OT - Choose

[NoMyths]

Bush chose Cheney, and Cheney chooses to lie to America. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Choose.

Link: Cheney Blasts Media on Al-Qaeda-Iraq Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/index.html)

Full Text:
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."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

However, the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq."

Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.

Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story)

In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."

"What the commission says is they can't find evidence of that," he said. "We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down."

The uncorroborated Czech report, which has been widely disputed, alleged that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague before the attacks.

Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."

[MrBug708]

WHy not save us all the trouble and just post

"I hate Bush"

[wig]

No shit, man

[sachmo71]

Politicans lie. I'm not surprised in the least about any of this.
I am getting the feeling that the inmates are running the asylum over there on Pennsylvania Avenue, though.

[Raiders Army]

I read yesterday an interesting article about "overwhelming proof" or "overwhelming evidence."

Most people choose to prove things with overwhelming proof; i.e. the sun rises in the East every day and sets in the West. This has been happening for a loooong time. So tomorrow, the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.

The problem with this type of proof is that it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Here is a proof with a flawed theorem:

Theorem: There is no number greater than 1,000,000

Proof: 1 is less than 1,000,000
2 is less than 1,000,000
3 is less than 1,000,000
so on and so forth.

How many examples do I need to prove that there are no greater numbers than 1,000,000? I can come up with approximately 999,999 off the top of my head...and that's not including negative numbers or non-integers.

Anyhow, we know this is not true. There are most certainly numbers greater than 1,000,000 (look at our deficit). In the case of the sun rising and setting, while true, could be proven in a better way than observations.

I think of this when people say "overwhelming evidence."

[NoMyths]

There is a difference between hating Bush (which I don't) and hating what he is doing to our country (which I do). I wish the man himself no ill will. I truly hope that he finds something fulfilling and non-dangerous to the rest of us when he goes into retirement in January.

[Glengoyne]

Note to NoMyths. The 9/11 commission report DOESN'T contradict anything the administration is saying now, nor anything they have ever proclaimed. The scope of the report is the 9/11 attacks. The report says Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. The administration has never claimed otherwise. They have been blamed by many in the media for doing so, or at least "leading the American public to believe the connection exists".

Yesterday on NPR they interviewed two members of the committee. A republican said "the report is limited in scope to 9/11 and should be read with that in mind". A former Senator NPR described as a "centrist" democrat said "there is NO contradiction between the report, and statements made by the administration". He was asked specifically about the recent statements by both Bush and Cheney.

That doesn't mean there aren't some on the committee that feel otherwise, it is of bi-partisan composition. It just seems common sense to me that because their scope is strictly limited to 9/11 you can't read too much not related to 9/11 into it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It just seems common sense to me that because their scope is strictly limited to 9/11 you can't read too much not related to 9/11 into it.
If you're expecting common sense to be used by both sides of the current political environment, I'm afraid you're going to find yourself sadly disappointed :(

[BishopMVP]

To expand on what Glengoyne posted - Tom Kean, the chairman of the Commision: "What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy - but they were there." Here's Lee Hamilton (the Democratic Vice-Chairman): "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

Let's run down the different talking points as they have progressed.

Saddam has no WMD's.
Saddam doesn't have any stockpiles of WMD's.
Saddam was not actively producing WMD's at the time of our invasion.

There are no links between Saddam and Islamic terrorists.
There are no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
There is no evidence of cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
There is no evidence of cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on attacks in the United States.

Just how many times is the anti-war side (and the NYT) going to move the goalposts before they realize they've lost all credibility? They are now, for the most part, admitting that Saddam did have WMD and did have connections with al-Qaeda, which is a lot closer to what Bush was saying last year than they want to admit.

[John Galt]

WHy not save us all the trouble and just post

"I hate Bush"

Why not save us all the trouble and not post in this thread?

It is no surprise that NoMyths has posted another article with anti-Bush leanings. It is also, sadly, not a surprise that the first people to respond are the people attacking NoMyths. Can just one thread of his go by without pointless attacks based on silly notions of objectivity and superiority?

[John Galt]

Note to NoMyths. The 9/11 commission report DOESN'T contradict anything the administration is saying now, nor anything they have ever proclaimed. The scope of the report is the 9/11 attacks. The report says Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. The administration has never claimed otherwise. They have been blamed by many in the media for doing so, or at least "leading the American public to believe the connection exists".

