Yesterday, Lynne Cheney appeared on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show to offer an indefensible defense of her husband’s attempts to link Iraq to 9/11:
I’ve seen Dick specifically say “no†to the question asked “is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11†because there isn’t a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. So, if your caller is troubled, I guess I would just like to know more specifics.
(Full transcript of the conversation below.)
In fact, when specifically asked about the link, Vice President Cheney did not play down — but rather played up — the connection. Here are the specifics:
WHEN ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT AN IRAQ - 9/11 LINK, CHENEY SAID IT WAS “PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED”:
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: “Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that—it’s been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.†[NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
EVEN AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED, CHENEY SUGGESTED THERE MIGHT BE AN IRAQ - 9/11 CONNECTION:
RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know.
[NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]
CHENEY SAID IRAQ WAS THE “GEOGRAPHIC BASE” FOR 9/11 HIJACKERS:
CHENEY: If we’re successful in Iraq, … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.†[NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03]
Here’s the relevant transcript for the Diane Rehm Show:
L. CHENEY: I don’t know of any leader – certainly the president or vice president has never said that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11.
REHM: But there have been connections made in speeches putting Saddam Hussein and Iraq adjacent to 9/11.
L. CHENEY: Well, I’ve seen Dick specifically say “no†to the question asked “is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11†because there isn’t a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. So, if your caller is troubled, I guess I would just like to know more specifics.
REHM: More specifics — you mean a quotation?
L. CHENEY: Sure. I mean the president nor the vice president has ever made that assertion because it isn’t true. There’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
REHM: I think that a great many people perhaps have had the impression that that is something the President and vice president have done. Now whether, as you say, there is no explicit paragraph to be cited, I think our listeners are going to supply that.
L. CHENEY: Good. Because it sounds like a straw man. You know you set up something that someone supposedly said so that you can knock it down. But the president and vice president have been very clear – when asked specifically, that there was no connection.
(To listen to the audio, click here. The conversation about Iraq and 9/11 begins at 16:35).
Lynn Cheney has no information. I bet she spends the day reading fantasy novels as she wouldn’t want to turn on the tube as everthing that is said about her husband awful.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:41 pmThe Great Big Lie of the new century.
Come on I-right-I, Lyle. Defend your lying chickenhawks now. They are flat-out liars who think they can rewrite history. Unfortunately for this country, there’s too many dumb shmucks that don’t bother to do any research, but instead swallow the sound bites.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:49 pmWhy would Lynn publicly disagree with her husband??
On another note, I’m loving the new HTML buttons. Very handy!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:52 pmWhat Cheney and Bush did was to entangle the two different subjects so that they became one and the same in the minds of the general public. Imagine if you were talking to a neighbor and you gestured at another neighbor’s house and said “I don’t like that guy. Also, I’ve got no use for wife-beaters.” Now, you haven’t actually SAID “That guy beats his wife,” but you’ve defeinitely tangled up the two. And what Cheney and Bush are now doing is saying “Wellll, nooooo, I didn’t actually say THAT!” Even when they did.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:54 pmWhy is Lynne Cheney questioning her husband’s comments to the press? She is in danger of losing her “good wife” status. This is what happens when you let women talk.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:55 pmBut the question was not specifically about a link between Iraq and 9/11. Faiz is clearly lying, blatantly lying. Faiz will clearly lie about anything. He has not a shred of honesty, character or credibility.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:56 pmHere is a link to a number of Cheney assertions about Iraq/9-11 connections, from Henry Waxman’s database.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:56 pmThe Democrats are flat-out liars who think they can rewrite history.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:58 pmWallace, its your turn to make breakfast, stop goofing off on this blog. Besides, everyone knows I am the brains of our outfit.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:00 pmLouis, from your link, a true statement:
December 1st, 2005 at 2:02 pmWhat in the hell does she possibly have to say that has any significance what-so-ever? She’s the wife of a War Criminal. Credibility? Zero.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:04 pmKeith is a war criminal and an abuser of small animals.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:07 pmGo f*ck yourself, Mrs. Cheney.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:10 pmWhy, oh why do we have to suffer these Greedy ‘Ol Parasites? They’re making America look and behave very very badly.
The GOP spin doctors rewrite history constantly. Then they blame their actions on “the other side”.
If the Bush’s and Cheney’s weren’t as rich and seemingly powerful as they are, they’d all be candidates for the psych ward and strong anti-psychotic meds!
December 1st, 2005 at 2:11 pmwwallace, yes, it is true that Cheney continues to believe these things, despite information to the contrary from intelligence reports. It is just as true when Bush says “there’s not a doubt in my mind.” Indeed, this administration believes in a faith-based foreign policy, but that’s a horrible standard on which to take a nation to war.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pmAll the ditto-head zombies will agree with her.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pmInsert program, push play.
Mrs. Cheney’s internal conflict must be enormous.
