William Kristol of the Weekly Standard points out a blatant distortion of Governor Sarah Palin’s words that was published to Page 1 of the Washington Post. Kristol wonders whether “[Post Writer Anne E.] Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious.” I maintain the two are not mutually exclusive.
As it originally appeared on-line, the article read as below.
Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush
By Anne E. Kornblut Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A01FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 — Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”
After Kristol’s critique was published, it appears to have been toned down a bit while containing the same blatant distortion of Palin’s meaning.
Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska
By Anne E. Kornblut Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A01FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 — Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.
For the record, although it should be obvious, Governor Palin did not assert in her speech that the Hussein Iraqi regime, which was in place in prior to 2003, had anything to do with the 9/11/01 attacks. The departing soldiers will not be fighting the long-since deposed Saddam Hussein regime.
Palin correctly stated that the departing soldiers would be fighting against al Qaeda in Iraq, which is connected to al Qaeda, which is the group planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.
For verification of the current presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, we can turn to the official web site of that old sage foreign policy expert Barack Hussein Obama.
Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.
Like That? You'll Probably Like These.
- Coordinated Attack in Washington and New York
- Washington Post Plays Headline Versus Article
- Fighting Palin Smears: Cut Funding For Teen Mothers
- McCain VP Watch: Is it Palin?
- McCain Picks Palin
Tagged
Iraq, Media Bias, Sarah Palin, Washington Post4 Responses to “Fighting Palin Smears: Linked Iraq to 9/11”
Comments posted are the opinions of the individual poster and do not reflect the views of Bucks Right. Comments are only moderated to prevent spam. No legitimate opinions are altered for content, although we reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. VALID e-mail address required.
Ironically, it has been proved that Iraq in fact DID have something to do with the WTC attacks…..
The 1993 attacks, in which one of the main planners Ramzi Yousef (who likely DROVE the rental truck with the explosives) traveled to the USA ON AN IRAQI passport.
Also, several of the 1993 terrorists were eventually given safe harbour in Iraq (by Saddam Hussein) after fleeing the country, the CIA and FBI later asserted.
In fact, this is a good issue to win a few beers or some cash while hanging out with lib Democrats.
Just confront them with a bet… “I’ll bet you $1,000 that the World Trade Center attacker had deep connections to Iraq.”
After they sputter and guffaw, and become indignant because everyone KNOWS that the attacks were carried out by 19 Saudi’s…..
And after they shake hands on the $1,000 bet …….thinking that they KNOW that Bush Lied People Died…….
You hit them across the forehead… and say “I was talking about the 1993 ATTACKS…..”
And watch their wimpy Democrat faces fall to the floor.
And if they are honest Democrat libs, of which there are very very few, they will be forced to hand over the $1,000.
Or a few beers…. whichever…
That is an amazing tactic. Catch a liberal on a tiny little technicality. Completley ignore the fact that we took our eyes off the prize and murdered over 4,000 brave American soldiers based on our deliberate campaign of misconception. That’s awesome!!! Being a staunch conservative, I always look for these little distractions that shift people’s focus away from what is really important. And if I can make $1000 off a hard working, lower middle-class liberal family man in the process, even better. I could get that new diving board for my luxury lake that I had dug right beind my 14,000 square foot house that I paid for with the money I made off of that corrupt bargain I engineered. You are freakin brilliant!!!
The “little distractions” like whether or not a candidate uses email you mean? Because that’s a big, scary important issue. Or are you talking about the “little distraction” of a candidate’s pregnant daughter. Or the “little distraction” caused when you make up lies about dinosaurs and banned books. To which “little distraction” do you refer?
“You are freakin brilliant!!!”
Thank you. Thank you. You are too kind.