Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cheney definitely lied when he said unequivocally that Atta had met with Iraqi government officials in Germany. Also:Actually, he said, "They lied"
Dunno if anyone lied. Do know, many used false info to make a point. Whether they knew it to be false at the time, is not known.
However, chemical weapons were found in Iraq.
Another lie:Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida 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."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there had been "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]
In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "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 any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
And for any analysts unclear on what the administration wanted to hear, Vice President Dick Cheney, whom several Bush officials told me was not as smart as the president, made sure they got the message on August 26, 2002, when he delivered a public speech that had not been vetted by the White House or cleared by Bush. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
The clear message to the worker bees at the CIA: The White House knew Saddam had the weapons. Disagree at peril to your career.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!
If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?
If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.
The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?
Don't you agree how childish a response that is?Shit.....if a Democratic candidate told me Obama was responsible for 9-11, I wouldn't support him
Millions of Republicans flock to Trump as their savior
After suffering under Obama for 7 years, even Bozo the Clown would look like a savior.
That's a funny joke....shows how simplistic your political thoughts are
Really? Compared to you, Bozo is a freaking genius!
Shows the level of your observation
No. It perfectly illustrates your inability to cognitively function.
Because multiple sources have stated that Cheney did not act on bad intelligence. He had a conclusion then only wanted to hear/see intel that fit that conclusion.Cheney definitely lied when he said unequivocally that Atta had met with Iraqi government officials in Germany. Also:Actually, he said, "They lied"
Dunno if anyone lied. Do know, many used false info to make a point. Whether they knew it to be false at the time, is not known.
However, chemical weapons were found in Iraq.
Another lie:Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida 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."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there had been "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]
In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "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 any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
And for any analysts unclear on what the administration wanted to hear, Vice President Dick Cheney, whom several Bush officials told me was not as smart as the president, made sure they got the message on August 26, 2002, when he delivered a public speech that had not been vetted by the White House or cleared by Bush. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
The clear message to the worker bees at the CIA: The White House knew Saddam had the weapons. Disagree at peril to your career.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!
If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?
If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
Don't you agree how childish a response that is?After suffering under Obama for 7 years, even Bozo the Clown would look like a savior.
That's a funny joke....shows how simplistic your political thoughts are
Really? Compared to you, Bozo is a freaking genius!
Shows the level of your observation
No. It perfectly illustrates your inability to cognitively function.
The child speaks.......Look everyone, Obama is Bozo
Define "free".Might it be pointed out that the Iraq war ended a number of years ago with a free Iraq?
Anything a socialist like Bernie Sanders thinks comes from the government at no cost to anyone!
Every one of them was a moral coward unwilling to stand up to post 9/11 hysteria. Republicans made it clear they would label any opposition as unamerican and soft on terror......they all deferred to the Presidents judgementLie s exactly what occurred...on a massive scale
So, you admit that all of the Democrats like the Clintons, Kerry, Pelosi and the lot are just as responsible for their exercise of poor judgement, or are you going to smugly say "That's (D)ifferent!"?
Bush lied to get his war
Why do liberals want to remove all doubt that they are spineless, brainless blobs follow their master's bidding without any thought possible?
After 9-11, America rallied around the President. It is what we do.
We gave Bush a 9-11 card that said we would support him in anything he needed to fight terrorism
At that time, taking a stand against Bush was taking a stand against America
Bush used his 9-11 card to invade Iraq.......after that, we took his card away
Why did he wait over a year and a half to do it? According to your and your ilk, if any of what you claimed was true, it should have happened before we invaded Afghanistan!
Define "free".Might it be pointed out that the Iraq war ended a number of years ago with a free Iraq?
Anything a socialist like Bernie Sanders thinks comes from the government at no cost to anyone!
Nice deflection Nancy.
Every one of them was a moral coward unwilling to stand up to post 9/11 hysteria. Republicans made it clear they would label any opposition as unamerican and soft on terror......they all deferred to the Presidents judgementSo, you admit that all of the Democrats like the Clintons, Kerry, Pelosi and the lot are just as responsible for their exercise of poor judgement, or are you going to smugly say "That's (D)ifferent!"?
Bush lied to get his war
Why do liberals want to remove all doubt that they are spineless, brainless blobs follow their master's bidding without any thought possible?
After 9-11, America rallied around the President. It is what we do.
We gave Bush a 9-11 card that said we would support him in anything he needed to fight terrorism
At that time, taking a stand against Bush was taking a stand against America
Bush used his 9-11 card to invade Iraq.......after that, we took his card away
Why did he wait over a year and a half to do it? According to your and your ilk, if any of what you claimed was true, it should have happened before we invaded Afghanistan!
He didn't wait a year and a half. He waited three months after the Congressional authorization. Why did he attack when he did?
Because UN inspector Hans Blix was claiming there was no threat and he could prove it if he had more time
Bush invaded before Blix could get his proof
Cheney definitely lied when he said unequivocally that Atta had met with Iraqi government officials in Germany. Also:Actually, he said, "They lied"
Dunno if anyone lied. Do know, many used false info to make a point. Whether they knew it to be false at the time, is not known.
However, chemical weapons were found in Iraq.
Another lie:Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida 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."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there had been "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]
In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "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 any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
And for any analysts unclear on what the administration wanted to hear, Vice President Dick Cheney, whom several Bush officials told me was not as smart as the president, made sure they got the message on August 26, 2002, when he delivered a public speech that had not been vetted by the White House or cleared by Bush. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
The clear message to the worker bees at the CIA: The White House knew Saddam had the weapons. Disagree at peril to your career.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!
If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?
If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.
The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?
So knowing what we know now, you still believe they exercised good judgement?
