AMZ still say they're "just friends."
The Center for American Progress' Judd Legum has been sending us updates on Vice President Cheney's attempts to keep positing a relationship between Saddam Hussein and the late Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, despite the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report's conclusions to the contrary. White House press secretary Tony Snow has now gotten into the act.
Back in the prewar period, the claim of a Zarqawi/Saddam relationship was for me the tipoff that there was something fishy about the case for invading Iraq. It was clear even then that Zarqawi was operating in areas of the country Saddam didn't control, and the close-enough-for-government-work argument that Hey, they're both in the same country! was a pretty big red flag about the rest of the case—most of which was even more shielded in national security pettifoggery than the Zarqawi stuff. (The intelligence committee report does note that Zarqawi once entered Baghdad under an assumed name and that Saddam tried to catch him. Iran hawks will be pleased to note that he also seems to have spent some time in Iran.) Now that a Senate controlled by the president's own party has taken the last plank out of this creaky platform, it's time for the White House to abandon it.
Not that I think there's much chance that any minds will change as a result of the report. By my calculation, we can now fit the American electorate into three neat groups: One-third believe Saddam was behind 9/11. One-third believe the U.S. government was behind 9/11. And one third can't believe it's not butter.
And lest you think that's too simple, remember that this still leaves us with more constituencies than there are major political parties.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's butter, dammit!
And Dick Cheney is controlled by Space Aliens who implanted a controller in him when he was SecDef.
I keep trying and trying, but I just can't figure out what that naked guy with the bush on his head (I think he's supposed to be some celeb, but I can't think of his name and don't care) has to do with this blog entry.
That's Fabio, and as far as I'm concerned he belongs in any serious discussion of bass-ackwards political buffoonery.
The idea that Saddam's secular dictatorship was in league with Al Qaeda is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that has achieved the widest acceptance in the USA, thanks to Bush, Cheney, and the radio talk show echo chamber.
Fine. Let's put Saddam Hussein back into power and try Fabio for genocide.
I can't help but think that a substantial portion of the "Iraq behind 9/11" group is just composed of people who are ignorant about geography. The numbers for "Iran behind 9/11" would probably work out roughly the same.
Where didja get my pic???????
Using the logic of Cheney and Snow, it could be said that Bush had the same type of relationship with the 9/11 hijackers. There can be no doubt that they were in the same country.
I can't help but think that a substantial portion of the "Iraq behind 9/11" group is just composed of people who are ignorant about geography. The numbers for "Iran behind 9/11" would probably work out roughly the same.
LOL, if you asked people was Mohammed Al-Rhamdi or Farooq Abu Fareed was behind 9/11 I'd bet you would get 20-30% of people not wanting to seem ignorant of current affairs saying yes.
What's with the photo of Pectoral Jesus?
Yet another revelation that was obvious to anyone paying attention three and half years ago.
How much crap have people who noticed this problem taken from the Wrong About Everything Party during that time?