Bush didn't just lie........

[Faun]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

Look everybody! It's Carnac the Magnificent. He can read Bush's mind to know Bush was thinking they had found the WMD in private but wanted to eat crow publicly by confessing the WMD weren't there.



You brain-dead cons crack me up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

You really are ignorant. Even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs.....you need to get a more up-to-date source of information so you don't come out looking like such a fool.

Talk about being obtuse......geesh!


Bush admits Iraq had no WMDs - Yahoo Search Results

You mean these weapons right here?:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
These weapons right here don't exist?

Those were old leftovers from before the first Gulf war. Not that anyone would want to play with them, but also not the WMD Bush told America he needed to invade Iraq to recover.

Bush said Hussein had active weapons programs ... he didn't.

Bush said Hussein was stockpiling WMD ... he wasn't.

Bush said (citing British intelligence) Hussein was close to being nuclear armed ... he wasn't.

Bush knew we were finding old WMD scattered around the country and he knew those weren't the WMD he was talking about which is why he later confessed the WMD we invaded Iraq over didn't exist.

ROFL those weren't the WMDs were talking about... DO YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO YOURSELF?

Sure I do. Too bad it's above your reading skills.

Bush told us Hussein was building WMD. The ones we found were not those.

Bush told us Hussein was stock piling WMD. The ones we found were not those.

Bush told us Iraq was almost nuclear. The ones we found were not those.

Bush knew about those and still admitted the WMD he invaded over were not there.

I'm not going to explain that again. If you still don't understand, you never will.

You're a moron.

 

[RKMBrown]

Faun... put another way... When Obama stated that he'd been to 57 states, I did not believe his statement to be accurate.. did you? Nor did I think he was lying. Face it people are human.. they make mistakes. Bush and/or his speech writer probably meant to say they are investigating reports of possible involvement and some editor or what not took out the word possible... or Bush read over it on the teleprompter. They usually published corrected language after the speech. Should I look it up?

There are some difference between the two which make Obama's 57 state statement a gaffe and the Bush administration's statements about Atta meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague a lie.

1. There was never a chance Obama's statement was accurate, it was clearly a gaffe; whereas the Bush administration's claim about Atta could have been true.

2. Obama had nothing to gain by lying about being to 57 states; whereas the Bush administration used the iraq/9.11 connection to gain support to preemptively invade a country which had not attacked us.

3. Obama was ridiculed immediately for making such a stupid comment. It was obviously recognizable as a slip of the tongue and he didn't repeat it; whereas the Bush administration claim was immediately accepted as very probable.

4. Obama's statement needed no correction since it was always viewed as a gaffe; whereas the Bush administration knew for almost 2 years that Atta had not met with Iraqi officials in Prague but kept that hidden from the public until after they launched the war they hungered for.

5. No one died from Obama's 57 state gaffe; whereas.....

Bush was also ridiculed immediately for his gaffe. It was even on Fox the next day. It was a gaffe... the link with atta was "alleged" not confirmed.

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link
NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center">October

Matthews had cited Cheney's reference to how the Iraq war hit at "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11," as proof that Cheney was blaming Iraq for 9/11. In the fuller clip from the 2003 interview, however, Russert asked Cheney if "the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney rejected the notion: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that."

Dick Cheney in the debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
Williams: "But here is the Vice President on Meet the Press, one year ago, September 14, 2003. He was asked to define success in Iraq."
Cheney on the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."
Williams: "So Vice President Cheney from tonight's debate and from Meet the Press just over a year ago."

As I noted in the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: "But that doesn't contradict what Cheney said in the debate since in 2003 Cheney was simply arguing that Iraq lies in an area of the world which spawns terrorists, including those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, not that the Iraqi regime specifically contracted the attack."

Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips:

#1: Cheney, from September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

#2: Cheney, from September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

#3: Cheney, from March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: "One of the lead hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

#4: Cheney, from December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."


Olbermann's distortion of Cheney's point in #1 was fully outlined earlier in this item in the section on Chris Matthews.

For the others, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth tracked down the original interviews and compared the full text to what Olbermann and his MSNBC producers selectively played. The portions run by Olbermann on Wednesday's Countdown are displayed in ALL CAPS.

On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."



On #3, in fact it was Russert, not Cheney, who raised the question of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda link. Cheney, in parts of his answer Olbermann didn't share with his viewers, declared that "with respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there," and he labeled the Atta matter an "allegation."

From the March 24, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When we spoke on September 16, five days after the tragic day of September 11, I asked you if any evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. At the time you said no. There's an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg which connects Iraq and Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. What can you tell me about it?"
Cheney: "I've read the article. It's a devastating article I thought. Specifically, its description of what happened in 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, against some his own people. I was aware that he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. That's been general knowledge, but what the article is very good at is pointing it out in depth that he may have struck, if the article's correct, as many as 200 towns and villages over a 17-month period of time and killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis.
"What's even more depressing is the apparent medical legacy that's left of continuing increased rates of infertility, birth defects, rates of liver cancer among children, etc., as a result of these attacks. It demonstrates conclusively what a lot of us have said is, that this is a man who is a great danger to the region of the world, especially if he's able to acquire nuclear weapons.
"With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the allegation that ONE OF THE LEAD HIJACKERS, MOHAMED ATTA, HAD, IN FACT, MET WITH IRAQI INTELLIGENCE IN PRAGUE, but we've not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein. We'll continue to look for it."


On #4, which took place just three months after the 9/11 attacks, so well before debate over going to war with Iraq started, Cheney did state his belief that Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence service, but in a caveat excluded by Olbermann, Cheney cautioned: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point." In addition, Cheney was responding to a challenge from Russert not to defend the position that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but to evidence that it had been. Russert cited a series of claims about ties to al-Qaeda and then pressed: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:

Russert: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

It looks like Olbermann "self-sabotaged" his accuracy with such selectively misleading soundbite clips.

IOW you were not listening to Bush and Cheney.. you've been listening to guys like Olberman.. that's why you are confused.

The links you provided were from 4 and 3 years later respectively following the Bush administration's initial claim that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.

3 to 4 years later is your idea "immediate??"

It was a gaffe... the link with atta was "alleged" not confirmed.

Bullshit ... Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed," before lying and denying ever said that.

Not to mention, the Bush administration repeated that several times during the course of almost 2 years before finally conceding it wasn't true. Lies are maintained for years, gaffes are not.

You can't even read dates? try again.

Your first link .... Dated 11.12.2005

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link

Your second link ... Dated 10.7.2004

NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center

........ and while you claim the story wasn't confirmed, I quoted Cheney claiming it was pretty well confirmed.

Hey, and if ya want a good laugh ... watch Cheney trying to deny he said that....... 39 seconds out of your life will reveal Cheney trying to do what you brain-dead cons are doing now -- rewrite history.........

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

 

[Kondor3]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

Look everybody! It's Carnac the Magnificent. He can read Bush's mind to know Bush was thinking they had found the WMD in private but wanted to eat crow publicly by confessing the WMD weren't there.



You brain-dead cons crack me up.

Better than lamely believing the Public Version of the story... WMDs were an excuse... we need to ask for the REAL reason(s)... and neither Oil nor WMDs stand-up under scrutiny.

Leaving...???

Leaving unimaginative dull-witted tools such as yourself, parroting what you've been told, because you can't think for yourselves, sufficiently to suggest a variety of likely alternative rationales. Your cross to bear in life, not mine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

So you honestly think Bush publicly lied by saying there were no WMDs, when that was probably the most damning admission he could concede?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you people who loved losing 4000+ Americans in Iraq over fantasy WMDs, you must really love the idea of losing that many Americans and more in an invasion of Iran...

 

[Kondor3]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

So you honestly think Bush publicly lied by saying there were no WMDs, when that was probably the most damning admission he could concede?

No, I honestly think the strong and distinct possibility exists that Bush publicly lied by saying there were were WMDs in Iraq at the time we invaded, in order to mask our true reasons for going in there - and that those reason might very well have included (1) finishing Daddy's war, (2) avenging the assassination attempt on Daddy, and, most importantly, (3) teaching a memorable lesson to the Muslims about phukking with the United States - above and beyond the ever-popular and unrealized Oil Rationale we heard so much about.

 

[Kondor3]

So you people who loved losing 4000+ Americans in Iraq over fantasy WMDs, you must really love the idea of losing that many Americans and more in an invasion of Iran...

