Yep, Cheney lied on Meet the Press, even Bush says so!

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,706
430
126
Originally posted by: BOBDN
When will you people wake up?

Even your president is telling you Cheney lied.

Well, Bush lied too. His latest statements prove they all lied.

Bush: No links between 9/11 and Saddam


Uh huh. Lies.
Well if you want to "wake people up" to lies and dishonesty, engaging in a feats of daily intellectual dishonesty and partisan screeching that rival those found in your accusations just might do it, only not in the way you were intending.
 

xochi

Senior member
Jan 18, 2000
891
6
81

the article clearly points out the 180 degree turn of Bush and crew on links to Iraq and 9/11 from one year ago.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: ncircle
BOBDN
how many threads are you going to start on this topic?

As many as it takes to get you people to admit Cheney is a liar.

Even his president says so.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Originally posted by: BOBDN
When will you people wake up?

Even your president is telling you Cheney lied.

Well, Bush lied too. His latest statements prove they all lied.

Bush: No links between 9/11 and Saddam


Uh huh. Lies.
Well if you want to "wake people up" to lies and dishonesty, engaging in a feats of daily intellectual dishonesty and partisan screeching that rival those found in your accusations just might do it, only not in the way you were intending.

The usual obfuscation. Address the facts.

Bush's statement proves what I said. Cheney is a liar.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
the problem is it is the people with the bush-loveing glasses that were missugided into beliveing that there was a connection.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
the problem is it is the people with the bush-loveing glasses that were missugided into beliveing that there was a connection.

So prove the lie. Quotes please. As BOOB said, "Address the facts". We're proving something here, should be quite easy with quotes right?

"Yep, Cheney lied on Meet the Press, even Bush says so!"
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

Nice selective quoting - what Cheney said before stating "we don't know"
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.
So, before saying "we just don't know" he spews the completely discredited BS about Atta meeting Iraqis in Prague. Czech president Vaclav Havel himself told the US that this is dubious evidence, and al-Qaeda personnel that we've captured have said there is no truth to the story. So why the hell is the vice president still spewing this lie to the public??
 

Morbius

Member
Feb 15, 2002
40
0
0
Let's see:

We have proof that Iraq funded terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

We have proof they provided training facilities for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. One facility was specifically designed for training on hijaacking planes.

We have proof they provided sanctuary for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

Naah, they couldn't have been involved.

YEAH, RIGHT !
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: alchemize
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

Nice selective quoting - what Cheney said before stating "we don't know"
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.
So, before saying "we just don't know" he spews so completely discredited BS about Atta meeting Iraqis in Prague. Czech president Vaclav Havel himself told the US that this is dubious evidence, and al-Qaeda personnel that we've captured have said there is no truth to the story. So why the hell is the vice president still spewing this lie to the public??

Jahawkin

I posted all the lies Cheney told on Meet the Press in another thread earlier this week for the same people who are now requesting quotes. We can point out the lies to them forever. They won't accept it. They aren't able to accept it. They are in a state of cognitive dissidence. They've fallen downt the rabbit hole. Up is down. Black is white ( that would probably upset most of them more than anything else :) ). The truth is a lie.

Too much for their fragile psyche to bear.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: alchemize
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

Nice selective quoting - what Cheney said before stating "we don't know"
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.
So, before saying "we just don't know" he spews so completely discredited BS about Atta meeting Iraqis in Prague. Czech president Vaclav Havel himself told the US that this is dubious evidence, and al-Qaeda personnel that we've captured have said there is no truth to the story. So why the hell is the vice president still spewing this lie to the public??


but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.

Using your own words:
"Dubious evidence." Not very good. Not discredited either. Far from a lie.

Try again. I'm looking for PROOF OF A LIE from this transcript. That's what the BOOB is asserting.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Morbius
Let's see:

We have proof that Iraq funded terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

We have proof they provided training facilities for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. One facility was specifically designed for training on hijaacking planes.

We have proof they provided sanctuary for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

Naah, they couldn't have been involved.

YEAH, RIGHT !

"We have proof"

Show us the proof.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: alchemize
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

Nice selective quoting - what Cheney said before stating "we don't know"
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.
So, before saying "we just don't know" he spews so completely discredited BS about Atta meeting Iraqis in Prague. Czech president Vaclav Havel himself told the US that this is dubious evidence, and al-Qaeda personnel that we've captured have said there is no truth to the story. So why the hell is the vice president still spewing this lie to the public??

Jahawkin

I posted all the lies Cheney told on Meet the Press in another thread earlier this week for the same people who are now requesting quotes. We can point out the lies to them forever. They won't accept it. They aren't able to accept it. They are in a state of cognitive dissidence. They've fallen downt the rabbit hole. Up is down. Black is white ( that would probably upset most of them more than anything else :) ). The truth is a lie.

Too much for their fragile psyche to bear.

BOOB, I'll bow down to you and your endless knowledge as soon as you logically present to me one single lie that can be proven with reputable sources. You are grabbing at endless straws. The closest you came was the "I misspoke". In order to prove that a lie, you'd have to prove that he misspoke intentionally. You'd be laughed out of any courtroom.
 

