Is the US VP Retarded?

[adlep]

The 9/11 Commision states that there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Queda with planning the 9/11 attack, yet this little lying bastard, states that there is a connection, on a public forum as recent as Monday...
I mean, it is like me saying: "The earth is flat" or something...
Why is this guy a VP?

 

[jackschmittusa]

It's an election season, FUD is the rule. Truth and integrety are suspended for the duration. He knows that there will be no penalty for lying. Those that already support Bush will find this a small thing, not worthy of much consideration. Those already against Bush will see it for what it is. A certain percentage of those still undecided will find this believable and add to the count of those who think Bush has done the right things. It is a "no lose lie".

 

[Genx87]

I distinctly remember the Bush administration saying post 9-11 that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

So why all of a sudden when the 9-11 commission confirms what the Bush administration said nearly 3 years ago is this news?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I distinctly remember the Bush administration saying post 9-11 that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

So why all of a sudden when the 9-11 commission confirms what the Bush administration said nearly 3 years ago is this news?

Except now they're saying that saddam is connected to al quaeda (despite lack of evidence)? Yeah, i think that's news. And actually, pre-iraq war, bush hinted that there was a link (although not explicityly saying it).

 

[InfectedMushroom]

He's trying really hard to give some kind of validity to this sh1t war that they started.

 

[Genx87]

Except now they're saying that saddam is connected to al quaeda (despite lack of evidence)? Yeah, i think that's news. And actually, pre-iraq war, bush hinted that there was a link (although not explicityly saying it).

While there may not be any hard evidence on the matter. I think having Osamas right hand man getting treatment at an Iraqi hospital is a pretty good indication there is some kind of cooperation.

As for the panel. They found there was no link between 9-11 and Iraq. This has been know for years.

 

[Czar]

This is just so weird, Bush has said quite a few times that there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda while at the same time Cheney has said quite a few times that there is a link. This just doesnt make sense!! can anyone come up with a logical reason for this?

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Czar
This is just so weird, Bush has said quite a few times that there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda while at the same time Cheney has said quite a few times that there is a link. This just doesnt make sense!! can anyone come up with a logical reason for this?

Broken puppet strings?

 

[conjur]

Maybe Cheney's dipped into Bush's coke stash.

 

[Chadder007]

Bush needs to drop Cheney and pic up Juliani as his running mate.

 

[NeoV]

Genx, one shred of proof that Osama's right-hand man was treated in Iraq please?

I suppose you believe that his him the Berg video too?


Explain to me, please, how the story that had him treated in Iraq says he was there to have part of his leg amputated, since he was 'seriously' injured in Afghanistan - yet the figure in the Berg video is clearly not moving as one might move with a prosthetic leg of any kind...


Do tell.

Oh, and one more thing - are you saying the 9/11 panel is lying when they say there is no connection? You have a scoop that they don't?

It's news, moron, when the VP of the United States as recently as JUNE , 2004, says there were clear ties, despite the lack of any public evidence of such a link...and the 9/11 panel says there is no link....that, to me, and apparently a few other people....is NEWS!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Genx, one shred of proof that Osama's right-hand man was treated in Iraq please?

THEY'RE BOTH ARABS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:shocked:

 

[adlep]

I mean, they should probably put him in some sorth of a hospital.
Why he continues to claim something which is not true on a public forum?
It is a huge slap in a face for the Americans...
I mean, does he thinks that we are some sorth of morons..
Cheney's claims

 

[kage69]

Maybe his heart isn't circulating oxygenated blood to the extent that it should be, and it's causing him to have awkward mental episodes, directed by his imagination.


Oh wait, he'd have to have a heart for that first...nm.


No, Bush is the retard, Cheney is the corrupt goon with retard.

 

[Crimson]

Is there a single Republican thats not a corrupted, stupid, retarded, crimininal liar? This argument is getting a little old from the neolibs. You can't beat them on their ideas, so you just label them hoping it will stick?

