Why Americans still think Saddam was tied to al Queda

January 12, 2006

Even now, nearly three years after the war in Iraq began, 41% of Americas Saddam Hussein had “strong links” with Al Qaeda. Why? Because even now, nearly three years after the war in Iraq began, people like Dick Cheney are repeating discredited talking points.

Cheney: …I hark back to testimony by George Tenet when he was Director of the CIA. He went up before the Senate Intel Committee in open session — this is on public record — and said there was a relationship there [between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda] that went back 10 years. What was never established was that there was — that — a link between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11.

Tony Snow: Right, and I’ve heard you and the President say that many times.

Cheney: That’s right.

Tony Snow: And you correct it any time somebody tries to raise it.

Cheney: That’s right. And so what some people have done is gotten very sloppy and said, well, there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and then jumped to the conclusion that there was no relationship at all with respect to al Qaeda.

It’s like Groundhog Day with these guys, with the same rhetoric, over and over again, with little regard for reality and/or veracity.

We’ve been through this, how many times? All available evidence suggests, at the most, there may have been low-level, episodic contact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Saddam and Al Qaeda did not have a “collaborative operational relationship.” Saddam Hussein didn’t try and establish a connection to al Qaeda; he did the opposite, warning his Iraqi supporters to be wary of the network.

This isn’t complicated. And yet, Cheney can’t seem to help himself.

When polls come out showing confusion about Iraq, 9/11, and al Queda, I tend to respond by suggesting Americans need to take responsibility for being better informed. But it’d be a lot easier for the electorate to know the facts if our leaders stopped trying to mislead people.

For anybody who hasn’t, I strongly suggest that you read Orwell’s 1984, far more terrifying than anything Steven King has ever written.

  • Maybe Cheney really dosen’t believe the evidence that there was no significant link and only believes the “evidence” that there was such a link. It would explain a lot.

  • If we go by Chaney’s logic, there could be ties between him and al Queda. I mean Saddam was tell his people to keep clear of them.

  • I prefer to blame the people.
    If we can figure out the facts, surely they can as well.
    There’s only so much blame that can be fobbed off on dishonest talking heads (Cheney included).

  • “This isn’t complicated. And yet, Cheney can’t seem to help himself.”

    He can help himself.
    And by tirelessly pushing the Big Lie…. he does just that.

    That’s the bad news.

    The good news?
    Lying sometimes leaves one a little breathless.

  • “I hark back to testimony by George Tenet when he was Director of the CIA. He went up before the Senate Intel Committee in open session — this is on public record — and said there was a relationship there [between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda] that went back 10 years.”

    Right. He was totally wrong about WMDs, but was spot on about the Saddam/Al Qaeda? Is that what you’re saying, Dick? Claim bad intel on everything else, but this is spot on? Not even a good liar.

  • I blame the press and broadcast media. Every time Cheney repeats this lie in public, the press should do an article about how he continues to lie, with experts on political psychology weighing in on how many times a lie has to be told before most people believe it is true. On interview shows (flaks excepted), the interviewer should call him on it, using the words “lie”, “liar” and “long discredited”. That would put an end to this stuff right away. Cheney and Bush do it because it works–and they will continue to do it as long as it works. Most people do not follow the news regularly–so, if they tune in to one of these celebrations of prevarication, they think they are being educated and probably won’t be tuning in again for months. Blame the media for, as always, not doing their jobs–which is to verify facts, hold politicians accountable and help educate the public.

  • Why do those critical of Cheney start from the presupposition that the Cheney White House actually cares about the truth, and from there state that Cheney, Bush, and rest of the Executive have a duty to the truth, and continue to time and again breach their duty?

    For that to be the case, it assumes that this WH sets policy like most every previous WH’s have set policy: directly derivative of the facts and circumstances as investigated and presented by the “apolitical” government agencies and career servants whose job it is to analyze and report the facts as they are without even so much as a nod or a wink to the political.

    With the Cheney administration, there is no such thing as an apolitical government agency, nor does the apolitical career govt. employee exist. Both are now dinosaurs.

