You gotta watch this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Heck, the dickhead was making sense back then. What happened to his brain since then?

John Stewart compares Dick from then to Dick from now.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/16/daily-show-1994-dick-cheney-vs-post-911-dick-cheney/

You gotta watch this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Heck, the dickhead was making sense back then. What happened to his brain since then?

You know, it was actually nice to to hear him talking - he just stated plain, common sense. "Hussein is not worth more than 150 U.S. soldiers lives"
love his statement -

but he sure was after 911 - forget Bin Laden.::rolleyes:

yes, we forgot bin Laden. And Saddam had nothing to do with 911. In fact he hated the group of terrorists that actually attacked us. (They were, for the most part, from Saudi Arabia...but the Bush crime family has relations with the Saudis and the bin Laden. Thus, we had to find someone to fight...)

Conflict #1 Bush Sr: We could not go into Iraq, all the way to Baghdad, We had the logistical assets on the ground to invade Iraq with the intention of keeping them out of Kuwait, that's it.

Conflict #2 Clinton: Clinton could not risk the political capital of trying to get a republican congress to declare war on Iraq, so he decided to go with tactical aviation and surface to air missle's.

Conlict #3 Bush, Jr: After reviewing the previous conflicts he decided that a solution that would involve the complete removal of Saddam hussein was neccesary. This plan was in the works before 9/11. He tried to spin it as a fight against terrorism at first because of Saddam's frequent claims of biological and nuclear development. In hindsight I'm sure he realizes that this was a political mistake. But, he wouldn't have been able to get the support for a war declaration without involving the guise of terrorism somehow.

all of these people on here spouting the left agenda,will say that the administration tried to pass the "Saddam was part of 9/11" bullshit.
All I recall is that there was a time when they were looking into to see if there was a connection between the two. Something about an operative visted Saddam some years back.

It was never proven, nor was it never spoke of as a reason to oust saddam. I never remember anyone ever trying to tell me there was a ligit connection betw

It fact not counting the fear of him having WMDs,one of the main reasons we ousted him from power was the decades of oppression to the large majority of his people. The rape camps. The torture. (I recall a story about his son and an olympic team) The use of chemicals on people who opposed him. The idea that when and if he passes there was a long list of people who would take his place that were just as if not worse than he was.

Everyone will have a differant opinion as to what convinced them it was a good idea to go ahead and toss him out of power. To me it was never a question of a 9/11 link

all of these people on here spouting the left agenda,will say that the administration tried to pass the "Saddam was part of 9/11" bullshit.That's because this is exactly what the Bush administration did. It was a deliberate strategy on their part to imply a connection between Iraq and 9/11-- and it worked beautifully. The trick was to get as close to saying it without actually doing so. For example:

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

In January, Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
It was never proven, nor was it never spoke of as a reason to oust saddam. I never remember anyone ever trying to tell me there was a ligit connection betwSomebody sure as hell has been telling the troops in Iraq that there was a connection. A February 2006 Zogby poll of the troops found that while 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

A February 2005 Harris poll of American adults found:

* 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
* 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
* 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).


http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544

It served the Bush administration's purposes very well to have significant numbers of people believing something that wasn't true. Far from dispelling that untruth they did everything they could to perpetuate it. And don't think for a minute they didn't know exactly what they were doing.

[QUOTE=sedan]That's because this is exactly what the Bush administration did. It was a deliberate strategy on their part to imply a connection between Iraq and 9/11-- and it worked beautifully. The trick was to get as close to saying it without actually doing so. For example:


At it agin are ya Poppa Ghouls.
Always one of the first to Post some Negative about Republicans.
Yer about as Wise as that old Potato Chip maker.
Wise Potato Chipe were THE leader in Greasy chips.
Probably did mores fer Clearsil sales danny any udder stuff to be
taken by mouth.Ceptin yer Greasy Drool.

All we heard in '04 from liberals/democrats was how nuanced kerry's position was. And now liberals/democrats can't distinguish between 9/11 the event and 9/11 the metaphor.

The criticism rings hollow.

all of these people on here spouting the left agenda,will say that the administration tried to pass the "Saddam was part of 9/11" bullshit.

I can't tell which is predominant in you; that you are THAT hopelessly uninformed about the *Saddam was connected with 9/11* propaganda that the Bush people were relentlessly pushing, or that in your disengenuousness you are simply too ashamed to admit that Bush and his people were trying to convince the gullible Public of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/chris-hitchens-latest-blackout.php

Directly after September 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only three percent of those polled mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

By August 2003, nearly 70 percent of Americans believed it likely that Hussein was personally involved in the attacks carried out by Al Qaeda, according to a Washington Post poll.

Now, how could such a monumental shift in public perception have occurred over such a short period of time if the Bush Administration never "claimed that Iraq had any hand in the events of Sept. 11, 2001"?

It's been pretty widely reported:

• In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11... The overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.—CSM, March 14, 2003 -http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

• In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush Administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with Al Qaeda operatives.—MSNBC, June 16, 2004 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

• Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own Administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.... Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials.

...But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the Administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.—Boston Globe, September 16, 2003 - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

• President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top Administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

...As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

...In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague.


...In September, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/): "If we're successful in Iraq ... then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

All we heard in '04 from liberals/democrats was how nuanced kerry's position was. And now liberals/democrats can't distinguish between 9/11 the event and 9/11 the metaphor.

The criticism rings hollow.