Yawn... You better hope thats enough to get your guy elected.. American's generally don't vote against a candidate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Understand this. Cheney NEVER EVER makes this kind of "mistake". Every word he utters that can be picked up by the press is carefully calculated. Cheney is as smart as they come, and as dangerous as a cobra. This is one enemy best not underestimated.

 

[Genx87]

History

May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it.

May-July 2002 Zarqawi spent time recovering in Baghdad. At the same time several extremists also came to Baghdad and established a base of operations.



There are scores of articles on this guy running a terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq.

As for the panel. They can come to any conclusion they want. But just looking at this small evidence I find it amazing there wasnt at least some kind of dialouge between Saddam and Al-Queda. How can a terrorist group build a base in northern Iraq and have its leader sitting in an Iraqi hospital for awhile and do nothing about it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:roll:
Wow, for claiming to be as "open-minded" and "informed" as some do around here it's pretty funny that you don't understand the difference in the statements. Does the fact that Saddam didn't help with 9/11 mean Saddam can't be linked with OBL, Al Qaeda, or terrorism? No - all it means is that there is no link to 9/11.

It's really not that hard people - but you will have to take your Bush-hating glasses off for a minute...

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll:
Wow, for claiming to be as "open-minded" and "informed" as some do around here it's pretty funny that you don't understand the difference in the statements. Does the fact that Saddam didn't help with 9/11 mean Saddam can't be linked with OBL, Al Qaeda, or terrorism? No - all it means is that there is no link to 9/11.

It's really not that hard people - but you will have to take your Bush-hating glasses off for a minute...

CkG

From that well know Commie site, the Voice of America

"Douglas MacEachin is a former deputy director of intelligence for the Central Intelligence Agency and a staff member of the 9/11 commission.

"There have been reports of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida [that] also occurred after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," he noted. "And two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq and so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The commission's conclusion is in sharp contrast to the Bush administration's long held view that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertion that the Iraqi dictator had "long established ties" with al-Qaida."

Note in particular the second paragraph.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll:
Wow, for claiming to be as "open-minded" and "informed" as some do around here it's pretty funny that you don't understand the difference in the statements. Does the fact that Saddam didn't help with 9/11 mean Saddam can't be linked with OBL, Al Qaeda, or terrorism? No - all it means is that there is no link to 9/11.

It's really not that hard people - but you will have to take your Bush-hating glasses off for a minute...

CkG

From that well know Commie site, the Voice of America

"Douglas MacEachin is a former deputy director of intelligence for the Central Intelligence Agency and a staff member of the 9/11 commission.

"There have been reports of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida [that] also occurred after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," he noted. "And two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq and so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The commission's conclusion is in sharp contrast to the Bush administration's long held view that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertion that the Iraqi dictator had "long established ties" with al-Qaida."

Note in particular the second paragraph.

No, the "commision" stated that there was no link regarding 9/11. There is a difference between a 9/11 link and just a link to OBL, Al Qaeda, and/or terrorism - something the OP and some other people here don't seem to understand. YOU may not believe that there was a link anywhere or try to dismiss the links as something that isn't "collaborative" but that is only an opinion. There may be much more that we don't know or haven't seen in public yet.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll:
Wow, for claiming to be as "open-minded" and "informed" as some do around here it's pretty funny that you don't understand the difference in the statements. Does the fact that Saddam didn't help with 9/11 mean Saddam can't be linked with OBL, Al Qaeda, or terrorism? No - all it means is that there is no link to 9/11.

It's really not that hard people - but you will have to take your Bush-hating glasses off for a minute...

CkG

From that well know Commie site, the Voice of America

"Douglas MacEachin is a former deputy director of intelligence for the Central Intelligence Agency and a staff member of the 9/11 commission.

"There have been reports of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida [that] also occurred after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," he noted. "And two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq and so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The commission's conclusion is in sharp contrast to the Bush administration's long held view that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertion that the Iraqi dictator had "long established ties" with al-Qaida."

