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

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Because I thought he did a decent job jis first term give heaping pile of dung Bush left him. Whereas you voted for the Romney clown to get Obama out of office. You know, the same reason NYcarbineer gave in voting for Kerry, which you then compared to himmler/hitler. You're a hypocrite.

Actually I didn't vote that year.

 

[Faun]

You're a ******* retard. There is no other explanation for how you can call 70% of Americans, "morons," for believing the president and his administration. Even funnier -- a plurality of that poll who you call morons, were righties.

Yes or no... did you or did you not think Iraq was behind 9.11? Easy question Faun. You can do it... YES [ ] or NO [ ]. Place your x.

I assure you, being a moron has nothing to do with being on the left or right of the political aisle. There are plenty of morons to go around.

Of course I believed the Bush administration. At that time, who could imagine they were lying?

What's moronic is calling 70% of the country morons for believing them.

ROFL what a moron. This guy believed that Iraq was behind 9.11. ROFL I'll bet he believes in the tooth fairy too.

Again, you're an idiot who thinks 70% of the nation are morons for believing the Bush administration.

Let me get this straight... you think I'm an idiot because I did not believe the Bush admin. when they made a mistake making that dumb ass comment about IRAQ involvement in 9.11 that everyone in the know knew was false at the time he said it. And you think I'm an idiot because I think only morons believed Bush's statement was accurate.

Yet here you are claiming the Bush administration were horrible liars from the start to the end... who's the moron/idiot, the guy who believes obviously incorrect statements from a guy they believe to be a liar, or the guy who looks at obviously incorrect statements as incorrect statements?

WTF? Why are you kazzing?

I never called you an idiot for not believing them. I called you a moron because you called 70% of America "morons" for believing them. But now I'm realizing you are dumber than I thought for thinking I called you an idiot for not believing them.

As far as your claim that the Atta meeting in Prague was an "obviously incorrect statement" .... what about it was so obviously incorrect?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

People just won't fall for your hucksterism as you attempt to back peddle away from comments you make. If you are misunderstood as much as you claim, maybe you should be more careful about what you post. Plus, you are the one with the reputation for consistently taking peoples comments out of context and dishonestly distorting them to meet your needs. You aren't the victim, you are the perp.

He's trying to make hay over someone who opposed the war and yet voted for, I suppose, John Kerry.

He also claims he opposed the war.

I'll guarantee you though that he didn't vote for Obama.

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

Have you told us who you voted for in 2004, 2008, and 2012?

 

[Mertex]

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

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?

Bush admitted he didn't have any WMD's.

Yeah well we have evidence they did so I guess he lied about them not having WMDs too. ROFL. Wait.. how can he be lying about them having them and lying about them not having them at the same time? ... Which lie was the truth?

Are you that slow? He lied about Iraq having them so he could get agreement to go to war. We found out there were no WMDs, and he was confronted.....so he admitted there were no WMDs.....there is no conflict. He lied about them being there, but when found out, he admitted there weren't. Geezh, I hope we don't have to draw you a picture every time we have to explain something to you.

 

[Faun]

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.....

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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?

Bush admitted he didn't have any WMD's.

Yeah well we have evidence they did so I guess he lied about them not having WMDs too. ROFL. Wait.. how can he be lying about them having them and lying about them not having them at the same time? ... Which lie was the truth?

Are you that slow? He lied about Iraq having them so he could get agreement to go to war. We found out there were no WMDs, and he was confronted.....so he admitted there were no WMDs.....there is no conflict. He lied about them being there, but when found out, he admitted there weren't. Geezh, I hope we don't have to draw you a picture every time we have to explain something to you.

Hey moron there WERE WMDs there. We did find them you dumb shit.

 

[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.

 

[Faun]

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship washingtonpost.com

So there were numerous contacts (CIA/NSA shit) between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. No evidence that the contacts mean Saddam was behind it... those implications were the mistake/false part. Well at least there's no hard evidence that he contacts mean there is evidence of their involvement. Saddam was probably just calling to congratulate them on one of their recent bombings in the name of alah.

panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[Faun]

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

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?

The WMD made in the late 80's/early 90's were almost all found and/or destroyed by weapons inspectors. The U.N. estimated they had taken care of about 95% of them before being pulled out by Clinton in 1998; at which point, Clinton bombed the shit out of much of the remainder in Operation Desert Fox.

 

[Kondor3]

Hell, Iraq wasn't about WMD, or oil, for that matter...

Righties are such idiots... they'll say anything, no matter how stupid. Meanwhile, directly from the mouth of the one man on the planet with the ability to start the war ...

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

Despite your wild claim the war wasn't about WMD ... WMD were the main reason for the war.

Calm yourself, Chauncey...

You are telling us what Shrub SAID...

You are NOT tell us (with any certainty) what Shrub (et al) THOUGHT, or WHY they acted...

You are giving us the PUBLIC rationale (at least in part), NOT the PRIVATE (unspoken) rationale...

My grandmother can parrot what was said publicly...

But... Nature, or the Good Lord, or both, also gave us our wits... and the incentive to use them from time to time, to examine if what we are being told, is the REAL reason why something happens...

I've just indulged in that very sort of exercise...

Speculating that the need to Teach A Lesson was one of the primary motivators behind doing what we did.

It is an inescapable and undeniable fact that the then-Administration played upon current (immediate post-9-11) anti-Muslim sentiment, in order to do what they did...

The "Teach A Lesson" scenario is merely an extension of existing fact, dullard, and far more believable to the objective mind that your silly-boy rock-throwing would gainsay...

No big deal...

I don't require your approval in any of this, anyway.

Rather than parroting the Standard Party Line, about motives, etc., why don't you let your mind roam free for a while, to conjure up other likely possible motivations, beyond those you're so heavily vested-in, already?

But you won't... quite probably because you can't... your mind is sufficiently closed and subjective so as to render you useless in any such speculation of possibilities.

Wake me up, when you learn to think for yourself and develop alternative scenarios, rather than parroting a set piece.

 

[Faun]

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

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.

 

[Faun]

Hell, Iraq wasn't about WMD, or oil, for that matter...

Righties are such idiots... they'll say anything, no matter how stupid. Meanwhile, directly from the mouth of the one man on the planet with the ability to start the war ...

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

Despite your wild claim the war wasn't about WMD ... WMD were the main reason for the war.

Calm yourself, Chauncey...

You are telling us what Shrub SAID...

You are NOT tell us (with any certainty) what Shrub (et al) THOUGHT, or WHY they acted...

You are giving us the PUBLIC rationale (at least in part), NOT the PRIVATE (unspoken) rationale...

My grandmother can parrot what was said publicly...

But... Nature, or the Good Lord, or both, also gave us our wits... and the incentive to use them from time to time, to examine if what we are being told, is the REAL reason why something happens...

I've just indulged in that very sort of exercise...

Speculating that the need to Teach A Lesson was one of the primary motivators behind doing what we did.

It is an inescapable and undeniable fact that the then-Administration played upon current (immediate post-9-11) anti-Muslim sentiment, in order to do what they did...

The "Teach A Lesson" scenario is merely an extension of existing fact, dullard, and far more believable to the objective mind that your silly-boy rock-throwing would gainsay...

No big deal...

I don't require your approval in any of this, anyway.

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.

 

[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.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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.

They found the stockpiles you dumb ass.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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 ******* LISTEN TO YOURSELF?

 

[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.

 

[Faun]

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.........

 

[Faun]

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

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 ******* 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.