NYTimes editorial: "SHOW US THE PROOF"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/opinion/19SAT1.html

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

<snip>

Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to "tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable" to the public, but that "his job is to connect the dots."

The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there's more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I posted this in GD earlier today, but it quickly sank, of course. Anyway, I'm glad to see the NYT come out with this -- although it would be ALOT more impressive if it was being published on SUNDAY rather than Saturday.

sw

:kick:

He has Mary Matalin as an advisor. That explains a lot.

eom

:kick:

Just got home from a party full of old hippies (like me), so here's one more kick...

:kick:

sw
:hippie:

It turns out the according to cell phone records, Mohamed Atta was in the US during the period when the meeting was suppose to take place. There are no INS records of Mohamed Atta leaving the country at that time either.

:bounce:

"(W)e were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial."

Ah yes, the paper of record (clearly by default, not by merit) -- a newspaper whose capacity for denial about the Bush Administration's peculiarities was prodigious -- itself registers surprise at the Bush Administration's deep and ferocious capacity for denial.

Just who is enabling all this denial? Can they get group therapy rates?

the 9/11 commission came out and said no link between sadam and 9/11, and no relative link between sadam and bin Laden. Later that week, Vice President Cheney once again confirmed the lie by stated that Sadam had ties to both bin Laden and 9/11. Cheney directly contradicted the findings of the 9/11 commission, the commission that has a sole goal of providing the truth to the American people, and the Vice President of the United States is totally disagreeing with the results. Why isn't there much more media attention directed towards this. We were attacked by al-Qaida, yes, we should bomb the hell out of them. If I saw bin Laden in the street, I would kill him on the spot, but, and this but is huge, part of the reason why many Americans felt positive towards a war in Iraq was the assumed connection between sadam and bin laden. I mean, hearing my Prez and VP tell me that the most heinous act of my generation was supported by sadam, I was all for going to war. That all changed with the commissions report...yet, we hear close to nothing in the papers. This simple lack of a link could cause an avalanche of political turmoil for the Bush administration, yet most Americans are not seeing the truth. The administration is continuing in its lie, and most Americans are hearing that lie and believing as I once did.

Bush lied and sent our troops to die in a war that many Americans don't believe in. Clinton lied about his personal life, did not benefit from his lie, nor did he risk American lives. Bush's Administration is receiving dividends based on their actions and based on lying to the American people. Why does the majority of Americans continue to believe the lie? Because no one is telling them otherwise.