Note in particular the second paragraph.

No, the "commision" stated that there was no link regarding 9/11. There is a difference between a 9/11 link and just a link to OBL, Al Qaeda, and/or terrorism - something the OP and some other people here don't seem to understand. YOU may not believe that there was a link anywhere or try to dismiss the links as something that isn't "collaborative" but that is only an opinion. There may be much more that we don't know or haven't seen in public yet.

CkG

Ok, now the Voice of America lies.

 

[glenn1]

No, the "commision" stated that there was no link regarding 9/11. There is a difference between a 9/11 link and just a link to OBL, Al Qaeda, and/or terrorism - something the OP and some other people here don't seem to understand. YOU may not believe that there was a link anywhere or try to dismiss the links as something that isn't "collaborative" but that is only an opinion. There may be much more that we don't know or haven't seen in public yet.

This is a fair statement which I'll agree with, that the commission's statement was in the narrow sense of a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack as a discrete event, rather than in a more general sense that Iraq directly or indirectly supported terrorist organizations, including probably Al Qaeda at times.

However, that being said, I think it's fair that you admit in turn that the VP is using a phrase which very easily could have been crafted to make it clear that there is no documented Iraq/9-11 connection. Cheney is smart enough to realize that invoking OBL or Al Qaeda's name creates instant associations to 9-11, even if that event isn't directly mentioned. He's at best not trying to dispel folks from inferring such a connection, and IMHO is deliberately hoping to foster it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: glenn1

No, the "commision" stated that there was no link regarding 9/11. There is a difference between a 9/11 link and just a link to OBL, Al Qaeda, and/or terrorism - something the OP and some other people here don't seem to understand. YOU may not believe that there was a link anywhere or try to dismiss the links as something that isn't "collaborative" but that is only an opinion. There may be much more that we don't know or haven't seen in public yet.

This is a fair statement which I'll agree with, that the commission's statement was in the narrow sense of a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack as a discrete event, rather than in a more general sense that Iraq directly or indirectly supported terrorist organizations, including probably Al Qaeda at times.

However, that being said, I think it's fair that you admit in turn that the VP is using a phrase which very easily could have been crafted to make it clear that there is no documented Iraq/9-11 connection. Cheney is smart enough to realize that invoking OBL or Al Qaeda's name creates instant associations to 9-11, even if that event isn't directly mentioned. He's at best not trying to dispel folks from inferring such a connection, and IMHO is deliberately hoping to foster it.

Some people may think he's saying it, and the left here seems to, but IMO people are reading into what is being said. Yes Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda but that doesn't mean talking about the Al Qaeda ties means he is trying to say Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

******


Just a side note - is there any reason we have a bunch or threads on this?

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87
History

May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it.

May-July 2002 Zarqawi spent time recovering in Baghdad. At the same time several extremists also came to Baghdad and established a base of operations.



There are scores of articles on this guy running a terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq.

As for the panel. They can come to any conclusion they want. But just looking at this small evidence I find it amazing there wasnt at least some kind of dialouge between Saddam and Al-Queda. How can a terrorist group build a base in northern Iraq and have its leader sitting in an Iraqi hospital for awhile and do nothing about it?

So the guy has a missing leg, spends some time in a hospital(shocking!) which happens to be in Baghdad and that means he's linked with Saddam. Hmm, got it.

I wonder how many of the 9/11 terrorists used the hospital while in the US and whether this links them to the sitting President of the time?

Northern Iraq, explained a million times....

 

[Bowfinger]

Since you're repeating yourself in multiple threads, let me do the same.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I distinctly remember the Bush administration saying post 9-11 that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

I don't think you heard him say that until about last September. Unfortunately, George ForAgainst Bush also said there was a connection. In writing. To Congress:

• Presidential Letter
  
  Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
  
  
  March 18, 2003
  
  
  Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )
  
  Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
  
  (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
  
  (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  GEORGE W. BUSH

Oh, what a tangled web we weave ...