Cheney: No evidence Iraq involved in 9/11

[BrianFromWA]

yeah, somehow we pulled the greatest hoax in history to get half the UN to go along with us. And, sure, no WMDs were found. Joke's on us, right?

In 1990, Saddam had just completed an 8 year run of using WMDs of the biological and chemical sort to kill lots and lots of Iranians. (Maybe you think this is a "big lie", too?)

In 1991, when we pushed back the Iraqi army from Kuwait, they found another "bad thing"....calutrons--whose only purpose in life is to use vacuum pressure and a magnetic field to separate U-235 (easy to make a fission bomb with) from U-238 (not capable). Why were these being used? Iraq had (has?) no nuclear power plants to speak of.

I won't go into sanctions, or shooting at planes in the no-fly zone, or anything like that. What possible reason do you think that the government would lie about it? More and cheaper oil? Guess we jacked that up, too. Support for the Patriot Act? I didn't get to vote on that, did you? Your representatives did. Twice. Once in 2001, and for the reauthorization in 2006. And it passed. Twice.

But we're the schmucks, I guess.

"The trouble with most folks isn't their ignorance. It's knowin' so many things that ain't so." - Josh Billings

 

[Shapecity]

"Of course George Bush knew there were WMDS. He had the receipt for them." - Chris Rock

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'd never heard that....that's a great quote.

 

[Sinobas]

yeah, somehow we pulled the greatest hoax in history to get half the UN to go along with us. And, sure, no WMDs were found. Joke's on us, right?

In 1990, Saddam had just completed an 8 year run of using WMDs of the biological and chemical sort to kill lots and lots of Iranians. (Maybe you think this is a "big lie", too?)

In 1991, when we pushed back the Iraqi army from Kuwait, they found another "bad thing"....calutrons--whose only purpose in life is to use vacuum pressure and a magnetic field to separate U-235 (easy to make a fission bomb with) from U-238 (not capable). Why were these being used? Iraq had (has?) no nuclear power plants to speak of.

You do realize that the year is 2009? The US also backed Saddam in the war against the Iranians.

The first reason given for going to war was Iraq's connection to 9-11, and that they had WMDs, then it was an operation to "liberate the Iraqi people" (apparantly, showing them good ole American democracy by sodomizing them). The next reason they gave was...well it was a mistake because we can't back out now because there will be too much violence. But I have NEVER heard this one before. We invaded because he had chemical weapons in 1990.

But we're the schmucks, I guess.

Indeed.

 

[BrianFromWA]

did I say we invaded b/c of chemical weapons in the 90's? You're the one who pointed out that there weren't any in 2003, so we must've lied in order to get.....I don't know exactly. I don't think we're interested in higher oil prices, "sodomizing Iraqis" for democracy or whatever.

Iraq was processing uranium and using chemical weapons. He was building biological weapons. Where the F*** did those go over 10 years of embargo, huh?

 

[BrianFromWA]

But I have NEVER heard this one before. We invaded because he had chemical weapons in 1990.

I am 100% positive that there's a lot to this story that you haven't heard before. I'll continue to try to educate.

 

[Ed O]

The first reason given for going to war was Iraq's connection to 9-11, and that they had WMDs, then it was an operation to "liberate the Iraqi people" (apparantly, showing them good ole American democracy by sodomizing them). The next reason they gave was...well it was a mistake because we can't back out now because there will be too much violence. But I have NEVER heard this one before. We invaded because he had chemical weapons in 1990.

How simplistic do you think anyone is that there's only a single reason for ANYTHING?

There were many reasons to invade when we did. Some of those reasons were dispoven, and it's arguable that some or all of them were packaged differently than they ought to have been... but I don't see how or why anyone would think there has been a series of single explanations for the war.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

You do realize that the year is 2009? The US also backed Saddam in the war against the Iranians.

The first reason given for going to war was Iraq's connection to 9-11, and that they had WMDs, then it was an operation to "liberate the Iraqi people" (apparantly, showing them good ole American democracy by sodomizing them). The next reason they gave was...well it was a mistake because we can't back out now because there will be too much violence. But I have NEVER heard this one before. We invaded because he had chemical weapons in 1990.



Indeed.

Absolutely false. What?

 

[Sinobas]

How simplistic do you think anyone is that there's only a single reason for ANYTHING?

There were many reasons to invade when we did. Some of those reasons were dispoven, and it's arguable that some or all of them were packaged differently than they ought to have been... but I don't see how or why anyone would think there has been a series of single explanations for the war.

Ed O.

Maybe because I watched the news and listened to what the politicians and pundits were saying.

I"m not saying those were the actual reasons we were going to war (they were clearly lies), I'm saying those were the reasons given, by politicians, and by their pundits on TV and radio. The talking points did clearly evolve over time.

 

[Sinobas]

Absolutely false. What?

Yes, it is false, but Dick and Bush did say that Iraq was connected to 9-11. You can't deny that, it's clearly documented.

 

[Sinobas]

I am 100% positive that there's a lot to this story that you haven't heard before. I'll continue to try to educate.

Thanks. But I"ll try and get my education from someone that knows the difference between their ass and their head.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, it is false, but Dick and Bush did say that Iraq was connected to 9-11. You can't deny that, it's clearly documented.

Uh, no they didn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

...

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks.

...

"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."

Key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. "I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a leading hawk on Iraq, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Aug. 1.

A top White House official told The Washington Post on July 31: "I don't believe that the evidence was there to suggest that Iraq had played a direct role in 9/11." The official added: "Anything is possible, but we hadn't ruled it in or ruled it out. There wasn't evidence to substantiate that claim."

But the public continues to embrace the connection.

In follow-up interviews, poll respondents were generally unsure why they believed Hussein was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, often describing it as an instinct that came from news reports and their long-standing views of Hussein. For example, Peter Bankers, 59, a New York film publicist, figures his belief that Hussein was behind the attacks "has probably been fed to me in some PR way," but he doesn't know how. "I think that the whole group of people, those with anti-American feelings, they all kind of cooperated with each other," he said.

Similarly, Kim Morrison, 32, a teacher from Plymouth, Ind., described her belief in Hussein's guilt as a "gut feeling" shaped by television. "From what we've heard from the media, it seems like what they feel is that Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected," she said.

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems to me Keith Olbermann is the liar. I've watched this video 5 times and Olbermann simply doesn't at all show Bush linking Saddam to 9/11.

[video=youtube;7SUBGtRIiXo]

 

[Denny Crane]

Check out this ABC News report from 1999, two years before Bush was sworn in as president.

[video=youtube;u7n3ivH3pCQ]

 

[Sinobas]

They certainly did. How many times did 9-11 come up in discussing the Iraqi war. Why have so many people been lead to that impression? Some kind of accident. You don't seem to understand the art of propaganda.


By the way, here's a clip of Dick saying that Atta met with an senior Iraq intelligence official. [video=youtube;waLRhUQmw7U]

You can go ahead and live in a fantasy land and believe this administration was not trying to connect Iraq to 9-11 to trump up support for the war.

 

[Denny Crane]

They certainly did. How many times did 9-11 come up in discussing the Iraqi war. Why have so many people been lead to that impression? Some kind of accident. You don't seem to understand the art of propaganda.


By the way, here's a clip of Dick saying that Atta met with an senior Iraq intelligence official.

You can go ahead and live in a fantasy land and believe this administration was not trying to connect Iraq to 9-11 to trump up support for the war.

So what? Did he say "Saddam or Iraq had something to do with 9/11?"

The administration's position was understandable the whole time. Given what happened on 9/11, we're not going to let a situation fester out there that will come back and bite us later on. The message was quite clear.

Never, ever, not even once, did anyone say "we have to take out Saddam to get revenge for 9/11"

The administration was quite clear that they'd go after regimes that harbored terrorists.

 

[Shapecity]

They tried to link the two. Remember the "Axis of Evil?"

 

[Denny Crane]

They tried to link the two. Remember the "Axis of Evil?"

The Axis of Evil was Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. Didn't mention 9/11 or Al Qaeda among them.

If they thought Iraq was involved, they'd have started bombing and the invasion right away, not a year plus later.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Thanks. But I"ll try and get my education from someone that knows the difference between their ass and their head.

That's an easy one. I qualify.

Perhaps you should attempt to correctly refute a single thing I pointed out before pulling that "weak sauce" (I'm also versed in looking things up in Urban Dictionary)