CHENEY MISLEADS IRAQ/AL-QAEDA CONNECTION
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:31pm |
Displaying a brazen disregard for the facts, Vice President Cheney told an audience in Cincinnati Thursday that Iraq had "provided safe harbor and sanctuary...for Al Qaeda." There is no evidence to support Cheney's claim. The 9/11 Commission - which spent months exhaustively studying the issue - concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
After the release of the report, Cheney claimed there was "overwhelming" evidence of a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq and that he had "probably" seen evidence that was not shared with the commission. After investigating the matter, the 9/11 Commission found "it had access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks." The commission also reaffirmed its position that it had not discovered a "collaboration-cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Sources: 1. "Cheney Says Iraq Harbored Al Qaeda," Los Angeles Times, 9/10/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=54791.
2. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed," Washington Post, 6/17/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=54792.
3. "Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link," CNN, 6/18/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=54793.
4. "9/11 Panel Upholds Iraq-al-Qaida Finding," ABC News, 7/7/004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=54794.

Pages
Obviously we all can and will make our own interpretation of the facts. I'm still interested in your "interpretation" of the thousands of dead Kurds lying in the streets. Influenza, perhaps? Or the dozens of Iraqi scientists who told inspectors that there were WMD capabilities, along with the documents to back them up? In any case, Saddam could have avoided all of this if in fact he had no WMD capabilities by complying with the terms of his surrender and cooperating with inspectors. He CHOSE not to, and the world could not take the chance of ignoring the intelligence it had and presuming it to be wrong. Investigation after investigation has proven that Bush, Blair et al went with the intelligence they had and made no effort to mislead or inflate it.
Investigation after investigation has proven that Bush, Blair et al went with the intelligence they had and made no effort to mislead or inflate it.
I dont' know what investigations you are reading but every single one I have read says that there was no EVIDENCE of WMD at all. None. Oh, and remember we did not go to war because of the Kurds dying in the streets. We were told there was an imminent threat of WMDs. That is what we and congress were told and that is why he got the support and authorization to go to war if necessary. We were all lied to, including you and it just amazes me that that does not bother you.
Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President. -- Theodore Roosevelt.
Do you remember the impassioned speach that Kerry delivered to the Senate just before the vote, basically emploring the Senate to give the President authority to go into Iraq?
I will find the link, along with the link to his quotes if you like.....
Do you remember the impassioned speach that Kerry delivered to the Senate just before the vote, basically emploring the Senate to give the President authority to go into Iraq?
I will find the link, along with the link to his quotes if you like.....>
There's plenty of proof that we (& that includes you) were lied to. People very close to the situation have told us repeatedly that the President paid little attention to the intelligence. We've been told the intelligence community was ordered to supply only readable amounts of material to Bush, and they were well aware what kind of intelligence Bush & Cheney wanted to hear. He did not think through his decision to go to war, like everything else in his life he thought it would be simple - guess what, it wasn't & it isn't.
No one's arguing that Kerry voted to give the president authority to go to war. Like everyone else he assumed that GWB, President of the United States of America, would make a measured, educated, well-researched and well thought out decision. Not true, he wanted the authority to go to war, but he'd already decided what he'd do with it. The day we started bombing Iraq was the day I knew I could never vote to put this man back in the White House.
How anyone can still support this man is beyond comprehension. His supporters say he is fighting a War on Terror, he's fighting a war in Iraq and they are not the same.
What type of proof would this be? Is there anything that can be offered that you might be inclined to accept, considering it will go against your already well established belief system.
Edited 9/15/2004 7:27 pm ET ET by hayashig
There has been plenty of evidence that Saddam had WMD programs and capabilities, just no large stockpiles. But even if NOTHING had been found and it was just a massive intelligence failure, what I said is that investigations have shown NO evidence that Bush or Blair lied-none at all. They went with the intelligence they had at the time, intelligence that Saddam refused to counter with documentation and cooperation with inspectors, despite repeated demands by the UN that he do so. We could not take the risk that theintelligence was by chance wrong, given that Saddam was not allowing us to verify whether or not it was wrong. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.
Once again, the Kurds dying in the street ARE evidence of WMD's. If they didn't die from a chemical weapons attack, do you have some other information on what their cause of death was? Chemical weapons that are used kill tens of thousands of people are called "weapons of mass destruction".
That is nothing more than Dem spin. If you have any evidence that ANY intelligence person was pressured by Bush and Cheney, or that pressure from them caused any of our intelligence officers to purposely hold back information that would disprove the case, please bring it forth.
That's some nice commentary offered up instead of proof. Where is the proof that Bush lied? The matter has been investigated over and over again, here and in Great Britain, and not one iota of evidence has been produced that shows Bush knew that Saddam had no WMDs. And still no one is willing to answer the question-why was Saddam willing to basically hand over his entire country to US forces rather than to simply cooperate with the inspectors and PROVE the fact that he had no WMD's or WMD capabilities?
Once again, the Kurds dying in the street ARE evidence of WMD's. If they didn't die from a chemical weapons attack,...........
This was not new, this was years ago.
There is plenty of evidence that Bush was given intelligence he ignored and pressed the intelligence community to give him the kind of intelligence he wanted, and about Iraq, even after he was told that there was no evidence of WMD, CW or BW at that time. And they also said they expected to find none. But he pressed them to go over their info again, to find something to target Iraq.
Pages