Cheney Praises Stephen Hayes, Pushes Hussein/Al-Qaeda Link
Cheney Praises Stephen Hayes, Pushes Hussein/Al-Qaeda Link
Today on Tony Snow’s radio show, Vice President Cheney praised a Weekly Standard piece by Stephen Hayes that uses second-hand descriptions of unreleased Pentagon documents to argue that Hussein had extensive ties to terrorists:
SNOW: The Weekly Standard over the weekend published a long piece by Steve Hayes, who talked about emerging evidence of longstanding ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. You’ve heard it said many times there’s no linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. You’ve heard Democrats beat you and the President about the head and shoulders with this. Were there links to — between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections.
Actually, Hayes doesn’t even claim the documents demonstrate a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. Rather, according to Hayes, the documents show that Hussein provided training for some non-al Qaeda terrorist groups in Northern Africa which have some “ties to al Qaeda.”
If the documents are so beneficial for the administration’s case for war, why haven’t they been released yet? This is where it gets fishy. The Defense Department says it won’t release the documents because, if it did, the documents would create bad press for the administration:
The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. “There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to ‘prove’ that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we’d spend a lot of time chasing around after it.”
It seems more than likely that the documents aren’t beneficial and the only way they can get some good press out of them is to characterize them to a right-wing flak like Steven Hayes.
Cheney has gone down this route before. The last time he singled out a Stephen Hayes article, the piece drew an official rebuke from the Department of Defense for disclosing classified materials and misinterpreting raw intelligence.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
89 Responses to “Cheney Praises Stephen Hayes, Pushes Hussein/Al-Qaeda Link”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s more “Cheney quotes Cheney” spin. Do they think we’ve just picked up our marbles and gone home for crying out loud? Funny stuff!
January 12th, 2006 at 4:26 pmDamn, talk about a one trick pony.
& to think this is the asshole with his hand up George W Bush’s ass.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pmShorter DeRita: “Only the Bush/Cheney/Rove spin machine is allowed to “cherry-pick” information that is beneficial for them.”
At least they aren’t lying about blowjobs.
-GSD
January 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI thought both Cheney and his wife claim that he never linked Saddam and 9/11. Here he is again, presenting information that has been debunked. I am assuming at this point that Tricky Dick’s pants are engulfed in flames.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:36 pmone trick pony
Hayes pimps this story even more than Safliar did, I guess he’s got his career path in sight. I just hope he uses protection when Cheney is giving him the goods.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:36 pmI do believe that it is almost time to give up a citizenship that at one time was cherished. This country just does not get it. Is it no wonder that the rest of the world hates us? Cheney/Bush are money grubbers who just can’t wait for the next war, but would NEVER serve in the armed forces themselves. Greedy pigs who need to be impeached. I am truly disgusted.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:38 pmStr8UpNoChaser,
So, is Cheney calling his wife a liar now or was she calling him a liar?
Which is it? I am so confused.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:38 pmAre Cheney’s reality meds adjusted properly? Somethings out of whack.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:44 pmIm just glad im not American . It must be awfull
January 12th, 2006 at 4:46 pmRight on #3! What I get from this TP post is that as the Pentagon professes its fear that MSM “cherry picking” information may cause undue responses from the public, it is not unwilling to allow likeminded individuals, ala Hayes and maybe others, to “cherry pick” information that may not meet the threshold of connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, but can at least obfuscate the lack of connections between these entities. If enough flaks can keep enough dust in the air, we will continue to get sand in our eyes as we begin to attempt to disentangle this administration’s pro-war propaganda from the reality on the ground. Such are the ways of scoundrels and antidemocratic Americans who merely wish to coronate their monarch, George the Younger. -Kevo
January 12th, 2006 at 4:49 pmCheney the Terrible is an hijo de puta!
January 12th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#9
It used to be an honor. Now it’s not worth spit. Not in the America that bushy has produced. I’m ashamed.
But, as a ONCE proud American, I am willing to fight like our founding fathers have done, to restore this country to it’s former greatness.
