Found while looking for something else. You cannot make this stuff up.
I know it’s hard to believe Mr. President, but they have these things know that actually record what you say and are able to play back what they record. Even after a long period of time. Keith Olbermann supplies the evidence.
Video-WMP Video-QT (Longer clip coming)
Today in his speech in Cleveland:
Bush: “First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said, at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.”
In days gone by-SOTU-three years ago:
Bush: “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”
Now-anyone listening and watching his speech back then would make that connection easily enough since al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11-don’t you think? Keith analyzes it very nicely.
This is from Crooks and Liars, which I think means that the other guys are crooks and liars. So why is the writer pretending that the first quote contradicts the second quote? He’s either being crooked, being a liar, or being ignorant.
This is what I run into time and time again when discussing the supposed reasons supposedly given before the invasion of Iraq. The critic of the invasion finds a quote that says something, makes some assumption or between-the-lines reading, and then pretends that the the assumption or reading between-the-lines is what was actually said. Then they bandy that about as some sort of proof of something or another, and like to play “gotcha” with some other half-imagined “quote” they picked up somewhere.
This is the apparent “logic” here:
1. Bush said Iraq was harboring members of Al Qaeda.
2. Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11.
3. Therefore Bush said there is a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11.
4. If he says he didn’t ever say that, he’s a liar and loses double points.
I’m all for debating the issues, but let’s not act like three-year olds while doing it, okay?