Cheney claims ties between Saddam, al Qaeda

[lozina]

CNN

We here at Anandtech usually share at least one thing in common: chastising someone for making some extraordinary claim without supporting it with evidence. So I figure that should also extend to a Vice President who, like a broken record, continues to assert Saddam ties with al-Qaeda but never offers any details or evidence.

And why does the media keep re-broadcasting his unfounded claims, like some sort of obedient lap dog? Every time they publish this drivel, there are some lazy Americans who read it and think it's true.

edit: spelling

 

[Bowmaster]

We here at Anandtech usually share at least one thing in common: chastising someone for making some extraordinary claim without supporting it with evidence only if their political affiliation is different from yours.

Fixed it for you...

 

[lozina]

Interesting,

I went over to Fox News to see how they presented the story, and much to my surprise- I cannot find it! It's not plastered on the front page and doing a search yielded no promising results. What's this- the Communist News Network broadcasting Cheney opinions while Fox News ignored it?

And it gets better, on the front page of Fox News is a piece titled "Kudos for Fahrenheit" which praises Moore's new documentary! It encourages Republicans and Democrats alike to watch the film.

Hold on let me pinch myself... *ouch* Yup I'm certainly awake...

edit: grammar

 

[EagleKeeper]

He is spouting what he believes. One is allowed to belive in fairy tales.

Problem is that they (pols) caused the information to be so skewed that they it can not be analyzed properly; to try and start again would admit that they screwed up in the handling of the informatino.

 

[NeoV]

I think it is sad that the VP of the United States continually and blantantly lies to the public

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I think it is sad that the VP of the United States continually and blantantly lies to the public

Lack of proof doesnt equate to a "blatant lie"

If you cant figure out why the the Govt doesnt share everything with the general TV watching, internet surfing public, well, nevermind.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: lozina
CNN

We here at Anandtech usually share at least one thing in common: chastising someone for making some extraordinary claim without supporting it with evidence. So I figure that should also extend to a Vice President who, like a broken record, continues to assert Saddam ties with al-Qaeda but never offers any details or evidence.

And why does the media keep re-broadcasting his unfounded claims, like some sort of obedient lap dog? Every time they publish this drivel, there are some lazy Americans who read it and think it's true.

edit: spelling

You mean like when the obedient lap dog press repeats lies like GWB's military service? Did you have a problem with that also? Or just when it supports the President?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
I think it is sad that the VP of the United States continually and blantantly lies to the public

Lack of proof doesnt equate to a "blatant lie"

If you cant figure out why the the Govt doesnt share everything with the general TV watching, internet surfing public, well, nevermind.

Oh, so you're saying the American people aren't worthy of hearing evidence and making their own decisions? The quote I have in my sig from Ronald Reagan applies to this situation, please read it carefully and think about it. The sentiment you expressed in your post is rather totalitarian. Are you sure you're not a commie?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: lozina
CNN

We here at Anandtech usually share at least one thing in common: chastising someone for making some extraordinary claim without supporting it with evidence. So I figure that should also extend to a Vice President who, like a broken record, continues to assert Saddam ties with al-Qaeda but never offers any details or evidence.

And why does the media keep re-broadcasting his unfounded claims, like some sort of obedient lap dog? Every time they publish this drivel, there are some lazy Americans who read it and think it's true.

edit: spelling

You mean like when the obedient lap dog press repeats lies like GWB's military service? Did you have a problem with that also? Or just when it supports the President?

IIRC, the stories on GWB's military service had 'details', not just an empty statement like Cheney's with abosultely nothing to back it up, but I could be wrong. Please find an example of the contrary from CNN, and we'll go from there.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Train

It's a pretty basic rule in security that if you have reached a conclusion based on secret sources and you want to keep those sources secret, you don't keep calling public attention to the conclusion. Besides, this has been used as a justification for going to war. I'm not quite comfortable with my government saying that there is a reason for a war, but that they refuse to prove the reason. In the past, the government even exposed our spy photo cabability when they thought it was important to show what the Soviets were doing.

 

[Train]

you obviously missed my point, I didnt say that we are not good enough to hear it, I meant that the war on terror is not a reality TV show that we get to see every detail of, there are many pieces of information, that if broadcast to the general public, can have disastourous consequenses.

It has been PROVED that even small pieces of information, even when they seemed completely harmless, have led to the loss of lives once broadcast,

if we told you which person told us what we know, the poeple who gave them that information would cut them off, and then we just lost a source of information, and we are less safe.

 

[lozina]

Train, if the information was so "sensitive" as you seem to be implying, then why present the assertion at all? Why not give some abstract details at least, for example: instead of saying "a CIA agent whose real name is John Smith and lives at 5 Maple Street is currently undercover as an al-Qaeda operative under the false name of Ali Baba and has personally been in a meeting with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein mutually planning terrorist activities" he can simply say "we have evidence of Osama Bin Laden personally meeting with Saddam Hussein planning terrorist activities". Simple enough isn't it?

At least then we can later put him up to task to providing the evidence when it's not so "sensitive" anymore. By blurting out random accusations and giving no details he avoids accountability- which is most likely intended.

Otherwise his disinformation is misleading and probably based on an interrogation where the guy would admit to being Santa Clause if they'd just leave him alone.

 

[SuperTool]

I guess no evidence is better than false evidence 😀

 

[Caminetto]

Right, and if you will recall, the administration couldn't give us the details about all those weapons of mass destruction due to security issues.

 

[boran]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
Right, and if you will recall, the administration couldn't give us the details about all those weapons of mass destruction due to security issues.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head there, I should look around in archives but I do remember them saying they had a lot of proof they were not able to show the public yet. if anyone has time to do that archive sniffing for me it'd be nice (I have exams atm so not much time, will look into it friday if this thread still intrests me 😉 )

 

[NeoV]

Train, you are an idiot...being a soldier, or whatever you claim to have been, doesn't make you an expert of any kind on national security, or, for that matter, the middle-east. The majority of people over there hate us, whether you want to admit that or not is up to you.

Any "sources" that we had about any organization's ties with the Saddam-led government, from Al-A to Hamas, would no longer have a security 'concern', or make us less safe, since the entire Iraqi government is GONE.

If you are going to justify a war, you should damn well be prepared to back it up, and all Cheney has done is act like he doesn't have to be accountable for anyone or anything. His take on Richard Clarke's criticisms? "He was out of the loop" - Umm..Mr VP - he WAS the loop.


Say what you want about Bush vs. Kerry, but for me, Cheney and Ashcroft alone make it a landslide - they are awful, trecherous people who have no business running our country.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
I think it is sad that the VP of the United States continually and blantantly lies to the public

Lack of proof doesnt equate to a "blatant lie"

If you cant figure out why the the Govt doesnt share everything with the general TV watching, internet surfing public, well, nevermind.

No, but mouthing off in the face of overwelming evidence to the contrary is.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I guess no evidence is better than false evidence 😀

can't disagree with that.

One additional point; Cheney is quoted to state:

"He [Hussein] had long established ties with al Qaeda."

If the ties are "long established" how can the argument be made that this is still security sensitive? Certainly this is possible, but over time, the question should loom larger as to how long the evidence will be kept hidden and the reasons for that.

ALSO, please note the wordplay: depending on the bent of the listener, the term "long established" can be interpreted to mean EITHER
1) that Hussein had a lengthy (in time) and established (like rooted, intertwined, or on solid foundation) ties with AQ.
OR
2) that Hussein's ties with AQ have long ago been demonstrated and shown as fact (long ago established)

The former is the statement without evidence offered for support, but the latter is more insidious: through this word choice, the faithful, the forgetful, and the inattentive (listening to the soundbyte with one ear while preparing dinner) easily interpret "long established" to have definition #2.

Ipsi dixit - it is because we say it is.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Train
.

It has been PROVED that even small pieces of information, even when they seemed completely harmless, have led to the loss of lives once broadcast,

Put your money where your mouth is and PROVE IT! Give us 5 cases where what you said is true, or STFU.

 

[onelove]

lets not turn this thread into a pissing match please.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Train, you are an idiot...being a soldier, or whatever you claim to have been, doesn't make you an expert of any kind on national security, or, for that matter, the middle-east. The majority of people over there hate us, whether you want to admit that or not is up to you.

Any "sources" that we had about any organization's ties with the Saddam-led government, from Al-A to Hamas, would no longer have a security 'concern', or make us less safe, since the entire Iraqi government is GONE.

If you are going to justify a war, you should damn well be prepared to back it up, and all Cheney has done is act like he doesn't have to be accountable for anyone or anything. His take on Richard Clarke's criticisms? "He was out of the loop" - Umm..Mr VP - he WAS the loop.


Say what you want about Bush vs. Kerry, but for me, Cheney and Ashcroft alone make it a landslide - they are awful, trecherous people who have no business running our country.

strictly assumptions, if you want proof so bad, how about some proof to support your own claims "The majority of people over there hate us" oh, so you have the Gallup Poll for that one? Can I see it? didnt think so,
"Cheney and Ashcroft alone make it a landslide - they are awful, trecherous people who have no business running our country" hmm, "awful trecherous people", sounds like rock solid facts right there, glad you can practice what you preach buddy.

 

[NeoV]

ok train...here goes....

First one

An older poll, but still a good one

Another..

More

more

last one for now

Keep in mind that all but the final link were polls (several of them the same poll) from before the Abu-G S hit the fan.

Exactly where in Iraq where you by the way?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Train
It has been PROVED that even small pieces of information, even when they seemed completely harmless, have led to the loss of lives once broadcast,

Cheney has only proved that through his staff's connection to the CIA leak

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I think it is sad that the VP of the United States continually and blantantly lies to the public

... not to mention his boss! (i'm sure you meant to add that

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow

Originally posted by: NeoV
I think it is sad that the VP of the United States continually and blantantly lies to the public

... not to mention his boss! (i'm sure you meant to add that

I think that this Cheney is much worst. For various reasons...