Bush's Alternative Universe

Where Black is White, Up is Down and 2+2=3

For the extreme right winger, the world is full of convenient oversights and dismissals. Even the most well documented and chronicled events are overlooked, tossed aside and dismissed when it doesn't fit within their tightly constructed network of fabrications. This, of course, has
 especially been their modus operandi since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is the only way the lies have been perpetuated to the point that 43% still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 according to a recent CNN poll, even though this theory has been widely discredited.

The new America in which we live is one where there is no accountability for what government officials say or do, and in which presidents can hide behind cleverly placed qualifiers and semantic acrobatics. For example, at a recent press conference that received a bunch of attention, when asked what Iraq had to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush said, "Nothing." He then added, "Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."
Pay close attention to Bush's clever use of language. He said, that no one ever suggested that Iraq "ordered" the attacks of September 11th. In fact, no one in the Bush administration has ever explicitly said that Iraq "ordered" the September 11th attacks, but Bush & co certainly suggested links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which despite Bush's attempt at plausible deniability, pretty much served the same purpose. Any suggestion of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, prior to the Iraq invasion, were surely intended to create the impression that Saddam had a hand in the planning and execution of the attack. In fact, not only did they suggest such a link in various speeches and interviews, but it was strongly suggested in a much more official way-President Bush's letter requesting the authorization to use force against Iraq:

Related information
  • Bush lied adn mislead about a "relatuionship between Al Qaeda and Saddam
  • Cheney is vile
  • Black is white, up is down, 2+2=3
 
Comments 1 - 8 of 8  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

A correction to a sentence in my last post--"Also, if the Bush administration went so out of their way to create a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda where there was none, doesn't that call into question the legitimacy of the whole "war on terror", or at the very least their competence in waging such a war?"

Posted on 09/17/2006 at 10:09:00 PM

Point taken Greg. However, the fact that terrorists may have found their way to Iraq doesn't mean we should simply forget about the fact that the case for invading in the first place is built upon a mound of lies. Also, if the Bush administration went so out of their way to create a link where there "war on terror", or at the very least their competence in waging such a war? It seems to me that the nations with the clearest links to terrorism were overlooked in favor of one with relatively weak ties to terrorism. Greg, we both know we have an unbridgable philosophical difference here--you believe there can be such a thing as a war on terror and I do not

Posted on 09/17/2006 at 10:09:00 PM

Paul, you're right. I concede the effort was made to tie Saddam to 9/11. But the point I am trying to make now is that regardless of the fact that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, Saddam's regime can still be linked to the overall goals of the war on terror. As the name implies, it is a war on terror, not a war on al-qaeda. Additionally, the fight against Saddam is long over. We are now battling Sunni insurgents, Shiite death squads, and foreign jihadists. Even if it wasn't before, Iraq is a front in the war on terror now.

Posted on 09/16/2006 at 8:09:00 PM

Greg--You are sort of engaging in the same kind of thing I describe Bush and Cheney as doing. You admit yourself that every effort wass made to find a connection, and that is the larger point here--that they were dishonest about the whole thing. And the letter bush sent to congress was most certainly an attempt to connect Iraq to Al Qaeda even though there was no real connection.

Posted on 09/16/2006 at 9:09:00 AM

And lately, the bush alternate reality seems to be really going off the deep end..he is acting like he is in a corner...and the only thing worse than a self-righteous idiot for a president, its a self righteous idiot for a president who feels cornered (and has nuclear capability!)

Posted on 09/15/2006 at 10:09:00 PM

By the way, I address Iraq's role in the war on terror and the never ending democratic criticisms concerning the killing or capturing of bin Laden in an upcoming article. I'm sure that you, Tim, and Jeff will have fun with it. It's called "What the Democrats Don't Understand About the War on Terror." Be sure to let me know what you think.

Posted on 09/15/2006 at 2:09:00 PM

Sure, every effort was made to connect Saddam to Al-Qaeda, and no verifiable link was ever established. But Iraq WAS a state sponsor of terrorism, just not against us.

Posted on 09/15/2006 at 2:09:00 PM

Paul, you are combining two separate concepts in the request for authorization for the use of force: "including those nations..." adds the 9/11 perpetrators to the overall war against terrorists. Belonging to a terrorist organization doesn't mean you had a hand in 9/11. In the letter, belonging to the former doesn't automatically translate into a part in the latter, but committing the latter does put you in the former. Iraq sponsored the MeK in attacks against Iran and the Kurdish Worker's Party in attacks against Turkey. Saddam also offered $20,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Those facts make him a sponsor of terrorism, but not a contributor to 9/11.

Posted on 09/15/2006 at 2:09:00 PM

Comments 1 - 8 of 8