ubertuber

Host, thanks for sticking this is a different thread. I've got a couple of points and a couple of questions.

First, can you link the second, long quoted section? Thanks.

Now, you've posted many inches worth of material that amount to documentation of one comment by one official. At that, Cheney's comment was that the Czech government had confirmed a report (which at that point, they had, however haphazardly) and this was something he said in December of 2001. The invasion of Iraq began in March of 2003. Further, your own linked article indicates that Cheney was responding to this question from Russert: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?” Even the wording of the question asserts that Cheney had originally said there was no question - and this is further confirmed by your linked article. First, Russert reminded Cheney that on Sept. 16, “five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to.” As long as we're in the way back machine, I think this is really worth highlighting - that Russert Cheney saying Iraq WASN'T involved in 9/11.

Heck, even if the Czech government had been right, a meeting isn't indicative of support, and I don't see here that Cheney claimed it was. If this meeting took place (and there's no reason to think it did) it could have been Atta asking the Iraqi government for support and getting told to go f*ck himself. Basically, I don't see this as a claim of a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

It seems to me that this instance you are citing (and particularly the articles you've quoted) are damning evidence of sloppy and leading reporting, not deceipt actively practiced by our administration. There must be more, given the prevalent meme that Bush and Cheney claimed that Iraq backed the 9/11 attacks.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam