Bush defends his credibility on Iraq-al-Qaida

[UpInArms]

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/ny-usbush0618,0,6765353.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-manhattan

WASHINGTON -- The finding by the 9/11 commission that Iraq and al-Qaida never collaborated to attack the United States has political trouble written all over it for George W. Bush -- and the president, seeming to sense danger, is striking back hard.

The commission's conclusion threatens to undermine one of the remaining rationales for Bush's decision to wage war in Iraq: that the prospect of an alliance between a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's minions was too dangerous to risk.

With no weapons of mass destruction found, Iraqi resentment of the U.S. occupation increasing and violence unabated, the commission statement that Hussein and al-Qaida never developed a "collaborative relationship" represents a new blow to the administration's already strained credibility.

Pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center said personal honesty has always been one of Bush's greatest strengths with voters. "The president's credibility is an important issue," Kohut said. "Now if we have, in response to the lack of linkage, more of a belief that Bush was not telling the truth, that they exaggerated or misled the public, it could hurt his credibility."

...more...

Okay, I give. What "credibility" does this single-cell amoeba possess?

[LittleApple81]

1. Answer to your question: None with people who care to think. n/t

[UpInArms]

2. I just had a dreadful time attempting

to read this article - my mind kept making words come that made sense - like here:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaida because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush said.

this one kept reading:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaida is because if I don't there won't be any way for my attorneys to keep me out of the prison at the Hague and I just can't find anyone else to take the fall for my lies and obsfuscations anymore. I have alienated my good and dear biggest contributor Kenny Boy and since Bernie Ebbers lost WorldCom there doesn't seem to be the cash on hand anymore to hire RaceHorse Hanes because I really admired how T. Cullen got off."

[rocketdem]

4. I cannot understand how the race is still tight.

I too believe that anyone who is paying attention and who had an IQ above room temperature would find Bush to be an absolutely ridiculous and terribly dangerous character. Yet the country is still split 50-50.

To me this means two things.

First, too many people just aren't paying attention or only hear what they want to hear.

Second, every article and every news story pounding on this fundamental character issue of honesty and integrity is a good thing. At some point these have to get through, don't they?

[54anickel]

7. Lots of people don't read the news, they only get it from TV and then

just the nightly news shows at 6 and 11. You ever watch those? Just think what your opinion would be if that's all you had to base it on. It's very sad. You would think with the internet and the vast amount of info available people would get a clue. Yet most tend to disbelieve what they read and go soley by what the tube tells them.

[leesa]

11. Or the polls are produced by the same corporate whores as the

evening news. It MUST appear as though they have a hope if they are to steal the race. Otherwise they need to declare Marshall Law and close the borders and initiate the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Do NOT believe these polls. Open your eyes and look around. Talk to people.

[54anickel]

3. He has no credibility or "personal honesty". It's all in the marketing,

sort of like Microsoft. :evilgrin:

Shrub has a great marketing team that could sell a left-nostril inhaler cuz all them others only work for the right nostril. Of course, sad to say, the American public seems pretty easily duped these days by what the idiot box tells them.

[Scairp]

5. Here's what the shrub had to say

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

What a complete butthole he is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

I'm not sure if you have to be registered to read this or not. I happen to be logged in at the WP site.

[UpInArms]

6. here's the Guardian on it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1241520,00.html

Blind to the truth

Leader
Friday June 18, 2004
The Guardian

The Bush administration's reaction to the report of the bipartisan US commission investigating September 11, which has found no evidence of a substantive relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, is a classic case of none being so blind as those who will not see. "We stand by what was said publicly," said the White House spokesman, thus endorsing the stream of loose and contradictory claims made by the president and vice-president as they have thrashed around to justify the Iraq war. A year ago George Bush, in his prematurely triumphal aircraft-carrier speech, asserted that "we've removed an ally of al-Qaida". Last September Dick Cheney called Iraq "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on September 11".

The commission's investigators have done a thorough job, helped by intelligence information as well as open sources, to provide a remarkably full picture of the changing plans, interconnections and movements of the September 11 plotters and the forces behind them. Against this detailed background, the failure to substantiate claims of a serious relationship, beyond some abortive early contacts, between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida - let alone a specific September 11 link - is all the more striking. No evidence is found for the flaky story of a meeting between the chief hijacker, Mohamed Atta, and an Iraqi operative in Prague. The only real contacts between Iraq and Osama bin Laden date back to 1994 - when Iraq failed to respond to requests for help from Bin Laden (who had at an earlier stage sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan).

On Monday Mr Cheney again insisted that Saddam had "long- established ties with al-Qaida", and neo-conservatives are already rallying to attack the commission's findings on the absence of a September 11 link. Yesterday Mr Bush continued to claim that there were "numerous contacts" between Saddam and al-Qaida, though the actual attack had not been "orchestrated". The administration's obstructive attitude to the fact-finding efforts of the commission, which it only set up reluctantly, under pressure from the families of September 11 victims, is hardly surprising. Mr Bush has a vested interest in keeping the American public confused. Most US soldiers in Iraq believe they are fighting the enemy which attacked the twin towers -and this belief may account for some of their abusive behaviour; a Harris poll in late April found that 49% of Americans at home believe there is "clear evidence" of Iraqi support for al- Qaida.

The ugly fact which Mr Bush cannot contemplate - far less let his public know - is that far from scotching the terrorist snake, the war has created new fertile ground for it, with almost daily bombings which can no longer be blamed on "Saddam remnants". In February, the US coalition head, Paul Bremer, warned defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld of a "real step up" of professional terrorism, although US intelligence confesses it still has little clue to the bombers' real identities. Much of it may be "homegrown" acts of suicide by young Iraqis who have been radicalised by the occupation; other operations are blamed on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the militant Jordanian whom Mr Bush this week called "the best evidence" for a connection with al- Qaida. Whatever the reality now, it is hardly logical to cite the terror backlash provoked by the war to justify having launched it.

...more...

[Jack Rabbit]

8. What credibility? Beats me. This article leaves a little to be desired.

The finding by the 9/11 commission that Iraq and al-Qaida never collaborated to attack the United States . . . .

Even Bush admits that Saddam and al Qaida never collaborated to attack the US. That's not the issue.

Bush claims that Saddam and al Qaida were in cahoots. The Commission finds "no credible evidence" to support that.

Think about it. If Saddam and Osama were cooperating, as Bush says, then why wouldn't they have cooperated on the September 11 attacks? If Saddam wanted to use al Qaida as a forward army against the US, then why wouldn't they have plotted September 11 together?

Bush's position makes absolutely no sense. He's lying and he knows he's lying.

Bush brings up the name of Zarqawi, who is associated with Ansar al-Islam, an organization that was active in parts of Iraq under Kurdish control and beyond Saddam's. This is an organization that openly opposed Saddam's regime. How does citing Zarqawi's association with al Qaida implicate Saddam? It doesn't.

And exactly how do "contacts" between Osama and Saddam in 1994 justify an invasion in 2003? Especially when those "contacts" appear to be very one sided. Osama was trying to get Saddam interested and Saddam didn't bite. How does that justify invasion?

[drscm]

9. "personal honesty has always been one of Bush's greatest strengths"

What world are these people living in?

Personal honesty? Is this another one of the phrases that the Repugs have co-opted to mean exactly the opposite of what is said?

Repugs are so easy to read. Just take what they say and turn it around one-hundred and eighty degrees.

When they talk about personal responsibility, its not their responsibility, but every other persons. When they talk about others politicizing issues, know that is what they are doing. When they talk about people seeing themselves as victims, know that they view themselves that way. When they talk about others participating in politics of personal destruction, know that is what they are engaging in. When they talk about fiscal responsibility, they mean others must be fiscally responsible while they break the bank. When they talk about transparency, they mean that others should be transparent while they are utterly opaque. When they talk about honesty, it means that they are lying through their teeth. And so on...

I am so sick of these hypocrites.

[gatlingforme]

18. Personal honesty is not in Bushes character. I do not

understand the article when I read that. That sentence pretty much polarized the guys (Pew Reasearch) point.

[murielm99]

10. "There is a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaida because I

I say so!" - Dubya

That is what he is saying.

End of story, go home. Our Resident has spoken.

This is just like when your mother told you to do something, you asked why, and she said, "BECAUSE I AM YOUR MOTHER."

[gatlingforme]

19. Oh, you just brought back sooo many memories... LOL

[rustydog]

12. Bush has the honor, credibility (GAG) and integrity of Hitler.

perhaps Bush's Reich will collapse just as violently.

[daleo]

13. The BFEE connection

The BFEE were buddies with Saddam in the 80's.
The BFEE were buddies with Ossama in the 80's and early 90's.
The BFEE is the connection. Nothing more. If anything needs to be "taken out", it's them, the BFEE.

[priller]

14. Oh just let him keep talking

The more Bush opens his pie-hole, the more people can see what a complete numbskull he is.

[FlemingsGhost]

15. Can the shit stain even pronounce "credibility?"

"Seeming to sense danger."

Are you kidding me? This shit is laughable.

[radfringe]

16. comes down to one thing

who do you believe?

an administration that "mis-lead" us and blames the CIA/FBI or the 9-11 commission?

assuming for a moment that there is a connection (ala a meeting)between Saddam and Al-qaeda/Bin-Laden

the 9-11 hearings concluded that Saddam "rebuffed" them -- bush*-Cheney point to this as a connection

question: does Saddam meeting with Al-qaeda/Bin-Laden and no evidence that they were into cahoots justify the invasion?

[0rganism]

17. It's working for me! his credibility has already doubled!

Unfortunately, since it was at "zero" before said doubling, I still have my doubts.

[saigon68]

20. HE'S A LIAR