Bush cares for the Saudis--not us.
September 6, 2004 8:33 PM   Subscribe

Factfilter: Sen. Bob Graham's new book shows coverup.on Saudi's behalf Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. "It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.'' And there's stuff about Iraq, too. After wearing 9/11 like a tiara during the convention, will the facts finally be aired?
posted by amberglow (28 comments total)
one would hope so, but not. why? he's a democrat. in the current culture, you can't actually have your opinion be taken seriously unless your're a republican (see: John McCain). Even then, you still have difficulty having your opionion taken seriously (see: Richard Clarke).

Unless a high up Republican substantiates the claims that Graham is making, then this will just be another blip. Nobody will second these statements.

What will be said: (1) Neither of the two 9/11 commissions picked up on this. (2) He's just a democrat trying to help Kerry.
posted by graventy at 8:43 PM on September 6, 2004

Even if the other members of the commissions stand by him? He said it was what was stricken from the final report.
posted by amberglow at 8:56 PM on September 6, 2004

> will the facts finally be aired?

Short answer: no. None of this is new information. Big Media is quite happy not asking Bush tough questions.
posted by fleener at 9:00 PM on September 6, 2004

"Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources -- including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders -- were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq."

*gulp* ....this is a crazy world we live in...
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:06 PM on September 6, 2004

Big Media is quite happy not asking Bush tough questions.

Big Media better get over themselves, or they'll have even fewer viewers.
posted by amberglow at 9:08 PM on September 6, 2004

To answer your question, no.
posted by cmacleod at 9:13 PM on September 6, 2004

Look, it's simple: If you don't support Bush when he snaps on the rubber glove and makes America bend over the table, then you hate Bush. And hating Bush is hating America. Except you can hate America when you hate it through Bush, but not directly. And you can't hate Bush.

Yes, it doesn't make any sense. However, it's a ploy that seems to be successful when very cynical people like the corporate media and the Republican elite are dealing with very stupid people, which is a significant percentage of the American public.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 9:14 PM on September 6, 2004

I find that the sources of information that people use--regular people not blog readers, wonks, and folks who have that odd 20th century habit of reading multiple newspapers--have been incredibly muddied. Perhaps I'm naive enough to believe that once a possibility for consensus on the 5 or 6 national news sources that could be more or less trusted did exist. But today, otherwise fairly intelligent people, consume the pap that's served up or are cynical about it all.

Of course I believe that the corporate class on the right has deliberately muddied the national information distribution system. But beyond that opinion, does anyone else find it harrowing that so many facts are not recognized? If they can get 50% approval ratings this late in Dubya's (mis)admistration, what does it say? What would it take for the true record to be conveyed and understood? The glut of "alternative" sources and all the books documenting the atrocious public record of the neo-con cronies haven't sufficiently dented the wall of jingoistic BS.

What chance does democracy have if "the powers that be" can distort, at will, the reality that is perceived by an average citizen? Is anyone opitimistic over the chance for a truly informed electorate any time soon?
posted by ahimsakid at 9:22 PM on September 6, 2004

Clearly, John Kerry's high school report cards are a much more important issue

Agreed. The Pentagon should investigate them.
posted by homunculus at 9:29 PM on September 6, 2004

I wonder if the book mentions his breakfast with General Ahmad.
posted by homunculus at 9:35 PM on September 6, 2004

in the current culture, you can't actually have your opinion be taken seriously unless your're a republican

Even Zell Miller is feeling the heat!

Ah, the things you can get away with when you promise cheap oil to Presidents...
posted by clevershark at 10:47 PM on September 6, 2004

clevershark: Bush went around yapping about Miller all weekend, though. Apparently, the disgusted one was Laura. Or something.
posted by raysmj at 10:58 PM on September 6, 2004

this is probably very bad news for Zell Miller.
posted by mwhybark at 11:27 PM on September 6, 2004

Bush went around yapping about Miller all weekend

It must have been one of his rare unhandled moments. Actually Miller, having served his purpose, was promptly disinvited from the Vice-Presidential box after his speech.

You can say what you want about Cheney, but he's wise and crafty to the game that's become known as "American politics". He knew that Miller would deliver a firebrand speech that any Republican would have been crucified for giving, and distancing himself from the Senator then gives him the appearance of being to the left of at least one Democrat. This is supposed to "thaw" his image a bit, but I'd be surprised if all that many actually interpret it that way. The veep has his history of political faux-pas as well.

US politics has become a very extensive joke.

ps has "this is bad news for _____" become the new meme for Metafilter?
posted by clevershark at 12:02 AM on September 7, 2004

This is probably very bad news for the "this is probably very bad news for X" Meme.
posted by drezdn at 12:16 AM on September 7, 2004

My feelings about the Miller speech is that the Republicans aren't worried about it tarnishing their image because, "after all, Miller is a democrat."
posted by drezdn at 12:35 AM on September 7, 2004

Metafilter: this is probably very bad news for somebody.

Sadly, nothing but good news for this meme.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:35 AM on September 7, 2004

ps has "this is bad news for _____" become the new meme for Metafilter?

If you have to ask, it has already become desperately uncool, and will soon attract the hoots and jeers of the assembled snarkmeisters!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:20 AM on September 7, 2004

"this is bad news for _____" become the new meme for Metafilter?

Not quite - the new meme for Metafilter looks like it's going to be - ""this is bad news for the United States".....
posted by tomcosgrave at 2:50 AM on September 7, 2004

Why hadn't the Commission, paid in full by taxpayer's, the balls to announce to the public that they have been hamstrung by the White House on what it could print in its final report? Becuase 50% of the Commission were members of the GOP. Thus the entire Report, so far as I am concerned, is questionable. What else did not get released?

And the tv pundits and the magainzes and the newspapers? Why have they not made a fus--and the passive Democrats?
posted by Postroad at 6:52 AM on September 7, 2004

President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers. The White House sought to question a Saudi citizen who befriended two of the hijackers.
Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.
Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi. ...
But Bush made plain he has no intention of declassifying the material.
"I absolutely have no qualms at all because there's an ongoing investigation into the 9-11 attacks, and we don't want to compromise that investigation," ...
--from CBS last year

So Graham finally lays it out now--he was on the commissions and investigations. There are no more ongoing investigations, but the truth still wasn't told.
posted by amberglow at 7:04 AM on September 7, 2004

I love the fuss, but once again, what's the point? None of this is new, and attempts to call attention to it in mainstream media have been met with indifference.

Even with the incredible amount of evidence regarding the conduct (or misconduct) of the Bush administration, polls still show him leading 54%-43% over Kerry.

You can push the facts until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact is that the majority of the American public stopped listening a long time ago. It's just damn depressing.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:27 AM on September 7, 2004

FormlessOne - I actually don't think the facts are being pushed by the mainstream media all that hard : hardly at all, in fact. I'm speaking in statistical terms here. Facts like this can get published and broadcast, yes, but do they hit the front page ? And on which papers ? And do they get mentioned on TV ? Or on the radio and, if so, which stations (in which regions, how many, etc.)

Further, the dynamic which arises from mainstream media's rote insistence on balance amounts, also, to an inherent bias which serves to obscure the truth.

Here's how it works :

1) Kerry says "The moon is made out of rock" (or whatever it's made from) - a factually accurate, verifiable statement.

2) Bush says "The moon is made out of green cheese!".

3) The media slavishly airs the two statements, side by side, without stopping to comment on the fact that Bush's statement is demonstrably untrue and amounts to a delusion, a fantasy, or a lie.

4) 55% of Americans come to believe that the moon is made out of green cheese.


So my answer to amberglow's question is : the facts will receive sufficient airing only if sufficient numbers of people make noise about media bias.

Mainstream media - in many cases (such as WaPo's recent admission that it ignored credible information which contradicted the Bush Administration's shaky pre-invasion WMD case) - admits that it lies about and distorts the truth.

People need to scream, incessantly, everywhere and for as long as it takes : "Media lies! Right bias! Media Lies! It's been proven! Right Bias! Media Lies!......."
posted by troutfishing at 9:12 AM on September 7, 2004

polls still show him leading 54%-43% over Kerry.

Well, they don't "still," but I get your point. Even the polls being dead even is an indictment of critical thought in this country.
posted by soyjoy at 9:47 AM on September 7, 2004

clevershark: Yes, he was disinvited, but the president talked about Miller all weekend. Something weird happened there, which was my point. The story I linked even refers to Bush aides speaking to Miller, trying to reach out to the people who liked his speech, thinking he's a big plus, etc. Maybe the campaign is trying to have it both ways? Or maybe it is a W/Laura split that led to the disinvite, followed by the fawning?
posted by raysmj at 10:08 AM on September 7, 2004

"attempts to call attention to it in mainstream media have been met with indifference."

the article is from the Miami Herald. Not exactly CNN, but its better than nothing. Your job is now to take this article from a credible source of news and show it to all your friends who 'stopped listening a long time ago." Can't expect the media to do ALL the disemination.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:31 AM on September 7, 2004

I'm pushing it to my circle, I'd suggest all of you who want Bush gone as badly as I do to do the same.

This is huge news, this amounts to a smoking gun in my book. Bush didn't pursue the Saudi link, squashed any attempts to pursue that link and some of those responsible for 9/11 get a free get-out-of-persecution card because they happen to have ties to Bush.

This is wronger than almost anything else wrong that Bush has done. And its another lie, I distinctly remember Bush saying that he will do whatever is necessary to get all of those responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

How much worse does it have to get before people come to realize what an utter farce of a leader Bush is?
posted by fenriq at 1:46 PM on September 7, 2004

Interview with Graham.
posted by homunculus at 8:40 PM on September 7, 2004

« Older Labor   |   Where's Marilyn Manson? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments