TBogg

John Hinderaker serves up a steaming pile

From the office of J. Hinderaker, Esq. Posted by Picasa

Hinderaker:

What the Democrats fail to mention could fill volumes: Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The resolution itemized many grounds for the action, but participation in the September 11 attacks was not among them. President Bush delivered a series of speeches to the American people in which he outlined the case for deposing Saddam, including, among others, the 2003 State of the Union address and the speech he gave on the eve of the war. In none of these speeches did Bush say that Iraq had been involved in the September 11 attacks. Likewise, Vice-President Bush (sic), Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other administration spokesmen have given any number of speeches on the Iraq war; not once has any of them said that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have given many interviews on the subject of Iraq. They have often been asked about possible connections between Iraq and September 11. On every occasion, they have said that we do not know of any such connection.

What John fails to mention is this:

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: “We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses–three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors–have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.”

And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is.

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don’t know at this point. But that’s clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

Hinderaker:

The leaders of the Democratic Party write to the members of their party exactly as they would if they believed those members to be ignorant of current events, unable to read plain English text with any discrimination, and consumed by hatred of President Bush. Are they right? I don’t know. They know their members better than I do.

The authors of Power Line write for their readers as if they believe those readers to be ignorant of current events, unable to read plain English text with any discrimination, and are willing to swallow any amount of bullshit if it props up their collapsing worldview. Are they that deluded? Or do their readers like to eat shit? I don’t know. They know their readers better than I do.

Previous post

And The Good News Is...

Next post

TBogg

TBogg

Yeah. Like I would tell you....