Powered by TypePad

« Two New AIDS Drugs | Main | "The Note II" - Seven Days After Hearing About It, You Die... Of Boredom »

February 28, 2007



1st law of journalism: Always protect your source. Unless it is a Republican.


I agree with Gideon. Always protect your source, unless it's a Replublican. Clearly, Judy Miller would have stayed in jail much longer if she were protecting a Democrat. Just proves how biased the New York Times is.

As for Cheney. I'm a voter. I'm a taxpayer. I'm therefore glad that he works so hard to keep us all so well informed. If he were such a bad guy, as the BSD lefties think, then why wold he go out of his way to provide a briefing. Hiding his identity as the source of this info is no trick, but rather it is necessary so that he can speak and keep us well informed.

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

He should wear a costume when he does these anonymous briefings. I know they sell Bill Clinton halloween masks, that would be a good twist. "According to an anonymous source who bore a strong resemblance to a recent President, the United States has no plan to invade Iran at this time."

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report


Is this a parody?


We are big poys and girls. We can take it. Cheney does not need to use trickery and media manipulation when he lies to us. He can just look us in the eye and lie to use directly.


He can just look us in the eye and lie to use directly.

Ya mean like Clinton used to do?

Give me an example of Cheney lying, please.


Give me an example of Cheney lying, please.

HaHa. Is this a parody?

How about the claim that British withdrawal is a good news for U.S. (and happy news for all the additional U.S. troops being sent into the middle of a civil war).

Or how about claims that Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq had operational relationship prior to 9/11.


Nice try

Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime indisputably harbored terrorists and supported terrorism. Under the Bush Doctrine that won resounding bipartisan assent in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and that remains as worthy today as it was back then, that should have been more than enough to justify deposing Saddam, even if there had not been ample evidence of — and decisive consensus about — his intentions and wherewithal regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Yet, although there should be few, if any, matters more important to national security than boring into the linkage between Iraq and militant Islamic terror, the very idea of linkage has been discredited. Thanks to a withering campaign waged by ideological opponents of U.S. military operations against Iraq — led by the mainstream media, partisans such as former Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, and disgruntled factions of the so-called intelligence community whose anonymous carping to sympathetic journalists has now reached a fever pitch — conventional wisdom now holds that secular Saddam could not conceivably have collaborated with Osama bin Laden's jihadist network.

It is, however, pigheaded blindness masquerading as wisdom. There are abundant strands of connection. It is, moreover, breathtakingly irresponsible for the press generally, and for an intelligence community purportedly dedicated to securing America from further attacks, to be ignoring or dismissing countless salient questions, rather than moving heaven and earth to answer them. There is good reason to think we have convicted several terrorists in this country on less proof than already exists regarding Saddam's Iraq. What's more, these linkage questions are not going away.


The Brits are moving their troops to Afghanistan where they are more needed. Basra is under control, Kandahar isn't.

Saddam was playing paddy-cake with AQ, hosting meetings, etc.


Salman Pak

Charlie (Colorado)

Goddamn idiot.


Wow, I had never thought of the self referential third person phenomena in that light. I wonder if Bob Dole's penchant for doing so was partly the result of this.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the folks who actually carry this over in to public commenting must have been doing an excessive amount of background talking over the years.





Abe, I refuse to call you earnest your just full of BS.

This is just three article that show your talking points are full of shit. Those links don't exist because you haven't spent even a minute to find out if they do exist.


Or how about claims that Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq had operational relationship prior to 9/11.

Go find a quote of VP Cheney for this BS. You'll never find it because he never said that. Go through ever speech he ever made looking, it could do you some good reading a intelligent man words instead of the mindless pre-programmed talking points you drivel.


royf (1:07) says,

"Or how about claims that Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq had operational relationship prior to 9/11.
Go find a quote of VP Cheney for this BS"

Okie dokie, royf, no problem! Here is just one from way back in October 2004, from MSNBC:

Cheney’s claims about an “established relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda were always a principal part of the administration’s case for war, cited by Powell at the United Nations and, most forcefully, by Cheney in numerous speeches and TV interviews before and after the invasion. But it is also a contention that has been seriously undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

You can find video of Cheney lying right here:

If you need more video examples, just do a Google search.


Or how about claims that Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq had operational relationship prior to 9/11.

Still waiting for you to show VP Cheney making that claim.

These are connections! As recorded by Andrew C McCarty. There's much more including the two translated documents I listed above, which are just a few of the millions which were capture from Iraq intelligence offices.

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.



That’s not the way I work,” said Mr. Cheney, violating the first rule of conducting a background interview: never refer to yourself in the first person, when it makes it obvious who is talking.

It seems that someone protecting their source on a background interview would eliminate direct quotes and change the pronoun. Surely they do that all the time. Like:
Our source said, "that isn't the way" Cheney works.
They were too cute by half on this one.

The comments to this entry are closed.