And it all starts with chopping the head off the snake that put us in this HORRIBLE position.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pmYou know this is almost getting laughable how often we hear Cheney obsessing with determination to connect everything to Iraq.. i mean it’s pathetic but becoming funny. He’s the only one out there doing it (right now i’m picturing and hearing jon stewart doing his great sneering imitation of cheney).. It’s almost good he never changes his bobbing head story and talking points.. i can only hope a % of the country will wake up and see the light on this administration.. Right now on SoftBall with weaselsellout Chris Matthews they are discussing Iran and their desire for nukes..
January 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pmBy JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 12, 1:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said Republicans had created “one of the most closed, corrupt congresses in history” and urged the House ethics committee to investigate GOP lawmakers linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s hard for the American people to understand how corrupt it is here,” the California Democrat said at a news conference.
In a letter to House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Pelosi said Democrats expect the ethics committee to look into the “alleged violations of criminal laws and the rules of the House” by former Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, and three other Republicans with ties to Abramoff — Bob Ney of Ohio and Californians Richard Pombo and John Doolittle.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud charges for his influence-peddling activities, but so far no member of Congress has been indicted.
Pelosi’s letter did not ask the ethics committee to investigate an unrelated case involving Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana.
A former aide to Jefferson, in pleading guilty to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official, said Jefferson had demanded bribes for promoting business opportunities in Africa, according to court documents filed Wednesday.
Pelosi didn’t comment on the Jefferson case, but stressed that “we have said all along that, Democrat or Republican, anyone who doesn’t follow the rules or the law has to be held accountable. That’s the difference between us.”
Hastert’s spokesman, Ron Bonjean, said it was “hypocritical for Leader Pelosi to throw mud” when a fundraising committee run by the Democratic leader had been fined last year for improperly accepting donations over federal limits.
He said Republicans hope Pelosi “will stop playing politics and will support our comprehensive lobbying effort that will help change the way work is done in Washington.”
Hastert has asked Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., to craft lobbying ethics legislation to address some of the abuses that led to the Abramoff scandal. One idea they have proposed is to bar lawmakers from accepting any privately funded trips.
Pelosi said she welcomed that proposal, “but that’s only the beginning.” Legislators from both parties have recommended tougher rules on accepting gifts and lengthening the period between when a lawmaker retires and can accept a job as a lobbyist.
She added that “if we are ever really going to have real change here, we must kill the K Street Project.” That initiative, spearheaded by DeLay, pressured lobbying firms to hire only Republicans and direct money to Republican causes.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:15 pmSomeone needs to send Cheney the definition of the word “truth” and then teach him what truth is. Obviously, he continues with the same old, same old and then denies what he says at a later date. What an a$$.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:16 pmSteven Hayes is a policy wonk and Judy Miller put together. Wasn’t it Judy’s stories Cheney hustled on Meet the Press? Why should the courtesy of accepting the Vice Presidents word or any of his sources to support his proclamations, be given at all. He has exhausted any benefit of the doubt goodwill that normaly is given to his office. Mr. Hayes is allowed some sort of delivery of “inside” information to help quell the other side of the story, namely, what is happening RIGHT NOW in Iraq. Why relive your excuses?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:17 pm#15 if we are so much better now than then, why have we not captured or killed Osama? Why has Bush stated “I really don’t think about him much anymore.”? It’s because this whole terrorist scheme is a shame.
It was the objective before Bush got into office, and it will continue to be the objective until America wakes up and DEMANDS he is IMPEACHED, his term is over, or he orders it necessary for him to remain president for the good of this country.
If the terrorists are so important, why have we not captured Osama? Why did the WH order the military to let the Afgahns go after him when the military had him in their sites? It’s because if Osama was captured or killed then that nasty leader would not be a threat and who would Bush blame? Oh thats right, anyone here who see’s through his garbage.
If this administration cares so much for the troops and supports the troops so much why do they treat them like crap? Why do they charge, or at least did, $8 a day for food while in the hospital for injuries received in the battle field? Why do they make soldiers find their own way home after returning to the states from a discharge? Why do they ship the dead as cargo on passenger planes, rather than the honorable way that they are suppose to?
Come on IRI, Gary, and the other Bush supporters let’s see your answers.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pmWeekly Standard?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:22 pmThat Kristol Publication of FAUX news fame?
CFR pretty much walked out of Bush meeting.
Im sure they arent reading weekly standard much anymore.
