cheney: "there was never any evidence Iraq was involved...

in 911" (VID @LINK)

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/cheney-there-was-never-an_n_210145.html

In an interview with Fox News' Greta van Susteren, former Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks.

"On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never any evidence to prove that," he told the "On The Record" host in a joint interview with his daughter Liz. "There was "some reporting early on ... but that was never borne out," Cheney said.

:banghead:

:(

No shit, Sherlock.

And have your lackeys repeat it over and over again!
Your lies are on video, sound bytes, printed and posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLrITIFacA

WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o&feature=related


Fuck you, Cheney! :grr:

now they sound even more so. Cock sure. Greatest assholes in history.

Destroyed a country, killed thousands of innocent children, women and men? Essentially demonized and murdered Sadam Hussein? Christ! This man needs to be thrown to the lynch mobs! :grr:

No one except maybe Kissinger deserves a lifelong sentence for war crimes more than this clown.

Back in 2002-2003, you couldn't hear any mention of Iraq/SH WITHOUT AQ and 9/11. Heck, it's practically in writing. GWB's statement to Congress (RE: attacking Iraq) SPECIFICALLY mentions 9/11 as being part of the (broader) justification for the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Not to mention Cheney's flogging of the alleged Mohammed Atta/Prague meeting with Iraqi agents prior to 9/11 ("pretty well confirmed", he once said).
:eyes:

If anything, Al Franken was too nice by including Cheney in his "Lies & The Lying Liars" when he really belongs in "Dante's Hell" (whichever "circle" is reserved for liars).

Of course, that's the fundamental problem with lying in general.

Restoring "honor and dignity" to the WH after Clinton indeed. :eyes:

You know, the stuff that they can't do but we can?

The answer would be: There are proven connections between AQ and Saddam (and the Congressional report's '"no operational" link business' would obligatorily be cited), however AQ is much more than just the 9/11 attackers, and its activities encompass more than just 9/11. There is no proven connection between Saddam and 9/11, but they suspected there was at much. They would then say that the article was right--they never said there was a direct link, howevermuch people tried to say they said so; but they did suggest there might be a link.

They've actually been fairly clear and consistent since 2002, for all the effort they put into establishing a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and for all their desparation in showing one, they never actually said there was one. Repeatedly people have been challenged to come up with a quote, and I think the best that they can come up with is what's obviously a speech error (as opposed to an intentional speech act that contains an error of fact) on Cheney's part. In it, if I remember right, he puts it properly, then a few sentences later gets it wrong, and a few sentences later gets it right again and says he misspoke before, his "misspeaking" involving leaving out a couple of words. (That incident may have involved Iraq's weapons programs instead, it's been a few years since I've pondered such trivialities.) Otherwise all the "quotes" are paraphrases which, when tracked back to the actual */Cheney utterances, are seen to gain something in the retelling.