Dick Cheney: No 'Evidence' of Iraq, 9/11 Link »
Posted By ybdogsct 6 months, 2 weeks ago in Political NewsFormer Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” Cheney said during an interview Monday night with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.
Read Full Story at politico.com »
1526 Views Share Story 229 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 229 (view all)
-
98%
ybdogsct6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's funny. That's not what flip-flop Cheney told the American public when in 2003 when he was trying to justify the war in Iraq.
Reply
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm
"US Vice-President Dick Cheney has repeated his assertion that the al-Qaeda network had links with Iraq before the US-led invasion of 2003.
Mr Cheney, in an interview with conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, insisted there had been a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda terror group.
He said former al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been leading the network's operations in the country before the 2003 US-led invasion.
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organised the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," he told the show.
Hours earlier, a declassified Pentagon report said information obtained from Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein had confirmed they had no strong ties.
In addition, an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and a leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, never took place."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090515/pl_mccl...
"Then-Vice President Dick Cheney , defending the invasion of Iraq , asserted in 2004 that detainees interrogated at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp had revealed that Iraq had trained al Qaida operatives in chemical and biological warfare, an assertion that wasn't true.
Cheney's 2004 comments to the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News were largely overlooked at the time. However, they appear to substantiate recent reports that interrogators at Guantanamo and other prison camps were ordered to find evidence of alleged cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein — despite CIA reports that there were only sporadic, insignificant contacts between the militant Islamic group and the secular Iraqi dictatorship.
The head of the Criminal Investigation Task Force at Guantanamo from 2002-2005 confirmed to McClatchy that in late 2002 and early 2003, intelligence officials were tasked to find, among other things, Iraq -al Qaida ties, which were a central pillar of the Bush administration's case for its March 2003 invasion of Iraq."
And now after this colossal blunder, Dick Cheney has come out of hiding to defend the legacy of his LIES and failed policies.
Investigate and prosecute!-
-
90%
Goppy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great story submission, ybdogsct.
Reply
I appreciate the background research you've provided.
But I realize that many Right Wing Propeller Members tend to be "Conspiracy Theorists" ... (paranoid).
So I thought I would supply this youtube video that captures Dick Cheney ... and then George W. Bush quoting Dick Cheney ... regarding a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k
This is the fundamental thing we must remember about The Modern Republican ... Neo-Conservative Branch ... INSTILLING FEAR is an essential element to their theory of governance.
True Neo-Conservatives ... Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney embraced the political philosophy of Leo Strauss ... who promoted this idea as a way to maintain an orderly society.
As such, they are predisposed to LIE to create Fear.
This is how Neo-Conservatives Govern.
. -
13%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct
Reply
You are an idiot. The 9/11 commission said the same total of what Cheney said in your ranting and what he said this time. The statements are not inconsistent. Al Qaeda involvement there did not make Saddam Hussein involved. Looking for something and not finding it. So what. It is the liberals assertion not the Bush administration that the reason for the invasion was the involvement of Hussein. The reason given was Husseins refusal to allow the inspectors to do their job. We DID find WMDs there but the left ignores them because they were not in good shape by the time we found them.
I guess you flunked English. -
95%
ybdogsct6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ENDSOCOPY:
Reply
"The 9/11 commission said the same total of what Cheney said in your ranting and what he said this time."
You haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report either, have you?
LOL. Why am I not surprised.
Actually, the 9/11 Commission Report does NOT say the "same total of what Cheney said." In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report directly contradicts Cheney's previous justifications for war against Iraq by revealing a memo sent to Condi Rice and GW Bush from Richard Clarke's Counter-terrorism Security Group as early as September 18, 2001, that states that there was NO EVIDENCE to suggest Saddam was cooperating with Bin Ladin.
9/11 Commission Report discovers that Richard Clarke's Counter-terrorism Security Group notified Condi Rice and GW Bush as early as September 18, 2001 that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 and that there was no evidence to suggest Saddam was cooperating with Bin Ladin.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
"President Bush had wondered immediately after 9/11 whether Saddam Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon. President Bush told Richard Clarke and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. 'See if Saddam did this,' Clarke recalls the President telling them. 'See if he's linked in any way.'
Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Condoleeza Rice on September 18, titled 'Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.' Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion. Clarke's memo found NO COMPELLING CASE THAT IRAQ HAD EITHER PLANNED OR PERPETRATED THE ATTACKS . Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was NO CONFIRMED REPORTING ON SADDAM COOPERATING WITH BIN LADIN ON UNCONVENTIONAL WEAPONS.
ENDOSCOPY:
"So what. It is the liberals assertion not the Bush administration that the reason for the invasion was the involvement of Hussein."
Actually, it is NOT just the "liberals assertion that the reason for the invasion was the involvement of Hussein." This was THE MAIN justification listed in the the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq (AUMF)! .
In fact, according to the the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq, 17 of the 21 bulleted reasons to go to war against Iraq had to do with preventing al Qaeda from executing another 9/11-style attack using Saddam's WMDs. THAT was the main justification for war against Iraq.
Have you read the AUMF? It's clear from your comments that either you haven't even read the AUMF or are too illiterate to comprehend it by yourself. Maybe it's time you ask someone to read it slowly to you. Who knows? Maybe you'll learn something.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/re...
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"
ENDOSCOPY:
"The reason given was Husseins refusal to allow the inspectors to do their job."
Actually, it wasn't Saddam Hussein who prevented the inspectors from finishing their job. It was GW Bush who evacuated them prematurely.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ira...
"Kofi Annan ordered all U.N. inspectors to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war. After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq , President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2858713.stm
"The Iraqis had extended good co-operation and had increased their helpfulness lately, he added. The evacuation signals the end of efforts to disarm Iraq peacefully and foreshadows US-led military action."
The Pentagon says that after September 11, Saddam went OUT OF HIS WAY to cooperate with UNSCOM so as not to give GW Bush any excuses to start a war against Iraq and toppling Saddam's regime.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ip...
"By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted towards pursuing policies designed to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM and that it was free of WMD...As 2002 drew to a close, the regime took active measures to counter the Coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that 'in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war,' Iraq would give full access to UN Inspectors."
"Saddam became convinced that because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, the Americans or Israelis were not beyond planting fake evidence."
"Saddam avoided taking actions in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would appear obstructionist or threatening. In late 2002, he told a group of officers that Iraq would provide UN inspectors with the access they needed, thus denying President George W. Bush and the Americans any excuse for starting a new conflict."
Bush violates the UN's decision to allow inspectors to finish their jobs by forcing inspectors to evacuate prematurely: (UNSCR 1441)
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
"decides to set up an inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process. UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, undrestricted and immediate movement"
"Requests all UN Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates. Decides to convene upon receipt of a report to consider the situation and the need for full compliace with Council resolutions. DECIDES TO REMAIN SEIZED OF THE MATTER"
By evacuating UN inspectors prematurely and invading without a UNSC war resolution, Bush Jr. violated the last line of UNSCR 687 and 1441, which stated the UN would remain in "seized of the matter."
GW Bush violated UN Charter in Attacking a Member Nation without UN Security Council Approval
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate."
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
SPIN THIS!
A 2006 Senate Intelligence Report (chaired by REPUBLICAN Pat Roberts) concluded that Saddam was NOT harboring al Qaeda.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-3...
"Saddam viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat, and his regime since its inception has arrested and executed members of both Shia and Sunni groups to disrupt their organizations and limit their influence.
Saddam then specified that Iraq did no cooperate with bin Laden. According to Tariq Aziz, 'Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden. When the Taliban was in power, the Iraq government deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul...The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.'"
"Saddam immediately refused bin ladin's requests for the office, mines, and military training...bin Laden sent Abu Hafs al-Mauritani to Baghdad in order to request $10 million to be used to continue al-Qa'ida attacks against the West. Saddam refused to meet with Abu Hafs and explicity rejected the request for assistance. Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called saddam an 'unbeliever....' Saddam asked why the al-Qa'ida representative ad chosen to come to Iraq. Hussein was worried that al-Qa'ida operative's presence in Baghdad would cause a problem for Iraq."
"Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the source of reports on al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training in iraq, recanted the information he provided...The DIA assessed that 'there has been no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq...No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak...Postwar site exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida lined individuals took place there."
"Both captured former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a 'special committee' to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him...the IIS did successfully arrest one of the individuals responsible, Abu Yasim Sayyem."
"According to the DIA, detainee information, and captured document, the regime was aware of Ansar al-Islam, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. Senior Ansar al-Slaim detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam's regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it...The government of Iraq considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw and blamed Ansar al-Slam for two bombings in Baghdad."
Pentagon concludes NO collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1...
"Saddam viewed international terrorist organizations in terms of what they could do to further his 'historic' mission. During the course of the 1990s, bin Laden came to see Islamic terrorist groups as part of a jihad that would one day topple all apostate governments, unite all Muslims, and finally restore the caliphate. Saddam had his own vision, a Ba'athist pan-Arab socialist superstate with Iraq at its center. Saddam's vision was always about the centrality of Saddam--and never about the glory if Islam or some modern-day caliphate.
Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the U.S., out of Muslim lands. Both wanted to create a single powerful state that would take its place as a global superpower. And Saddam and bin laden often found a common enemy in the U.S. These similarities created the appearance of cooperation as common interests, even without a common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat."
"But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted--and still wants--to restore the ISLAMIC caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the SECULAR ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-term compromise between them HIGHLY UNLIKEKLY. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the WORST KIND OF 'APOSTATE' REGIME--a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges.
The director of IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) cautioned against meeting with Islamic parties as they would 'not serve the current Iraqi situation...and will make us lose our main target.' He went on to note that working with the religious parties was dangerous because they were 'associated with the religious terror, which Hezbollah and Iran are practicing...and it is provoking the West.'"
Douglas Feith, appointed head of the Office of Special Programs by Dick Cheney, is investigated for distributing "alternative intelligence analysis" that lied to Congress about cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, in contradiction with conclusions formed by the greater Intelligence Community.
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/20...
"In the case of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the Intelligence Community, which was consistently dubious of such a connection...The non-IC or "alternative" intelligence analysis conducted by the DOD neatly fit the Administration's desire to build a strong case for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime, particularly given the fact that the usual source of intelligence analysis, the IC, was skeptical about the existence of a close or cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Alberto Gonzales inserts accusation about Iraq's alleged effort to purchase uranium into GW Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech to justify war in Iraq.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/12/18/alberto-...
"Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales misled Congress when he claimed the CIA in 2002 approved information that ended up in the 2003 State of the Union speech about Iraq's alleged effort to buy uranium for its nuclear weapons program.
Waxman said his investigation showed the CIA had warned at least four National Security Council officials not to allow Bush, in three speeches in 2002, to cite questionable intelligence that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium. The sentences were stripped out of those speeches but made it into the State of the Union address."
The Pentagon finds no active WMD program post-1991.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ip...
"'Chemical Ali' was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD, but claims many within the ruling circle always believed they did...According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about having WMD during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD, but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary. Saddam went on to explain that if Iraq made such a declaration, it would not only show Israel that Iraq did not have WMD, but might actually encourage the Israelis to attack."
"By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted towards pursuing policies designed to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM and that it was free of WMD...As 2002 drew to a close, the regime took active measures to counter the Coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that 'in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war,' Iraq would give full access to UN Inspectors."
"Saddam became convinced that because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, the Americans or Israelis were not beyond planting fake evidence."
"Saddam avoided taking actions in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would appear obstructionist or threatening. In late 2002, he told a group of officers that Iraq would provide UN inspectors with the access they needed, thus denying President George W. Bush and the Americans any excuse for starting a new conflict."
A 2006 Senate Intelligence Report (chaired by REPUBLICAN Pat Roberts) found Iraq was not reconstituting its weapons program.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-3...
"Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was not intended for an Iraq nuclear program, but were likely intended for a conventional rocket program" which Iraq was allowed to possess; "Iraq pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are high dubious"; "Iraq no longer had a large scale biological weapons production capability after 1996" and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq maintained stocks of biological weapons or possessed bulk biological agents after 1996"; "Iraq never possessed, or developed, mobile facilities for producing biological agents"; "Iraq was not expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons production"; and "Iraq did not possess missiles which exceeded UN range limits."
Bipartisan Iraq Study Group (created by REPUBLICAN Congressmen Frank Wolf and chaired by former REPUBLICAN Secretary of State James Baker) found no evidence of an active WMD program post-1991.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2...
"The ISG found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991 and that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressivel declined after that date. The ISG found no evidence that Saddam Hussein attempted to restart the nuclear program. The intellectual capital (needed to restart a WMD program in the event UN sanctions were lifted) had decayed since the end of the nuclear program in 1991, and there was no evidence that scientists were engaged in renewed weapons work. A CIA nuclear retrospective said that Saddam 'probably harbored some intent to acquire nuclear weapons, but there were credible claims...to suggest he abandoned such pursuits."
Here are Scott Ritter's--former Marine Major on the UN inspection Team--own words claiming UN inspections were effective and that a preemptive attack on Iraq would be a mistake.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/rit...
"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said...In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction..."Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said...Ritter said that the Bush administration was "using weapons inspections as an excuse" to go to war with Iraq."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
"we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within 5 years...The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within 3 years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections. In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence." --Scott Ritter, 2002
ENDOSCOPY -- a "shining" example of neocon miseducation.
Perhaps, it's time for you to go back to school. Don't worry, though; today's lesson is free.
Class dissmissed, bitch.
-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned20 Replies
-
90%
Will13136 months, 2 weeks ago
-
12%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another rant by little willie who can't understand what happened. The fact that there are more deaths by car accidents in one year than were killed there makes no impression to the fact that the amount of death extremely small for war. more than that dies on the beaches on D-Day.
Reply
ypu are the monster for hour hatred.
You complain about several hundred billion but never say anything about the trillions that Obama is spending in deficit. He wants $3.3 trillion this year. $1.8 already budgeted and another $1.5 Trillion for health care.
Where is your rant about that.
-
-
96%
Goppy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder now if the many Right Wing Extremists here on Propeller - - - who persistently tried to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaida - - - will now back away from that claim.
Reply
Or ... is it possible they are so drunk with Mainstream Media's Kool-Aid - - - they will CONTINUE to persist in claiming a linkage.
.-
100%
oneironaut4206 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Or ... is it possible they are so drunk with Mainstream Media's Kool-Aid - - - they will CONTINUE to persist in claiming a linkage."
Reply
Common sense would dictate that it's impossible to continue making a claim when your god of war himself has backed away from it. In any case, it will be interesting to watch the semantic gymnastics coming from those who do persist. 8) -
-
100%
splitrch6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Goppy how do you think they feel about Darth Vader saying gay marriage is ok and that Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11? The next thing you know he's going to say he voted for Bill Clinton and thinks that impeaching the President over trivialities was a bad thing to do.
Reply
Maybe the as_shole really is thinking about running for President...... He better look out though, Rush Limbaugh is leading a purge of moderate Republicans. He doesn't think they are ideologically pure enough for the ever shrinking Republican Party. Maybe Cheney can form a Vampire Party and run on a platform of sucking out the last vestiges of blood he missed these past 8 years. -
0%
rimbaud6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, that was 2003! This is 2009!... Bush already admitted, and Cheney is admitting that their claims prior to the Iraq war did not pan out... no WMD, no Iraq to 9/11 link. Why attack them for telling the truth? As for the "Right Wing Extremists" here on Propeller: you are a frikkin' liberal pansy, you idiot HYPOCRITE!!!!!!
Reply
-
-
-
-
50%
ecotourusa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Engineer, good to see you. Trusting you are well.
Reply
l think denial on this subject (911) crosses all lines. I question the 10,000 page bogus report on how the twin towers and bldg. 7 fell. (for starters)
What we need to do is pay attention to the things that effect you and I. And the things that we can effect change... and protect our personal liberties as citizens of the USA. This other crap is here to distract us while the govt. slowly but surely grasps more of our personal liberties. We all need ot get on the same page and stop fighting amongst ourselves.
watch this video regarding new healthcare legislation as explained by Congressman Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNfkrOHHg4
He is a man who speaks truth whether you and like it or not. -
29%
Wolfie20076 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
engineer, you are a laugh riot. Do you even know what you're talking about it might be the first time if you did. Btw, you never did tell me in the series of nasty little notes you sent me Monday what you were ranting about did you? Left wing nuts like you must be so confused and Obama makes it worse everyday. Pretty soon you'll be so confused you'll start defending George Bush.
Reply
-
-
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
C'mon now people........this intelligence gatherin' business is "more of an art than a science"!
Reply
According to Cheney, he personally had authority to make decisions that would lead to the invasion of a sovereign country, countless deaths of innocent people and hundreds of billions spent nation destroying and building in Iraq.
It should come as no surprise that with these reckless tyrants running the globe's largest military and economy, we find ourselves in severe economic peril and the targets of growing radical fundamentalist hatred.
What kind of person supports THIS?
Oh, and Goppy's link shows a befuddled and flummoxed President Bush shirking any responsibility or complicity in the matter by claiming that Cheney "told me so...so it must be true"
We knew all along who was calling the shots from the protection of his underground den of iniquity.-
-
8%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is the liberal lie changing history. The UN made resolutions demanding that Hussein allow the inspectors to do their job. He kept refusing. The last couple asked for member nations to enforce it. The US led the way and with 22 nations under the UN and the approval of congress and after several warnings that we would attack, we did with the 22 nations.
Reply
Always the lberal lie that we just went in willie nillie. You rewrite history. Why?
-
-
100%
Will13136 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
bubba26 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hussein let the inspectors in, he sent them out, then he let them in again.
Reply
In POINT of FACT, the UN inspectors were IN Iraq in March of 2003 and they WERE getting cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Bush knew that, but he invaded anyway. He told the inspectors to get out because the troops were coming in.
The United Nations Security Council did NOTauthorize the Iraq invasion. It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for new inspections intended to find and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The Arms Control Association provides a chronology of previous weapons inspections in Iraq.) Iraq accepted the renewed inspections, which were to be carried out by UNMOVIC and the IAEA.
The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its military action, based on resolution 1441. But that is erroneous because resolution 1441 only had a statement about "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with the inspections, that says NOTHING about approving ANYONE to start a war.
The 'authorization' from Congress in 2002 was based on LIES. The information provided to them that was SUPPOSED to be the intelligence data was we-written by Doug Feith for Bush and Cheney. Thus, that resolution was based on lies.
You are the one with the "willie nillie" thinking and, as always, ignore or reject the actual facts.
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html -
100%
bubba26 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hussein let the inspectors in, he sent them out, then he let them in again.
Reply
In POINT of FACT, the UN inspectors were IN Iraq in March of 2003 and they WERE getting cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Bush knew that, but he invaded anyway. He told the inspectors to get out because the troops were coming in.
The United Nations Security Council did NOT authorize the Iraq invasion. It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for new inspections intended to find and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The Arms Control Association provides a chronology of previous weapons inspections in Iraq.) Iraq accepted the renewed inspections, which were to be carried out by UNMOVIC and the IAEA.
The Bush administration argued that it had enough legal support for its military action, based on resolution 1441. But that is erroneous because resolution 1441 only had a statement about "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with the inspections - that says NOTHING about approving ANYONE to start a war.
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
The 'authorization' from Congress in 2002 was based on LIES. The information provided to them that was SUPPOSED to be the intelligence data was we-written by Doug Feith for Bush and Cheney. Thus, that resolution was based on lies.
You are the one with the "willie nillie" thinking and, as always, ignore or reject the actual facts. -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Goppy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He just doesn't care, jordan11.
Reply
Here ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4
In essence ... he decides we MUST share his sick, dark political philosophy ... to the death ... if necessary.
.
-
-
-
100%
Candida6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
President Bush among them.
Reply
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/60minute...
-
-
-
93%
bamababy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cheney -evil incarnate- I hope he continues to babble, let him keep on with his tirades, liars always tell on themselves, impossible to keep the lies straight, Truth always revails, and will here .....eventually. War Criminals each and every one of them...Sickening...
Reply -
92%
CHAM6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great Post Ybdog. And don't forget that on 9/12 Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeldt, put Feith in charge of a new Group whos sole purpose was to mine data that could be used to show an Iraqi connection.
Reply
And while you are mentioning Neo Cons above don't forget William Kristol.
After seeing a few of Endo's rants, I decided that he was a mentally challenged pre-teen who likes to get on here and act like an azz. And he has some retarded friends who like to join the chorus. -
100%
NoWayMan6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the fact that cheney was wrong isn't news, since he's been nothing but wrong for the last 8+ years now.
Reply
but if there was never any evidence to prove the saddam/911 link, then he's also admitting that he's a goddam liar and a war criminal. -
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Certainly, Chalabi played a key role.
Reply
but the war was a group effort.
According to Clarke, Bush's first national security adviser, Bush was planning the Iraq invasion before 911.
Chalabi was a con man;
and con men find the weak spot and just give it a push . -
Neutral
NoWayMan6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
neither 911 nor Chalabi that got us into Iraq.
Reply
the Bush Admin had their eyes on Iraq from Day One. Chalabi didn't fool or drag us into anything.
the Bush Admin willingly believed him - or pretended to believe him cause he was towing the company line - knowing full well who he was and what he was all about. but they needed an iraqi salesman to sell their war, and Chalbi surfaced.
from the start, the Bush Admin and Chalabi were using each other for their own agendas. then, when it all began to fall apart and the the Bush Admin needed a fall guy, they threw Chalabi under the bus.
-
-
67%
onlyonesecret6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's also not forget that there is no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. He has not been formally charged in connection with it. The ONLY evidence they have on Bin Laden is his "confession video" which I believe is a fake.
Reply -
9%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that the liberals are doing this to ignore what Obama is doing to the country. He is spending it into bankruptcy. He is asking congress to raise the deficit this year to $3.3 trillion. $2.5 trillion for the foreseeable future. A few years of that and he will double the national debt.
Reply
I believe that is why the liberals are using this red herring. Can't stand the heat of their beloved Obamasiah doing this to the country. Especially after their rants about the horrid Bush deficit of an average of $200 billion plus a year. That is chump change to what Obama is spending.
Liberals can't handle that. It turns them into HYPOCRITES!!!!!-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Propeller villagers come out of their houses, to stare at Mr. Endoscopy,
Reply
who is being marched naked down the street. About his neck a neon-red sign has been tied that says:
There was no connection between the country we invaded, and the people who attacked us."
Endoscopy points wildly down the street. "Look! Over there! Obama is increasing our deficit,"
If anyone looks away, it is not to pay attention to Mr. Obama. -
100%
bubba26 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush doubled the national debt during his 8 years, but you never complained at all about that. And, YES it WAS doubled because ALL of the Iraq war spending was NOT posted in the actual budget - it was "on the side" as 'discretionary' spending.
Reply
So, its ok for a Republican to double our national debt by spending money 1/2 way around the world that is NO benefit to Americans - but it is NOT ok for a Democrat to increase the national debt by spending some money on THIS country?
WHO is the HYPOCRITE???? -
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I think that the liberals are doing this to ignore what Obama is doing to the country."
Reply
so...
you're saying Cheney is a plant by the dems to deflect attention away from the ecomic situation (which is actually improving, btw)?
wow. its like you don't even think, you just type.
really stupid, even for you, endo.
-
-
-
100%
Ratskii6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I used to think that Endo was at least courageous for sometimes single handedly wading in and defending his views against a couple of dozen people who disagreed with him.
Reply
However, I'm beginning to rethink that. I've noticed that he never provides any evidence for his contentions, but simply makes kinds of statements that will cause the rest of us to gang up on him even more. He isn't really trying to convince anyone of anything.
I have to conclude, after observing him for so long, that he likes the attention. I guess even negative attention is better than no attention at all.-
100%
Goppy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've been watching him also.
Reply
I've noticed that his/her cognitive ability is either deteriorating - or his enthusiasm for what he's posting has waned ... possibly due to a depressive episode.
Maybe the election of Barack Obama has precipitated an emotional collapse?
Who knows.
But it is sad to see.
I fear he's heading for a mental breakdown.
.
-
-
-
83%
antibrainwasher6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sanches, former General is calling for a truth commission, so is Petraeus. They of course realize that cheney personally sent them on a suicide mission, commanding them to murder 500,000 muslims, enemies of Israel, for a stew of war profiteer lies.
Reply
These generals don't like sending their soldiers, their sons and daughters to death for a neocon cowards lie. They'd like to see Cheney hanged for his war crimes and torture.-
Neutral
most_reasonable6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Antibrain, falling for the same BS that hampers the thought process of the rational and reasonable. The numbers you use are to incite not instruct and the blame on Israel....it's ALWAYS the joooooze , just deadens your synapses.
Reply
Sanches claimed that the most dangerous man in Iraq was the cleric Satr who we all heard blame the Americans for the bombing of the Shiite holy sites.
I bet you agreed with him, and the thousands of Shiite pilgrims that have been murdered by PEACE-LOVING Sunnis on their way to prayer....must be the Zionist?
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
100%
Poulenc6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can we all...please...sever, end, in all ways disconnect from Dick Cheney?
Reply
Not another word from him.
About him.
Let him pass into history's boneyard, there to enjoy himself on ill-got riches and the malign certainty of purpose that so characterized his days as...whatever he truly was?
Fini.
Adios.
Ta!
You were a wretched old wagon and ya done...well, you're DONE! -
-
0%
rhyannon386 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bin Laden was nothing but a scapegoat in all this,a decoy.The big fish never get their fingerprints in it. Thats how theese terrororist countries have always operated.They harbor,train and fund terror groups and then try and play dumb after a bombiing,hi-jacking,whatever.Decoys work well in military stategies,it diverts ur enemies strenghth and focus on the wrong target.The terrorists have learned to use this very well,especioally with the help of the news media.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.