Question for Iraq war supporters

[Alpha1]

Outing you for the fool you are is getting to be so easy, its not half the fun it used to be....and your helping me the way you do doesn't even present me with a challenge anymore....but it is satisfying to expose you as an asshole to the rest of the board....

 

[maineman]

Outing you for the fool you are is getting to be so easy, its not half the fun it used to be....and your helping me the way you do doesn't even present me with a challenge anymore....but it is satisfying to expose you as an asshole to the rest of the board....

just answer the question. did I "connect" you to baby ******* or didn't I?

 

[eots]

just answer the question. did I "connect" you to baby ******* or didn't I?

and if your not with us,....you with the baby fuckers

 

[DeadCanDance]

* September 14, 2003:

Vice President Dick Cheney: With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

Yeah...just how fuckin' thick are you, MM....Your reading comp. really sux....

The CZECHS ALLEGE....understand that? THE CZECHS...do you need that explained to you..? WE JUST DON"T KNOW....

snip!

wrong:

DICK CHENEY: "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," Cheney said in an appearance on "Meet the Press" three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918proof.htm


Now check this out.

Three years later, Cheney (like Alpha) lies, and claims he never said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence.

january 2004:

-GLORIA BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

-BORGER: OK.

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: I never said that.

-BORGER: I think that is...

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.

 

[Alucard]

and if your not with us,....you with the baby fuckers

It must be nice to have Eots in your corner!!!... Eh.. MM!

Gives your posistion some great credibility...

Maybe Taomon can chime in and help you out...

Dont worry....The party hasn't been lost to the looney left...

 

[Alpha1]

wrong:

DICK CHENEY: "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," Cheney said in an appearance on "Meet the Press" three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.



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 of 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, .......

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--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.

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is 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'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.
(So here we have Cheney confirming that the Czech report exists....not its contents........he continues to state what the report claims about the alleged meeting)

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.

(Then explains that no one can say what transpired)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918proof.htm


Now check this out.

Three years later, Cheney (like Alpha) lies, and claims he never said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence.

january 2004:

-GLORIA BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

-BORGER: OK.

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: I never said that.

-BORGER: I think that is...

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.

So there is no lie...only a misunderstanding of what Cheney meant in the first place.....he confirmed that the report was real....

and IMO...if no one knows what was said at any alleged meeting, then even the existence or non-existence of any meeting is moot....

 

[Alpha1]

Now...if you left-wing nuts can understand the Kerry never called our troops stupid, or that Durban didn't call the guards at Gitmo, Nazis, and that Clinton didn't lie under oath.....if you can understand all that,

Cheney's statement about confirming the existance of the Czech report should present no problem at all....

 

[finebead]

So there is no lie...only a misunderstanding of what Cheney meant in the first place.....he confirmed that the report was real....

and IMO...if no one knows what was said at any alleged meeting, then even the existence or non-existence of any meeting is moot....

This is as technical as Clinton's "it depends what the meaning of "is" is". Trying to defend lying by slicing words. You are no better than Clinton in that department.

Why was Cheney discussing this intel on Meet the Press? He put it out there to convince the public the US was justified when we invaded Iraq, seeing we would probably not find any WMD. You can put fine caveats around the statement, what's the public going to remember? Iraq had something to do with 9/11. A large percent of the population came away with that impression, that exists to this day, but is declining now.

The bottom line is the VP led the people in the wrong direction, as a practical matter. Your technical wordsmithing does nothing to change it.

And the report from the DOD that said there was a link came from Doug Feith, who was appointed by Bush in 2001, from his 15 year law firm practice, who the inspector general of the DOD stated in congressional testimony that Feith made "inappropriate use" of intel from the intelligence community, and that he wrote reports disparaging the intel community to the white house, without allowing the intel community to review them, which is inappropriate procedure. That is the info Cheney was using, manipulated by Feith, inappropriately, and Feith was Bush's boy, his own personal appointee. I documented this in this thread, between pages 15 and 25.

So Cheney spouted the lies Feith cooked up. You think a 15 year lawyer looks at the same intel as the intel professonals, states something else is true other than what the intel community finds, knows the intel community disagrees, does not meet with the intel community to resolve the issue (as he should have), disparages the intel community, and the administration pronounces this on Meet the Press, and they aren't a pack of liars? They are a pack of liars, and it starts with Doug Feith, appointed by Bush. Feith was called on it by the Inspector General of DOD, before Congress.

 

[Alpha1]

This is as technical as Clinton's "it depends what the meaning of "is" is". Trying to defend lying by slicing words. You are no better than Clinton in that department.

Why was Cheney discussing this intel on Meet the Press? He put it out there to convince the public the US was justified when we invaded Iraq, seeing we would probably not find any WMD. You can put fine caveats around the statement, what's the public going to remember? Iraq had something to do with 9/11. A large percent of the population came away with that impression, that exists to this day, but is declining now.

He was discussing this intel on Meet the Press because RUSSERT obviously asked him a question about it.....
Cheney answered.....

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed,

How about that.....thats EXACTLY what the transcript shows Cheney saying....."the report that's been pretty well confirmed".....

No 'wordsmithing" from me...thats the exact quote from the transcript....unlike the (lie), the incorrect quote that DCD tryed to pass off as what Cheney said.....

and Kerry DID call our troops stupid...
Durbin did accuse the Gitmo guards of being like Nazies....
and Clinton DID lied under oath...and admitted it....


The bottom line is the VP led the people in the wrong direction, as a practical matter. Your technical wordsmithing does nothing to change it.

And the report from the DOD that said there was a link came from Doug Feith, who was appointed by Bush in 2001, from his 15 year law firm practice, who the inspector general of the DOD stated in congressional testimony that Feith made "inappropriate use" of intel from the intelligence community, and that he wrote reports disparaging the intel community to the white house, without allowing the intel community to review them, which is inappropriate procedure. That is the info Cheney was using, manipulated by Feith, inappropriately, and Feith was Bush's boy, his own personal appointee. I documented this in this thread, between pages 15 and 25.

So Cheney spouted the lies Feith cooked up. You think a 15 year lawyer looks at the same intel as the intel professonals, states something else is true other than what the intel community finds, knows the intel community disagrees, does not meet with the intel community to resolve the issue (as he should have), disparages the intel community, and the administration pronounces this on Meet the Press, and they aren't a pack of liars? They are a pack of liars, and it starts with Doug Feith, appointed by Bush. Feith was called on it by the Inspector General of DOD, before Congress.

I don't know what Feith said or didn't say.....the fact is, CHENEY and RUSSERT were plainly talking about an intell report from CZECH intell, and plainly mention if several times in the transcript.....so making up bullshit not mentioned in THIS Meet the Press interview is just that .... bullshit...

 

[finebead]

I don't know what Feith said or didn't say.....the fact is, CHENEY and RUSSERT were plainly talking about an intell report from CZECH intell, and plainly mention if several times in the transcript.....so making up bullshit not mentioned in THIS Meet the Press interview is just that .... bullshit...

Testimony from the inspector general of the DOD before congress, that I have posted links to in this thead, is not bullshit. It's the truth. You're just too juvenile to admit you are wrong, or too lazy to go look it up. Not good in either case.

Was Chech intel reporting directly to Cheney, or who reported the Chech intel report to Cheney? Feith did produce a report on Iraq connection to 9/11, where he made inappropriate use of intel, that's what the inspector general said. Chech intel does not deliver reports directly to Cheney, so he was not citing them directly. The only report the white house had that we know of on Iraq linked to 9/11 was produced by Feith, and it made "inappropriate use in intel", per the inspector general of DOD. The regular intelligence community did not say there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, but Cheney went with the report info from Feith, and Feith was just manufacturing a link that the regular intel community did not say existed. That's just lying, for smart boys like Feith and Cheney.

 

[Alpha1]

Testimony from the inspector general of the DOD before congress, that I have posted links to in this thead, is not bullshit. It's the truth. You're just too juvenile to admit you are wrong, or too lazy to go look it up. Not good in either case.

Was Chech intel reporting directly to Cheney, or who reported the Chech intel report to Cheney? Feith did produce a report on Iraq connection to 9/11, where he made inappropriate use of intel, that's what the inspector general said. Chech intel does not deliver reports directly to Cheney, so he was not citing them directly. The only report the white house had that we know of on Iraq linked to 9/11 was produced by Feith, and it made "inappropriate use in intel", per the inspector general of DOD. The regular intelligence community did not say there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, but Cheney went with the report info from Feith, and Feith was just manufacturing a link that the regular intel community did not say existed. That's just lying, for smart boys like Feith and Cheney.

