Cheney on Meet the Press

[gardenweasel]

stevie...again...every intelligence agency in the modern world believed saddam had wmd`s......and he refused to fully cooperate with inspectors for over 10 years...

he knew the u.n. was running interference for him...but,he didn`t think we`d still remove him.....

zarqawi was in iraq...in uday`s hospital..

he had invaded kuwait and burned its oil fields

he killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.....

no direct connection to 9/11....fair enough...


but,p/11 didn`t happen in a vacuum...



but 25 grand for suicide bombers to kill innocents in democracies and allied countries...

"After escapingtalian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes."


"Abbas' Baghdad sojourn was not an isolated incident. Saddam Hussein granted avowed international terrorists refuge in Baathist Iraq. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality"....

there are so many links...to many to list....

the question is,was it worth it?...to ensure that saddam had no weapons and remove the most dispruptive influence from the region?......

time will tell...

a little gift for stevie....

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/Rhetoric/index.php

check it out...very cool
power to the people!!

 

[StevieD]

Weasel, I love the way you twist every fact that comes your way. If I ever am on the same of an issue as you the first thing I do is check my facts.

Funny thing but the UN that you dispise said that there were not any WMD's in Iraq.

The fact is, that Saddam was under control, according to one of your hero's, Dickless "The Liar" Cheney and the War Whore Condi Rice.

I only bring them up because you like to say that Dems voted for the war.

Get this thru that thick Neocon loving head of yours. They voted to support the President. They didn't vote to go to war.

Now, the question was put out by Frezze to show him a lie that Cheney said. So, unlike you, when I challaged you to show me a lie of Moores, I called him on it and pointed out a lie.

You answered some BS about defining a lie.

So to get back tp the question of Cheneys lies. Yes he does lie. look up a few posts for an example. I can give you more if you want.

:scared

 

[gardenweasel]

actually,more dems voted to authorize use of force against sadaam,than voted to extract him from kuwait....

i`ll never figure that one out...

has cheney ever directly..straightforwardly said that saddam was involved in 9/11?.....

i personally don`t believe he was..and i don`t know anybody that follows politics that does....

.but,i also don`t recall bush or cheney coming straight out and stating that fact....

if they did,can you post the quote?.....you know,"sadaam was responsible for 9/11"...

or,"saddam was involved in planning 9/11"

i may be wrong about it...i just don`t recall hearing it...and please...no vague references....a direct quote is you can....


saddam was involved with many terrorists and terrorist organizations....theres no question on that....

he also was involved in plotting the assassination of g.b. senior....

gotta stop...hank williams signin` "a country boy can survive"....where`s matt hughes?

 

[StevieD]

They infered it many times.

CHENEY CLAIM: "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between
al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an
established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04


FACT: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to
be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle
U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the
Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime
and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

 

[Chadman]

GW, I guess you are trying to pigeonhole the discussion regarding Cheney and his statements. Can you allow that what Cheney is trying to do is paint the picture for those that don't dig for specifics (a majority of Americans, I offer) that Saddam had ties with Osama Bin Laden? He has said, on more than one occasion, and again recently, that Saddam's regime had a relationship with high level Al Qaida members. So, does that mean that he is saying that it was only Saddam's officials and high-ranking Al Qaida members that had a relationship? Is he saying that neither of those groups spoke of anything from that relationship with the grand poo-bahs? It's ludicrous to suggest he is not trying to make the case that links the two for the American public and the world. No, I doubt he said Saddam planned 9-11. But he certainly puts the dots very close together publicly - for one good reason. To try to get us to believe it. If you say otherwise, I don't know what to say to that.

Here's one link, there are countless others, I'm sure:

Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link

Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.

 

[Happy Hippo]

A few more...



"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."

Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004).


QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. You've repeatedly cited such links. . . . I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: . . . . With respect to . . . the general relationship. . . . One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard . . . That goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

QUESTION: Yes, sir . . . .

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The main perpetrator was a man named Ramzi Yousef. He's now in prison in Colorado. His sidekick in the exercise was a man named Abdul Rahman Yasin. . . Ahman Rahman . . . Yasin is his last name anyway. I can't remember his earlier first names. He fled the United States after the attack, the 1993 attack, went to Iraq, and we know now based on documents that we've captured since we took Baghdad, that they put him on the payroll, gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary, in effect, in Iraq, in the aftermath of nine-ele (sic) . . . the 93' attack on the World Trade Center.