Here she is, married to a guy who’s hung like a whale and she’s probably a dyke. Anyone read her little novel? Steamy lesbian stuff! Not for the faint of heart.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:13 pm#10 - Nice one. Except Yasin’s safe house was apparently one of Saddam’s prisons.
And #13, my thoughts exactly.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:13 pmAh, how soon they forget. Next week she’ll be denying he was pro-torture. Has this women done anything of relevance in the past five years or is she just gorging off the fatted calf in DC? Let’s all feel sorry for poor Dickey, nobody likes him so his wife has to publicly defend her boy.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pmDid that “lady” get her PHD by lying ?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:16 pmLouis, Cheney’s statement about Yasin was true.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:16 pmHe isn’t pro-torture David. Stop lying.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:17 pm“I don’t know of any leader” - Bingo. All lies are now excused.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:17 pmBTW, if there was an al Qaeda (Islamic Jihad) presence in Iraq they would most likely have been harbored by the Kurds (our allies), who would have found a common enemy in Saddam. Cheney himself is quoted as saying that they were operating in the “North” of Iraq. This is where the Kurds are located.
It’s absurd to think that a Fundamantalist Islamic Regime would form a partnership with a Dictator that ran a secular Arab nation. In Islamic terms he would have been considered to be in a state of “Jahalia” by these Fundementalist. In other words a backlsider in the world of Islam. According to the ideologies of the Muslim Brotherhood, members of which formed Islamic Jihad (al Qaeda), this would have meant that he should have been killed.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:19 pmShe’s a notorious C*NT when she is on NPR.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:20 pmwwallace, So Mrs. Cheney is lying, by your account.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:20 pmWallace is off his medication. Don’t let him near your family. Come home Wallace, I some Wensleydale in the fridge for you…
December 1st, 2005 at 2:22 pmLouis, no, you’re lying by my account.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:22 pmsure this interview didn’t take place after the usual 3 martini lunch?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pmHey Wally,
K-Mart has a special on contact lenses. You may want to consider one for your navel. With your head where it is maybe you can see the truth if you look out.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pmthe carnegie endowment for international peace has an extensively documented report on the comparison between what the various intelligence agencies were estimating about Iraq in the runup to the war vis a vis what administration officials were saying…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
December 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pmwwallace,
What is your opinion on Lynne Cheney’s statement below:
I’ve seen Dick specifically say “no” to the question asked “is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11″ because there isn’t a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
And what do you make of her other statement:
I mean the president nor the vice president has ever made that assertion because it isn’t true. There’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:30 pmSounds like Lynne Cheney may be confusing her husband with the Iraqi Information Minister.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:33 pmYa know, the only spouse of a politician in recent years that I would pay any attention to what they said would have been Hillary Clinton & now President Clinton.
Like I give any credence to something that Laura B (or mom Barbara), Lynn C or the bush twins says to a microphone. duh!
December 1st, 2005 at 2:38 pmWell, I would just like to thank the Republican party for coming out and telling the truth that all of us here have been saying for a long time:
THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11.
Now which troll was it that was shooting all this time that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?
Oh yeah that’s right all of them.
You fvcking reatrded trolls just got the smack down by the entire republican party.
The left has been saying there is no connection since 9/11 happened and you jackasses used it as a reason to go to war illegaly.
Can Lynn Cheney’s remarks be used during the war crimes tribunal against Bush and friends?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pmMy question for Lynn Cheney, and to wwallace for that matter, would be this - Supposing for a moment that your statement is true, then why are we at war with Iraq?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pmSo, wait Bill O’Riely thinks he is Mel Gibson in Braveheart…wwallace, you want to come in to this site and start spouting off one-line attacks with no basis, sounds like fox material to me (go ahead and call me whatever you want, I’ve been called worse)
Second Lady quote
From above:
The BOR aka WW starts:
then confirms the above quote was the vp:
Then the a sane poster with commen sense asks:
And O’Riely comes back with:
December 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pm#37
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.
Exactly.
Which is it?
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you woul dprove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
But, considering that first Rumsfeld and now Cheney’s wife have said there is no connection, I have to lean toward the illegal war arguement as I have from the begining. Love not being a flip flopper.
How does it feel to have your party flip flop on you trolls?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:51 pmHere’s another great moment in the Bush Faith-Based Foreign Policy: “And we based our decisions on good, sound intelligence. And the–our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There’s no doubt in my mind.â€
December 1st, 2005 at 2:52 pm–George W. Bush, 7/17/2003
Good one Louis.
You find it interesting that we have called them on the facts, all of the trools suddenly disappear?
To any troll on TP:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you would prove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
Which is it. You can’t have both sides of an arguement.
The trolls are probably hanging around the water cooler wondering how they are supposed to deal with the fact that the Bush administration has flip flopped on them.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:55 pm#40,
I think he mis-spoke. He meant:
December 1st, 2005 at 2:56 pm“…that this intelligence was doubtful.
There’s no intelligence in my mind.”
neocon Alzheimer’s?
December 1st, 2005 at 3:03 pmto all of you who believe in the righteousness , the truefulness , the upstansding morality , the nobility of the cause of the bushies :
YES VIRGINIA THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS !
That is what Laura , Barbara , Lynn say and you better believe it . They’re all addicted to power ,platitudes , booz , drugs and who knows what else.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:04 pmOh where oh where has my little troll gone?
Oh where oh where can he be?
His little snout got a great be smack!
When I pointed the truth and the facts!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:06 pmLOL, Spudge!
Can’t you just see them all huddled around Rove?
December 1st, 2005 at 3:08 pm(Think 3 year old):
“But nooooooooww what do we saaaaaaaaaaayy?”
I’m sure Mr. Cheney, like Eva Braun, has to tell herself things like that so she can sleep at night.
When your married to a monster, all you can do is convince yourself he’s a prince.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:10 pm[…] […]
December 1st, 2005 at 3:21 pmIt’s the economy, STUPID!!!
AND the economy is GOOD. Slowly, but surely, the American people are tuning out the very hateful left. The left has been wrong about everything - look how good the economy is in SPITE of Katrina. Maybe Brownie should have got himself a steak in instead of a sandwich.
Slandering the Cheneys is fun, but it’s not a winning strategy. The right-wing base is back in Bush’s corner and that’s a problem for liberals. We will expose your hateful, anti-American, anti-Semitic lies.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pmwwallace,
James Woolsey is a senior PNAC official, his status under Clinton is unrelated to his status as a neocon whackjob, of course he parrots the neocon stance on the Iraq/911 link….he probably drew it up.
If anything, your post only provides evidence that Clinton wasn’t insecure enough to surround himself with partisan sycophants. Thanks for the reminder.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pmdanny k,
I hope you know how to speak Chinese, because our economy….is Chinese. Get yourself clued in to the truth. If you’re in the middle class or below, the economy is very bleak and it’s gonna get worse real soon. I don’t know what you’re economic situation is but if you’re making…ummmm say $200,000 or less, you are about to find out the truth.
We are on the brink of economic collapse and I take NO pleasure in saying that. I have two young kids.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:33 pmJay is a neo-nazi whackjob.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:39 pmwwallace, is that the best you can do?
I’m disappointed, thought you’d bring something to the table. You wingnuts are REALLY falling apart.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:41 pmSorry dannyk, the numbers don’t support your bullshit.
Bush Counsels ‘Patience’ in Iraq
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/ news/ article.adp?id=20051129175309990006
How has Bush’s speech affected your opinion of the U.S.’ Iraq strategy?
There’s been no change 46%
My opinion has lowered 32%
My opinion has improved 22%
Do you think the U.S. will ultimately achieve victory in Iraq?
No 66%
Yes 34%
Total Votes: 98,376
You can get all of your right wing buddies to go poll, but you won’t make a dent.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:41 pm#51 - the only thing on the brink of collapse is the Democratic Party. The notion the economy is headed for a downturn a liberal wish and a lie. I pity those who cheer against America for political gain.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:42 pmSo, the trolls, upon returning from their meeting with Rove regarding the blatant truth shown them in this post,
follow orders given to them in said meeting,
“Change the Subject!”
December 1st, 2005 at 3:42 pmDon’t let the trolls change the subject.
The topic here is:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you would prove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
Which is it. You can’t have both sides of an arguement.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm#54 - now, we’re siting online polls??? How desperate are you?
December 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pmI am siting a poll in response to your rehtoric, which has nothing to back it up but you.
Now answer the question:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you would prove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
Which is it. You can’t have both sides of an arguement.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:46 pmdanny,
There is no politics involved in my assessment of the economy, none.
The facts are that tax cuts for the wealthy few and a $300b war along with a willingness to allow corporations to get away with tax sheltering and outsourcing on top of our reliance on the Chinese to finance our willingness to run massive debts….is going to kill our economy. I’m being dead serious, this is not a partisan issue unless you want to understand who is responsible. I’d rather fix the problem than fix the blame. We’re fuc*ed.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:48 pmJay,
You are allowing the troll to change the subject.
If he is a moron that can’t understand that fact that the US is borrowing money from Communist China to support spreading Democracy, then fvck him.
Don’t let him change the subject, which is exactly what they are trying to do.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:51 pmJay knows nothing about economics.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:51 pmwwallace,
Answer the question troll.
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you would prove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
Which is it. You can’t have both sides of an arguement.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:53 pmThinkDefeat is lying about the liberation of Iraq, and actively working to undermine an ongoing US military operation. Why is Spudge trying to change the subject?
December 1st, 2005 at 3:53 pmThis is the topic dickhead:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you would prove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
Which is it. You can’t have both sides of an arguement.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:55 pmThis is the topic dickhead:
Lynne Cheney Unhinged: Insists Her Husband Never Connected Saddam to 9/11
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
If he was involved, you would prove the Democrats wrong and be vindicated in you war.
If he wasn’t involved, then that means your war is illegal as all the Democrats have said.
