|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
.......And as for "these threads", "these threads" are little more than thinly veiled attacks based on personal opinion. Liberals are just as blinded by ideology and irrationality as the bible-thumpinest, tax-cuttinest, flag-wavinest conservative. Nothing new or important ever is found in threads like this, it's merely another excuse for liberals to trot out the reasons they think "rEpUbLiKKKaNs aRe TeH sUxX0RZ!!1!!!!". That's why there's so much disdain from opposing viewpoints-there's no notable content to discuss here. Anyone thinking rationally and with even the smallest hint of objectivity would see that these attacks deserve no more respect or logical rebuttal than a homeless guy on a corner who ran out of schizophenia medicine.
|
No...the thread is about Cheney. There is every reason to discuss him....to examine his past.....and his agenda. The piece that Elphaba posted is a good starting point, if there was anyone here willing to defend him. Your post, and half the others on the thread, indicate that there is no will, interest, or means to defend him. The man who Cheney picked to be his COS and NS advisor has been indicted for misleading a federal prosecutor in a high profile case that resulted form a CIA complaint that one of it's case officer's name and work responsibilities were given to reporters.
The man who the president picked to be his running mate, twice....and who has been given more power and responsibility than any prior vice-president, seems to answer to the VP, and cedes authority to make and carry out foreign and military policy, to him. I'm not saying this...the assistant to former secretary of state Colin Powell, Larry Wilkerson, after serving Powell for 16 years, is the one saying it.
And....are you saying that Cheney is not a liar? The big lie....the one that was the basis of a propaganda campaign designed to convince us to support an invasion of Iraq...can be found displayed right on the white house website. Isn't that a sign that something is very wrong?
Shouldn't you be disturbed about these things? I'm disturbed that you don't want to talk about it. Shooting the messenger ain't gonna get you by, this time.....
The lie that exposes the big lie is found in an obscure place....Drudge's news archive. Why are you all trying to stifle discussion. Are these not essential issues to soldiers and their families who may still have to face risks of physical harm in Iraq? Are you writing to your federal representatives to urge them to hold open investigations of Cheney and Bush?...or are you working to discourage discussion, while attempting to make those who want to discuss these disturbing matters, look foolish? Is that how you support the troops?
Is that how you want to treat fellow Americans who cherish and honest and open government as much as you say you do?
If he's not a liar....did Drudge alter the item in his archive, did I? please explain:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
December 9, 2001
The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press (Scroll down to middle of page)
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was <b>any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.</b>
Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which <b>I want to get you to react to.</b> The first: The Czech interior minister said today that <b>an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.</b>
And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors--have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.''
And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is.
<b>RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.
Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, </b>what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's <h2>been pretty well confirmed,</h2> 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.
|
Quote:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/meet.htm
With Tim Russert, on September 8th, 2002:
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? Is it credible?
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...
|
Quote:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...mountain&hl=en
On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we've never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.
|
Quote:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...404_flash3.htm
CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE 'OUTRAGEOUS'
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET
In an EXCLUSIVE interview with CNBC's 'Capital Report':
....<b>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."</b>
<h3>Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.</h3>
BORGER: OK.
<h3>Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.</h3>
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. 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.
BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.
BORGER: That it happened.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: But you haven't found the evidence that it happened either, have you?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know.
BORGER: So does this put it to rest for you or not on Atta?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: It doesn't add anything from my perspective. I mean, I still am a skeptic. I can't refute the Czech plan. I can't prove the Czech plan. It's ...(unintelligible) the nature of the intelligence (unintelligible).
BORGER: OK, but let's...
|
Last edited by host; 11-28-2005 at 10:26 AM..
|