QUESTION: So you stand by the statements?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Absolutely. And you can look at Zarkawi, (Abu Mussab) al-Zarkawi . . . Who was an al-Qaida associate, who was wounded in Afghanistan, took refuge in Baghdad, working out of Baghdad, worked with the Ansar al Islam group up in northeastern Iraq, that produced a so-called poison factory, a group that we hit when we went into Iraq. . . . We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions."

Source: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

 

[Chadman]

What we really need to do is go after the liars like Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Daschle who all said that Iraq had WMD's!!!!!!!!


They should all be in prision!!!!!

I don't know what to make of this. Are you suggesting that all politicians and administration officials who said Iraq had WMD's - no matter what they were basing that opinion from - should be in prison? Or are you being funny? I'll hold off until I know for sure. This is pretty off the wall, even for you. If you are being somewhat serious, I'll gladly play this game.

 

[Chadman]

I think we need to define what a lie is.

If someone says something he believes true and it turns out false--it is not a lie

the reverse is also true--if someone says something he thinks to be false but it turns out true--it was still a lie.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Entry Word: lie
Function: noun
Text: a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive

What about when people who are responsible for laying out all the evidence and reports to make a case for war and action against another country deliberately hide verifiable and sensible evidence that should be considered when others not privvy to all the evidence are asked to make a decision? What do you call that? And is that fair to hold those responsible for decisions when they weren't given all the important info - when it was deliberately hidden from them to affect their decision?

This should be some quality spin...

 

[Nick Douglas]

If you blindly rely on intelligence that comes from sources with a known agenda (Saddam's ouster), that's incompetence, not lying. And I'm not talking about the end source (CIA, Russian Intel, German Intel, etc.) I'm talking about the sources those agencies have in Iraq. Those sources (largely the INC) were hell-bent on ousting Saddam and it is *very* possible that they painted an overly threatening picture of Iraq to goad us into an invasion. I'll accept that it's not a lie when you believe information from sources with a known agenda, but it is poor leadershihp.

At least among most people I know, the argument isn't whether Cheney or Bush lied, anyway. The issue is that the way they handled Iraq was the wrong way. I think most people agreed that Saddam was a threat (at least on some level) to the U.S. and its interests in the Middle East. The problem is that they chose the wrong way to handle that threat. Even at the time of the invasion there was a signficant group that believed that.

I will say that accusing Bush and Cheney of lying (along with the requisite counter-arguments) clouds the issue and ultimately makes a lot of Democrats look bad. If I never hear another Democrat accuse Bush or Cheney of lying I think it would be better for the party because then we can concentrate on the *bad decision* to invade Iraq and the fact that most Republicans stubbornly refuse to accept the reality that we will be better off in the long run if we get out of Iraq soon.

 

[The Sponge]

I think if anyone was this stupid to authorize this admistration the power to go to war isn't really fit to run this country. Its all out there and its easy to find about the history of these two scumbags who are in office. If you couldn't tell they had an agenda then you don't belong in politics or this discussion. I knew from day one these pricks were up to no good. These are power hungry people in office and will stop at nothing to get what they want and that is money. Let me repeat this one more time. We will be in Iraq till the day most of us die. We are building a huge base on the Tigris river. See if you can find out about this anywhere on the net cause its a big secret. What a palace to. This is there for a reason and its also one of the reasons we will get hit once again. We just can't get out of these peoples lives. I wish all their oil would dry up cause that is the only way we will leave.

 

[The Sponge]

on another note Saddam was contained like a little school girl. He wasn''t gonna do a dam thing. Why anyone would want to go to war with him had to have an agenda. Paul Oneil a bush guy said that these scumbags were talking about going into Iraq even before they won their first electiion. Paul Oniel not me. Power and money is the agenda. When you have the other party just fall over and let them get away with shit time and time again then you need another party.

 

[StevieD]

I can't agree that we can't say they lied. They did lie. They knew the truth and they knew Saddam was contained. If you just think they are incompetent then that is another story. Either way, incompetent or lying, soulless, crooks, they should not be allowed to make another decision that affects our country.

 

[The Sponge]

Stevie there were so many reports out there that Bush and his crew kept baiting Saddam into a confrontation but Saddam wouldn't bite. this coming from the secret service in england and other source. Saddam wouldn't bite because he knew he would be doomed so he figure he would just sit on his billions and enjoy his life. This rotten prick Saddam at least kept Iran in check. Now look.

