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?
This is not really new. The administration was not and never has to my knowledge stated "Iraq was involved IN THE 9/11 ATTACK". The closest that has come is people making ASSUMPTIONS thats what they meant and last I checked news reporters, nor Hatuey, are mind readers. Even your own link later on didn't say it. It ACTED like he said it but when they finally had to put foot to flames and quote him:
"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."
Nope, that isn't Cheney saying that "The Iraqi Government was involved in 9/11". No dice.
Here you're just playing dirty. I mean like, top level political dirty. Like, a rag used to clean a ****ter type. Look at what you bold and what the full sentence is. You're bolding half of it. Read context.
They're not disputing the conclussion, they're disputing the fact that it somehow CONTRADICTS statements they had made linking Iraq to 9/11 because they made no such assertions. Your own link shows you to be full of it on this:
Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
So no, Strike One. Nothing in this article proves Cheney or Bush stated that the Iraqi Government were linked to the 9/11 attack.
Your next one, again, does not prove what you're ignorantly trying to claim or at least imply it presumes. Having a "link" prior to the 9/11 attacks DOES NOT PROVE that the administration was stating there was a link directly to the 9/11 attacks. You could say there was a "link" between some dumb ass kid that bought something from a guy who funnels money to Al-Qaeda at some point prior to 9/11, that does not mean you're saying that Kid was directly involved in 9/11
Strike 2.
So, lets see if this passes the grade. Knowing you, and this post, I'm going to guess no.
So a statement that Atta possibly met with an Iraqi Intelligence officer months before the attack, with a clear statement that it has not been able to confirm or discredit it as fact yet, and with nothing stating it had anything to do with the 9/11 attack. So nope, that one doesn't cut it.
The next quote. Well, all it does is state there's reason to believe there was a strong connection perhaps with the 93' world trade center Bombing...but I'm pretty sure that's not 9/11
Strike Three. You're out. But you keep wanting to swing for the fences huh? You're like the anti-Babe Ruth. You call your shot then we all laugh as you whiff.
And finally :
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked Cheney
Dontch'all love teh powerz of teh Goggglez?
Close, but no Cigar. Again, its not saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11, only that its been a base for Terrorists....terrorists, who in general have had us under assult for many years and most especially in 9/11. That does not mean that Iraq was INVOLVED in 9/11, or even that the 9/11 terrorists specifically were in Iraq, but that the area had been a haven for terrorists, who in general have been giving us trouble for many years. And, even beyond that, you fail to acknowledge the fact the Administration came out days later and clarified the statement...hardly pointing to it being a legitimate administration stance and instead pointing to it being poor wording.
Yes, teh powersz of teth Gogglez is amazing. Would just help if you were being honest or actually attempting to give any thought into it other than banging on it and thinking "these things popped up, they must be true, people can't possibly read them and see I'm just making bull **** claims".
Second Time. Does not state that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack, was clarified days later by the Bush Administration, showing that it wasn't a Bush Administration stance and acknowleding that it was poorly worded by Cheney in getting his intent across, which was that Iraq was a ground used by Terrorists, who for many years have been giving the U.S. trouble most recently 9/11.
Third Time. Does not state that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack, was clarified days later by the Bush Administration, showing that it wasn't a Bush Administration stance and acknowleding that it was poorly worded by Cheney in getting his intent across, which was that Iraq was a ground used by Terrorists, who for many years have been giving the U.S. trouble most recently 9/11.
Fourth Time. Does not state that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack, was clarified days later by the Bush Administration, showing that it wasn't a Bush Administration stance and acknowleding that it was poorly worded by Cheney in getting his intent across, which was that Iraq was a ground used by Terrorists, who for many years have been giving the U.S. trouble most recently 9/11.
Just because you keep stating YOUR OPINION of what he meant, instead of taking actual facts and context into account, and trying to pass it off as fact does not make it so. Just because you keep repeating your lie and misrepresentation doesn't make it truth. So keep on posting your pathetic little "fifth time" and "Sixth time" and I'll gladly keep up with you pointing out that your point is bull****, and that the administration has not taken a stance that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. If this conversation was about Cheney saying Iraq and Al-Qaeda were connected, that'd be one thing. But that's not what its talking about, its talking about Iraq having a hand in 9/11, and that was not stated.