If we were willing to lose 4,000 to teach a lesson about messing with us, we will almost certainly be willing to lose people, again, to squash an increasingly dangerous militant theocracy that routinely and historically manifests a martyrdom complex.

 

[Faun]

You really are ignorant. Even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs.....you need to get a more up-to-date source of information so you don't come out looking like such a fool.

Talk about being obtuse......geesh!


Bush admits Iraq had no WMDs - Yahoo Search Results

You mean these weapons right here?:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
These weapons right here don't exist?

Those were old leftovers from before the first Gulf war. Not that anyone would want to play with them, but also not the WMD Bush told America he needed to invade Iraq to recover.

Bush said Hussein had active weapons programs ... he didn't.

Bush said Hussein was stockpiling WMD ... he wasn't.

Bush said (citing British intelligence) Hussein was close to being nuclear armed ... he wasn't.

Bush knew we were finding old WMD scattered around the country and he knew those weren't the WMD he was talking about which is why he later confessed the WMD we invaded Iraq over didn't exist.

ROFL those weren't the WMDs were talking about... DO YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO YOURSELF?

Sure I do. Too bad it's above your reading skills.

Bush told us Hussein was building WMD. The ones we found were not those.

Bush told us Hussein was stock piling WMD. The ones we found were not those.

Bush told us Iraq was almost nuclear. The ones we found were not those.

Bush knew about those and still admitted the WMD he invaded over were not there.

I'm not going to explain that again. If you still don't understand, you never will.

You're a moron.

Spits the rightard who claims

You really are ignorant. Even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs.....you need to get a more up-to-date source of information so you don't come out looking like such a fool.

Talk about being obtuse......geesh!


Bush admits Iraq had no WMDs - Yahoo Search Results

You mean these weapons right here?:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
These weapons right here don't exist?

Those were old leftovers from before the first Gulf war. Not that anyone would want to play with them, but also not the WMD Bush told America he needed to invade Iraq to recover.

Bush said Hussein had active weapons programs ... he didn't.

Bush said Hussein was stockpiling WMD ... he wasn't.

Bush said (citing British intelligence) Hussein was close to being nuclear armed ... he wasn't.

Bush knew we were finding old WMD scattered around the country and he knew those weren't the WMD he was talking about which is why he later confessed the WMD we invaded Iraq over didn't exist.

ROFL those weren't the WMDs were talking about... DO YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO YOURSELF?

Sure I do. Too bad it's above your reading skills.

Bush told us Hussein was building WMD. The ones we found were not those.

Bush told us Hussein was stock piling WMD. The ones we found were not those.

Bush told us Iraq was almost nuclear. The ones we found were not those.

Bush knew about those and still admitted the WMD he invaded over were not there.

I'm not going to explain that again. If you still don't understand, you never will.

You're a moron.

Spits the rightard who can't tell the difference between active weapos programs building stockpiles of WMD from nearly 20 year old WMD scattered around the country.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was about controlling America's future.

 

[Faun]

There are some difference between the two which make Obama's 57 state statement a gaffe and the Bush administration's statements about Atta meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague a lie.

1. There was never a chance Obama's statement was accurate, it was clearly a gaffe; whereas the Bush administration's claim about Atta could have been true.

2. Obama had nothing to gain by lying about being to 57 states; whereas the Bush administration used the iraq/9.11 connection to gain support to preemptively invade a country which had not attacked us.

3. Obama was ridiculed immediately for making such a stupid comment. It was obviously recognizable as a slip of the tongue and he didn't repeat it; whereas the Bush administration claim was immediately accepted as very probable.

4. Obama's statement needed no correction since it was always viewed as a gaffe; whereas the Bush administration knew for almost 2 years that Atta had not met with Iraqi officials in Prague but kept that hidden from the public until after they launched the war they hungered for.

5. No one died from Obama's 57 state gaffe; whereas.....

Bush was also ridiculed immediately for his gaffe. It was even on Fox the next day. It was a gaffe... the link with atta was "alleged" not confirmed.

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link
NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center">October

Matthews had cited Cheney's reference to how the Iraq war hit at "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11," as proof that Cheney was blaming Iraq for 9/11. In the fuller clip from the 2003 interview, however, Russert asked Cheney if "the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney rejected the notion: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that."

