Math_Mage on March 24, 2008 at 10:41 PM

First off, you didn’t bring a link so your claim has no credibility.

The fact that the hijackers learned to fly commercial passenger planes in US flight schools is a well known fact. You would have to agree with that. You would probably also have to agree that this is the most advanced skill needed to carry out the attack.

you subscribe to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

The argument you are making is precisely why not a single US government oficial was ever held responsible for allowing the tragedy to occur. At the very least, the National Security Advisor, CIA Director and FBI Director should have been fired the next day. Of course where would we be now without Condie….

jp on March 24, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Telling someone that he is an idiot is terribly rude. You ought to learn some manners.

The evidence for terrorist training taking place at Salman Pak is inconclusive at best and disproved at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility
There is a link for you. There are plenty of references in the article. Feel free to contribute to this article if you feel it’s missing important factual evidence.

tx2654 It’s the job of the President to make sure they can’t ignore it. We are at war, we have people fighting and dying in the field, and the Bush administration has been either terminally timid or arrogant in failing to get the pro-war message out there….

funky chicken on March 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM

I wonder how much it’s his boob handlers, scared of their own shadow, or arrogantly thinking they know what’s best.

Whenever Bush says some things unscripted, he seems pretty forceful in what he wants done in Iraq.

The lower level flunkies should be pushing the same message. Rather than doing that, they are conceding whatever the media’s message is by staying silent.

coldwater on March 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM

First off, you didn’t bring a link so your claim has no credibility. Second off, our support for Islamists in the Middle East was based on a war with Russia. I think its hame shares some common elements with your handle. Third off, you subscribe to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy – you say that we trained terrorists to fly planes, and the terrorists then chose to fly planes through our buildings, therefore it’s our fault. In the context of the war in Afghanistan during the latter stages of the Cold War, that’s like giving a man a gun to defend himself against someone invading his home and then blaming yourself when he decides to shoot you.

Anyway, the reason Bush doesn’t bring this up is because he can’t. Plain and simple. Any speeches Bush makes about the Pentagon’s findings will immediately discredit them in the eyes of anyone who doesn’t already believe there was a link between Saddam and AQ, because to those people anything with Bush’s stench about it is dirty and worthless. The only way for this to take hold at all is if it is perceived as independent from Bush, and for that to happen Bush can’t give any statements reminding people that this was done by people under him. That’ll just evoke the “well, they were wrong about WMDs in Iraq” image in most people’s minds. It’s gotten to the point where the government can’t release anything that might indicate that the enemy has something (this), but when it releases something that denies that possibility (the Iran “intel” report) it gains instant credibility. Sad, really.

btw, google Salman Pak and “fussle lodge” sometime

Should we have bombed and invaded ourselves instead of Iraq as revenge for training 911 hijackers???? A ludicrous proposition, but one that makes as much sense as still clinging to the Iraq Al-Qaeda “links” as a valid Iraq war justification.

PierreLegrand on March 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM

the game the left plays with that is that there is no proven connection to 9/11 specifically and Saddam. This is how they dumb down this entire issue by grandstanding, completely blurring the facts that saddam was in fact in bed with Al-Qaeda, though we have no proof of 9/11 specifically, but with other acts we definitely do.

This is why the admin. is afraid to take this issue on, this is how the left will spin it in their favor and with our media and their dominance of the national dialogue, they win with the avg. voter and what they take away from it.

They said Saddam supported terror, the press corps accused them of claiming Saddam was behind 9/11. They said there was no proof of that, the press corps said they admitted Saddam had no terror connection. It’s the exact same principle they use to twist “Saddam had extensive terror ties” into “Saddam didn’t support Bin Laden” as a headline – whoever did that must have been a pretty revolting person.

The press corps pretty much lies its ass off constantly, and while it may have been a bad decision, I think the Bush admin just decided to minimize their involvement with the press. The press have constantly complained that Bush doesn’t talk to the press enough… would you, if all they ever did was lie about what you said?

It would REALLY be nice to have someone in such a high office willing to take the press corps to task, to call them on their lies and distortions, and to tell them what awful liars they’ve become… I just don’t see it happening, sadly.

That is a crazy understanding. Besides not being accurate. The Administration time and time again pooh poohed the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Indeed they even went against Cheney when he responded to a question of Tim Russert.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

So then you might think that the administration would back up the Vice President…you would be wrong.

When asked about Cheney’s statement both the President and the Sec of Defense acted like he had lost his marbles. Notice these marvelous quotes:

Rumsfeld: I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that. We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no.

Not wanting to be left of the fun the President steps up to the plate and agrees with Rumsfeld that there is no link. As if in 2003 those two clowns actually had all the evidence before them. It is pitiful. Cheney was the only professional among them.

So no the case was lost because of dumbness not some diabolical deviousness by the President. We should be so lucky that the guy who invited terrorists to the White House the week after 9/11 was smart enough to be all those things I believed he was. Hell I thought he was putting us on when he declared that Islam was the Religion of Peace…no indeedy not. That knucklehead actually believes that nonsense. Holy smokes and there are some that ascribe brilliant strategy to him? I used to and but not anymore now I understand he just gets lucky every now and again and that there are a few adults around him that prevent him from running with scissors.

Bitter??? Yea a bit.

I remember a while back when Tony Snow was asked about why the Bush admin wasn’t pushing the findings in the captured Iraqi documents. He replied to the effect that they “didn’t want to open that can of worms again.”
People sacrifice so much, fight and die, and these people don’t have the guts to run their mouths in their defense. Pathetic.

tomk59 on March 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM

More coverage this week on how the mainstream media continues to ignore Saddam’s ties to terrorists. The trend since the invasion of Iraq has been toward painting Saddam as some innocent angel scrambling to comply with UN Resolutions while Bush s…

The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose “emir” was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.

This is the link.. Ayman al-Zawahiri, he was just out with a new video..

Sonosam on March 24, 2008 at 3:18 PM

my only problem with this, is its part of why conservatism is fractured. many of the social con and fiscal cons that don’t follow this stuff closely and are paleo- leaning conservtives have bought into the misinformation and lies on the matter. They think we went to war because of WMD and to “nation build” only and are blaming the ‘neo-cons’ for the republican electoral troubles.

I think the strategy is to rely on peoples good sense who support us.

The A-holes that ignore the truth are many and not worth the time at this point, it just gives them the attention they crave.

You can not, you will not be able to persuade a democrat loyalist. They simply reject anything that does not support their conclulsions. They will not re-evaluate their conclusions, because they can not comprehend the possiblility that they might be wrong.

Indeed. This admin. gets low grades on communication. They are a total failure on this facet of the war, and on other significant topics. That no one can clarify this to the president is very telling.

Iranian IEDs? Should have been hammered by the admin…
Iranian training camps? sam…

and this….

They don’t seem to understand the Power of the American Public.

one hopes that the White House will soon find the stomach for challenging the distortions more effectively and energetically than what we’re seeing now.

If they weren’t willing to do it when the Dems in Congress at least had a chance of cutting off the funding, why would they do it now?

I’m still dumbfounded as to why the administration has completely laid down on this issue.