The Associated Press reports that Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday appeared on a conservative radio show and reiterated his stance that Al Qaeda had links to Iraq before the US invasion in 2003.
"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
The Washington Post, however, reports that Mr. Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion, and until then "was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts."
It should be noted the WP gots its info from the Pentagon:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
Full Version: Cheney Is Still Lying
QUOTE(molson_golden2002 @ Apr 7 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]965933[/snapback]
The Associated Press reports that Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday appeared on a conservative radio show and reiterated his stance that Al Qaeda had links to Iraq before the US invasion in 2003.
"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
The Washington Post, however, reports that Mr. Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion, and until then "was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts."
It should be noted the WP gots its info from the Pentagon:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
The Washington Post, however, reports that Mr. Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion, and until then "was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts."
It should be noted the WP gots its info from the Pentagon:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
Other than that he was a pretty swell guy up until evil Bush and Cheney lied and invaded Iraq.
QUOTE(BillsFanNC @ Apr 7 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]965983[/snapback]
Other than that he was a pretty swell guy up until evil Bush and Cheney lied and invaded Iraq.
Let's see first Cheyney said Al Quaeda met with someone from Iraq. Then it was shown they didn't and knew it and he says he never said that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Odd429CsA Then he said there was a direct connection between Iraq and 911 and then he says he never said that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k&NR=1
So what is it? Were they? Weren't they? Did he ever say it? Did he not say it? With all of those answers being very clear the clearest thing to see here is that Cheney is an F-in g liar like none before him. You can say Clinton lied, which is true, obviously, but that was about a personal matter. Cheney's lying has killed over 3 thousand American Soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Now he has a teeeny tiny little bit of info. that may or may not be correct and who knows anymore with this administration.
QUOTE
"was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents"
That's not Al Qaeda. It means that he once in a while got together with them. They weren't receiving funds from Al Qaeda and they weren't getting marching orders from Al Qaeda. It's a terrorist organization but it had NOTHING to do with 911. So now by blowing this tiny little supposed affiliation up from a molehill to a mountain it means Al Qaeda was in Iraq and how far into the future will he deny saying what he did say on Limpbaugh?
If you read Feith's website, you will find all sorts of interesting arguments.
For example, in his "Media Myths vs. Facts" section:
"MYTH #1: CIA ON IRAQ AL-QA'IDA RELATIONSHIP
Is it true that my Pentagon office claimed there was an Iraq-al Qaida relationship and that the CIA had determined there was not?"
Notice how he phrases this question. He of course doesn't ask, "Was there an Iraq Al Qa'ida relationship and did I directly contribute to a false assessment that there was?", he asks, "Did the CIA also ever claim there was?", the answer being, of course, that Tenet did claim such a relationship in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Feith references. What's interesting is that evidently Feith wants us to believe that his intelligence analysis capabilities consisted of reading one letter sent by Tenet and that this letter sufficed as proper in depth documentation and analysis of whatever intelligence Tenet claimed to be referencing in the letter. So Feith, in his opinion, is essentially not at fault because Tenet fukced up also and everyone else also took Tenet at his word. Interesting (but I guess the only) tact to take to defend one's self in the face of an almost indefensible situation. I recommend taking a look at his website for further interesting Feith-based info:
http://www.dougfeith.com/facts_1.html
For example, in his "Media Myths vs. Facts" section:
"MYTH #1: CIA ON IRAQ AL-QA'IDA RELATIONSHIP
Is it true that my Pentagon office claimed there was an Iraq-al Qaida relationship and that the CIA had determined there was not?"
Notice how he phrases this question. He of course doesn't ask, "Was there an Iraq Al Qa'ida relationship and did I directly contribute to a false assessment that there was?", he asks, "Did the CIA also ever claim there was?", the answer being, of course, that Tenet did claim such a relationship in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Feith references. What's interesting is that evidently Feith wants us to believe that his intelligence analysis capabilities consisted of reading one letter sent by Tenet and that this letter sufficed as proper in depth documentation and analysis of whatever intelligence Tenet claimed to be referencing in the letter. So Feith, in his opinion, is essentially not at fault because Tenet fukced up also and everyone else also took Tenet at his word. Interesting (but I guess the only) tact to take to defend one's self in the face of an almost indefensible situation. I recommend taking a look at his website for further interesting Feith-based info:
http://www.dougfeith.com/facts_1.html
QUOTE(Rfeynman @ Apr 7 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]965997[/snapback]
Let's see first Cheyney said Al Quaeda met with someone from Iraq. Then it was shown they didn't and knew it and he says he never said that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Odd429CsA Then he said there was a direct connection between Iraq and 911 and then he says he never said that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k&NR=1
So what is it? Were they? Weren't they? Did he ever say it? Did he not say it? With all of those answers being very clear the clearest thing to see here is that Cheney is an F-in g liar like none before him. You can say Clinton lied, which is true, obviously, but that was about a personal matter. Cheney's lying has killed over 3 thousand American Soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Now he has a teeeny tiny little bit of info. that may or may not be correct and who knows anymore with this administration.
That's not Al Qaeda. It means that he once in a while got together with them. They weren't receiving funds from Al Qaeda and they weren't getting marching orders from Al Qaeda. It's a terrorist organization but it had NOTHING to do with 911. So now by blowing this tiny little supposed affiliation up from a molehill to a mountain it means Al Qaeda was in Iraq and how far into the future will he deny saying what he did say on Limpbaugh?
So what is it? Were they? Weren't they? Did he ever say it? Did he not say it? With all of those answers being very clear the clearest thing to see here is that Cheney is an F-in g liar like none before him. You can say Clinton lied, which is true, obviously, but that was about a personal matter. Cheney's lying has killed over 3 thousand American Soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Now he has a teeeny tiny little bit of info. that may or may not be correct and who knows anymore with this administration.
That's not Al Qaeda. It means that he once in a while got together with them. They weren't receiving funds from Al Qaeda and they weren't getting marching orders from Al Qaeda. It's a terrorist organization but it had NOTHING to do with 911. So now by blowing this tiny little supposed affiliation up from a molehill to a mountain it means Al Qaeda was in Iraq and how far into the future will he deny saying what he did say on Limpbaugh?
I remember when they finally backed Cheney into a corner on that supposed Prague meeting in which there was no evidence, he said something like "You can never prove the meeting didn't happen."
Yes, no proof of the meeting, therefore you can't prove it never happened! Brilliant!My prediction: Cheney will have his own show on Fox by 2010
QUOTE(molson_golden2002 @ Apr 7 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]965933[/snapback]
The Associated Press reports that Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday appeared on a conservative radio show and reiterated his stance that Al Qaeda had links to Iraq before the US invasion in 2003.
"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
The Washington Post, however, reports that Mr. Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion, and until then "was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts."
It should be noted the WP gots its info from the Pentagon:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
The Washington Post, however, reports that Mr. Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion, and until then "was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts."
It should be noted the WP gots its info from the Pentagon:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
Who cares......dittoheads need a beat, and a ball bouncing from word to word to follow anyways
QUOTE(molson_golden2002 @ Apr 7 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]966040[/snapback]
I remember when they finally backed Cheney into a corner on that supposed Prague meeting in which there was no evidence, he said something like "You can never prove the meeting didn't happen." Yes, no proof of the meeting, therefore you can't prove it never happened! Brilliant!
Yes, no proof of the meeting, therefore you can't prove it never happened! Brilliant!And even if it did - so what? I've got news for Cheney: it is the job of an intelligence service to meet with people. Maybe they wanted inside info, maybe they wanted to recruit the guy. That's what they do.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.