RE: #17 Sorry, I must be tired. I think I was replying to another thread. Oh well, a lot of my comments are still valid for the trolls.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:24 pmisnt that what the trolls here call Guilt by Association?
So then if Saddam was Guilty by association, then Bushco is too with delay, cheney, Abramoff, Anti federalists, Spies, Wars, lies,,,,
Actually, Hayes doesn’t even claim the documents demonstrate a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. Rather, according to Hayes, the documents show that Hussein provided training for some non-al Qaeda terrorist groups in Northern Africa which have some “ties to al Qaeda.â€
January 12th, 2006 at 5:29 pmSTEVE Hayes FEDERALIST WEBBLOG
January 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pmhttp://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/
They just dont give up do they?!?
Really sad.
R2K
January 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pmCareful reading this, you might get dizzy…
FLIP
Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.â€
“In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction.” - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002)
“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002)
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.†–Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02
CLAIM: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And
“[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.â€- VP Cheney, 3/24/02
“We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.†– Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03
“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.†– Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
“There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.” - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
FLOP
“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed.” -US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - September 2003
“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda.” - President George Bush - June 2004 News Conference
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States.” -Vice President Dick Cheney - January 2004
“The most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.” -US Secretary of State Colin Powell - January 2004
“I have seen the answer to that question [the allegation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda] migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way… To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” -Donald Rumsfeld, Addressing the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, 4 October 2004
“There is no evidence Iraq and al Qaeda ever developed a collaborative operational relationship. - 9/11 Commission Report”
“The senator’s got his fact wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11. [Source: Debate transcript]” -Vice President Dick Cheney
January 12th, 2006 at 5:32 pmStephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard continues a series of reports on the connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and terrorism. From the latest article, “Saddam’s Terror Training Camps†—
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing. …
But we have no doubt that many on the left will continue to insist that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the invasion in early 2003. And they like to call themselves “the reality-based community.â€
Via The Corner. More from Michelle Malkin.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:32 pmcome on you guys, im not even a Democrat nor a republican..debunk this..
January 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pmSaddam’s Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal–and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.
The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million “exploitable items” captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S.
intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war
January 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm________________
Ive read this before, its a REHASH, and was put to bed.
…if cheneys LIPS ARE MOVING….he is lieing. Every time I see the ‘hate’ in his face, I repeat to myself..”Go F*** yourself Mr.Cheney, Go F*** Yourself. Again, thanks to Dr. Marvel for relaying that message to cheney for all of us.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:39 pm#25
January 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pmWhat’s to debunk? Without any proper proof, i.e. “unseen documents” and second hand accounts, this “report” from Hayes is just a work of fiction.
Hairy: It was a complete cover-up from the start. Before Bush became “president” he wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. ABLE DANGER did know. That is exactly why the powers that be are not talking about it. Of course we sold Saddam weapons, hell, we would give it to anyone who was fighting Iran. Little did we know what Bush would pull, at the expense of the American taxpayer and the military. The neo-cons are in a perpetual cover-up because their policies are smoke and mirrors. Most agree that Bush and Bin Laden are relatives and he let him leave American airspace when no one else could fly.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:48 pmhttp://www.townhall.com/opinion/contributors/
Townhall home of the AEI, FEDERALIST such as Coulter, Krauthammer, and all those other really *GOOD journalists aka Talking Heads of ‘Unalienable Rights’
/*sarcarsm
Odd that they want to Alienate others rights…
January 12th, 2006 at 5:48 pm#
#25
What’s to debunk? Without any proper proof, i.e. “unseen documents†and second hand accounts, this “report†from Hayes is just a work of fiction.
Comment by M. Duchamp — January 12, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
#
Hairy: It was a complete cover-up from the start. Before Bush became “president†he wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. ABLE DANGER did know. That is exactly why the powers that be are not talking about it. Of course we sold Saddam weapons, hell, we would give it to anyone who was fighting Iran. Little did we know what Bush would pull, at the expense of the American taxpayer and the military. The neo-cons are in a perpetual cover-up because their policies are smoke and mirrors. Most agree that Bush and Bin Laden are relatives and he let him leave American airspace when no one else could fly.