This is just not true. Bush proclaimed that Iraq trained Al Qaeda terrorists on how to use CBW's. The 9/11 report says such contact did not exist. Cheney continues to spout off about longstanding contacts when the 9/11 report can only offer indifference to one Czech intelligence report about one meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official.

And I've posted the laundry list of Bush quotes linking 9/11 and Iraq before so I won't do it again. The administration (like Clinton's) likes to argue techinical distinctions in what it has been saying while implying the opposite.

And this is the critical question - if we knew all along that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then why did we invade as part of the war on terror?

(And before you say it is because Iraq supports other terrorists, think of all the countries that support it more or were more directly tied to 9/11)

[Glengoyne]

This is just not true. Bush proclaimed that Iraq trained Al Qaeda terrorists on how to use CBW's. The 9/11 report says such contact did not exist. Cheney continues to spout off about longstanding contacts when the 9/11 report can only offer indifference to one Czech intelligence report about one meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official.

And I've posted the laundry list of Bush quotes linking 9/11 and Iraq before so I won't do it again. The administration (like Clinton's) likes to argue techinical distinctions in what it has been saying while implying the opposite.

And this is the critical question - if we knew all along that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then why did we invade as part of the war on terror?

(And before you say it is because Iraq supports other terrorists, think of all the countries that support it more or were more directly tied to 9/11)

I wanna see the laundry list....cause I've seen half a dozen quotes by reporters/columnists slamming Bush on the "contradiction" but clearly stating that he has never linked Iraq to 9/11. In response to "technical distinctions", I think the critics of the administration are artists at half quoting and removing quotes from context to fabricate their point. So bring it on. I want the laundry list..in fact I'll try and search for them myself.

Of course we all knew that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Iraq is part of the war on Terror because of the fear that the government there might use WMD to attack the United States or reach out to some of their terrorists contacts to help them. You did see the news piece on Putin today right? You know the one where Russian Intelligence warned the United States that Iraq was working to attack the U.S. at home or abroad.

Also the 9/11 report doesn't say there were no contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 report says they didn't collaborate on the September 11th attacks. The only tie to 9/11 was the questionable meeting between the Iraqi intel assett and Atta. The commission said they didn't think that report was credible.

I sort of responded out of sequence to your queries, but did save your final question in Parentheses for last.

Countries with ties to the 9/11 attacks...Afghanistan. I'd say that is being dealt with.
Undoubetly most of the highjackers were Saudi, and they most likely got their funding from Saudi citizens. I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Saudi government has any real interest in attacking the United States.

Other states that support Terrorism. I can only think of two that I KNOW have ties to terrorism.
Iran and Syria.
Iran is on a self destruct sequence
and Syria hasn't exactly made itself public enemy number one in the same manner that Iraq had.

[MrBug708]

Why not save us all the trouble and not post in this thread?

It is no surprise that NoMyths has posted another article with anti-Bush leanings. It is also, sadly, not a surprise that the first people to respond are the people attacking NoMyths. Can just one thread of his go by without pointless attacks based on silly notions of objectivity and superiority?

But why? We all know he is posting for reaction, yet you are chastising me for doing what his goal was?

[Chief Rum]

But why? We all know he is posting for reaction, yet you are chastising me for doing what his goal was?

Well, that's the funny thing about it, Bug. John Galt's response to protect NoMyths is as knee-jerk as your or my desire to note, once again, NoMyth's biases.

So, in essence, on his own point, his own response is also unnecessary. It can more or less be assumed.

CR

[BishopMVP]

And this is the critical question - if we knew all along that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then why did we invade as part of the war on terror?If you truly think that September 11th is analagous to the War on Terror you are a fool. To use the first analogy that comes to mind, it's like a square and a rectangle. September 11th is a part of the War on Terror, a very significant part, but not even close to comprising the whole of it.(And before you say it is because Iraq supports other terrorists, think of all the countries that support it more or were more directly tied to 9/11)This is one of the worst arguments I have heard made. Because there is more than one country that supports terrorism, we shouldn't choose only one country? So should we invade all of them, or none of them instead? There are a lot of regimes that need to go before we will come close to winning the WoT, and Iraq was the most convenient and pressing due to a variety of factors (WMD, connections to terrorists, multiple UN resolutions, the administration already wanted them gone, it was in the middle of the Arab world and has the 2nd biggest Oil Reserves, the horrible genocide being committed).

[Whar]

"We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush Oct 7 2002

The green part disagrees with the Panels finds.

"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." Bush Feb 2003

The green part disagrees with the Panels finds.

I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there. Cheney Jan 21

This statement is defintely contradictory to the panels findings. While I agree the panal restricted its findings to 9/11, it did find that no collaborative relationship exists between Al Qeada and Saddam through the 90s.

Do any posters believe that Iraq aided Al Qeada but the commission ignored it since it did not aid the 9/11 attack? If so that position seem ridiculous. The commission examined all that data the Intell folks had. They concluded that meetins did take place but nothing substantive came of them.

[BishopMVP]

I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there. Cheney Jan 21

This statement is defintely contradictory to the panels findings.How? (Was there a connection? 9/11 commission says yes)

[Whar]

no collaborative relationship exists between Al Qeada and Saddam

I find that to be in direct contradiction to Cheney's statements. His intention is to communicate a relationship that does not exist. Unless Cheney means simply meeting with each other is an "established relationdship".

[Glengoyne]

no collaborative relationship exists between Al Qeada and Saddam

I find that to be in direct contradiction to Cheney's statements. His intention is to communicate a relationship that does not exist. Unless Cheney means simply meeting with each other is an "established relationdship".
The Key word is collaborative. That and you have the two ranking members of the commission saying that they don't see the contradictions the press is alluding to. They met multiple times and corresponded. They had a relationship. They didn't work together to attack the U.S.

As to the other quotes you bring up. Those relate to evidence that the administration related about Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Those do not relate at all to 9/11. We don't even know if the commission evaluated evidence beyond links to 9/11. The only specific purported "tie" to Al Qaeda that the commission debunks is the meeting with Atta. I have not seen any of those things you mention officially debunked or disproven. They are out there, but the commission didn't discuss them. There are lots of other ties that have come up since the war, but they didn't address them. Why? Because the scope of their report. This commission wasn't established to evaluate the reasons the administration has given for the invasion of Iraq. If it was, then this report would be contradictory. As it is, it MIGHT be, but that is as far as it goes.

In any case, the list of quotes I want to see is the one where they say Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks.

[Leonidas]

If the dems really want to chew up Cheney, why not ask why the F are we paying Haliburton to pay Americans $200K to drive trucks in Iraq when there are unemployed Iraqis who could do it for about $1K? Answer (IMO), cause Kerry doesn't have the balls to challenge something that provides good paying jobs to potential voters and their families (even if they are kidnapped).

[Dutch]

Here is what Bill O'Reilly said tonight on FoxNews. A pretty good editorial made with actual fact!

Misleading Reporting
Friday, June 18, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

Once again we are mislead by some in the press.

I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone.

The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."

The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."

And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.

The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah.

A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.

Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:

“The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have hear is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that is true.

And that's The Memo.

[John Galt]

Well, that's the funny thing about it, Bug. John Galt's response to protect NoMyths is as knee-jerk as your or my desire to note, once again, NoMyth's biases.

So, in essence, on his own point, his own response is also unnecessary. It can more or less be assumed.

CR

And yet I've never defended him before. That doesn't seem very predictable.

[Dutch]

And yet I've never defended him before. That doesn't seem very predictable.

This is the first time you have agreed with NoMyths?

[Chief Rum]

And yet I've never defended him before. That doesn't seem very predictable.

So you're saying you have never come into a NoMyths thread and supported his stance? Or defended attacks on his bias?

CR

[EagleFan]

And this is the critical question - if we knew all along that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then why did we invade as part of the war on terror?


For the belief that Iraq did not comply with UN sanctions. Hello... Anyone home? 9/11 was never pointed to as a reason for the war, but I guess simple things like logic would ruin your arguement.

[John Galt]

So you're saying you have never come into a NoMyths thread and supported his stance? Or defended attacks on his bias?

CR

I rarely post in his threads and my political views are quite different than NoMyths, but I have agreed with him a couple of times. I've never gone into one of these article threads, however, and attacked the people attacking him (over and over and over again). I just find it a little petty that the first posts in every NoMyths threads are comments like wig's and MrBug's.

[MrBug708]

I rarely post in his threads and my political views are quite different than NoMyths, but I have agreed with him a couple of times. I've never gone into one of these article threads, however, and attacked the people attacking him (over and over and over again). I just find it a little petty that the first posts in every NoMyths threads are comments like wig's and MrBug's.


Actually, I hardly ever post in NoMyth's threads.