Cheney: No evidence Iraq involved in 9/11

[The_Lillard_King]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” Cheney said during an interview Monday night with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

“There was some reporting early on, for example, that Mohammed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official,” Cheney said. “But that was never borne out.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090602/pl_politico/23228

So if there was no WMD and no evidence of Iraq being involved in 9/11 . . . why did we go to war with Iraq?

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

they thought there were WMD and they were going to supply them to AQ insurggents?

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Funny, I was actually watching old footage today when Cheney was on Meet The Press and kept insisting that there was a Iraq and 9/11 connection. If Greta had done her homework she would have had that footage on hand, but I'm guessing not.

 

[julius]

Funny, I was actually watching old footage today when Cheney was on Meet The Press and kept insisting that there was a Iraq and 9/11 connection. If Greta had done her homework she would have had that footage on hand, but I'm guessing not.

That's like asking someone to take a shit, piss, puke and throw a gallon of oil and gas into their own well.

 

[Ed O]

So if there was no WMD and no evidence of Iraq being involved in 9/11 . . . why did we go to war with Iraq?

Because Iraq repeatedly thumbed their noses at UN resolutions, including shooting at US planes in areas over Iraq and not playing nice with weapons inspectors.

Because Hussein was a dangerous leader that had, in the previous decade, invaded a neighbor and had gassed and otherwise killed his own countrymen.

Also, of course, because it helps us get closer to Iran, which has been the biggest threat in the region since 1980.

The WMD and AQ connections may have been what some people focused on, but all of those reasons were on the table at the time and haven't really gone away just because some of the reasons have.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

and Iraq had been gathering centrifuge equipment for uranium enrichment.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Because Iraq repeatedly thumbed their noses at UN resolutions, including shooting at US planes in areas over Iraq and not playing nice with weapons inspectors.

Because Hussein was a dangerous leader that had, in the previous decade, invaded a neighbor and had gassed and otherwise killed his own countrymen.

Also, of course, because it helps us get closer to Iran, which has been the biggest threat in the region since 1980.

The WMD and AQ connections may have been what some people focused on, but all of those reasons were on the table at the time and haven't really gone away just because some of the reasons have.

Ed O.

I just wish Bush/Cheney could have given the citizens of the United States any of the above for why we went into Iraq. Instead we had a bunch of unsubstantiated info stuffed down our throats. It is almost comedic that Cheney is so hell bent to clear the fact that 9/11 and Iraq had no connection. I think the two of them get a much worse wrap than they deserve, but this is not one of those times.

 

[Ed O]

I just wish Bush/Cheney could have given the citizens of the United States any of the above for why we went into Iraq. Instead we had a bunch of unsubstantiated info stuffed down our throats. It is almost comedic that Cheney is so hell bent to clear the fact that 9/11 and Iraq had no connection. I think the two of them get a much worse wrap than they deserve, but this is not one of those times.

*shrug*

I was able to give these reasons at the time, although to be honest I thought that both WMDs and an AQ connection existed with Iraq, as well. I'm sorry that other Americans weren't paying attention... I don't really feel like the misdirection, assuming it existed, impacts anything in my mind.

I can see how the reasons I list are insufficient reasons to go to war, but I don't buy that there were NO reasons to do so.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

Because Iraq repeatedly thumbed their noses at UN resolutions, including shooting at US planes in areas over Iraq and not playing nice with weapons inspectors.

Because Hussein was a dangerous leader that had, in the previous decade, invaded a neighbor and had gassed and otherwise killed his own countrymen.

Also, of course, because it helps us get closer to Iran, which has been the biggest threat in the region since 1980.

The WMD and AQ connections may have been what some people focused on, but all of those reasons were on the table at the time and haven't really gone away just because some of the reasons have.

Ed O.

I still maintain that we invaded Iraq because we needed a base of operations in the middle east. Iraq was just the most logical choice because Saddam was a known bad guy.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Iraq was a silly, silly move and we will have years, maybe decades in front of us to clean up our image after that.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I still maintain that we invaded Iraq because we needed a base of operations in the middle east. Iraq was just the most logical choice because Saddam was a known bad guy.

You mean, outside of Bahrain, where 5th Fleet has been headquartered since 1995?

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

You seem to fall into the 77% they're talking about: even though legislation has been passed with the budget each of the last 3 years, and we've said we'll be gone when the Iraqis can take over themselves and want us gone (currently in April 2011, iirc), people seem to think that they're this vast conspiracy to keep building big "bases of operation". I guess you could keep saying "we did it for the oil", too.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because Iraq repeatedly thumbed their noses at UN resolutions, including shooting at US planes in areas over Iraq and not playing nice with weapons inspectors.

Because Hussein was a dangerous leader that had, in the previous decade, invaded a neighbor and had gassed and otherwise killed his own countrymen.

Also, of course, because it helps us get closer to Iran, which has been the biggest threat in the region since 1980.

The WMD and AQ connections may have been what some people focused on, but all of those reasons were on the table at the time and haven't really gone away just because some of the reasons have.

Ed O.

He invaded Iran and gassed Iranians, too.

I don't remember the administration ever saying Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and they came out quite early (days after 9/11) in saying so. An AQ/Iraq connection is a different matter - Iraq could have had nothing to do with 9/11 yet supported AQ.

I remember W going to the UN and telling them that 17 resolutions was enough and that the US would enforce them alone if necessary. (Another reason, stated).

"The world is a safer place with Saddam removed" was the bottom line reason articulated.

Saddam had to be disarmed. Last time I checked, he has been and completely.

Iraq harbored terrorists and sponsored others. Of this there is no doubt.

The US congress voted that regime change was official policy, and that was during the Clinton administration and he signed it.

Establishing a robust democracy in the heart of the middle east would add stability to the region.

I'd add that I read between the lines that there was enough funny business going on with the food for oil program, under the table deals between Saddam and our "allies" for lucrative oil contracts, the sanctions were downright harmful to the honorable people of Iraq (and children), and it was looking like some of our allies were going to push to lift the sanctions altogether. If the sanctions were to be lifted (and they were), not with Saddam or his sons in power.

Oddly, the only talk of oil I ever heard was the deals Saddam had in place with Russia ($9B) and other countries, and from conspiracy theories of those who clearly wanted (and still do) the US to fail.

 

[Natebishop3]

You mean, outside of Bahrain, where 5th Fleet has been headquartered since 1995?

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

You seem to fall into the 77% they're talking about: even though legislation has been passed with the budget each of the last 3 years, and we've said we'll be gone when the Iraqis can take over themselves and want us gone (currently in April 2011, iirc), people seem to think that they're this vast conspiracy to keep building big "bases of operation". I guess you could keep saying "we did it for the oil", too.

I'm in the 77% they talk about?

A 2006 poll revealed that 77% of the Iraqi public believed the United States was planning to leave permanent bases in Iraq, and 78% believed the United States would keep these bases even if the Iraqi government requested their removal.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Is this where I say "Reading Comprehension Fail" on myself?

 

[hasoos]

Funny, I was actually watching old footage today when Cheney was on Meet The Press and kept insisting that there was a Iraq and 9/11 connection. If Greta had done her homework she would have had that footage on hand, but I'm guessing not.

Ha ha ha ha ha like Fox news is ever going to do that. What is even more humorous, is that you expect her to actually do something like a legitimate reporter with an unbiased opinion to do. Is there some swampland on government island I can sell you while your on a roll?

 

[Natebishop3]

Is this where I say "Reading Comprehension Fail" on myself?

Meh, we've all made mistakes.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't think any of us will ever really know what that war is about . . . so we will never really know if all these casualties and deaths were really worth it.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

*shrug*

I was able to give these reasons at the time, although to be honest I thought that both WMDs and an AQ connection existed with Iraq, as well. I'm sorry that other Americans weren't paying attention...

It's not your fault, the American peoples' fault, or even Bush's fault as far as I'm concerned. Every credible intelligence community across the globe essentially said Saddam had WMDs, we should believe it. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish that the added Iraq and 9/11 connection was pushed on the people, we should be able to believe our elected officials.

I can see how the reasons I list are insufficient reasons to go to war, but I don't buy that there were NO reasons to do so.

Ed O.

There definitly were reasons to go to war, no doubt about that. I don't believe it was sufficient, but there were reasons.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It's not your fault, the American peoples' fault, or even Bush's fault as far as I'm concerned. Every credible intelligence community across the globe essentially said Saddam had WMDs, we should believe it. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish that the added Iraq and 9/11 connection was pushed on the people, we should be able to believe our elected officials.



There definitly were reasons to go to war, no doubt about that. I don't believe it was sufficient, but there were reasons.

That is one of the issues I had with this . . . I don't think the American people would have accepted this war the way they originally did if there was no 9/11. It was an opprotunity for the administration to get the American people on board with this war.

 

[MrJayremmie]

There definitly were reasons to go to war, no doubt about that. I don't believe it was sufficient, but there were reasons.

I agree. I was listening to Obama's speech and something he said applies to this.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.

I couldn't agree more with this. Especially the highlighted part.

I mean have we not killed more people in the name of peace than Saddam did in his tyranny?

 

[maxiep]

I agree. I was listening to Obama's speech and something he said applies to this.

I couldn't agree more with this. Especially the highlighted part.

The problem is that diplomacy wasn't working. If any of his WMD programs would have panned out, it's game over. And we have the same problem with the Iranians all over again.

I mean have we not killed more people in the name of peace than Saddam did in his tyranny?

We have not.

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree. I was listening to Obama's speech and something he said applies to this.



I couldn't agree more with this. Especially the highlighted part.

I mean have we not killed more people in the name of peace than Saddam did in his tyranny?

I agree with the highlighted part, too. It's a shame we're seeing it's the govt. he was talking about, and it's hardly using its power less. Whether it's being fascist about running companies and industries or sending 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan.

And I'm quite sure Jefferson was talking about govt. relating to its own people... He'd be rolling over in his grave if he saw what the party he founded has become.

And no, the sanctions killed far more Iraqis than died in the past 8 years and certainly Saddam killed as many as 3M in his day compared to the ~10K we actually killed of our own doing. That's not counting Iraqis or foreigners killing other Iraqis during the occupation.

 

[Shapecity]

I agree with the highlighted part, too. It's a shame we're seeing it's the govt. he was talking about, and it's hardly using its power less. Whether it's being fascist about running companies and industries or sending 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan.

And I'm quite sure Jefferson was talking about govt. relating to its own people... He'd be rolling over in his grave if he saw what the party he founded has become.

And no, the sanctions killed far more Iraqis than died in the past 8 years and certainly Saddam killed as many as 3M in his day compared to the ~10K we actually killed of our own doing. That's not counting Iraqis or foreigners killing other Iraqis during the occupation.

Going with the Thomas Jefferson theme ...

"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."

 

[Denny Crane]

Going with the Thomas Jefferson theme ...

"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."

Exactly.

He also said:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson ever contemplated a global economy, the ease of outsourcing, off shore accounts or ability to conduct business over a computer.

Ideals are great, but we got real time intensley complex problems in our economy and one liners or ideas from speeches aren't going to solve them.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't see what ease of outsourcing or offshore accounts or business over a computer would change his views in the least. Those things are only a problem for a tyrannical government, after all.

More quotes:

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't see what ease of outsourcing or offshore accounts or business over a computer would change his views in the least. Those things are only a problem for a tyrannical government, after all.

More quotes:

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

That all sounds great . . . I guess I'm not as much a motto guy (or political party guy) as much as taking each issue indivdually and applying what ever makes the most sense for that sitaution.

For instance: looking at the motto of commerce, why did restrict trade with Cuba? Should we treat North Korea the same as other countries? With Sadam in power, should US treat Iraq the same as far as commerce goes as other countries? With all the complexities in the world, it is way too broad to have a motto "commerce with all nations", IMO.

 

[Denny Crane]

That all sounds great . . . I guess I'm not as much a motto guy (or political party guy) as much as taking each issue indivdually and applying what ever makes the most sense for that sitaution.

For instance: looking at the motto of commerce, why did restrict trade with Cuba? Should we treat North Korea the same as other countries? With Sadam in power, should US treat Iraq the same as far as commerce goes as other countries? With all the complexities in the world, it is way too broad to have a motto "commerce with all nations", IMO.

Trade with Cuba was a JFK thing. Jefferson's view was that we should be like the Swiss, completely neutral. However, now that we've interfered everywhere, the only solution (IMO) is to undo what we've done and get back to Jefferson's ideals.

We made Saddam, we had to unmake him.

 

[maxiep]

Ideals are great, but we got real time intensley complex problems in our economy and one liners or ideas from speeches aren't going to solve them.

Yes We Can!

 

[Sinobas]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” Cheney said during an interview Monday night with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

“There was some reporting early on, for example, that Mohammed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official,” Cheney said. “But that was never borne out.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090602/pl_politico/23228

So if there was no WMD and no evidence of Iraq being involved in 9/11 . . . why did we go to war with Iraq?

They knew all along that there were no WMDs or connection to Iraq. But they still used the incident to trump up public support for the war, and bills like the Patriot act didn't they?

Sad that you can still find plenty of schmucks on the street that still insist that we're doing a good thing in Iraq.

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.