Comment by lickspittle — January 12, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
Exactomundo!! =)
January 12th, 2006 at 5:51 pmWisedup: The bastards lie to us on a constant basis. I can see the hate in Cheney and the smirking son-of-a-bitch Bush. Impeachment is too good for them. They should be shot for the war criminals they are.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:52 pmSomebody whack ‘ol Dick upside the back of his head. The damn record player is skipping again…
January 12th, 2006 at 5:57 pmThere goes Cheney again. He’s still figuring that if he tells a lie often enough, people will believe it. It worked before but it won’t work now.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:07 pmAm I misunderstanding something? Did somebody give Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard access to classified information? Isn’t that against the law? Isn’t that what got them in trouble before? Or did I misinterpret something? Because it sounds to me like Hayes got his story from classified information that they won’t release to the rest of us.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pmStill trying to justify the invasion almost three years after the fact! Not a good sign, Uncle Dick!
January 12th, 2006 at 6:26 pmDon’t worry. They just had another election. This will allow for Iraqization of the conflict, followed by an orderly withdrawal. We’ll have peace with honor.
I think I just heard Nixon roll over in his grave.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pmSomeone needs to talk to Mr. Cheney, by hand.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:37 pmThe main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning.
As opposed to the administration cherry-picking the documents and mischaracterizing their meaning and telling us all things that weren’t true. Hmmm, well I can uinderstand why they would see it that way. Not someone who understood the meaning of “honesty” and “integrity”, but them, yeah.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:39 pmIs this truly a troll-free thread?
January 12th, 2006 at 6:57 pmAnd isn’t it amazing that they think they can get away with this - as if no one knew how to Google?
I think “Last Throes” is the phrase I am looking for here…
The problem is the President and the Vice President have excluded themselves from human contact of opposition arguments. They are personaly isolated from the local disent. Isn’t ironic that that we can have our elected officials grill into the pinebench,
January 12th, 2006 at 6:58 pmwhat is only a 10th of the Supreme Court, and question judicial perogatives along with advanced Constitutional theory, while the current holder of the chief executive’s office and his second in command in actuality are not available for addressing any questions regarding their behavior, regarding significant Constitutional interpretations. The lights are on and no one is answering the door.
Well it just goes to show that when things are starting to fall apart, you need to get back to the basics.
The basics in this case are the basic lies that started it all.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:02 pm“Were there links to — between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?”
“THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections.”
Note that he doesn’t really answer the question, and his answer appears to be quite neutral. Sure, he’s not disagreeing with Steve Hayes, but he’s really not agreeing either. Very clever.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:09 pmObserve how carefully Cheney parsed his words. Hayes effectively laid out the connection between Hussein and 9/11.” So Cheney again did not say it himself, he merely acceded to Hayes’ comments - and even at that, the connection was not really made by Hayes — but Cheney’s implicit comments, and the conflating of the two are cheney’s hallmarks.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:14 pmOops, sorry Mikey, you said practically the same thing. You are probably a faster typist.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:15 pmMarie, so what you are saying is ; Cheney is a confabulator? Seems that way to me.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:23 pmEncourage every one that you know to buy a McDonalds “Big Mac” gift certificate and send it to the VP for his birthday. sign it Mr. Sharon.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:25 pmMJVPI, wouldn’t that be MS. Sharon.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:31 pmImpeach the Bastards every last one of them. Its time we take back our country. It won’t be too long before the revolution starts. Either our leaders and I use the term loosely, get their shit together or we can the whole bunch of them and start over. I am for starting over, we see where the mistakes were made, I belive we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, that is what constitutes growth. I am really sorry to say this, but I am really not proud of our country. WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP WE HAVE FOR LEADERS!
January 12th, 2006 at 7:41 pmHe just keeps on lying and lying and won’t quit. And what is the thrust of his argument here? “We lied but it turns out we were right.” Well, hey, that just makes all the difference in the freaking world, Dick. May we have another big helping of tabloid-grade intelligence, please?
January 12th, 2006 at 7:58 pmI just found this and thought it would be relevant and add to the discussion. From Robert Dreyfuss at TomPaine.com:
By crying wolf over Iraq, through claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime had an active nuclear arms program, the United States lacks credibility when it now asserts that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And by its illegal, unilateral invasion of Iraq, without allowing the U.N. and the IAEA to proceed with inspections there, the United States has made other countries extremely wary of taking Iran to the U.N. Security Council, out of fear that it might give the United States or Israel a pretext to attack Iran unilaterally.
The Bush Who Cried Wolf
Iran didn’t even have to send their own to die in order to see their worst enemy removed from power.
No matter how you look at it, the big winner seems to be Iran.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:08 pmYou can’t paint the fighters in Iraq, who are attempting to repel foreign invaders in defence of their homeland, as terrorists, no matter what religion you say they are or where they were trained or where they are from. If your mighty War President, didn’t consider that Iraq would have trained troops ready to come in as a second or third wave, after being safely sheltered as best they could be from the American power blasts, then well, yeah, I guess he wouldn’t would he. They were directed in their training, according to this article, by elite Iraqi military units and they are doing exactly what they were trained to do, defend Iraq.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:18 pmSeems like Iraq knew the little boy was going to throw a temper tantrum in their country before the American public knew.
Rippin read cats, rippin read. This is the best show on the planet.
Confabulate: to fill in gaps in memory with fabrication.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:26 pmSynonym: delude, mislead, befool, hoodwink, live in one’s own little world.
Thanks, Flyman — I learned a new word today!
Who is sick of being lied to like a bunch of stupid sheep?
I am.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pmCheney is a worse liar than Bush! Dick will never give-up lying about Saddam being associated with Osama!
January 12th, 2006 at 8:47 pmDon’t worry about Iraq. The same crap will soon start about Iran and their threat to Israel. When the UN has had a little time to threaten Iran about Nweapons, Bush and company will then attack their nuclear facilities with or without any OK from anyone else. I would say that Israel will put the pressure on the US within the next 3 months to do something. Condi is out there working on it now and Russia said they don’t care. Neither do I.
January 12th, 2006 at 9:39 pmHave you guys seen the new book by Peter Bergen, the Osama bin Laden expert who says that because of Osama’s extreme radicalism, Al Qaeda was all but destroyed after 9/11 when the Taliban were toppled in Afghanistan? He went on to say that the Occupation of Iraq actually rejuvinated the terrorists because our presence was seen as a jihad against Islam, and as a result has done more to put us in jeopardy than protect us. He said that war with Iraq was better than anything Osama could have ever hoped for, and now Al Qaeda is stronger than before 9/11. Thanks Peeping George. You should have stopped in Afghanistan… You might actually have been respected for that. But as alcohol and cocaine have proven in your past, you are not a man of self-restraint on any level… Just replaced one addiction with another… Could ya please take up smoking instead or bombing? It’ll be better for our health.
January 12th, 2006 at 9:45 pmSo, if we have someting like 3,000 nukes, why are we so worried about someone else having one? And exactly how is the hypocracy of saying no one should have them, when we have so many supposed to work?
And we have three more years of this arrogant recklessness? Are these wingnuts trying to create “The Rapture” themselves?
January 12th, 2006 at 9:54 pmActually Russia and China both came out today and told us to ease up on the rehtoric today.
I think we should. There are a crap load of communists out there and most Americans are fat lazy terds that won’t help if it comes to fighting.
Gotta have a bigger SUV you know.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:13 pmMuch of what you say TruthSeeker may be true.
But as for your not caring? Well, you may not care, but I will tell you who does care, and care very much.
China. They care. And with the US forces so sorely depleted in Iraq, overextended and spread thin, China knows, and so do we, that we would be hard pressed to support a conventional campaign against a Chinese backed Iranian army.
Iran is one of China’s best buddies, oil wise that is, and they are not going to let anyone just waltz on in there and take over.
Republicans wanted war. Now it looks like we all are gonna get exactly what they wanted. All that we can stomach.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:23 pmwhat that craven bastard cheney needs is a good sucker punch right along the area where he has that automatic machine helping to pump blood through that black heart of his. Send him to my neighborhood.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:27 pmoh and by the way NSA and the rest of you Soviet Era bloodthirsty scavengers, my name is an open book and from an old old dutch family. way before you bunch of jackals and your sore assed descendants ever got here
January 12th, 2006 at 10:28 pmSpudgebuddy you’re ruthless but you’re right. The current estimates for the Peoples Army in China start at 2 Million, and depending on who you listen to there are estimates as high as 10 times that with support and auxillary services.
