Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
By the way I read Kucinich's third document and did not see any support for his case. I am not going any further, if someone saw somthing of importance, let me know.
Host,
I digest infomation in small bites. I am willing to go through your best stuff one item at a time. I will start with your first item. because I really want to understand the basis for these lies.
Cheney seems to be responding to a question about Muhammad Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence. He states that the information was made public by the Czechs. Is his statement a lie? did the questioner lie? did the Czechs lie? You posted something that links Cheney statements linking Atta and Iraq, but it does not prove a lie, we need more for this to serve as proof of a lie.
The questioner thinks Cheney has suspicions regarding the information released by the Czechs. He then says we can not operate on suspicions, and he goes on to distance himself from the information by saying "we'd rather operate based on facts and make announcements when when we've got announcements to make". I guess this "announcement" did not come from the White House.
Your first item fails to prove anything, in my view.
Please rebut and we can go to the next item.
|
read every Cheney reference to Atta, ace. Cheney, in the course of his answers to questions about Atta meeting in Prague with an Iraqi representative of Saddam Hussein's government, Cheney declares that this is meeting is "PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED". He later tells Gloria Borger, when she tries to discuss it with him....that he "NEVER SAID THAT"......
Considered with Cheney's other statements, how can it be unreasonable to believe that Cheney seems to have lied, over and over, since 2002 about links between Saddam, 9/11 hijacker Atta, and Saddam and Zarqawi and his "treatment" in Baghdad, his "poison camp", and his training of "terrorists" in Iraq. Cheney cites those "examples" as justifying invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the toppling of the Iraqi government. Cheney's accusations linking Atta and Zarqawi to Saddam.......are not justifications. They were doubted by the US intelligence community when Cheney cited them in public comments, early on, and they all are long disproven, since at least mid- 2004. Yet he used the Zarqawi justification, again this month. Saddam had no relationship with Zarqawi, no ability to control him. Zarqawi operated before the US invasion in the Kurdish controlled region in Northern Iraq, in an area that US intelligence and military forces had access to without any interference from Saddam's Iraqi government or military.