    Everything with this group is political: policy and policy decisions, intelligence and the intelligence gathering apparati, intra/interoffice affairs, domestic, and foreign policy administration, military decisions, battleplans, and campaigns, and….as we have seen over and over and over…..facts, the presentation of the facts, and how the facts are interpreted.

    Of course, this list is by no means exhaustive of the things which are politicized by the Cheney administration. One could just as well add staff birthday parties, who feeds and the wipes the ass of Buddy, who feeds and wipes the ass of Buddy’s master….everthing.

    I often use the word “manipulate” to describe this last category, but that doesn’t do near enough justice to describe the breadth, depth, and sheer audacity of their deception, nor does it capture the lengths to which they will go to carry out their intended plan.

    .And while I may be wrong, I’m convinced that the reason they have been able to get away with their game and have yet to be held accountable is because of the general citizen naivite’ and their unshakeable belief that those who they elect….our public servants….tell the truth. As a trial lawyer, I see it all the time. A law enforcement official can get on the stand and lie their ass off about everything and unless you’ve got impeachment evidence right then and there in the form of a prior inconsistent statement or an official document, they’re going to get away with it.

    It’s certainly understandable why they get away with their abuse of the public trust, but wholly unforgiveable. Historically, those uniquely governmental functions designed to ensure the welfare and safety of the general public both domestically and abroad….local police, state police, the Army, CIA, NSA, etc…..had the unquestioned trust of the people who were being protected. Our system is set up in such a way that ensures the general public can always trust those people and agencies to protect them, their families, and their property without any reservations or ulterior motives. If the public was, for whatever reason, unable trust them with their lives, our system breaks down. After all, we’re talking about a system that makes it possible for you to call the police and, without a second’s hesitation or fear of abuse, give them the name and description of your daughter if she were to be late coming home one night, or the name of the financial institution and your checking/savings account number of immediately upon realizing that your wallet was missing.

    I think we can all admit that being able to do that is a luxury as compared to what someone who lives in Lagos or Port Au Prince might have to worry about in the same or similar circumstance.

    That implicit trust comes with an implied belief that our protectors and defenders do their jobs apolitically: that facts, and facts alone, dictate the course of their investigation, the enemy to be attacked, etc. Furthermore, it carries with it the presumption that those same people are always telling the truth. Psychologically, we have to be able to believe without question the words of our policemen and our soldiers. Personally, as a trial lawyer, the assumption that people will always believe any witness wears a badge over and above any other witness has borne true far more times than not.

    Here’s why that’s relevant. Throughout our history, we’ve always been able to rely on the protectors and defenders as always acting apolitically, on the facts, and telling us the truth. And, admittedly, it is a rare occasion where it turns out that someone entrusted with that responsibility either is politically motivated, lies, or manufactured facts. It is even rarer when someone breaches 2 of those covenants, much less all 3.

    Rarest of all, though, is when the breach is institutionally wide and encompasses all three violations. If such a violation were to occur, it is so rare of an occurrence that chances we, as a society, would not be able to believe that such a wholesale manipulation on the part of our government is even possible, and in fact we would be much more likely to believe the exact opposite: it would have all the appearances of looking like an apolitical, factually based prosecution and/or defense simply because the masquerade is system-wide, from top to bottom, one end to the other.

    We simply cannot fathom what it would be like to NOT be able to trust those who are vested with the responsibility of taking care of our kids and parents, and for our entire lives we’ve been fortunate enough to grow up in a nation-state that…..up until 1950…..pretty much avoided war for the sake of political disagreement. And with the exception of Vietnam, even in the political motivated conflicts (Korea, Bay of Pigs, Panama, the Cold War, etc.) one thing we always were assured of was that our military commanders were acting apolotically. Vietnam was supposed to have been the one and only lessen we needed when it comes to what happens when military decisions are made with the goal of pleasing the civilian politic.

    But now, all that’s out of the window. The Cheney administraton has taken upon itself to abuse the decades of trust, history, and tradition that our law enforcement and military built up between the institutions and the citizens they are designed to protect, and used that trust as a means of exacting personal political goals and expanding their own domestic and foreign power without so much as a consideration for what is best for ALL of those involved.