The Russians they say have 500,000 boots on the ground ready troops, equipped and trained to the hilt, and lots of high end armour and air support.
And of course there is the current publically acknowledged massive “build-up” of the Chinese Navy and Air Force.
A build-up is a term usually associated with actions preceding an military operation.
And considering China and Russia just recently completed the first ever joint tactical training operations performing a massive beach landing and air assault dropping thousands of Russian and Chinese troops onto the battlefield in a mock operation to stabilize a fictional country, I would say we have more than a reason to be concerned.
But are we worried? No. Instead of worrying about two of the largest countries in the world firepower wise, nuclear firepower that is, and militarily speaking as well, we are off protecting ourselves from a tiny backward nation that could’nt hit the broad side of a barn with a SCUD to it’s neighbor Israel during the first Gulf war.
Oh yea, Bush makes us safe. I feel safe. :| Don’t you?
January 12th, 2006 at 10:56 pmThe Flying Scotman,
January 12th, 2006 at 11:29 pmIt’s not awful. Yet. We are trying very hard to save our country. And as Paine said, so goes the United States?, so goes the world. So we’re trying to save the world.
Can the BUSH Admin take a HINT?
San Diego Pension Board Asked to Resign
January 13th, 2006 at 12:15 amBy Associated Press
January 12, 2006, 11:17 PM EST
SAN DIEGO — Calling for drastic reforms to the city’s troubled pension system, Mayor Jerry Sanders used his first State of the City address Thursday night to ask the appointed board members of the retirement system to resign.
The scandal-wracked pension system is at the center of the city’s massive fiscal woes.
Sanders said last week that the pension fund’s deficit could be as high as $2 billion, or $600 million more than previously estimated.
“Reform means change — and these changes are necessary to restore public confidence — and more importantly, to return the system to fiscal health,” Sanders said in his speech.
Am I misunderstanding something? Did somebody give Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard access to classified information? Isn’t that against the law? Isn’t that what got them in trouble before? Or did I misinterpret something? Because it sounds to me like Hayes got his story from classified information that they won’t release to the rest of us.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 12, 2006 @ 6:21
Naw Wolfowitz got access way back under senior to see the CIA stuff. So Yeah, like AIPAC and Franklin these guys,like wolfowitz, the State Dept maybe, see that stuff. Especially Wolfowitz under Bush senior as far as WE are know.
January 13th, 2006 at 12:24 amFrom Wikipedia
January 13th, 2006 at 12:31 amUnder U.S. President Gerald Ford the American intelligence agencies had come under attack from Professor Wohlstetter amongst others over their annually published National Intelligence Estimate. According to Mann; “The underlying issue was whether the C.I.A. and other agencies were underestimating the threat from the Soviet Union, either by intentionally tailoring intelligence to support Kissenger’s policy of détente or by simply failing to give enough weight to darker interpretations of Soviet intentions.†In an attempt to counter these claims, the newly appointed Director of Central Intelligence, George H.W. Bush authorized the formation of a committee of anti-communist experts headed by Richard Pipes to reassess the raw data. Wolfowitz, who was still employed by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, was assigned to this committee, which came to be known as Team B. According to Mann “Wolfowitz viewed himself as Kissinger’s opposite, his adversary in the realm of ideas.â€
And right back to today, the Neo-cons AEI, think tanks and Perle.
January 13th, 2006 at 12:39 amAnd the rest of the Players, whom had an 8 year clinton planning session PNAC and the WMD and the IRAQ war.
Cheneys Toady Hayes, Writes Article for Master
http://www.freerepublic.com/ focus/ f-news/ 1547418/ posts?page=1
It appears that these efforts are paying dividends. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released while Cheney was still in the region showed marked improvement in President Bush’s overall approval (up 8 points to 47 percent) as well as his conduct of the war on terror (up 8 points to 56 percent) and its crucial battle in Iraq (up 10 points to 46 percent).
There has been concern among conservative activists and Republicans in Congress that this new campaign would be short-lived, that the administration would return to its defensive crouch of last summer as soon as the poll numbers rebounded. That’s still a possibility, but if Cheney’s language this week is any indication, it appears the Bush administration will continue to make the case aggressively that Americans are better off because of its conduct of national security policy, including the Iraq war.
That effort will likely include the release of documents and other materials captured in postwar Iraq. In recent weeks, senior Bush administration and intelligence officials have been discussing several plans to expedite the public release of those materials. According to officials familiar with their contents, the documents provide an unfiltered look inside a criminal regime that brutalized its own citizens, bought off numerous European politicians, and provided significant support to transregional terrorists.
Oh BOY More propaganda!! except this time its “captured info”
January 13th, 2006 at 12:50 amThank you stephen hayes for this Blip;
Shortly before 3 P.M., several hundred soldiers gathered in a large hangar for Cheney’s speech. They were not told in advance who, exactly, would appear on stage. Although the response from the crowd was enthusiastic when they learned that their honored guest was the vice president of the United States, Cheney began his remarks with an acknowledgment that he was a disappointment to some.
“Well, I’m not Jessica Simpson.”
I think we would be better off with Jessica Simpson, Dick. What do you think about that?
January 13th, 2006 at 12:56 amEven if the story had the slightest chance of being true, it was something that was not known before the war started. The administration had no reason to invade Iraq. They are in the process of trying to find an excuse, any excuse.
BTW, here are latest poll numbers for Bush:
FOX/Opinion Dynamics – 42%
January 13th, 2006 at 8:21 amCNN/USA Today/Gallup – 43%
CBS – 41%
Pew – 38%
AP-Ipsos - 40%
“The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning.”
“…might cherry-pick documents”?
He*l isn’t that what they’re paid by the republiscum “reality-makers” to do?
January 13th, 2006 at 9:05 amIt won’t be too long before you can dust off all your old Iraq clichés and use them to help Iran. Blood for oil, death of innocents, Bush=Hitler, etc. I wish someone would post the website for the human shield volunteers so you folks can get in early and get set up at a good target.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:20 am9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to the idiot and his minions. The reason why they have never bothered to really find OBL. Why, because he (or his image) is what is keeping these fascists in power. 9/11 has allowed these people to fight an endless phony war against terrorism. Until they are removed from power this will not. It will only get worse. By the way, these people sacrifice nothing for their own wars, we do however.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:39 amI wish someone would post the website for the human shield volunteers so you folks can get in early and get set up at a good target.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 13, 2006 @ 9:20 am
Actually, we plan to send you… shanghai style :)
January 13th, 2006 at 9:43 am[…] Poor Dick Cheney- he has an honesty problem and instead of taking responsibility for the incorrect information he peddled prior to the Iraq war about a significant Al-Queda/Saddam connection, he’s trying to revive the same old false connections and misrepresentation of the facts and not even the intelligence community or the DoD will sign off on it this time. In order to pull this sort of PR stunt off you have to have a special recipe: […]
January 13th, 2006 at 9:52 amThe people who talk up the Iraq/Al Queda/9/11/ WMD reasons for war are absolutely ignoring the influence of the PNAC on this administration and it’s policies. The PNAC has been wanting to invade and democratize Iraq for years, long before Bush came to office. The Bush administration was thickly populated with PNAC operatives. Ultimately the war ends up being, according to the president, about democaticizing Iraq. Hence his comments about being willing to invade Iraq again knowing that all of the original reasons for invading have been proven false. Remember what Wolfowitz said shortly after it became obvious to all but the most die hard of wingnuts that no WMD would be found…WMD was the one thing they knew they could sell the war with. Withouth the ficticious WMD argument there would be little public support. I’m paraphrasing , but he did say it publicly.
Of course the wingnuts tote out the “he violated UN resolutions so we had to invade!” Israel and the US have violated UN Resolutions too, anyone up for invading those countries? Lots of countries violate UN resolutions and we ignore them and let it slide. I find it funny that an administration that clearly abhors the UN used the UN as a justification for going to war.