HappyGamer2

Banned
Jun 12, 2000
1,441
0
0
we have prooof of everything.......................we had proof that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMD.we never really got that proof before the war as far as I am concerned........................................ALL BS:disgust:
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: alchemize
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

Nice selective quoting - what Cheney said before stating "we don't know"
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.
So, before saying "we just don't know" he spews so completely discredited BS about Atta meeting Iraqis in Prague. Czech president Vaclav Havel himself told the US that this is dubious evidence, and al-Qaeda personnel that we've captured have said there is no truth to the story. So why the hell is the vice president still spewing this lie to the public??

Jahawkin

I posted all the lies Cheney told on Meet the Press in another thread earlier this week for the same people who are now requesting quotes. We can point out the lies to them forever. They won't accept it. They aren't able to accept it. They are in a state of cognitive dissidence. They've fallen downt the rabbit hole. Up is down. Black is white ( that would probably upset most of them more than anything else :) ). The truth is a lie.

Too much for their fragile psyche to bear.

BOOB, I'll bow down to you and your endless knowledge as soon as you logically present to me one single lie that can be proven with reputable sources. You are grabbing at endless straws. The closest you came was the "I misspoke". In order to prove that a lie, you'd have to prove that he misspoke intentionally. You'd be laughed out of any courtroom.

Every time you are confronted with any of the myriad lies virtually all of the members of the Bush administration have told and continue to tell you dream up some new benchmark for judging lies.

I'm not talking about a court of law here. I'm talking about people knowing when they've been lied to. A faculty you would do well to develop.

(I'm surprised you'd bring up a court of law. Aren't you people the anti-litigous, trial lawyer hatin' Repbulicans?)

 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: alchemize
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush

Direct from the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don?t know.

Maybe clear to someone wearing the new 2003 version of Bush-hating tinted sunglasses (I call em Bush-blinders).

Nice selective quoting - what Cheney said before stating "we don't know"
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.
So, before saying "we just don't know" he spews so completely discredited BS about Atta meeting Iraqis in Prague. Czech president Vaclav Havel himself told the US that this is dubious evidence, and al-Qaeda personnel that we've captured have said there is no truth to the story. So why the hell is the vice president still spewing this lie to the public??


but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.

Using your own words:
"Dubious evidence." Not very good. Not discredited either. Far from a lie.

Try again. I'm looking for PROOF OF A LIE from this transcript. That's what the BOOB is asserting.

The evidence in this case is sooo flimsy, Cheney should be embarassed to let the words out of his mouth. US intelligence officials say there is no merit to the story ("We looked at this real hard because, obviously, if it were true, it would be huge," one senior U.S. law enforcement official told NEWSWEEK. "But nothing has matched up."), so have the Czechs ("Neither we nor the Czechs nor anybody else has any information he was coming or going [to Prague] at that time," ").

So if Cheney were to say: "The Brazilians alleged that Osama bin Laden met in Rio with Saddam Hussein five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," you would say that its not a lie.

How much evidence is needed to discredit this story?? We get (via the Czech interior minister) a report from an Czech informant (not an intelligence officer) said he saw an Iraqi official and Atta meet in Prague. How did he know what Atta looked like?? He saw his pic in the newspaper. So this is mountain of evidence that this meeting occured. Absurd...but it apparently meets Cheney's criteria for the truth. Despite all intelligence agencies saying "this didn't happen" Cheney tells the US public "it may of happened, we don't know for sure"

edit: and isn't the line "we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," a lie in and of itself. Since the initial report, there's been plenty of developments in terms of discrediting it, mainly US and Czech intellingence officials saying this didn't happen.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Keep up the partisan screeching. It becomes all of you. How easy to accuse, how difficult to prove.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
No, I think an outright lie would be too crude and too stupid for this administration. Instead, what they do on a regular basis is throw out a theory. A theory that is neither provable or disprovable. At least until you walk down the road they're asking you to walk. After the fact, they can always say, "hey, it didn't pan out. Oh well." Examples abound, just take a look at the administration's statements on (1.) Tax cuts, (2.) Easing of environmental regulations, and of course, (3.) Iraq.

The administration steamrolls any "experts" who might invalidate their course of action. Meanwhile, they find and locate "evidence" that will support their course of action. The war on Iraq started as a premise to attack Iraq. The basis for doing so was built up around that course of action. Did any of their pre-war statements or "evidence" really prove anything? Not really. But you couldn't really disprove what they were saying either.

The bottom line though, and I think what really irks most folks, is that the consequences of going to war on such flimsy reasoning are so dire. People's lives are on the line. People's lives are lost. Beyond all of that, however, why do you suppose there was so little opposition to the war in Afghanistan? Why was there so much opposition to war in Iraq? People are clearly not as stupid as the administration would like to believe. I think it's painfully obvious why there was support for Afghanistan but not for Iraq.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,493
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Morbius
Let's see:

We have proof that Iraq funded terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

We have proof they provided training facilities for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. One facility was specifically designed for training on hijaacking planes.

We have proof they provided sanctuary for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

Naah, they couldn't have been involved.

YEAH, RIGHT !

This is a joke, right?

1) No
2) No
3) No

There is no evidence of any of those claims, if there was Bush and Co would still be harping it.