I believe they knew their reasons were tenuous at best.They embellished the dangers of Saddam's capabilities and therefore lied.
Define "free".Might it be pointed out that the Iraq war ended a number of years ago with a free Iraq?
Anything a socialist like Bernie Sanders thinks comes from the government at no cost to anyone!
Nice deflection Nancy.
Not a deflection, but simply another opportunity to point out the liberal mind and its inability to function at more than an elementary school level.
A missile strike is different from an invasion and occupation, dumbass.Here hack boyClinton was satisfied with using sanctions and no fly zones to contain Saddam for eight years...it workedI just want to say this :
If Bush lied, so did bill Clinton and hundreds of other people. Lets not forget CLinton bombed the shit out of them in the late 90s because they wouldn't cooperate with UN weapon inspectors. Bush had information given to him..
We shouldn't forget that history didn't start in 2000 and there were talks of war since after the Gulf War. Revisionism helps no one.
Also, saying 9-11 was the Presidents fault is partisan bullshit.
Do you have any idea how many threats our govt get a DAY? If they went after every threat, we wouldn't be able to go to work without letting big brother know.
How much freedom are you willing to trade for a false sense of security?
Only Bush was dumb enough to invade. Even his father knew better
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
---
Rest at link. Not like you give a fuck..
Every one of them was a moral coward unwilling to stand up to post 9/11 hysteria. Republicans made it clear they would label any opposition as unamerican and soft on terror......they all deferred to the Presidents judgement
Bush lied to get his war
Why do liberals want to remove all doubt that they are spineless, brainless blobs follow their master's bidding without any thought possible?
After 9-11, America rallied around the President. It is what we do.
We gave Bush a 9-11 card that said we would support him in anything he needed to fight terrorism
At that time, taking a stand against Bush was taking a stand against America
Bush used his 9-11 card to invade Iraq.......after that, we took his card away
Why did he wait over a year and a half to do it? According to your and your ilk, if any of what you claimed was true, it should have happened before we invaded Afghanistan!
He didn't wait a year and a half. He waited three months after the Congressional authorization. Why did he attack when he did?
Because UN inspector Hans Blix was claiming there was no threat and he could prove it if he had more time
Bush invaded before Blix could get his proof
Man! You swallowed the hook, line, sinker, rod and reel and the whole damn fishing boat!
Using liberal fantasies, he should have invaded on January 20, 2001!
Cheney definitely lied when he said unequivocally that Atta had met with Iraqi government officials in Germany. Also:
Another lie:Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida 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."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there had been "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]
In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "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 any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
And for any analysts unclear on what the administration wanted to hear, Vice President Dick Cheney, whom several Bush officials told me was not as smart as the president, made sure they got the message on August 26, 2002, when he delivered a public speech that had not been vetted by the White House or cleared by Bush. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
The clear message to the worker bees at the CIA: The White House knew Saddam had the weapons. Disagree at peril to your career.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!
If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?
If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.
The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?
So knowing what we know now, you still believe they exercised good judgement?
I believe they knew their reasons were tenuous at best.They embellished the dangers of Saddam's capabilities and therefore lied.
You have no evidence of that, do you?
No shit. Obviously you cant comprehend the point, dumbfuck.A missile strike is different from an invasion and occupation, dumbass.Here hack boyClinton was satisfied with using sanctions and no fly zones to contain Saddam for eight years...it workedI just want to say this :
If Bush lied, so did bill Clinton and hundreds of other people. Lets not forget CLinton bombed the shit out of them in the late 90s because they wouldn't cooperate with UN weapon inspectors. Bush had information given to him..
We shouldn't forget that history didn't start in 2000 and there were talks of war since after the Gulf War. Revisionism helps no one.
Also, saying 9-11 was the Presidents fault is partisan bullshit.
Do you have any idea how many threats our govt get a DAY? If they went after every threat, we wouldn't be able to go to work without letting big brother know.
How much freedom are you willing to trade for a false sense of security?
Only Bush was dumb enough to invade. Even his father knew better
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
---
Rest at link. Not like you give a fuck..
Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!
If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?
If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?
Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.
The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?
So knowing what we know now, you still believe they exercised good judgement?
I believe they knew their reasons were tenuous at best.They embellished the dangers of Saddam's capabilities and therefore lied.
You have no evidence of that, do you?
Moron.
Where was his "reconstituted nuclear weapons program"?
Why did he wait over a year and a half to do it?
Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.
The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?
So knowing what we know now, you still believe they exercised good judgement?
I believe they knew their reasons were tenuous at best.They embellished the dangers of Saddam's capabilities and therefore lied.
You have no evidence of that, do you?
Moron.
Where was his "reconstituted nuclear weapons program"?
Operational deception created by Saddam and his henchmen made to strike fear in the hearts of those who opposed Iraq.
The only thing wet is the oil, dumbass.Who, in the mid-1990s, made a $50 million deal with Saddam for oil services.Odd that their former employee was VP as wellTake a look at what haliburtons stock did during and after the war. Take alook.
So, Cheney went from calling Saddam a murderous tyrant who needed to go, to making million dollar deals with him, to calling Saddam a murderous tyrant who needed to go.
I don't know. It is your fantasy. Why don't you provide some back up for your wet dreams?
What would you have had him do? You had no idea anything was going on their either!
Operational deception created by Bush and his henchmen to justify is blunder of an invasionBecause they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.
The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?
So knowing what we know now, you still believe they exercised good judgement?
I believe they knew their reasons were tenuous at best.They embellished the dangers of Saddam's capabilities and therefore lied.
You have no evidence of that, do you?
Moron.
Where was his "reconstituted nuclear weapons program"?
Operational deception created by Saddam and his henchmen made to strike fear in the hearts of those who opposed Iraq.
