Cheney is a liar

Page 1 of 4 [ 52 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

20 Jun 2012, 10:04 pm

Declassified document contradicts Cheney’s claim of Iraqi connection to 9/11

Quote:

A document declassified this week by the National Security Archive reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delivered a briefing to the Bush administration which directly contradicts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta visited an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague.

The document (PDF), dated Dec. 1, 2001 and delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”

Despite this briefing, just days later on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told the late Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, that the meeting in Prague had been “pretty well confirmed.”

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 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.

Mr. Enron's a liar. The neocons needed an excuse to begin their venture in the Middle East. His sources are derps.

This frightens me.

Quote:

A survey conducted in Sept. of last year (PDF) by the University of Maryland found that at least 38 percent of Americans still believe the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.” An additional 15 percent still believe Iraq was “directly involved in carrying out” the Sept. 11 attacks.

This is why they are cutting back on education.

And I'll throw in a video that I've posted a couple times.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/youtube]

_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

20 Jun 2012, 10:11 pm

Meanwhile, Cheney is raising money for his buddy Mitt.

_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

20 Jun 2012, 10:17 pm

snapcap wrote:

Declassified document contradicts Cheney’s claim of Iraqi connection to 9/11

Quote:

Mr. Enron's a liar. The neocons needed an excuse to begin their venture in the Middle East. His sources are derps.

This frightens me.

Quote:

This is why they are cutting back on education.

And I'll throw in a video that I've posted a couple times.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/youtube]

Dude - this is your news source? Oh, boy. Okay- I'm not defending Dick Cheney but boy are these guys spinning you! Take it from someone who's worked some intel in his day - they are really spinning this!

Let's start off with the second paragraph - what it said was "not the Atta who attacked the the trade center." Does it ever dawn on you that both "Mohammed" and "Atta" in Arabic are as common as "Smith" and "Jones" in English? It it very easy for 2 different people to have the same name. What we have is a mistaken identity - and guess what - our intel sources and abilities were seriously weakend by the Clinton Administration because of budget cuts in the military to pay for social programs elsewhere. Sources: Congressional Quarterly and Air Force Times.

Moral of the story: Don't go blaming the one without the other.

Longshanks

_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why?

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

20 Jun 2012, 10:18 pm

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

20 Jun 2012, 10:20 pm

cathylynn wrote:

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

You know why he did it?

_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

20 Jun 2012, 10:23 pm

cathylynn wrote:

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

I'm military and I'm calling you on that. Please cite your source.

Longshanks

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

20 Jun 2012, 10:50 pm

cathylynn wrote:

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

Bush, like Cheney, ignored the CIA, who should be the go to people for this kind of information, but what they said didn't fit the agenda.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Author claims Bush knew Iraq had no WMD

_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

21 Jun 2012, 9:17 am

snapcap wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

What we have here (and I'm being gracious here) is a couple of cases of LSM - Liberal Selective Memory. I see nothing of the over 500 chemical weapons warheads that the US Army Corps of Engineers found stockpiled and of which they later had to destroy. I see nothing of the weapons that the same CIA traced to Syria. I see nothing of the fact that our intel sources were compromised in the first place because a certain Democrat named William Jefferson Clinton (who is a liar convicted of perjury in a federal court and who lost his law license because of it) made financial cuts from our intel funds to use them for social programs and intel does cost money. And seing as we're talking about lying - let's talk about how Barack Obama was forced to surrender his license to practice law in 2008 because he lied to the Illinois Bar, or that Michelle Obama lost her license to practice in 2003 for the same reasons. Source: Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee. It seems to me the liberals do a lot more lying than the conservatives.

Longshanks

Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

21 Jun 2012, 9:24 am

Longshanks wrote:

snapcap wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

I tried to click your source and nothing happened...

_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

21 Jun 2012, 9:54 am

Delphiki wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

snapcap wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

also, bush ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence of WMD in iraq, then when none were found, said he acted honestly on bad intelligence.

I tried to click your source and nothing happened...

Try the web address on my thread about it. It's in the same forum. I'm having no problem at all.

Longshanks

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm

Longshanks wrote:

It seems to me that your second paragraph hits the nail on the head: Cheney knew, or ought properly to have known that the Prague connection was one of mistaken identity, and he went ahead and stated publicly that it had been, "pretty much confirmed." If your intel sources were seriously weakened, then the issue remains that the Administration of the day was relying on bad intel, knew it was relying on bad intel and made public policy on that basis anyway.

If you know (or ought properly to know) that a statement is faulty; and you utter that statement intending that other people will rely on it; and if those people rely on that statement and act to their detriment, then that is the strict definition of fraud.

It seems to me that there is a prima facie case of fraud perpetrated by the Administration in order to secure Congressional funding for a misadventure.

I don't deny that better intel might have prevented this--but that does not excuse those people who knowingly relied on poor intel.

_________________
--James

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

21 Jun 2012, 3:00 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

Not if the mistake was caught after the events took place. You still point the the finger at Cheney without pointing it at Clinton as well. How selective can you get?

Longshanks

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 4:13 pm

Longshanks wrote:

Not if the mistake was caught after the events took place. You still point the the finger at Cheney without pointing it at Clinton as well. How selective can you get?

Longshanks

Back up a sec.

The White House was briefed on the faulty intel on the 8th, and Cheney made his statement on the 9th. From my perspective, the mistake was known prior to the statement.

I have never suggested that Clinton should be exempted from responsibility for cuts that his Administration made. I have said quite clearly that better intel might have prevented this, and I will even go the step further to say that the previous administration's decisions created circumstances in which better intel was not available.

But only Cheney and Bush can bear responsibility for Cheney making public statements based on intel that they knew or ought properly to have known was false. He could have said, "The Clinton Administration has left us with a mess and we have no reliable intel." But he didn't. He lied and said that the Prague link was pretty much confirmed. And Clinton bears no reponsibility for his decision to lie--only for the the lack of intel.

_________________
--James

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

21 Jun 2012, 4:38 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

Not if the mistake was caught after the events took place. You still point the the finger at Cheney without pointing it at Clinton as well. How selective can you get?

Longshanks

Okay, I will concede that. But it still could have been a mistake on Cheney's part and not a lie. With all of the documentation that a veep or full president must keep in mind, certainly a mistake is possible. God knows how many of them Clinton made. Look at how many times Biden shoves both of his feet in his mouth. You should review some of the outrageous statements Biden has made. Hell, we should send Biden to help Putin! You still have to prove - which you can't because you can't put yourself inside of Cheney's mind, that it was a lie. If that's the case, I could have a field day with every president from Andrew Jackson on up. I see some evidence - but no concrete proof - unless, of course, we get to judge Biden with the same exact criteria.

Longshanks

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

21 Jun 2012, 9:41 pm

They would have went over no matter what. If one person didn't give them bad info, they would have went on another person's bad info, because they DID want to intervene in many countries affair in the ME.

_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

21 Jun 2012, 10:08 pm

snapcap wrote:

No, we would not have. The preferred target of the military at that time would have been Iran. I recommended that we just nuke the whole Middle East and move in after 40 years when it stopped glowing in the dark with the intent of building a Disneyworld Theme Park and pumping some oil. But I was accused of not being politically correct.

Longshanks

Page 1 of 4 [ 52 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Cheney is a liar Post Reply New Topic

Cheney is a liar