Which is it. You can’t have both sides of an arguement.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:55 pmMy daddy,my mommy,my preacher,and my TV anchor all would never tell a lie. I believe anything and everything they say and you will never convince me otherwise.Naaa
December 1st, 2005 at 3:55 pmSpudge,
I don’t think much more needs to be said about the Iraq-9/11 lie. It’s right there at the top of the thread in black and white. We know they lied about the war and they can’t spin it. The debate is over and they lost. War crimes tribunal at the Hague for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. It’s going to happen, just a matter of time.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:59 pm“Why is Spudge trying to change the subject?”
I mean come on really.
I know you are but what am I.
Is that the best you can come up with?
The topic of this thread is:
Lynne Cheney Unhinged: Insists Her Husband Never Connected Saddam to 9/11
So, my very simple question is:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
I stand behind what I believe. Now is you chance to stand up and be a man. Which is it.
Here, I will answer from my point of view and then you do the same.
Saddam Hussein had nothin gto do with 9/11. That was Osama bin Laden, the guy we haven’t caught yet.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:02 pmWe know Democrats are lying about the war. We know jay is lying about the war.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:02 pmwwallace,
What is your opinion on Lynne Cheney’s statement below:
I’ve seen Dick specifically say “no†to the question asked “is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11″ because there isn’t a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
And what do you make of her other statement:
I mean the president nor the vice president has ever made that assertion because it isn’t true. There’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:03 pmSpudge continues to spout pro-al Qaeda propaganda.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:04 pmwwallace is not a chicken hawk, he is a chicken shit that won’t even state what he thinks about the fact that his party has flip flopped on him.
chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit chicken shit
December 1st, 2005 at 4:04 pm“Spudge continues to spout pro-al Qaeda propaganda.”
Boy, you are crazy. How does this:
The topic of this thread is:
Lynne Cheney Unhinged: Insists Her Husband Never Connected Saddam to 9/11
So, my very simple question is:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
Have anything to do with Al Qaida. Other than the fact that we haven’t caught Osama yet, but I don’t see how that can be pro-Al Qaida either.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:06 pmA cheney is a cheney is a cheney. Some things never change!
December 1st, 2005 at 4:08 pm“ThinkDefeat is lying about the liberation of Iraq, and actively working to undermine an ongoing US military operation. Why is Spudge trying to change the subject?”
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
Ask the dead civilians (oh yeah, to wingnuts they only count if Saddam killed them) how liberated they’re feeling today. Please post a successful historical example of democracy being installed by an invading, occupying force in a land that has never known democracy - just one.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:09 pmWhat part of “know” does she not understand?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:10 pmNow even tiny El Salvador is talking about pulling their troops out. That takes a lot of guts for such a tiny country. The US can retaliate in so many invisible ways.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:10 pmdano, the terrorists you support are killing civilians in Iraq. The US military is trying to stop them.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:11 pmwwallace,
I will speak the truth that you are avoiding. You are a traitorous coward! Nothing anyone has done in the history of this great nation has ever cost more lives or compromised our national security more than engaging in this “pre-emptive war” based on lies.
And before you spew your talking points:
1. No WMDs whatsoever
2. No yellowcake or Nigerian Uranium (just as the IEAE said)
3. No link to 9/11 or Al Qaeda
These facts are indisputable. The truth is that the current administration and their supporters are war criminals. You all should be strung up by your labias in public! (It should be “strung up by your balls” but it is clear that you and your ilk do not possess them.)
December 1st, 2005 at 4:12 pmSpudge, calling me juvenile names will never turn your lies into the truth. :()
December 1st, 2005 at 4:12 pmSadam had nothing to do with 9/11. But, that does not mean the war was unjustified. Germany had nothing to with Pearl Harbor, but they needed to be taken out nonetheless.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:13 pmI think that all Al Qiada operatives should be strung up by their testicles and shot.
The problem is we are in the wrong country. The fly paper method does not work. The only Al Qaida operatives in Iraq are Zarqawi’s men who weren’t even a part of Al Qaida when we attacked Iraq.
BBC
October 18,2004
Zarqawi and Bin Laden: Brothers in arms?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3754618.stm
“A 17 October statement posted on an Islamist website claims to be from the Tawhid and Jihad group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
It begins with a personal pledge of allegiance from Zarqawi and his fighters to Osama Bin Laden.”
If we want to get the guy who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, we have to go to Pakistan where Osama bi Laden is.
Do you get it now?
So:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:13 pmPessimist is lying, he is obviously a traitor. The facts that Saddam had WMD programs and ties to terrorists are not in dispute.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:14 pmWallace, you mean these US military men or contractors:
http://www.ericblumrich.com/quicktime/Aegis-PSD.mov
Just who are the terrorists here….?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:14 pmwwallace
“Spudge, calling me juvenile names will never turn your lies into the truth. :()”
Wow, you posted something different. I am impressed. Now answer the question.
danny k
“Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11.”
Thank you for being a man and answering the question. You have more balls than wwallace. At least you stand up for your believe in.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:17 pmGregor, since we didn’t decide to liberate iraq based on any alleged connection to 9/11, your question has no relevance.
Read the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:18 pm“dano, the terrorists you support are killing civilians in Iraq. The US military is trying to stop them.”
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
Bullshit. The innocent civilians that are killed have relatives, you idiot - the “dead-ender” crap was only meant for the rubes like you. If you brother is killed because Americans accidently shot him in a raid, (and your uncle was killed in the same way the month before) to some it would be understandable if you thought of the Americans as invaders. All of the feel-good nonsense hasn’t worked because we torture and maim Iraqis - regardless of what some keyboard commado thinks.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:19 pmDanny, the economy is doing well in large part because deficit spending is driving it. Bush has proven again (just as Reagan did) that you can give the wealthy tax breaks (thanks George!) claim it’s the Laffer curve, and then do what any good Keynesian knows will work: spend, spend,spend.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:19 pmEr, Germany declared war on the US, that’s probably why the US fought the Germans.
If we are looking at ME countries with likely WMDs including nukes and chem weapons, have invaded at least 4 of their neighbors in the last 40 years, participated in acts of ethnic cleansing and gencoide by proxy, and has also been caught committing espionage in the US and against US interests, then maybe they should be invaded too? What do you think? They sound like bad guys to me…
December 1st, 2005 at 4:21 pmShow me your proof wwallace!
Now, as far as calling dano a terrorist, you are WAY out of line, it is baseless and scurilous. Terrorism is a serious matter, you better learn to understand that.
And you do not call me a liar without backing it up. So, either provide proof disputing my claim or come attempt to call me a liar to my face!
December 1st, 2005 at 4:25 pmGregor, since we didn’t decide to liberate iraq based on any alleged connection to 9/11, your question has no relevance.
Read the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
I beg to disagree: It has relevance. After all, it is the topic of the thread.
And you have me really confused. Are we talking about the same 2002 resolution? You know, the one that says:
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 United States citizens;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2002/ 10/ 20021002-2.html
Let’s see… hmmm… AlQaeda… check, 9/11… check, Iraq… check, terror… check, safety of the US… check
How does this does not talk about Iraq in connection with the 9/11 attacks again?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pmWow, thanks for not posting the resolution, I have already found a couple of great tid bits.
“Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.”
Well, they haven’t doen either of those two things.
Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, the US isn’t.
The Bush administartion has never given a progress report to Congress.
Two for two.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pmTrolls, pelease answer SP’s simple question. Make your reply as detailed as you like. But please please do us all a favor and just answer the d***ed question!
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pmSpudge should read the bipartisan Iraq war resolution of 2002.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pm#95 - STFU! until you answer the question put to you. Just do it. Answer the question.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:29 pm#90, oh yeah, they have ties to Iran too. Shipping them various arms and CW support equipment over the years.
Oh yes, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, Cheney is lying (both of them).
December 1st, 2005 at 4:29 pm[…] Read more Cheney […]
December 1st, 2005 at 4:30 pm#95 true, it says something about taking military action against states which had involvement in 9-11. Now Danny K(along with the ‘fact-based community’) says that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, so therefore the Iraq war is, what exactly, besides an impeachable offense?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:31 pmGregor, this is true:
If the obvious difference between “connection to 9/11″ and “connection to al Qaeda” baffles you, that’s your problem.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:31 pmThey’ve given many progress reports to Congress, Spudge. Are you being paid to lie for the terrorists, or are you an unpaid volunteer?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:34 pmI’m no economist, but I did spend the money on a college degree from a nationally accredited university and I am stuck 3 yrs later (a year of which was seeking a job, any job in my profession) struggling to pay my student loans working in a call center…yipee, this is the econmic boom I remember while I was in HS and college
December 1st, 2005 at 4:34 pm#100 - you’re ignoring your own fate. Just answer the question.
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
Until then, anything else you want to jabber on about is only narcissistic masturbation .
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pm#100 - What connection to Al Qaida?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pm#100 - bullshit Wallace - the Al Zarqawi cell was in Kurdish Iraq out of control of Saddam and BTW, the US refused to attack this known extremist cell no less than 3 times before the invasion. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Now why would Chimpy leave Zarqawi alone if he is such a bad dude? Would have undermined his justfication for invasion of Iraq, that’s why
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pmI do not know why you guys bother to engage in a conversation ,answer WWW , is a looser that pull your chain , ignore the poor fellow , he knows not who he is , what is doing and much less what is saying .Forgive him , he knows not what is is doing .
December 1st, 2005 at 4:37 pmIf the obvious difference between “connection to 9/11″ and “connection to al Qaeda” baffles you, that’s your problem.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
This is coming from the same person who said:
What utter nonsense. The 9/11 Commission report is a joke.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:38 pmComment by wwallace — November 27, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
#106 - Absolutely correct! wwallace just spews his hate and does not back up any of her claims with facts or proof. Obviously to her debate is what you put on dehook. We should ignore that troll.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:39 pmseems you’re on the ropes, dear wallace.
Time to go home to grommit….
December 1st, 2005 at 4:41 pmwwallace’s preferred debate strategy is to ignore questions, change the subject, and to hurl insults.
And when cornered, he’ll deny, deny, deny.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:41 pmGregor, don’t blame your poor reading skills on me. :()
December 1st, 2005 at 4:43 pmPesimist, #106: The Connection
December 1st, 2005 at 4:45 pmCalling me names won’t ever refute any of the facts I’ve posted. :()
December 1st, 2005 at 4:46 pmmethinks it’s time to declare wally a non-entity here and move on….
December 1st, 2005 at 4:46 pm“What a Wally!”
-The Cleavers
December 1st, 2005 at 4:47 pm#101
“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”
This was disproven the minute we stepped foot in Afgahnastan and found Osama there.
Next
December 1st, 2005 at 4:47 pmIGNORE THE TROLLS
December 1st, 2005 at 4:48 pmSpudge, there were members of al Qaeda, just as the war resolution said. Next.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:50 pm“They’ve given many progress reports to Congress, Spudge.”
No they haven’t.
wwallace, the bullshit that you post doesn’t change that facts I have posted :()
December 1st, 2005 at 4:50 pmIgnore Chris for AL(Qaeda), he’s a troll.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:51 pmwow, wwallace is becoming unhinged.
I’d say let’s move on. We’re obviously not going to get anything remotely resembling a dialogue worth spending time on.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:51 pmSpudge cannot possibly back up his silly claims, because he’s obviously lying. Congress has received regular progress reports.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:52 pmGregor is obviously becoming unhinged.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:54 pm“Spudge, there were members of al Qaeda, just as the war resolution said.”
There weren’t any members of Al Qaida in Iraq until October 17, 2004 when Zarqawi pledged his alliegence to Osama.
wwallace, the bullshit that you post doesn’t change that facts I have posted :()
December 1st, 2005 at 4:55 pmwwallace,
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:55 pmSpudge said, “The Bush administartion has never given a progress report to Congress.”
Proof Spudge is a liar:
Here’s the Pentagon report to Congress on the Iraq war from October 2005 - http://www.defenselink.mil/ pubs/ 20051013_publication_OSSRF.pdf
And that was just last month, Spudge! *ROFL*
Next!
December 1st, 2005 at 4:57 pmSpudge, Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:58 pmThe only thing trolls can fight naked truth and fact with is… opinion and perception and faith-based thinking.
Sad. Really.
Little do they realize. They can write all the steamy lesbian love novellas they like, but the people are still capable of rising up and throwing them out.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:00 pm“Spudge, Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion.”
But he wasn’t part of Al Qaida until Oct 17, 2004. Moron.
BBC
October 18,2004
Zarqawi and Bin Laden: Brothers in arms?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3754618.stm
“A 17 October statement posted on an Islamist website claims to be from the Tawhid and Jihad group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
It begins with a personal pledge of allegiance from Zarqawi and his fighters to Osama Bin Laden.â€
December 1st, 2005 at 5:03 pmI think that its been clearly established in this thread that Lynn Cheney is either delusional or a liar. It’s been re-affirmed that little-Dick Cheney is a liar. And it is abundantly clear that the never-right wing is wholly uncomfortable in the bed that they have made for themselves and are doing everything they can to change the subject so that they do not have to deal with the facts that are plaguing them.
Back to work, have fun playing ping-pong with wwallace.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:03 pmCome to think of it, watching Lynne Cheney is much like watching Nancy Reagan. They both are so out of touch with any remote sense of reality that it’s scary.
Lynne probably has no clue what she just said.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:05 pmZarqawi,
Was not affiliated with al Qaeda until the invasion.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:06 pmI think that its been clearly established in this thread that Pessimist is either delusional or a liar.
We know for a fact Spudge lied, as I proved earlier. :()
December 1st, 2005 at 5:10 pmWas Saddam involved in 911?
yes or no?
cannot seem to answer any pertinent questions trolls.
Just obfuscate, hate and spew stupidity.
When proven wrong, change subject - move on.
chickenShit evil useful idiots you are trolls.
war-mongers - join the marines you
December 1st, 2005 at 5:11 pmcowards!
Iraqi Abdul Yasin was in Iraq after the 1993 WTC bombing and before the 2003 invasion.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:13 pmThat is not a pertinient question, dino. Why do you hate America so much?
December 1st, 2005 at 5:14 pmWally,
Take your meds, Dude…….
December 1st, 2005 at 5:15 pm#122 -
December 1st, 2005 at 5:16 pmThe last progress report that congress got was on May 2nd, 2003. It was some drivel about “Mission Accomplished”.
Spudgeboy, Dino,
You are wasting your time. I tried getting straight answers from wwallace in the past, unsuccessfully. It was a very straightforward, simple question. Here is the link:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 11/ 25/ coulter-murtha/ #comments
In a nutshell, here is what happened:
In post #35 wwallace said Judd’s excerpts misrepresented something Coulter said.
In post #51 & #82 Zwack offered a rebuttal and asked wwallace to explain.
In posts #71 & #91 Judd asked wwallace to explain.
In post #97 I asked wwallace to explain.
Zwack and myself asked repeatedly for an explanation, until in post #159 wwallace, out of the blue, claimed to have explained what he meant. wwallace deflected, avoided, and insulted throughout the entire exchange.
Finally, the exchange ends in post #199 with Zwack and I agreeing that there was no explanation whatsoever under wwallace’s screen name.
This is what other posters thought of the back-and-forth:
wwallace-
What’s the point of answering your questions when you ignore the answers. How many times do peole here have to explain it to you? Are we typing too fast for you?
Comment by Innocent Bystander — November 25, 2005 @ 10:17 pm
And as for “wwallaceâ€, he really does need to learn how to answer questions AS THEY ARE POSED. “WWallaceâ€, this comment is addressed directly to you: You LIED. And LIED. And LIED. Every single time that you claimed to have answered a question regarding Judd’s comments which opened this entry on ThinkProgress, you LIED.
Comment by JosephW — November 26, 2005 @ 11:16 am
Let’s move on.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:16 pmAgreed Gregor, changing threads. Thread assertion proven to any sane person’s satisfaction
December 1st, 2005 at 5:21 pmIt is because I love America that I defend it
December 1st, 2005 at 5:23 pmagainst evil fascist bastards like you wwallace.
Answer the question, in light of the mess we are
in - and the thread it is posted very relevent.
Answer it or stfu.
dino is a fascist who obviously hates America.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:25 pmA little math lesson for Wally to solve his connection problem with AQ, Saddam. and 9/11. It is a proven axiom that if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Irrefutable!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:26 pmWhen Gregor gets an answer he doesn’t like, he claims he didn’t get an answer. That’s called “lying.”
December 1st, 2005 at 5:27 pm“dino is a fascist who obviously hates America.”
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
Prove it pipsqueek!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:27 pm“It is a proven axiom that if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Irrefutable!”
A=Clyde, B=moron, C=Democrat
Clyde = Moron,
December 1st, 2005 at 5:30 pmClyde = Democrat,
Therefore, by Clyde math, all Democrats are morons! ROFL
Hey Wally,
Get on my case. I have been baiting you for a month or so since I won the “Troll Put Down of The Year Award” for proving you were a LIAR, full of shit, and could not read. Lets have a go at it, Mate.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:31 pmI have been baiting you for a month or so since I won the “Troll Put Down of The Year Award” for proving you were a LIAR, full of shit, and could not read.
Comment by Clyde the Ripper — December 1, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
Clyde,
Check my post #139
I had a similar experience with wwallace.
Do you have the link?
December 1st, 2005 at 5:34 pmYou know what a “Wally” is in New Zealand slang?
A buffoon, idiot, dullard, etc.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:35 pmEvery time he posts, we should all respond:
“What a Wally!”
The only truth that trolls seem able to prove is the following:
Repugs == Retards
But I’m down with “What a Wally!” Works for me.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:38 pmIGNORE THE TROLLS:
did some one say anything…the only thing Bill O’Riely aka WWallace should be saying is “FREEDOM†just before the axe comes down
.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:46 pmBack on topic:
wwallace,
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
December 1st, 2005 at 5:47 pm100-
Those two partial sentences from the resolution and the statements of Mrs. Cheney above seem to be a… Hmmm, what’s the word I am looking for?
December 1st, 2005 at 5:48 pmWally,
That is not how it works at all! You cannot redefine terms in the middle of the argument. I will agree that A=Clyde. Now we have a problem. If B=Moron then A does not equal B therefore you have lied again. If you said B=Educated and free thinking then you would be correct. However, now if C is a Democrat you have lied again as Clyde is not a Democrat. If you say that C=a concerned American Citizen with no political biases except an extreme hatred for the bushco then we have a correct statement. Clyde is an educated free thinking individual that cannot tolerate the criminal acts of the bushco. And since A=B=C then all free thinking educated American Citizens, by definition (I am sure you remember our last exercise with definitions and synonyms), have reason to demand an end to the criminal activities of the Bush Administration and the blind following of the obsequious sycophants, yourself included.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:50 pmAlice married the Mad Hatter. They are in a fantasy world of wonderland. What is she reporting on? “pillow talk?” (eewww!) In her dreams, she has seen her husband say “no, there is no connection.”
December 1st, 2005 at 5:52 pmI second that opinion…
IGNORE the TROLLS, because it is clearly evident that they CANNOT produce facts or answer questions directly…
So why wante the enegry responding to those who would try to spin silk out of shit???
What a WALLY! :()
December 1st, 2005 at 5:55 pmDamn it Clyde…
There you go trying to edumacate dem dere conservtives with your valyas!
You know they don’t have that in Crawferd!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:57 pmSpudge, did the defense department report to Congress, yes or no?
http://www.defenselink.mil/ pubs/ 20051013_publication_OSSRF.pdf
ROFL
December 1st, 2005 at 5:59 pmWally is a bot. Look at how post are simply reflexive- change the name, post the same.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:08 pm“Spudge, did the defense department report to Congress, yes or no?”
Well, considering your lkink takes you to a page that says:
File Not Found
We’re sorry! The file you requested is not available at this location.
Try again, this time to a real document. I still stand by the fact that no reports have been issued.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:13 pmWell, considering your lkink takes you to a page that says:
File Not Found
We’re sorry! The file you requested is not available at this location.
Try again, this time to a real document. I still stand by the fact that no reports have been issued.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — December
OKAY, EVERYONE:
“WHAT A WALLY!!!”
December 1st, 2005 at 6:17 pmWHAT A WALLY
December 1st, 2005 at 6:31 pmClyde,
You did it again! But you don’t get the reward ’cause Wally is just too easy. Sometimes, way down here in the thread is just fun to bait the idiot trolls. Ryan has it right–they can’t have it both ways and even Wally couldn’t rescue or obfuscate this one. Note that the other trolls beat feet in a hurry too. Keep up the good work–even if you do make me wet my pants.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:57 pmYou think Wally ran over to Rove crying because he just couldn’t get us to stop posting facts.
Wally
“Mr. Rove, those Donks over at Think Pessimist just keep posting facts.”
Rover
“I told you just post the same thing over and over.”
Wally
“Well, okay.”
Rover
December 1st, 2005 at 6:58 pm“Oh yeah and don’t answer that one guys question. I haven’t come up with the talking points for why we are now saying that Saddam wasn’t involved in 9/11″
Quote: “Lynn Cheney has no information. I bet she spends the day reading fantasy novels as she wouldn’t want to turn on the tube as everthing that is said about her husband awful.”
Er… okay. As the wife of the vice president she could shoot herself out of a cannon and would make just as much difference. Except here of course. No matter how biased or discredited the source Thinkprogress will quote it as though it was news.
Seriously, do you nimrods think that Karl Rove could do any better in manipulating the public agenda to any point better than this place ?
December 1st, 2005 at 6:58 pm“Today Democrats will be talking about X. Dick get your wife to say something about it then we can have O’Reilly take up the rest of their day.”
Cynthia,
Ryan hasn’t posted here. :/
December 1st, 2005 at 7:00 pmAlright,
Somebody “new”
So, Tank, can you answer this question:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
December 1st, 2005 at 7:01 pmTank,
WTF, Over.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:02 pm#166 Spudge_Boy
My apologies, Sir. It was my error.
You are absolutely right in insisting on an answer. You have demonstrated what it is like to be “on the horns of a dilemma” (not of the North East type). “We is damned if we do and damned if we don’t” You have earned the award for the “Best Troll Put Down of The decade.”
December 1st, 2005 at 7:11 pmCynthia,
I don’t need an award for pointing out the flip floppiness (new word) of these people. At least danny k is man enough to stake his flag in the ground and say where he stands. WALLY is a joke.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:21 pmThat link doesn’t give “File not found” Spudge. Evidently you aren’t very good at operating a computer either. ROFL
December 1st, 2005 at 7:24 pmThat link poor computer illiuterate Spudge couldn’t open is a report titled: ‘Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq
October 2005
Report to Congress
In accordance with Conference Report 109-72
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005″
But Spudge says they never have reported to Congress. ROFL
December 1st, 2005 at 7:26 pmWally is fun! Where else, other than on an electronic circuit board, would you expect to find a diode filter? For the uninitiated, a diode filter is a one-way mechanism that accepts only the prescribed polarity of signals and rejects all others. Wally has one rule of life–”Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.” When it comes to knee-jerk reaction, Wally wins the award for biggest jerk.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:38 pmCynthia, calling me juvenile names will not change any of the facts I’ve posted, or change your lies into the truth.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:42 pmOkay wwallace,
It worked this time, but there is still an issue. In the first paragraph, you will find this:
“This is the second report in the series; the previous report was issued on July 22, 2005.”
“the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.â€
60 = 2 months.
So, considering that we have been at war for 2 1/2 years, I would say that there are about 13 reports missing.
Now that you have proved nothing, can you answer the question:
Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11?
or
Did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11?
December 1st, 2005 at 7:42 pmWe already know that Lynn Cheney is a horrible liar.
She couldn’t keep her daughter in the closet no matter how hard she tried.
How much you wanna bet Mary (lesbian daughter) is up to something and Lynn is trying to distract us.
Go ahead Mary, continue doing your work even though it drives Mommy and Daddy nuts.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:44 pmWally,
I will give you credit for one DUHbya like characteristic: even in the face of over whelming evidence you continue to ignore all arguments other than your own. Even if you don’t agree with Mr. Huxley his premise continues to make an ass of you. Mr. Huxley is quoted as saying “Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ingored.” (My apologies to Mr. Huxley if I have presented a paraphrase as a direct quotation without c