• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks

goldendog

Banned
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
4,695
Reaction score
476
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

By James Rowley and Jonathan D. Salant

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney disavowed intelligence he once cited to suggest that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 “turned out not to be true.” Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,” Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. “There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.” Citing 2002 Senate testimony by George Tenet, then the CIA director, he said, “We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

I'm telling you folks this guy is pathetic..now that investigations are progressing and information is coming out in reguards to the Bush Administrations apparent motivatons for torturing people Cheney comes out and makes this stunning admission..why now?
 
The problem here is that this "relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda" was absolutely debunked prior to the invasion and the Bush administration knew it. The Counter Terrorism Security Group told them this, the intelligence community produced no solid evidence supporting a link, and an Inspector General's report found that the Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith did in fact present uncorroborated intelligence as factual that was contradicted by the intelligence community.
 
The problem here is that this "relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda" was absolutely debunked prior to the invasion and the Bush administration knew it. The Counter Terrorism Security Group told them this, the intelligence community produced no solid evidence supporting a link, and an Inspector General's report found that the Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith did in fact present uncorroborated intelligence as factual that was contradicted by the intelligence community.

The biggest lie is when no WMD's were discovered, and the Bush administration began telling everyone that the war was fought to free the Iraqi people. However, the ONLY reason given to invade Iraq was the WMD issue, and this is the ONLY issue that was given to Congress to justify the resolution to invade Iraq. The resolution to invade Iraq that was voted on by Congress specifically pointed to WMD's and Saddam's so-called attempts to reconstitute its nuclear program, despite the intel showing that Saddam had given that up in 1991.

Think about it. If Bush said "let's go to war to free the Iraqi people", would Americans have supported it? Of course not. The Bush administration needed to scare the bejesus out of people with false information, cherry picked from a mountain of data that showed otherwise.
 
Last edited:
However, the ONLY reason given to invade Iraq was the WMD issue, and this is the ONLY issue that was given to Congress to justify the resolution to invade Iraq.


Wow. Have you actually read the resolution? Because, really, what you just said is not in the least bit true.

It is true that the administration focused on Iraq's alleged WMD's and Iraq's desire to restrict WMD inspections... But the resolution voted on by congree alleged many other items including the repression of the citizens of Iraq and the stability of the Middle East.

But, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
 
Last edited:
Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

By James Rowley and Jonathan D. Salant

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney disavowed intelligence he once cited to suggest that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 “turned out not to be true.” Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,” Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. “There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.” Citing 2002 Senate testimony by George Tenet, then the CIA director, he said, “We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

I'm telling you folks this guy is pathetic..now that investigations are progressing and information is coming out in reguards to the Bush Administrations apparent motivatons for torturing people Cheney comes out and makes this stunning admission..why now?

You do know Bush and Cheney made this statement while they were still in office too.....

This is not news.
 
Wow. Have you actually read the resolution? Because, really, what you just said is not in the least bit true.

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

DefenseLink News Transcript: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair

Yeah. Helping Iraqi people. Not high on the priority list.
 
There were actually a series of lies and half truths foisted upon the American public and Congress. But look, WMD's were not the only reason we invaded. They were certainly the most talked about, but they also played up the link to Al Qaeda, and paid lip service to the Iraqi people.

To say WMD's were the only reason we invaded is not very accurate. The misleading went much deeper than that.
 
Last edited:
You do know Bush and Cheney made this statement while they were still in office too.....

This is not news.

Hello, this is old news remember?

/thread
 
So, let's compare:
However, the ONLY reason given to invade Iraq was the WMD issue, and this is the ONLY issue that was given to Congress to justify the resolution to invade Iraq.

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.

Looks like I win! :)

BTW, The Iraq war resolution voted on and passed by congress and the quote you provided of Wolfowitz didn't list the reasons for war in order of importance.
 
So, let's compare:




Looks like I win! :)

BTW, The Iraq war resolution voted on and passed by congress and the quote you provided of Wolfowitz didn't list the reasons for war in order of importance.

With support that was garnered from manipulated intelligence.
 
Wow. Have you actually read the resolution? Because, really, what you just said is not in the least bit true.

It is true that the administration focused on Iraq's alleged WMD's and Iraq's desire to restrict WMD inspections... But the resolution voted on by congree alleged many other items including the repression of the citizens of Iraq and the stability of the Middle East.

But, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

I didn't, although you certainly have. Here is a copy of the Iraq War Resolution.

1) In what are referred to as the whereas (in the first section), some have taken out of context the "whereas" that "Iraq repressed its population" as meaning to free the population, when in fact, it was put in there to reference Saddam's attacks on the population with chemical weapons. This is put into context in the very next "whereas":

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;
2) The whereas section refers to connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda (false), members of al-Qaeda being in Iraq and being trained by Iraq (false), Saddam stockpiling WMD's (false), Iraq having an advanced nuclear weapons program (false), Iraq was a threat to the United States (false), through inference, that Iraq was involved in the planning of the 911 attacks (false), and was harboring those who committed the 911 attacks (false).

3) Some refer to this "whereas" as freeing the Iraqi people:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
However, this again is in the context of overthrowing Saddam and replacing him for his violation of Security Council resolutions, not as a casus belli to invade iraq, as will be made clear in the actual authorization itself.

4) The "whereas" section is not the authorization. the authorization, which is in section 3, reads as follows:

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
Notice the context of defending the US against the threat posed by Iraq. And why is Iraq a threat to the United States? Because of their WMD's, of course. Also notice where it says enforce the Security Council Resolutions. These resolutions were for Iraq to get rid of it's WMD's, and not to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

5) Notice that, in the authorization itself, freeing the Iraqi people is not mentioned. Only parts 1 and 2 in section a, which is the authorization itself.

Now, instead of name calling and personal attacks (To wit - You lied when you said I did not read the resolution, made a misstatement when you said that what I said was not true, and added an ad hominem personal attack at the end to boot), you might go through the resolution yourself, and point out in the actual authorization section, which is the pertinent part of the resolution, where this is about freeing the Iraq people, instead of attacking Iraq over WMD's.

Ball is in your court now.
 
Last edited:
With support that was garnered from manipulated intelligence.

Well, that's open to debate. But really, there's no point in debating it for either of us.
 
The biggest lie is when no WMD's were discovered, and the Bush administration began telling everyone that the war was fought to free the Iraqi people. However, the ONLY reason given to invade Iraq was the WMD issue, and this is the ONLY issue that was given to Congress to justify the resolution to invade Iraq. The resolution to invade Iraq that was voted on by Congress specifically pointed to WMD's and Saddam's so-called attempts to reconstitute its nuclear program, despite the intel showing that Saddam had given that up in 1991.


Wrong Very Wrong do any of you really no what a ****ing WMD is huh please tell me if you can. Also any of you care to listen to someone who was actually on the ground and in many of these site looking for Weapons, also the real reason we went into Iraq was because now follow with me folks "SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE GULF WAR CEASE FIRE AND WOULDN'T LET US WEAPON INSPECTORS DO ARE JOBS"

Hey Dog maybe you should explain to folks what I used to do for a living since we had a very good discussion on this topic over on that "Other Forum"
 
wrong very wrong do any of you really no what a ****ing wmd is huh please tell me if you can. Also any of you care to listen to someone who was actually on the ground and in many of these site looking for weapons, also the real reason we went into iraq was because now follow with me folks "saddam was in violation of the gulf war cease fire and wouldn't let us weapon inspectors do are jobs"

hey dog maybe you should explain to folks what i used to do for a living since we had a very good discussion on this topic over on that "other forum"

.. Our
our
our
our
our

not

are
are
are
are

 
This is not "old news" Cheney has never admitted this openly before today.

Why is this?
 
This is not "old news" Cheney has never admitted this openly before today.

Why is this?

But Bush has.

Did he feel the need to do it right behind Bush to show they were in line in thinking?

Does Vice President Biden play repeater with President Obama?
 
Wrong Very Wrong do any of you really no what a ****ing WMD is huh please tell me if you can. Also any of you care to listen to someone who was actually on the ground and in many of these site looking for Weapons, also the real reason we went into Iraq was because now follow with me folks "SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE GULF WAR CEASE FIRE AND WOULDN'T LET US WEAPON INSPECTORS DO ARE JOBS"

Hey Dog maybe you should explain to folks what I used to do for a living since we had a very good discussion on this topic over on that "Other Forum"

I'm sorry Scorp honestly I do not recall discussing in detail what you do for a living. It has always been alluded to that you work for the Government at the Pentegon and I do recall that you flew off to Korea when they set off that missile in April. Oh yes you did say that you worked on the weapons inspection teams on the lead up to the war. I recall asking specifically what WMD's were found..I don't really recall getting an answer.
Maybe a refreshing of the facts in in need scorp?
 
But Bush has.

Did he feel the need to do it right behind Bush to show they were in line in thinking?

Does Vice President Biden play repeater with President Obama?

Please post a link where Bush has made this statement?

Did Bush make a similar statement yesterday?
 
Last edited:
Bush stated a long time ago there was no link between Iraq and 9-11. I've read it numerous times.

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found.

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found
President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

By SCOTT SHEPARD
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
 
Today Cheney is throwing George Tenete under the bus saying that Tenate gave him false information..Tenate did such a horrible job at giving Bush and Cheney faulty information that they say the need to give Tenete the medal of freedom for the great job he did..

It just doesn't jive..
 
So when did Cheney ever say there was a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks?

Let's see, within a week of 9/11 he said very clearly on Meet the Press that they knew of no link between the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq.

Later he was asked about the Czech government's claims that an Iraqi agent was seen in Prague meeting with one of the hijackers. He said that information was not verified.

So what exactly did he say that claimed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
 
He said the same thing during September 2001 until March 2003 and ever since.

Far Left idiots.
 
Last edited:
So when did Cheney ever say there was a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks?

Let's see, within a week of 9/11 he said very clearly on Meet the Press that they knew of no link between the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq.

Later he was asked about the Czech government's claims that an Iraqi agent was seen in Prague meeting with one of the hijackers. He said that information was not verified.

So what exactly did he say that claimed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?



Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
Boston.com / News / Nation / Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
 
Wrong Very Wrong do any of you really no what a ****ing WMD is huh please tell me if you can. Also any of you care to listen to someone who was actually on the ground and in many of these site looking for Weapons, also the real reason we went into Iraq was because now follow with me folks "SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE GULF WAR CEASE FIRE AND WOULDN'T LET US WEAPON INSPECTORS DO ARE JOBS"

Hey Dog maybe you should explain to folks what I used to do for a living since we had a very good discussion on this topic over on that "Other Forum"

If Saddam was in violation of the UNSCR's then the Security Council are the only ones to authorize any use of force, which simply did not happen. The US took the alleged 'enforcement' into their own hands.

The US violated UNSCR 687 as well as the UN Charter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom