Dick Cheney was against toppling Saddam Hussein before he was for it, AHAHAHAHA IRONY!

[conjur]

A final point that I think is very important. Everybody is fond of looking back at Desert Storm and saying that it was, in fact, a low cost conflict because we didn't suffer very many casualties. But for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it was not a cheap or a low cost conflict. The question, to my mind, in terms of this notion that we should have gone on and occupied Iraq is how many additional American casualties would we have had to suffer? How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many.

So, Cheney was concerned at 146 lost lives but doesn't care about 1,050?

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Genx87, according to Hans Blix, the Iraqis were complying fully with inspectors on March7, 2003, and were even pro-active in some respects. The Bush Admin had absolutely no intention whatsoever of allowing those inspections to continue, however- to have done so would have shown the Iraqis to be fundamentally in compliance with all UN resolutions. Sanctions would have ended, the invasion stillborn...

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Truth has a way of coming out, and is often extremely inconvenient and incompatible with popular belief...

 

[Genx87]

Well, Genx87, according to Hans Blix, the Iraqis were complying fully with inspectors on March7, 2003, and were even pro-active in some respects. The Bush Admin had absolutely no intention whatsoever of allowing those inspections to continue, however- to have done so would have shown the Iraqis to be fundamentally in compliance with all UN resolutions. Sanctions would have ended, the invasion stillborn...

You must have forgot the 3 years the UN was kicked out of Iraq.

Like I said, from day 1. Just imagine what the world would be like if Saddam complied with his ceasefire agreement.

btw I dont put much stock in Blix's comments at that point. If the UN really felt Saddam was such a non-threat they would have lifted the sanctions. They didnt even do this until June of 2003. A full 2 months after the fall of Saddam.

Now if you want a better idea of Saddams compliance and cooperation on this matter. I suggest reading this. It is quite an interesting read.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom...gy/chronologyframe.htm

 

[Smilin]

Genx87, I don't see anywhere in there that weapons were destroy since the ones in 1994 yet we find none today. From your own link that would indicate Iraq was in compliance since 1994 so you can stop wondering what the world would be like. If you were a leader of Iraq, had no WMDs and had a U.N. Weapons inspection team verifying this wouldn't you be a bit anxious to get the sanctions lifted and get back to a normal life? Wouldn't you be fed up with people meddling in your sovereignty?

We all gotta face it: Hans Blix was right. Iraq has no WMDs. If you don't believe this then you are in complete denial of reality. The UN was not given a chance to prove this. As soon as it appeared that Iraq was complying and that the facts would show no WMDs we invaded. Better to have invaded with questions left than to have invaded after the facts were out, no?

Like I stated in my earlier post: We invaded a foreign country for the purpose of destroying their existing (not potential, not sought-after) WMDs. Now that we haven't found them our present administration has performed a revision on history to show that we invaded Iraq to topple Saddam.





edit: added that last sentance to 1st para.

 

[Genx87]

Genx87, I don't see anywhere in there that weapons were destroy since the ones in 1994 yet we find none today. From your own link that would indicate Iraq was in compliance since 1994 so you can stop wondering what the world would be like.

You must have missed these key developments after 1994.

1 Jul 1995 As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.


8 Aug 1995 General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.

Nov 1995 Iraq provides second Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile programme.



Nov 1995 The Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although it acknowledged that some of them were in Iraq. UNSCOM conducts an investigation, which confirms that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles. UNSCOM retrieves additional similar missile components from the Tigris river, which had been allegedly disposed of there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.



Mar 1996 UNSCOM teams are denied immediate access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

19 Mar 1996 Statement by the President of the Security Council expressing the Council?s concern at Iraq's denial of access, which it terms a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions. The Council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (S/PRST/1996/11).

Jun 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items

12 Jun 1996 Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Council's resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.

13 Jun 1996 Despite the adoption of resolution 1060 (1996), Iraq again denies access to another inspection team

Nov 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

Jun 1997 Iraq interferes with UNSCOM's helicopter operations, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews.

21 Jun 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM's teams from entering certain sites, which have been designated by UNSCOM for inspection

Sep 1997 Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq?s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq?s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.

17 Sep 1997 While seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

I could go on and on but what is the point? Read the link in its entirety and tell me Saddam complied with the ceasefire agreement.

If you were a leader of Iraq, had no WMDs and had a U.N. Weapons inspection team verifying this wouldn't you be a bit anxious to get the sanctions lifted and get back to a normal life? Wouldn't you be fed up with people meddling in your sovereignty?

Yes, so it makes you wonder why Saddam didnt do all you indicate doesnt it?

We all gotta face it: Hans Blix was right. Iraq has no WMDs. If you don't believe this then you are in complete denial of reality.

You have to be in complete denial of reality if you think Saddam complied with resolution 687. Whether he had them or not is upto him to prove. This is something he over and over failed to do.

The UN was not given a chance to prove this. As soon as it appeared that Iraq was complying and that the facts would show no WMDs we invaded. Better to have invaded with questions left than to have invaded after the facts were out, no?

You have to be kidding me. 12 years isnt long enough to prove this? If the UN felt there was no WMDs. Then why wouldnt they drop the sanctions against Iraq?

Like I stated in my earlier post: We invaded a foreign country for the purpose of destroying their existing (not potential, not sought-after) WMDs. Now that we haven't found them our present administration has performed a revision on history to show that we invaded Iraq to topple Saddam.

I see nothing wrong given the situation that we went in and determined for ourselves there was little to no stockpiles of WMD. If we didnt then we would still be playing a cat and mouse game with Saddam to this day with the hope that maybe he doesnt have them.

If Saddam wanted to prove it he could have. Instead he played toughguy and snubbed his nose at the world community. He is now out of power and the world is better for it.

 

[HomerJS]

This is where Republicans have managed to frame the arguement and put one over on people. Using 9-11 as an excuse for Cheney changing his position is bogus because 9-11 and Saddam were UNRELATED!

This is why almost 50% of people thing Saddam was involved in 9-11. Keep repeating 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentance while at the same time saying "we never said Saddam was involved in 9-11"

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

If you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it. The Republicans are masters at this.

Anyways, Cheney's remarks from 92' are so incredibly accurate it's astounding. Let's face it, this war is simply unwinnable as long as we have our troops in Iraq. If the Iraqi's want democracy, let them fight for it themselves. It's not our job to go around spreading westernized democracy to every nation in the world. Our job is to stop terrorist threats that have the potential of attacking us or our allies, and it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS Iraq was not one of them.

 

[Genx87]

I look at it in a different light. You have a liberal media who puts words into peoples mouths and the people believe it. Now people are surprised there was never a link between 9-11 and Iraq when the administration has been saying this from almost day 1.

The most interesting aspect of this is the left who seems to still be carrying this torch to this day eventhough it is clearly false.

 

[Genx87]

If you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it. The Republicans are masters at this.

Yes lies, the typical lib deflect.

Lies, it's what liberals have for dinner.

It's not our job to go around spreading westernized democracy to every nation in the world.

Eh? What was the marshall plan then?

Our job is to stop terrorist threats that have the potential of attacking us or our allies, and it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS Iraq was not one of them.

Then why were several high ranking terrorists guests of the state during the 90s? The most known being Al-Zarcawi who came to Iraq in 2001 and recieved medical treatment from a state run hospital?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I look at it in a different light. You have a liberal media who puts words into peoples mouths and the people believe it. Now people are surprised there was never a link between 9-11 and Iraq when the administration has been saying this from almost day 1.

The most interesting aspect of this is the left who seems to still be carrying this torch to this day eventhough it is clearly false.

What liberal media? That's a lie repeated by the right. There is no liberal bias in the mainstream media.

But, I agree with you that the Iraq/9-11 link is clearly false.

 

[arsbanned]

btw I dont put much stock in Blix's comments at that point.

Then you don't put much stock in the truth, since Blix has been shown to be correct!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I look at it in a different light. You have a liberal media who puts words into peoples mouths and the people believe it. Now people are surprised there was never a link between 9-11 and Iraq when the administration has been saying this from almost day 1.

The most interesting aspect of this is the left who seems to still be carrying this torch to this day eventhough it is clearly false.

The only people putting words in people's mouths are the Republicans. They are trying desperately to link 9/11 and Iraq, and their overall goal is to include it as part of the war on terror. America needs to know that we are not safer because we invaded Iraq. We opened up a can of worms by going into the Middle East unilaterally, and our reputation around the world is damaged badly. How can we expect to win this war on terrorism, which is a global threat, if we don't have the support of our allies? To conduct a foreign policy in the Middle East we need an administration that understands the region, and this president and his cowboy administration have no idea how to approach the Middle East. I think it's pretty damn clear that the situation in Iraq will never get better as long as our troops are still there. The Iraqi's themselves blame the US, not the insurgents, for the death of innocent civilians. They hate us more than they hate their own terrorists, which is quite sad considering we're the "liberators".

 

[Genx87]

What liberal media? That's a lie repeated by the right. There is no liberal bias in the mainstream media.

But, I agree with you that the Iraq/9-11 link is clearly false.

lol if you think the mainstream big 3 arent tilting on liberal bias. Then maybe you should move a little right of Marxism on the political spectrum.