It (the invasion) has nothing to do with terrorism or keeping the US safe. Iraq is simply a huge open air laboratory for testing the theory that democracy comes from the barrel of a gun. The idea that democracy will flower and spread out of Iraq throughout the middle east is foolish. The entire middle east is in essence still a fuedel society, a lot more has to happen to develop a middle class before democracy can take hold. Turkey has beena democracy for years and their form of government has yet to flowwer and spread. If the adminsitration was serious about democracy int he middle east they would have started with our so called friends Saudi Arabia, Kuwait the UAE and other sheikdoms and worked with them to move their countries towards democracy. But nope, we let them continue as they were/are. We let them turn a blind eye as the terrorists they breed so fruitfully leave their countries of originl and travel the world looking for Americans to kill.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:04 am#74 We going there next on our mission to christianize, I mean democratize, the entire middle east? What do you think about Musharaf being one of the ONLY people standing in the way of Osama having nukes? Or, do we give a crap about Osama anymore? Do you ever wonder why Bush I left Hussein in power? Maybe because we could always use him in the effort to contain Iran? Maybe Bush I knew all along that Saddam was NO THREAT and could be a useful tool.
We have screwed ourselves because Bush is on a religious mission and not living in reality. We are all suffering because of your vote and vast voter corruption. Thanks, dude for making all of our children safer.
Reality man, I know it’s painful, but face up already.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:43 amDon’t tell me Tricky Dick is still trying to beat that dead horse!When will Pat Fitzgerald finally get around to shutting this modern day Nero up with an indictment? He and his old pal “Scooter” can be cellmates! We can re-open Alcatraz Island for all the newly convicted Republican mafiosi that are going to come out of this Abramoff scandal. You sure couldn’t put these guys in general population in an ordinary prison, it might have a detrimental effect on the regular inmates. You know, the murderers, rapists and bank robbers.
January 13th, 2006 at 12:46 pmYes, we have got to get out of Iraq. After all, when the jihadists say they want the World to be Islamic, of course they don’t mean it. They just want some leverage. When they quote from the Quran in places like 9:29 “Fight those who don’t believe in God . . .” it doesn’t really say that in the Quran, it only appears to say that in the Quran. We are in not in any position to say that beheading people is wrong. After all, we subjected the detainees at GTMO to sensory deprivation. When will it stop?
January 13th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#81
January 13th, 2006 at 2:34 pmRadicals of any religion (Christianity included) are the problem. Most Muslims aren’t jihadists, just as most Christians aren’t crusaders. Such assumptions on your part are just plain wrong and do nothing to support your, ahem, point.
I wish someone would post the website for the human shield volunteers so you folks can get in early and get set up at a good target.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #74
I’dsaysomethingwittybutIgotsh*tferbrains-I,
Funny… I see death in your future too…
January 13th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#81
What are my assumptions? I just want the whole thing to stop. We can get along with the jihadists if we try.
January 13th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#84
“We are in not in any position to say that beheading people is wrong.” -JustaWeeny
I have to disagree on your main point. We are in a position to say that beheading is wrong. We are in a position to say that torture at Gitmo is wrong. Allowing a small group of radicals, whether they are our own citizens or jihadists, to dictate what we can and cannot say, or to justify one group’s behavior because an opposing group has committed similar transgressions, is illustrative of a complacent mindset that will make such acts more commonplace in the future.
January 13th, 2006 at 6:52 pmSaddam was your bastard- the USA created, enabled and supported him . The USA is the terrorist state Iraq was associated with. Admit it, DICK !!
January 14th, 2006 at 3:14 pm85. We are in a position to say that beheading is wrong.
I don’t see how we can say that we shouldn’t impose our values on other cultures, then hold them accountable by our values. Who are we to say that killing one’s enemies is wrong, even if it is though a despicable method like beheading?
Do your comments mean that you are willing to fight? Are you then for the war against jihadists, even if they are in Iraq, or against it?
January 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pm“drew an official rebuke from the Department of Defense for disclosing classified materials and misinterpreting raw intelligence. ”
Please revise this link. It points to an invalid page.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:16 pm[…] the press conference, Cheney again cited a throughly-debunked Weekly Standard article written by his own biographer Stephen Hayes as laying out the best case of […]
March 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm[…] Department of Defense for disclosing classified materials and misinterpreting raw intelligence. Think Progress ? Blog Archive ? Cheney Praises Stephen Hayes, Pushes Hussein/Al-Qaeda Link Salman Pak, one of the areas mentioned in the article, has long been rumored to have been a […]
April 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm