Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link [OUTRAGEOUS Spin From Washington Post - FREEP IN ORDER]

Washington Post ^ | 18 September 2003 | Dana Milbank

[kayak]

ping

[Miss Marple]

Dana Milbank again. Why am I not surprised?

Freepers should not believe any story this man writes. His sole mission in life is to tear down the President. He has hated him since 2000 election (see Bill Sammon's book Fighting Back for details on his behavior as a member of the press pool).

It is high time we started digging up stuff on Milbank. In fact, I believe I will start doing so later this morning.

[anglian]

This has GOT to be a feeding frenzy for them. Check out this carp! And the comments! What th...? So now he tells us: Bush admits no Iraqi link to Sept. 11
"With those attacks" on Sept. 11, Bush said, "the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

McClellan said the president did not intend to suggest that Iraq was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks.

What horses--t. He may not have come out and stated that Hussein was involved, but he most certainly implied that he could have been. This is from State of the Union address back in January.

---

Poster-Re: What th...? So now he tells us: Bush admits no Iraqi link to Sept. 11 (Score: 1)
by regular_joe3_0 on Thursday, September 18 @ 11:26:47 EDT
(User Info)

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said, definitively knocking down a link that Bush's critics charge he and his administration have intimated and benefited from in prosecuting the war on Iraq.

BULL----!

In his letter to the Congress justifying the war in Iraq, Smirk stated unequivocally that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?thold=-1&mode=nested&order=0&sid=13009#80848 What ammo can refute these savage comments at this site!!!

[anglian]

Forget it! I got a head-ache just from visiting the place!

[Stultis]

My email, dashed off this morning to the ombudsman with a cc to Milbank:

How did this ever get by an editor? The entire substance of this "news" story is a non-sequitor: that in affirming the existence of evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to al Qaeda, and to other terrorists, President Bush's administration was somehow trying to "imply" a link between Saddam and the 911 attacks. But how does this follow? Linkage between Iraq and terrorism generally, Iraq and al Qaeda specifically, and Iraq and 911 are all distinguishable issues, and the administration has distinguished them, and has repeatedly and consistently asserted that there IS compelling evidence of the first two, and that there is NOT, to date, evidence of the last.

At least Milbank attributes the gratuitous claim of attempted implication (if somewhat airily) to "Democrats and some public opinion experts," but the equally gratuitous assertion that the administration has previously been "vague" about the evidentiary status of a Saddam/911 link is made directly by Milibank. The quotes adduced to this claim are laughable in their inadequacy: e.g. "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Gee, is it supposed to be controversial that the Middle East is the geographic base of Middle Eastern terrorism?

I submit that there is no "vagueness" in the public record. The administration has many times asserted Iraq/terrorism links, but has also many times noted the absence of evidence linking Iraq to 911. This is NOT a new or novel assertion. Milbank has constructed a NEWS story out of an EDITORIAL OPINION (and a dubious one at that) attributing "vagueness" to a public record that is clear and consistent. Is it now considered acceptable practice at the Washington Post to slip Op-Eds into the news section?

Finally, as to the headline and lead sentence, and to put the whole matter more succinctly, how can someone DISavow a position never avowed in the first place?

[Miss Marple]

Excellent letter. Now that I have breakfast made for my husband, I think I will do a little bit of investigating Mr. Milbank. Back in a bit.

[Miss Marple]

Well, here is the biography attached to the review of his book about the 2000 election:

Dana Milbank is a staff political writer for the Style section of the Washington Post, for which he covers the presidential campaign. He appears regularly as a guest commentator on Andrea Mitchell's show on MSNBC and other programs. He was previously senior editor at The New Republic, where he was the magazine's White House correspondent, and before that a staff writer at the Wall Street Journal. A graduate of Yale University, Milbank lives in Washington, D.C.

I wonder just exactly when he came to the Washington Post.

[Miss Marple]

Milbank was at The New Republic in 1999. Here is a long review of his questionable writing taste in which the critic castigates Milbank for his repeated use of sexual innuendo when describing the primary candidates, including using pedophile metaphors when describing then Governor Bush:

Milbank up for Silver Sewer

[Stultis]

I stand corrected wrt earlier comments. I was thinking he'd been at the Post through Bush's presidency, which is apparently not the case. However he has been covering Bush via one venue or another since the campaign.

[Stultis]

innuendo that Saddam was associated with 9-11

Such as? You get this assertion alot, but never an example that really pans out.

[calvin sun]

In other news, Bush today admitted that there is no evidence that the earth is flat...

[Matchett-PI]

"So, obviously, if Bush, or any adminstration official, really had said anything even remotely like what you describe, the 'Rats would be hitting him over the head with it daily. But they aren't. They have nothing. Read the damn article and see for yourself how Milbank tries to make this case."

It's maddening, but save your breath, you're attempting to use reason with easy to sway this way and that, non-critical thinkers. It's like being in a boat with one-armed boat-rowers.

[Mo1]

So let me get this strait. Dana Milibank, Bush hater, writes a column in which he lies about the claims of the Bush administration, and now publishes this as some sort of "clarification"? He should be fired.

He'll just blame that on Bush too

[Matchett-PI]

"Bush most definitely did say that we had found WMDs in Iraq - he said so during a press conference in Poland. But what he meant was those infamous weather balloon trucks." ~ BlackVeil

A little tip of the iceberg walk down memory lane, up and to including today:

April 15, 2003

Time to Get Serious with Syria
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/893412/posts

May 3, 2003 [excerpts]:

"The May 3 meeting in the presidential palace on the hilltop overlooking Damascus was short and to the point.

Secretary of State Colin Powell.... told the Syrian president that the United States *requires* him to help in the search for hidden Iraqi weapons.

The United States believes the weapons were taken in convoys of tanker trucks to Syria last fall, along with key production equipment, and buried in the Syrian desert shortly before U.N. arms inspectors returned to Iraq.

Powell demanded that Syria locate and turn over Iraqi weapons scientists and top-ranking Ba'ath Party officials who had been granted sanctuary by Syria once Gulf War II began.

He also summoned Assad to close terrorist offices in Damascus and to shut down terrorist training camps in Lebanon.

Even more chilling for Assad: Powell informed him, and repeated this demand in public in Beirut, that the United States expected Syria to end its 27-year military occupation of Lebanon, where it continues to control all prime ministers and puppet presidents in utter defiance of the popular will. ...

....President George W. Bush had warned Syria on April 14 that the United States knew it was hiding Iraqi weapons and "we expect cooperation." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had accused Syria during the war of resupplying Iraqi forces with weapons, including night-vision goggles, and revealed that Syria had conducted chemical-weapons tests last year. ...

... His message was simple: We know where you are hiding the weapons, the scientists and the terrorist bases. Give them up, or we will go get them ourselves. ... [snip]
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/437029.html

June 13, 2003

SYRIA: Powell Asks Syria to Stop Terror Groups
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/928581/posts

June 29, 2003

Saddam's top aide organised suicide squads on Syria trip
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937413/posts?page=16#16

September 17, 2003

Official: Syria Seeking Banned Weapons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/984062/posts

"..Asked ..if this would include regime change in Syria, Bolton replied the administration preferred diplomacy "but I am not taking any option off the table." [snip]

September 19, 2003

U.S., Britain split on Assad
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985395/posts

UK sold chemicals, night-vision equipment to Syria (UK boycotts Israel, supplies arms to Syria)
Jerusalem Post ^ | Apr. 6, 2003 | Douglas Davis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886480/posts

More:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920692/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921005/posts?page=39#39
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921194/posts?page=49#49

[Samurai_Jack]

I'm going to find his quotes. Some people have really short memories

I hope you will pardon the foul language but...

"What horseshit. He may not have come out and stated that Hussein was involved, but he most certainly implied that he could have been. This is from Shrub's State of the Union address back in January.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?thold=-1&mode=nested&order=0&sid=13009#80848

This is an excerpt from the 'smoking chimp' website

They cannot find it either

[Kaslin]

You are quoting from smirkingchimp.com? You might as well have included a altered picture of the president from bartcop.com

[shhrubbery!]

Good collection of articles, but what the Titanic Woman (aka Molly Brown) asserted in post 8 was even more more of a lie than what Milbank and BlackVeil are trying to foist on us --

--namely "that Bush did in fact say that he had proof that Iraq was involved in Sept 11th...And he would show is the proof in the future."

[Peach]

BTTT. We made them publish a correction last week - let's go to it this week.