Russert to Cheney....

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.

IS that plain enough for you....???

No doubt there was speculation from many about who was responsible in the early hours of the investigation....but 5 days after, on 9/16 Cheney, in no uncertain terms said there was NO evidence that Iraq was involved....

The Czechs made a claim that Atta had a meeting with Iraqis in April....our intell could not prove it one way of the other, but our CIA said they didn't believe it....Intell from many countrys were coming into the US .... what the hell does it matter how Cheney or anyone else in our government found out about the Czech claim....

 

[finebead]

Why did Bush hire Doug Feith in 2001, put him in the Pentagon, why was he producing reports as intelligence when he was not in the intelligence gathering business, why was he making inappropriate use of intelligence data, putting out reports the intelligence community did not agree with, and write disparaging reports about the intelligence community they were not given the opportunity to respond to?

On 9/16/2001, Cheney did not need Iraq to be involved in 9/11 because we were going to invade Afghanistan. Later, and the posts that show Cheney trying to show a link between Iraq and 9/11, were in 2002 and 2003, in the runup to the war, and in the immediate aftermath, in an attempt to justify the war after no WMD were found.

In Alpha1's post in 2001 Cheney says no link, but later he tries to build the case for a link. He did a good job on Meet the Press, how else did the majority of Americans believe there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq in 2003? It was useful to sell the war to the Americans.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why did Bush hire Doug Feith in 2001, put him in the Pentagon, why was he producing reports as intelligence when he was not in the intelligence gathering business, why was he making inappropriate use of intelligence data, putting out reports the intelligence community did not agree with, and write disparaging reports about the intelligence community they were not given the opportunity to respond to?

On 9/16/2001, Cheney did not need Iraq to be involved in 9/11 because we were going to invade Afghanistan. Later, and the posts that show Cheney trying to show a link between Iraq and 9/11, were in 2002 and 2003, in the runup to the war, and in the immediate aftermath, in an attempt to justify the war after no WMD were found.

In Alpha1's post in 2001 Cheney says no link, but later he tries to build the case for a link. He did a good job on Meet the Press, how else did the majority of Americans believe there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq in 2003? It was useful to sell the war to the Americans.

Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.

 

[maineman]

Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.

so Cheney's "confirmed" report from Czech intell somehow is meaningless to you?

and you never even attempt to explain how a majority of americans came to believe there was a connection.

pathetic.

 

[finebead]

Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.

Well, this is quoted on this page above, but again, this is from the White House transcripts December 9, 2001, 3 months after Cheney said there was no evidence of a link between 9/11 and Iraq:

December 9, 2001, Meet the Press with Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is 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'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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

Now he's saying its "pretty well confirmed". That is not true. It was never confirmed. Why is the VP passing information that has never been confirmed as "pretty well confirmed"?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.

Not only did you and BushCo lie about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, not only did Cheney say there was a confirmed" report that Atta met with iraqi intelligence in Prauge, but BushCo continually tap danced and obfuscated about the alleged Iraq-9/11 connection for years, until people started laughing at them for making such statements

Meet the Press

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

BTW: pretty much every claim cheney makes above has been debunked, and were likely lies.

CHENEY: 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.

 

[Taomon]

Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.

Okay, so why did we invade Iraq and why was 9/11 referenced in every single speech regarding the war in Irar?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay, so why did we invade Iraq and why was 9/11 referenced in every single speech regarding the war in Irar?

Go read the war resolution dumbshit. Ohh and provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.

The War resolution is public history. Even you can access it. I though need some of those "secret" subliminal" messages from Bush and Cheney quoted for me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here ya go dumbshit...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Approved by Congress, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton, supported by Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Spin away , I can see at least one line you can pretend means something it does not, lets see how long it takes for your retarded ass to find it and twist what it says.

 

[Taomon]

Go read the war resolution dumbshit. Ohh and provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.

The War resolution is public history. Even you can access it. I though need some of those "secret" subliminal" messages from Bush and Cheney quoted for me.

It is not my contention that Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq was tied to 9/11. It is implied when they discuss Iraq and pepper the speech with references to 9/11.