When Cheney says “we don’t know” I sort of tend to think that what he means is “we don’t know”.
(As a side note, I believe the logic in all this means that the NYT is a critic of the Bush administration, but not having fallen off the turnip truck yesterday, I had sort of assumed that.)
1) “A 9/11 Commission staff report supports the Bush Administration’s longstanding conclusion that there was no evidence of “collaboration” between Iraq and al-Qaeda on the 9-11 attacks against the United States.”
Richard Henry Morgan – 6/
However, there is no quote proving that Bush ever made such a conclusion. Also, what 9/11 Commission staff report are they talking about? It only says “a” report.
2) “The Administration has said, however, that it was worried about a number of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, including contacts between senior Iraqi intelligence officers and senior members of al-Qaeda.”
Here, the number of contacts the administration is worried about is not specified, nor are the names of the “senior Iraqi intelligence officers,” or the al-Qaeda officers.
4) “The Administration also knew that Iraq was harboring a terrorist network headed by Zarqawi. Zarqawi, the senior al-Qaeda associate who was known to be in Baghdad for medical treatment in , continues to undertake indiscriminate acts of terrorism today.”
It mentions a terrorist network, but provides only one name. Who else composed this supposed “network”? There is also no evidence to support the contention that he was known to be in Baghdad, nor what the medical treatment was. Also, what acts of terror does he currently engage in, it doesn’t say.
5) “The Administration knew Saddam had longstanding, direct, and continuing ties to a number of terrorist groups, including groups responsible for killing Americans.”
Of course, for the record, I do not believe any of the above claims to be valid or legitimate. I am simply making the point that thus far, much of what you cite as media sloppiness is nothing more than nitpicking at comments you happen to disagree with. You give me an article that you support, and I will gladly point out the same sort of problems you have been pointing out.
Richard Henry Morgan – 6/
The NY Times article of the 19th, above, which details the commission’s conclusion of no collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, says this undermines one of the main justifications offered by Bush and Cheney for going to war. Yet there is no quote to support it, nor a reference to a speech, or a date on which this was supposedly said.
Of course, there is no mention of Clinton’s claims that they were working together, including the claim, in an indictment in federal court in NYC by one of Clinton’s prosecutors, that there was such a relationship.
1) “I am not sure that a centralized command structure is a necessary prerequisite in an enemy for a succesful military action. The American Indian wars come to mind as a counter example, so do a variety of guerrilla wars that were successfully prosecuted, not to mention the subjugation of non-centralized peoples by military force.”
I would argue that the various Native American tribes WERE centralized, as are almost all guerrilla movements. Every tribe we fought had a central base of command, and a clearly defined organizational hierarchy. When those were decapitated (as was the case with Crazy Horse), the organizational ability largely collapsed. The French guerrilla resistance during WWII, as well as the Vietcong, were similarly centralized in command, and did indeed operate out of various bases of operations. Our inability to locate http://loansolution.com/title-loans-ne and destroy them was based on the fact that they were located in North Vietnam, Cambodia, and hidden in the Ho Chi Mihn Trail.