This is nothing new of the doublespeak regime. The neo-cons are trying to deny they ever claimed there was link between Iraq and al-Qaeda just a month ago.

“There are so many superlatives to use, one does not know quite where to begin. There are so many comparisons to make, allegories to use, metaphors that come to mind, it’s almost overwhelming. In fact, one might say that the Bush-Cheney continued assertion that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is most like one insisting the Earth is flat, or promoting the ptolemic view of the solar system. Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated today the links between Hussein and al-Qaeda, defending the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and asserting Hussein turned a “blind eye” to al-Zarqawi, the fearsome leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who wreaked havoc before his death in June.” - My entry from September 10.

But rather than deny they ever said there was a link, they merely change the language to suit them. Rumsfeld has been caught many times in lies so blatant, it’s disturbing.

They’ll say something like: “We never said there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, we said there was intelligence of a link between Iraqi officials and leaders of al-Qaeda”. Which is pretty much the same thing, but seems to make it look like it is we who have misunderstood them, and not them misleading us. How they try to get away with it in this day and age, is really kind of a strange thing I can’t wrap my head around.

“Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people,” the President said at an Air Force base in Alaska. “Leaders in my Administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.”

“This is a manipulative distortion; saying Hussein was a threat–to somebody, somewhere, in some context–is not the same as endorsing a pre-emptive occupation of his country in a fantastically expensive and blatantly risky nation-building exercise.”

- thenation.com

“The Bush administration’s lies about Iraq just keep coming, from the revelations in Bob Woodward’s latest book to Bush’s claim that “Nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the [9/11] attack.” Mother Jones’ recently released a timeline, Lie by Lie, exposing the administration’s deceit in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

The timeline shows, for instance, that in September 2002 Bush said, “You can’t distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror.” And it notes that, three days later, Donald Rumsfeld said that the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was “accurate and not debatable.” The Lie by Lie database features hundreds of entries linked to original source documents and is searchable and sortable.

When did Dick Cheney say, “The question in my mind is: How many additional casualties is Saddam worth? The answer is: Not very damn many.” Who was the convicted sex offender and “known fabricator” behind much of Bush’s WMD intelligence? Which terror alerts were timed for political convenience? Who said, “We will be greeted as liberators”? The Mother Jones timeline is a great source for the facts behind the spin on Iraq. ”

- alternet.org

Whooee! Deny, deny, deny. I wonder if ol’ Petey Mackay’s been takin’ lessons.

Way I figger, it’s pretty much pointless t’ argue with two types - faith-based Merkins an’ suicide bombers. No amount o’ facts, reality, evidence or proof can sway the faithful. No threats can stop the suicide bomber who’s ready an’ willin’ t’ die fer the cause.

JB

Both Pelosi and Dean have said that if the DNC ends up in controll there will be no impeachment proceedings against Bush - this is a smart move.

The current congress has been refered to as the most “do nothing” in American history and I doubt that rank and file Americans really want it further bogged down in proceedings that will no doubt result in the light of day being shone on matters they would rather not actually have to acknowledge.

This leaves the centre right folks with a warmer and fuzzier feeling towards the Dems as an alternative to the current do nothing congress, and fears of the nation being further embarassed on the world stage by the “official” discovery they have been lied to.

If the Dems control the House of Reps they can pass articles of impeachment (ie. lay charges) but it’s unlikely the Senate would then vote the necessary 2/3 to convict. The Dem leadership is being realistic. If they want to slog through various other investigations for the next 2 years, the Reps will no doubt be happy to have the Dems defend that as their major achievement when 2008 rolls around.

Try not to be too disappointed when the CPC trots out another set of key talking points and looks forward instead of backward.