Plus Hillary is back to the Competent talk.
That's all we heard from Pelosi/Reid,prior to the last election.
How Incompenetnt Bush and Party were.
Now that Pelosi has halved { 14% Poll Favorably } Bush numbers
and Her Congress hasn't accomplished Squat and wasn't CIVIL
One tither { how could they be,when serving up daily subpoenas }.
Democrats are ALL Talk and No walk.
They Love poppin their Lyin yappers.

I can't tell which is predominant in you; that you are THAT hopelessly uninformed about the *Saddam was connected with 9/11* propaganda that the Bush people were relentlessly pushing, or that in your disengenuousness you are simply too ashamed to admit that Bush and his people were trying to convince the gullible Public of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/chris-hitchens-latest-blackout.php

Directly after September 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only three percent of those polled mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

By August 2003, nearly 70 percent of Americans believed it likely that Hussein was personally involved in the attacks carried out by Al Qaeda, according to a Washington Post poll.

Now, how could such a monumental shift in public perception have occurred over such a short period of time if the Bush Administration never "claimed that Iraq had any hand in the events of Sept. 11, 2001"?

It's been pretty widely reported:

• In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11... The overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.—CSM, March 14, 2003 -http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

• In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush Administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with Al Qaeda operatives.—MSNBC, June 16, 2004 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

• Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own Administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.... Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials.

...But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the Administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.—Boston Globe, September 16, 2003 - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

• President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top Administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

...As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

...In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague.


...In September, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/): "If we're successful in Iraq ... then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
****************************************
If what you say and Theorize is true,that all this Terrorist {Al Qaeda}
nonsense in Iraq is irrational fear & loathing,then :
Why in damn Hell,is Al Qaeda and imported insurgents flocking to and setting up shop there.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]I can't tell which is predominant in you; that you are THAT hopelessly uninformed about the *Saddam was connected with 9/11* propaganda that the Bush people were relentlessly pushing, or that in your disengenuousness you are simply too ashamed to admit that Bush and his people were trying to convince the gullible Public of it.QUOTE]


As i said... (why is it you fools ignore key words in posts to make your point)

I only spoke of my personal observation as to the reasons we went to take him out of power. I am not speaking for the administration. I am not a white house spokesman. I gave testimony of my own personal experiance and selling point as to why this country took Saddam out of power,and it wasnt a 9/11 connect..... NOR was it selling of aferican yellow cake for nukes.

I remeber it being looked into. I do not remember it being found to be true and in MY OWN opinion as to why we went there it had NOTHING to do with a connection of 9/11 and Saddam...... you will blow by over the rape camp comments,the tortue of olympic teams ect..... and to make your point you will bring up a piece of "propaganda" that to me was not pushed as truth. I guess I was not part of the gullible Public.

I only spoke of my personal observation as to the reasons we went to take him out of power. I am not speaking for the administration. I am not a white house spokesman. I gave testimony of my own personal experiance and selling point as to why this country took Saddam out of power,and it wasnt a 9/11 connect..... NOR was it selling of aferican yellow cake for nukes.Here's the thing, LF. When you say it's BS that the administration tried to pass off a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, you're calling BS on something that's demonstrably true. When you call BS on something that isn't BS, people are gonna call BS on your BS. Now, you can either back up your original assertion or admit that you are wrong.

So far, all the evidence posted in this thread shows that the administration did, in fact, imply the connection. All that you, waldo and Fool have done is make insipid remarks that don't even qualify as arguments -- most likely because you don't have one.

imply
that is the keyword.

that is the keyword.Of course it is

They couldn't come right out and say something that they already knew wasn't true.

that is the keyword.
An implication isn't as strong as an outright assertion, but only slightly.

Everyone will have a differant opinion as to what convinced them it was a good idea to go ahead and toss him out of power. To me it was never a question of a 9/11 link


This whole fucking post was the point that I was not part of this gullible public that the libs think we need to protect. The selling point of the war to me was NOT a question of a link. I never believed there was a link and it was clear to me that if this huge proaganda machine was rolling as they claim,it must of missed my house.

This whole fucking post was the point that I was not part of this gullible public that the libs think we need to protect. The selling point of the war to me was NOT a question of a link. I never believed there was a link and it was clear to me that if this huge proaganda machine was rolling as they claim,it must of missed my house.That's great, LF.

You start out by saying it's bullshit that the administration tried to pass off a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Why do you think it's bullshit? Because you, personally, never observed it. In other words, you weren't paying attention, you didn't see it happen, therefore it didn't happen and therefore it's bullshit. When reams of evidence are presented to you that it did in fact happen, your response is to say that you're not gullible.

That's pretty freaking hilarious when you think about it.

Here's the thing, LF. When you say it's BS that the administration tried to pass off a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, you're calling BS on something that's demonstrably true. When you call BS on something that isn't BS, people are gonna call BS on your BS. Now, you can either back up your original assertion or admit that you are wrong.

So far, all the evidence posted in this thread shows that the administration did, in fact, imply the connection. All that you, waldo and Fool have done is make insipid remarks that don't even qualify as arguments -- most likely because you don't have one.

This is where yer ball of Yarn gets messy.Like a Tomcat got
hold of and was in a pesky state of agitation.
I don't believe Bush ever made ANY Public statement to the effect
that Saddam was Responsible for 9/11.
And Cheney was asked more ways than a sailor eyes a streetwalker
by the Liberal media,so naturally he was gonna say somethin about
Post 9/11 and Iraq.
So my point being that If a vast number of Media {controlled by Liberals}
keep harpin about Sadaam and 9/11 that inevitably Cheney was bound to
say somethin.
Because in the end,the Liberal media is in the : Gotcha Game.

And that purdy mush says it all.
All one need know about the real sensibilities of Dimocrats and
their willing accomplice in the Media.