Dick Cheney in the debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
Williams: "But here is the Vice President on Meet the Press, one year ago, September 14, 2003. He was asked to define success in Iraq."
Cheney on the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."
Williams: "So Vice President Cheney from tonight's debate and from Meet the Press just over a year ago."

As I noted in the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: "But that doesn't contradict what Cheney said in the debate since in 2003 Cheney was simply arguing that Iraq lies in an area of the world which spawns terrorists, including those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, not that the Iraqi regime specifically contracted the attack."

Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips:

#1: Cheney, from September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

#2: Cheney, from September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

#3: Cheney, from March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: "One of the lead hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

#4: Cheney, from December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."


Olbermann's distortion of Cheney's point in #1 was fully outlined earlier in this item in the section on Chris Matthews.

For the others, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth tracked down the original interviews and compared the full text to what Olbermann and his MSNBC producers selectively played. The portions run by Olbermann on Wednesday's Countdown are displayed in ALL CAPS.

On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."



On #3, in fact it was Russert, not Cheney, who raised the question of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda link. Cheney, in parts of his answer Olbermann didn't share with his viewers, declared that "with respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there," and he labeled the Atta matter an "allegation."

From the March 24, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When we spoke on September 16, five days after the tragic day of September 11, I asked you if any evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. At the time you said no. There's an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg which connects Iraq and Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. What can you tell me about it?"
Cheney: "I've read the article. It's a devastating article I thought. Specifically, its description of what happened in 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, against some his own people. I was aware that he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. That's been general knowledge, but what the article is very good at is pointing it out in depth that he may have struck, if the article's correct, as many as 200 towns and villages over a 17-month period of time and killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis.
"What's even more depressing is the apparent medical legacy that's left of continuing increased rates of infertility, birth defects, rates of liver cancer among children, etc., as a result of these attacks. It demonstrates conclusively what a lot of us have said is, that this is a man who is a great danger to the region of the world, especially if he's able to acquire nuclear weapons.
"With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the allegation that ONE OF THE LEAD HIJACKERS, MOHAMED ATTA, HAD, IN FACT, MET WITH IRAQI INTELLIGENCE IN PRAGUE, but we've not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein. We'll continue to look for it."


On #4, which took place just three months after the 9/11 attacks, so well before debate over going to war with Iraq started, Cheney did state his belief that Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence service, but in a caveat excluded by Olbermann, Cheney cautioned: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point." In addition, Cheney was responding to a challenge from Russert not to defend the position that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but to evidence that it had been. Russert cited a series of claims about ties to al-Qaeda and then pressed: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:

Russert: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

It looks like Olbermann "self-sabotaged" his accuracy with such selectively misleading soundbite clips.

IOW you were not listening to Bush and Cheney.. you've been listening to guys like Olberman.. that's why you are confused.

The links you provided were from 4 and 3 years later respectively following the Bush administration's initial claim that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.

3 to 4 years later is your idea "immediate??"

It was a gaffe... the link with atta was "alleged" not confirmed.

Bullshit ... Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed," before lying and denying ever said that.

Not to mention, the Bush administration repeated that several times during the course of almost 2 years before finally conceding it wasn't true. Lies are maintained for years, gaffes are not.

You can't even read dates? try again.

Your first link .... Dated 11.12.2005

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link

Your second link ... Dated 10.7.2004

NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center

........ and while you claim the story wasn't confirmed, I quoted Cheney claiming it was pretty well confirmed.

Hey, and if ya want a good laugh ... watch Cheney trying to deny he said that....... 39 seconds out of your life will reveal Cheney trying to do what you brain-dead cons are doing now -- rewrite history.........

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

A year after 9.11 and 9 months after the CIA debunked the Atta in Prague rumor...

September 8, 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Tim Russert on NBC News’ Meet the Press [link to source]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center...

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point.​

That is a bald-faced lie. Atta did not "apparently travel to Prague." Not being in Prague means he did not meet there with senior Iraqi officials. The CIA did not say the story was credible, the CIA in fact informed the Bush administration 9 months earlier the story was not true. And Chaney was lying when he said the story was "unconfirmed at this point." The story was indeed confirmed .... confirmed by the CIA to be bullshit.

 

[there4eyeM]

Cheyney's lips were moving!

 

[Faun]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

So you honestly think Bush publicly lied by saying there were no WMDs, when that was probably the most damning admission he could concede?

As if more evidence was needed that rightards are certifiably insane.

 

[there4eyeM]

As if further proof is needed that Cheyney & Co. are other than sociopaths who deserve to be at least in prison.

 

[Faun]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

Look everybody! It's Carnac the Magnificent. He can read Bush's mind to know Bush was thinking they had found the WMD in private but wanted to eat crow publicly by confessing the WMD weren't there.



You brain-dead cons crack me up.

Better than lamely believing the Public Version of the story... WMDs were an excuse... we need to ask for the REAL reason(s)... and neither Oil nor WMDs stand-up under scrutiny.

Leaving...???

Leaving unimaginative dull-witted tools such as yourself, parroting what you've been told, because you can't think for yourselves, sufficiently to suggest a variety of likely alternative rationales. Your cross to bear in life, not mine.

We know the real reason. The main culprit behind the war confessed. No one actually believes you know better than Bush why he invaded.

 

[there4eyeM]

"The future, Mr. Gittes. The future."

 

[Kondor3]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

So you honestly think Bush publicly lied by saying there were no WMDs, when that was probably the most damning admission he could concede?

As if more evidence was needed that rightards are certifiably insane.

Oh, blow it out your ass, Bambi...

You obviously cannot think outside the box, and take great pleasure in trying (and failing) to throw rocks at those who do.

The point of contention here - in this little sidebar - and flame-war that you started - was whether or not it was possible that the US had other motives for invading Iraq, other than those that the Decider and his cotillion chose to serve-up to the Sheeple as the 'official casus belli'.

If you question the veracity of the casus belli, then you should also be questioning the completeness of the public list of causes-for-war that you have been spoon-fed.

WMD? - perhaps - in part - it will be a point of contention for years - but everyone above the age of 5 now realizes that this was never the Real Reason.

Oil? - perhaps - in part - but it's not like we ended-up with a long-term and sustainable conduit there - damned expensive and uncertain investment there, eh?

Finishing Daddy's War? - perhaps - in part - most Sons try to out-perform their Fathers, don't they? - and Junior still had Daddy's Leadership Team 'handling' him.

Revenge for the Assassination Attempt on Daddy? - perhaps - in part - it seems likely that Junior would consider this a Bonus, but not a primary motivator.

Juicy Contracts for Old Friends? - perhaps - in part - some of their good-old-boys-network made fortunes off of that War Profiteering, didn't they?

Revenge for 9-11? - perhaps - in part - it was a chance to smack the shit out of a ANY Muslim Power - albeit a crippled one - a purely emotional motive.

Teaching a Lesson to Militant Muslims - perhaps - in part - a warning to the Ummah against ever attacking America again - at their very great peril.

( as to that last one, force is the language best understood by practitioners of a Warrior Religion, who are beginning to reawaken and re-militarize, and who hurt us on 9-11 )

--------------

These are all possible and likely elements of a complex casus belli - multiple causes and motivations - only some of which our Leadership may have dared articulate in public.

Proof?

I have none.

None is needed, given that these are all common-sense projections and speculation.

And, so long as they're clearly identified as speculation, it does no harm - and, perhaps, some good - to put such ideas on the table.

As to your idiotic monkey-poo-flinging over the possibility, your reaction is as chuckle-worthy as it is meaningless.

You are a Sheep, who comes closer to believing what he's told - without making allowance for other realistic possibilities - than you would like to believe.

Now... go thou, my little tunnel-visioned Militant Muslim enabler - and sin no more - and leave outside-the-box thinking to those better equipped to engage in it.

 

[Faun]

...What would I not be calm because you're an idiot? So stupid in fact, you think anyone with a brain would take your word over the confession of the man who actually invaded Iraq.

Public Words versus Private Words, my little dullard.

So you honestly think Bush publicly lied by saying there were no WMDs, when that was probably the most damning admission he could concede?

As if more evidence was needed that rightards are certifiably insane.

Oh, blow it out your ass, Bambi...