    History will show this to be a defining moment in a nation not only for what has been already been shown ad infinitum, but also because it will mark the beginning of when we as a society no longer were able to trust the motives and designs of our domestic defenders and military protectors, no longer can assume that we are being presented with the truth of the matter and issues that we’re facing as a nation, and, instead of assuming that the defense and protection of our way of life is being done apolitically, we citizens are now forced to decide whether we’re being dealt with honestly, or whether our rights and the rights of our children are being threatened by the current political powers by a threat manufactured by our government and used a pretext to increase their own power to the detriment of we the people.

    You know, it somewhat funny that the people who are defending and advocating in favor of Bush’s power grab are not at all shy about telling us how badass they are, informing us what they’d do if some terrorist or some liberal were to show up on their front lawn talking shit about America.

    And the irony here is that for their defense of Bush to work, these same, self-professed badasses are bedwetting scared of a group of fellas 5000 miles away who live in a cave and have access to a camera.

    “We hate America! And assuming we can ride our donkey far enough to an airport, catch a ticket to Atlanta, and buy a gun, we will unleash the wrath of 19 Soldiers of Truth!”

    Meanwhile, back in Carthage, Texas, 2 brothers are talking to one another one evening and are watching the same news story as above….

    “Oh shit! You see that on the news? That’s whut I’s talkins ’bout yesserday at the mill. See wadda mean? Now don’t you think it’s worth giving some damned ol Constitutional right that ye never had no use fer anyway so Preznit Bush can spy as he pleases on these har 19 terrists? Gawdammit, if’n I ever saw them sumbitches round here, I’d fill ’em full of holes from that AR-15 I modified last year out back in the shop…..”

    BAM!!! (down comes the front door) “Freeze! You’re under arrest! Put your hands behind your back! Now!”

    “What the hell?….hey….how the….Dammit! Jimmy?!?! Is that you? What the hell did I do? When did you go back to work for the Feds? Why are you in my house? Let me see yer warrant!”

    “Warrant?!? Hahahaha! ‘Warrant”….we don’t need a warrant. Besides, the Courts no longer have any say in deciding whether or not you’re rights are protected; I and I along have that power (well, technically, the President does, but he can’t be everywhere all at once, looking over every, single investigation.pecificallyYou just confessed to having an illegal firearm, and possession of a firearm such as you described over the wiretap allows the U.S. government to hold you indefinitely in and undisclosed location, deny you the assistance of counsel (and if you do retain counsel, we can listen in on every word of every conversation between you and your lawyer), charge you as an enemy combatant if we so choose, and try you without having to reveal any evidence that we unilaterally deem as ‘secret’.”

    “What the shit? That ain’t the law!”

    “Yep, it sho is. Your President….the man elected by the people, for the people….says it is”

    “I didn’t vote for that no count sumbitch!”

    “We already know that…….”

    “Jimmy, this goes to me beating yer ass in the race for Constable for Precinct 2 a few years back, ain’t it?”

    “What? Me make politically motivated arrest? Never!…. (by the way, I told ya you hadn’t seen the last of me, you dumb sumbitch….Wonder what the good citizens of Panola county are gonna say when they find out that their new lawman has terrorist ties?”)

    That’s the shit that most of y’all are never going to hear about, but trust me….it goes on all the time out here in my neck of the woods.

  • The fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden despises Saddam Hussein, and vice versa. There is no love lost between the two, and the mere suggestion that they would collaborate on anything is seriously misguided…and just plain WRONG.

    I’ve always found it curious that the current band of “terrorists” in Iraq apparently has chosen to go by the moniker, “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” It just sounds so trite and, quite frankly, unimaginitive. And when one factors in the rumors in some quarters that the insurgency in Iraq may not be quite what it’s made out to be, one has to wonder whether the name of the group purposely tries to convey the perception that Al Qaeda and Iraq are – and have been – intertwined.

    U.S. operatives in the CIA and the Pentagon once actively supported an “insurgency” in Afghanistan 20 years ago. The leader of those insurgents? Osama bin Laden.

    Al Qaeda in Iraq? Oooookay.

  • Darren, I have to admit I read the whole thing. very good points; your last scenario reminds me of ‘”when they came for the (insert minority of choice), I said nothing, until finally when they came for me, there was no one left to help me.”

    • Comments are closed.