The truth is 75Center, that the White House (Bush and Cheney) played the "connection" angle to help support an invasion of Iraq. Whether one chooses to say, "technically I don't think he said that," or "He absolutely said that," is semantics IMO.

 

Personally, I'll be just as happy either way and could care no less or more for Cheney regardless of what he said yesterday or in the future. :thumb:

Reserved for liberals. For conservatives, its called "re-evaluation strategy.":D

 

:lol: I'll remember that.

Didn't believe him then, don't know whether to believe him now or not. Once bitten, twice shy.

I disagree with that statement. I watched Meet the Press on 9/16/01, five days after the 9/11 attacks. Cheney told Tim Russert that day that there was evidence that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year.

 

That assertion, as I understand it, was later refuted.

 

I believe your memory is faulty concerning the 9/16/2001 interview. Cheney does not mention any meeting in Prague on Meet the Press that day. Here is the most relevant part of the interview:

 

MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?

 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

 

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is - in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

 

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

 

You can find the whole interview here:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html

 

It's ironic that in the interview it was Tim Russert and not Dick Cheney who was the first to say that Saddam had a track record of harboring terrorists.

 

 

I do believe the there was a point in time where Cheney did say that there was evidence that Atta had met with Iraqis in Prague but that was later, and not immediately after 9/11. It was also based upon intelligence reports that have since be called into question.

I believe your memory is faulty concerning the 9/16/2001 interview. Cheney does not mention any meeting in Prague on Meet the Press that day. ...

 

I do believe the there was a point in time where Cheney did say that there was evidence that Atta had met with Iraqis in Prague but that was later, and not immediately after 9/11. It was also based upon intelligence reports that have since be called into question.

I may be wrong on the date. If the link I found is correct, Cheney may actually have made the Atta-Prague assertion in December 2001.

 

I know he did because I watched the show. If I'm wrong on the date, I stand corrected.

So two or three weeks ago he says that Hussein was linked to terrorists but now says there was no link between Hussein and 9/11? So he was linked to "different" terrorists?

 

Mr. Cheney says so many things that I'm having trouble keeping up. He said that declassifying would "prove" the value of torture and now he's said it will "show what we learned." Nuance.

 

To be honest, I simply don't put much into this latest quote.

The truth is 75Center, that the White House (Bush and Cheney) played the "connection" angle to help support an invasion of Iraq. Whether one chooses to say, "technically I don't think he said that," or "He absolutely said that," is semantics IMO.

 

Personally, I'll be just as happy either way and could care no less or more for Cheney regardless of what he said yesterday or in the future. :thumb:

 

Fair enough, I however see a huge difference in the statements.

 

As to your second statment, I agree although I believe I view Cheney in a different light than you.

You don't say....

I just did.

I forgot to mention this.

 

Isnt' the bigger story here that Mr. Cheney blamed Richard Clarke for "missing" 9.11?