You obviously cannot think outside the box, and take great pleasure in trying (and failing) to throw rocks at those who do.

The point of contention here - in this little sidebar - and flame-war that you started - was whether or not it was possible that the US had other motives for invading Iraq, other than those that the Decider and his cotillion chose to serve-up to the Sheeple as the 'official casus belli'.

If you question the veracity of the casus belli, then you should also be questioning the completeness of the public list of causes-for-war that you have been spoon-fed.

WMD? - perhaps - in part - it will be a point of contention for years - but everyone above the age of 5 now realizes that this was never the Real Reason.

Oil? - perhaps - in part - but it's not like we ended-up with a long-term and sustainable conduit there - damned expensive and uncertain investment there, eh?

Finishing Daddy's War? - perhaps - in part - most Sons try to out-perform their Fathers, don't they? - and Junior still had Daddy's Leadership Team 'handling' him.

Revenge for the Assassination Attempt on Daddy? - perhaps - in part - it seems likely that Junior would consider this a Bonus, but not a primary motivator.

Juicy Contracts for Old Friends? - perhaps - in part - some of their good-old-boys-network made fortunes off of that War Profiteering, didn't they?

Revenge for 9-11? - perhaps - in part - it was a chance to smack the shit out of a ANY Muslim Power - albeit a crippled one - a purely emotional motive.

Teaching a Lesson to Militant Muslims - perhaps - in part - a warning to the Ummah against ever attacking America again - at their very great peril.

( as to that last one, force is the language best understood by practitioners of a Warrior Religion, who are beginning to u and re-militarize, and who hurt us on 9-11 )

--------------

These are all possible and likely elements of a complex casus belli - multiple causes and motivations - only some of which our Leadership may have dared articulate in public.

Proof?

I have none.

None is needed, given that these are all common-sense projections and speculation.

And, so long as they're clearly identified as speculation, it does no harm - and, perhaps, some good - to put such ideas on the table.

As to your idiotic monkey-poo-flinging over the possibility, your reaction is as chuckle-worthy as it is meaningless.

You are a Sheep, who comes closer to believing what he's told - without making allowance for other realistic possibilities - than you would like to believe.

Now... go thou, my little tunnel-visioned Militant Muslim enabler - and sin no more - and leave outside-the-box thinking to those better equipped to engage in it.

If you will, note the part of your diatribe I highlighted. It's all anyone needs to see to know you're out of your fucking mind. But you are a rightie, so it's expected.

Meanwhile, in stark contrast your lack of proof combined with your defective brain, a rotten combination to be sure, I have proof. The one man on the planet who knew why he deployed troops to Iraq....

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush, 2006​

G'head.... this is where you try to claim you're not an idiot -- you're really a savant with super sentient powers, capable of unraveling the "real" meaning behind George Bush's words.



This is comedy gold!

 

[kaz]

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

So what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war? What about voting for them for President and Vice President like you keep doing? Is that the solution?

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Gotcha, Trixie,

W is an evil genius. He was in the Oval Office less than 9 months when 9/11 happened. The Democrats 8 years before that. Democrats including John Fing Kerry were all over the Senate Intelligence committee which you apparently don't know what they do and the broad access to intelligence they have. He proceeded to con the Democrats, UN, French, Russians and Germans into thinking Hussein had WMDs, which he had repeatedly used before.

Of course it's my partisanship that makes me hold both sides accountable for what they did and your rigid adherence to a life following strict logic and impartiality that makes you realize Republicans are demonic aliens from another galaxy and Democrats pure as the driven snow full of love for their fellow man and incapable of lying even to save their own lives.

One question, what's your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid? I'm guessing cherry. Am I right?

 

[kaz]

Yes, John Frenchie Kerry voted for it, but he said he was against it, exactly what you want in a President, I see your point. It's OK then

It's better then in your opinion to have kept Bush, the actually perpetrator of the crime, in power.

That makes no sense.

So you vote for Himmler to replace Hitler? That makes no sense

Too funny coming from you... remind me again why you voted for that clown, Romney?

Why did you vote for the Marxist Obama?

Bwahahaha.....another one that believes Obama was born in Kenya and the world is flat.....bwahaha.

No, Obama lied about being born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. He is the original birther, patient zero of the birther movement