This whole debacle with Danny rather is a direct result of the bias. He and his cohorts have been on this story for years and when they had something that was so obviously tainted for evidence. They threw it up there anyways.

btw what is with this draft crap running around? I saw it on the news lastnight while working out. Are they going with Kerrys story of a secret plan by Bush to call up a draft? I wonder if they told us about the democrat senators who actually proposed this plan.

btw still waiting for a reply on you on the whole Saddam complying question.

Then you don't put much stock in the truth, since Blix has been shown to be correct!

Either did the UN.

The only people putting words in people's mouths are the Republicans. They are trying desperately to link 9/11 and Iraq, and their overall goal is to include it as part of the war on terror.

I always find this utterly amazing that the libs are the ones who say the repubs are tying Iraq ro 9-11. But the only people who talk about Iraq being tied to 9-11 are libs. I take you missed the thread where one of your friends got so smacked around he even admitted there was no statement from the administration about Iraq being behind 9-11.

America needs to know that we are not safer because we invaded Iraq. We opened up a can of worms by going into the Middle East unilaterally, and our reputation around the world is damaged badly.

I dont really buy into this argument for a few reasons.

1. How do you know we are not safer? I havent seen a terrorist action against the mainland in 3 years.
2. The ME is a mess to begin with and it doesnt really matter if we are there or not. If we leave the fundamentalists will find a new cause to rally the ignorants behind.
3. There is enough peen envy from the world community that it doesnt really matter if we went in there or not. People dislike us because we are Americans and our country is the best on Earth. If it wasnt then we wouldnt have millions a year swimming an Ocean to get here.

How can we expect to win this war on terrorism, which is a global threat, if we don't have the support of our allies?

Define support. The only major ally who put her money where her mouth is was the UK. France and Russia were too busy keeping the proceeds from their illegal oil for money scam under the table. Saddam could have lit off a nuke and they werent going.

To conduct a foreign policy in the Middle East we need an administration that understands the region, and this president and his cowboy administration have no idea how to approach the Middle East.

This must explain why there has yet to be an administration that has had any success in that region to date? It has to be the administrations fault right?

I think it's pretty damn clear that the situation in Iraq will never get better as long as our troops are still there. The Iraqi's themselves blame the US, not the insurgents, for the death of innocent civilians. They hate us more than they hate their own terrorists, which is quite sad considering we're the "liberators".

Oh right, is that why they are having elections in Iraq? Is that why the majority of the country is peaceful?
If I compared the sunni triangle to bad parts of LA, DC, and New York. I bet there wouldnt be much difference in the terms of crimes. The only difference is you dont see many bombs going off. Instead you see gang violence and driveby shootings.

I dont think having the worst areas of Iraq be the showcase of what is going on over there is really fair.
Sure there is a problem with some insurgents who are seeing their last hope of erecting a religious dictatorship going up in smoke. But the rest of Iraq isnt doing that bad considering the shape Saddam left it in.

 

[Todd33]

Ya, Dan Rather = all mainstream media. Whatever feeds your conspiracy theories I guess. I could point to the right wing Bias of Brit Hume, is all the media right biased? It must be with your Chicken little logic.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Genx your arguing a failed position here because if you believe what you say, then by that accord we should be attacking dozens of nations right now. Face it, you yourself don't even know why this adminsitration REALLY went into Iraq. Your trying to defend a pretty much indefensible position in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence.

 

[Genx87]

Ya, Dan Rather = all mainstream media. Whatever feeds your conspiracy theories I guess. I could point to the right wing Bias of Brit Hume, is all the media right biased? It must be with your Chicken little logic.

Lead anchor on one of the big three. Hmm if that isnt mainstream please by all means let me know what is?

Genx your arguing a failed position here because if you believe what you say, then by that accord we should be attacking dozens of nations right now. Face it, you yourself don't even know why this adminsitration REALLY went into Iraq. Your trying to defend a pretty much indefensible position in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence.

Yes that is why I bring facts to the table while you bring rhetoric.

Can you disprove anything I linked to in this thread?

btw do you care to answer my question about Saddam complying? It seems Conjurs google bar is broken or something.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ya, Dan Rather = all mainstream media. Whatever feeds your conspiracy theories I guess. I could point to the right wing Bias of Brit Hume, is all the media right biased? It must be with your Chicken little logic.

Lead anchor on one of the big three. Hmm if that isnt mainstream please by all means let me know what is?

If you want anecdotal, how about Wolf Blitzer's comment on CNN a bit ago? Something along the lines of if Kerry is too aggressive and attacking of Bush in tonight's debate, it will be seen as an attack on our troops in Iraq.


WTF???

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I look at it in a different light. You have a liberal media who puts words into peoples mouths and the people believe it. Now people are surprised there was never a link between 9-11 and Iraq when the administration has been saying this from almost day 1.

Bullsh1t.

1. The administration has NOT been saying from day one that there was no link between 9-11 and Iraq.
2. The so-called Liberal Media has not been putting words into peoples mouths in this regard. Rather the administration has been trying to take out words they already said.

From a transcript from CNBC's "Capital Report" on June 18, 2004

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

From a transcript from "Meet the Press" on December 9th, 2001

RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he (Mohammed Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Ok Genx87 your other post is officially too much of a hassle to requote. Congratulations.

Now lemme respond very simply: Where are the WMDs?

If Saddam didn't get rid of them then where are they? What steps would you take to go about proving you don't have WMDs? It can be clearly proven if you DO have WMDs just by showing said WMDs. At the time we chose to invade he was giving FULL and PROACTIVE cooperation to U.N. Weapons inspectors. What else would you have had him do?

What would you do? What would you do if I held a gun to your childs head and said, "Prove to me that you do not have any bananas from Hawaii in your house." You would tear through your house opening every nook and cranny up for me to see. You would dig up every grocery receipt. You could 'almost' prove it. Now what if I went through one room of the house and without looking at the rest decided to go ahead and pull the trigger.

This whole discussion is the reason I get really freaked out about the upcoming election. There are people out there so ignorant and blind that they think that going to WAR was a good idea. They'll distort reality and revise the truth about history so much to avoid admitting they are wrong (it's a natural human response but it has risen to mentally unhealthy levels here). We need to be focusing our energies on two things:

1. How the !@#$ are we going to get OUT of this war?
2. How are we going to defeat al Qaeda?

I would much rather have the 87 Billion dollars we spent for the first year (so far) of the Iraq war dumped into homeland security. Think the FBI could have busted a few cells with 87 BILLION dollars added to their budget. "America is safer" my @ss.

 

[Genx87]

If you want anecdotal, how about Wolf Blitzer's comment on CNN a bit ago? Something along the lines of if Kerry is too aggressive and attacking of Bush in tonight's debate, it will be seen as an attack on our troops in Iraq.

I didnt realize CNN was "mainstream".

I find this rather amazing considering on Sept 8th 2002 this is what Cheney had to say on Meet the Press.
Note: They also take a clip from his Sept 16th meeting on meet the press.

Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let?s watch:

(Videotape, September 16, 2001):

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

(End videotape)

Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I?m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can?t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We?ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn?t he there, again, it?s the intelligence business.

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It?s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it?s unconfirmed at this point. We?ve got...

Mr. RUSSERT: Anything else?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we?ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan-we?ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years. We?ve had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world?s most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he?d shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he?d shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it?s a very complex picture to try to sort out.


And...

Mr. RUSSERT: But no direct link?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can?t-I?ll leave it right where it?s at. I don?t want to go beyond that. I?ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that everybody will recognize that.



Nobody can explain to me why the VP on Sept 8th would say such a thing. If they were so about linking 9-11 and Iraq. Why would he caution Tim Russert about connecting to the two dots? This is right before the authorization for the use of force was granted from Congress. And UN resolution 1441 was passed.

Ok Genx87 your other post is officially too much of a hassle to requote. Congratulations.

k

If Saddam didn't get rid of them then where are they? What steps would you take to go about proving you don't have WMDs? It can be clearly proven if you DO have WMDs just by showing said WMDs. At the time we chose to invade he was giving FULL and PROACTIVE cooperation to U.N. Weapons inspectors. What else would you have had him do?

How about provide proof of where known stockpiles went? You do know there is about 400 tons of Mustard and 80 tons of VX gas that is still missing to this day? You guys act as if Saddams regime didnt keep records. They were very meticulous on where things went. When that many WMD fail to show up when we know they are there, it will raise red flags.

What would you do? What would you do if I held a gun to your childs head and said, "Prove to me that you do not have any bananas from Hawaii in your house." You would tear through your house opening every nook and cranny up for me to see. You would dig up every grocery receipt. You could 'almost' prove it. Now what if I went through one room of the house and without looking at the rest decided to go ahead and pull the trigger.

Wrong analogy. It would be as if the man sold you 10 bananas and you could only produce 8. When asked where the other two went you told the man with the gun to flip off and kicked him out of the house with child in hand.

Saddam could have and should have complied. Not only with us massing troops in Kuwait. But through all of the 1990s. Reading the timeline I provide is like reading a transcript from a troubled child. If he would have opened up the country and not blocked UN weapon inspections. And then ultimately kick them out in 1998. Then I doubt we would be where we are today.

Anywho if I was Saddam and I didnt have anythign to hide and I knew the US was looking to knock me out of power. I would probably comply with every single demand set for by the UN per the ceasefire I signed. But alas he decided it was time to play tough. When you play tough you will get hurt.

This whole discussion is the reason I get really freaked out about the upcoming election. There are people out there so ignorant and blind that they think that going to WAR was a good idea. They'll distort reality and revise the truth about history so much to avoid admitting they are wrong (it's a natural human response but it has risen to mentally unhealthy levels here). We need to be focusing our energies on two things:

I agree because there are people out there that honestly think happy thoughts and well wishes will get us out of this mess. There is no distortion in my words. Everything I have said I can backup with facts from the UN or transcripts.

1. How the !@#$ are we going to get OUT of this war?

Iraqi elections and independence.

2. How are we going to defeat al Qaeda?

Military force and choking of their money supply.

I would much rather have the 87 Billion dollars we spent for the first year (so far) of the Iraq war dumped into homeland security. Think the FBI could have busted a few cells with 87 BILLION dollars added to their budget. "America is safer" my @ss.

You are dreaming if you think the 87 billion would have gone to the FBI.

But keep up the pessimism because it is serving you and your lib friends at the DNC so well so far 😉




EDIT:

btw if you are going to quote. Lets at least quote the whole thing shall we?

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger.

Borger: "Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' "

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Borger: "I think that is . . . "

Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down."

On Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney talking to NBC's Tim Russert.

Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."




You should be ashamed of yourself by selctive quoting an entire quote.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

EDIT:

btw if you are going to quote. Lets at least quote the whole thing shall we?

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger.

Borger: "Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' "

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Borger: "I think that is . . . "

Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down."

On Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney talking to NBC's Tim Russert.

Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."




You should be ashamed of yourself by selctive quoting an entire quote.

He said something then denied he said it. It doesn't change the context of the quote one bit, but does make my post readable and less of an eyesore.

You should be ashamed of (repeatedly) making such obscenely large quote-and-puke posts when it isn't necessary. At least you had the sense to to quote the entirety of both interviews although that makes you a bit hypocritical for leaving that part out doesn't it?

 

[Genx87]

It makes a huge difference. Just face the music you got your hand caught in the cookie jar on this one.

As for being ashamed? Nah, I get a good pleasure out of making libs like yourself out to be wrong.

 

[imported_Smithy]

Originally posted by: raildogg
that was before 9/11 happened and changed the world forever

Originally posted by: Todd33
Ya, that was before the Neocons would use 911 to start unrelated wars. It sure did change everything.

Changed what? We have been running around for half a century fighting our little wars. Nicaragua, anyone remember?

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
They had intents of someday claiming or building Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So you have accepted the new version whole hardedly

Originally posted by: nutxo
The Pi is a liberal piece of trash.

Your point? The PI is right on with this piece.

Originally posted by: GrGr
9/11 didn't really change anything. It's still business as usual.

Someone is informed on US policy with respect to 'low intensity warfare'
The 'Warhawks' are in charge now. The main objective of the group is to use the US military to enact political change throughout the world.

 

[arsbanned]

As for being ashamed? Nah, I get a good pleasure out of making libs like yourself out to be wrong.

You apparently get pleasure out of digging holes for yourself and then jumping in. It's weird you find that pleasurable. As for me, I find trimming my toenails more fun then debating with brick walls.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ya, Dan Rather = all mainstream media. Whatever feeds your conspiracy theories I guess. I could point to the right wing Bias of Brit Hume, is all the media right biased? It must be with your Chicken little logic.

Lead anchor on one of the big three. Hmm if that isnt mainstream please by all means let me know what is?

If you want anecdotal, how about Wolf Blitzer's comment on CNN a bit ago? Something along the lines of if Kerry is too aggressive and attacking of Bush in tonight's debate, it will be seen as an attack on our troops in Iraq.


WTF???

LOL, and his listeners belief that drivel. Talk about being told what to think.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It makes a huge difference. Just face the music you got your hand caught in the cookie jar on this one.

As for being ashamed? Nah, I get a good pleasure out of making libs like yourself out to be wrong.

<ahem>

Catching Cheney in a lie
http://video.lisarein.com/dail...-04-cheney-fib-all.mov



Bonus videos:

Rumsfeld dumbfounded and contradicting himself?
http://www.lisarein.com/videos...-03-daily-rumsfeld.mov

And how about Condi Rice looking like an idiot?
http://video.lisarein.com/dail...04-daily-election1.mov