 

[StevieD]

I agree Sponge but these guys say we can't talk about lieing, cant talk about the business deals, we hate Bush, oh look a liberal said that and on and on it goes. Yet when we call them on any of it we just get the same old crap. Now they are saying any talk against the occupation because it makes the enemy stronger. My God, if they had their way we couldn't even say we are against a war! As the great Country Joe McDonald once said "One two three four what are we fighting for?

 

[The Sponge]

I agree Sponge but these guys say we can't talk about lieing, cant talk about the business deals, we hate Bush, oh look a liberal said that and on and on it goes. Yet when we call them on any of it we just get the same old crap. Now they are saying any talk against the occupation because it makes the enemy stronger. My God, if they had their way we couldn't even say we are against a war! As the great Country Joe McDonald once said "One two three four what are we fighting for?

Stevie they say these things because the typical american is lazy and stupid. They don't go out and educate themselves like we do. The majority of americans are good people and can't even fathom what you and i may say. They are caring people but dumb.
Now with all the facts anyone can bring up i use to think people were breaking my balls. I saw a Republican from Maryland( i think) once talk about things like the Republican playbook. I took a step back and thought "man he actually believes this bullshit he was saying" This same guy just got caught trashing bush and is now back pedaling saying he never said it. So at least this nitwit found reality but it takes time with Americans. Americans just don't want to be bothered unless something affects there lives. Now guys like weasl just has to fight everything with "but what did the other guy do" They have such terrible tunnel-vision they can't open up there minds. Who gives to shits what Clinton did. But they use this because they have no other thing to offer. That is why when i see a guy time and time again have the word liberal in his post this just tells me he has limited mind span. He needs to be fed this kind of stuff or he will not be able to talk for himself. How anyone can defend this admistration is amazing to me. This is why the president is going around trying to scare everyone now. Its election time and its fear time all over again. It works cause stupid people fall for stupid things.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Chad : To answer your question--While it might not totally fit for definition of lie--I would consider it same as lie myself.

---However I've have seen some extreme examples of reference to a lie here--
Case in point--maybe I'm wrong but I interpreted that below was sample of lie--have read it numerous times in disbelief--

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."

Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004).

Maybe someone could point out the lie here? Even the dim witted prosecutor from Boulder Colorado (JonBenet case) could find enough evidence to support this one

 

[dr. freeze]

:nono: :nono: Looks like our President Bush-haters need a quick history lesson:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

[Happy Hippo]

Even the dim witted prosecutor from Boulder Colorado (JonBenet case) could find enough evidence to support this one

Well if he could find enough evidence to support this one, then we dim wits from Boulder (which is filled with liberals - you would be scared - I am) rest our case!!

The point of it all is, whether lies or not, his statements were often misleading to the general public and other govt officials in order for the administration to achieve their goals, with their own interests in mind. Sure he had chemical weapons at one point in time, and since Cheney said "had", I guess he was telling the truth. As they say in Ghana, "somehow."

But whatever - it doesn't really matter anyway. I've said it before, but we can't live in the past - have to deal with this mess of a war now, and blaming people is pretty pointless, whatever side they are on.

 

[The Sponge]

Chad : To answer your question--While it might not totally fit for definition of lie--I would consider it same as lie myself.

---However I've have seen some extreme examples of reference to a lie here--
Case in point--maybe I'm wrong but I interpreted that below was sample of lie--have read it numerous times in disbelief--

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."

Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004).

Maybe someone could point out the lie here? Even the dim witted prosecutor from Boulder Colorado (JonBenet case) could find enough evidence to support this one

Here is your lie. He knew GOOD AND WELL THAT sADDAM AND BIN lADEN COULDN'T STAND EACH OTHER. tHIS WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE. hE USED THIS TO TIE THE TWO TOGETHER TO FOOL THE aMERICAN PEOPLE. This was the huge lie the prick told. Sorry caps locked.

Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction

 

[hammer1]

All U Guys that want a clarification

All U Guys that want a clarification

of if Bush lied check the Brit MI 6 memo.
When Bush went to the Brits to ask if they would support us in an invasion of Iraq..they asked what on earth for. WMD's George said. Brits answer....Sadaam has no more WMD's that the man in the moon or Qaddafi.

Brits went along as loyal friends of the US. That's why Blair is in so much trouble in the UK. They perceive him as George's Lackey. Had this Brit Intelligence been presented to Congress we would never have ended up in Iraq and there never would have been a vote to invade...and we would not have the uninformed claiming that Dems voted for the war...they did not have all the info. George and the Neo Cons cherry picked the Intel.