Dick Cheney's Lies about Iraq

When I watched the vice-presidential debate yesterday morning, it made me feel disgusted when Dick Cheney kept lying about Iraq, saying that “the whole world is much better now because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power” and saying over and over that there were links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda even before the war, that Saddam paid thousands of dollars to suicide bombers, and that the war in Iraq was a result of 9-11, which implies that Saddam Hussein masterminded the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Well, I’m not the only one that noticed that almost everything that Dick Cheney said yesterday about Iraq was a lie. Newsweek magazine also noticed it. Read this:

msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek

Republicans run from facts the way cockroaches run from light. This is a problem that is inextricably tied to the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lack of accountability at all levels of their administration, and their willingness to pervert their own agencies’ scientific findings to meet whatever ideological ends they have at the moment.

Here is a good site with lot’s of quotes and explanations of ‘misleading and inaccurate public statements’ by the Bush administration: bushoniraq.com/

Mofa, but that is assuming that Republicans even understand the word accountability, judging by this administration i would say that most DON’T.

[quote=“Transcript from NBC News, Meet the Press on 9-23-2004”]

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said [Saddam] was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it

Which of those is a lie?

No it doesn’t. :unamused:

How did any statement by Cheney “imply” that Saddam masterminded the 911 attacks?

Be specific, please.

Here are some examples of Rascal’s “evidence.” Judge for yourself.

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 – and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men – the shock troops of a hateful ideology – gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).


Explanation This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.”

First, I would argue that referencing these two together is misleading. We began our war on terrorism 911. The explanation admits that Bush said there was no evidence linking Saddam directly. We have other speeches by Bush where he said Iraq was part of the OVERALL problem of dysfunctionalism in Middle Eastern societies. I therefore challenge the assertion here that Bush’s statement is in fact misleading. By referencing Germany and Italy and Japan together in WWII, was Roosevelt misleading the American people to believe that Germany and Italy were involved in Pearl Harbor. This is a weak case.

AND

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.”
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).


Explanation This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community’s deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.

Bush said that HE strongly believed this to be the case. While there were many different assessments, Bush went with the one that HE BELIEVED to be true. There were many different versions and theories about what was going on. Bush did not say that this was proved but merely that it was the one that he believed. Wherein lies the misleading in this statement?

Rascal:

For someone who is normally such a nitpicker about definitions and semantics, this site hardly becomes you. It is very very very weak in most areas.

Don’t worry Mark, I’ll field this one. As you and I know, Republicans, in addition being greedy, immoral ,and viscious are also fairly unintelligent. Lacking the sophistication that we Democrats have, Tigerman has obviously missed the subtle and underhanded way in which Cheney’s made his nefarious implication. So, as with questions like “Where should our children be attend school?” and “How should I invest my retirement funds?”, the task is left up to us intellectually superior Democrats to do the thinking for of simpleton Republicans for them. So I will try to explain this in simple terms that Tigerman can understand.

The key, you see, is the concept of negativity. Republicans are a dour and negative bunch by nature, and Mr. Cheney is amongst the most negative of them all.

Cheney negatively asserts that Franch and Russia and the the UN leadership would not have joined the coalition even if they had been asked very very nicely, just because they were all taking kickbacks from the corrupt Baathist regime.

Cheney negatively maintains that our steadfast allies will not agree send troops to help out in Iraq in the future, even if John Kerry holds “a summit”.

Cheney negatively and cynically suggests that we should not have expected a murderous dictator to stop seeking WMDs, even if the murderous dictator e explicitly tells UN inspectors that he has.

Cheney negatively insists that we should act against threats BEFORE they attack us rather than AFTER they attack us, even though this negative interpretation ignores the optimistic hope that those bent on killing us may kindly decide of their own accord to change their minds.

So, Tigerman, the bottom line is that you need to put Cheney’s remarks in context.

Yes, when asked the question: Was Iraq in any way inolved in the 9-11 attack? Cheney answered “We don’t know.”

But IN CONTEXT, that “We don’t know” is really a “Yes.” Why? Because being a negative person, Cheney implied it negatively … by not implying it.

Please do not hesitate to let us know if you get stuck in matters of sophistication and nuance in the future. We Democrats are here to help!

Hobbes:

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Hobbes, the first IP post to make me laugh out loud in an unsarcastic manner. Hats off to you. :laughing:
And:

which is more incontrovertable evidence of Cheney’s evil lies. The suicide bombers were DEAD! Saddam paid the money to their FAMILIES. See? Dirty LIES, LIES, LIES!

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Mark Nagel”]
…which implies that Saddam Hussein masterminded the 9-11 terrorist attacks.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. [/quote]

Okay, I admit that Cheney didn’t exactly imply that Saddam Hussein masterminded the 9-11 terrorist attacks, but he did say that Mohammed Atta, one of the real masterminds of the 9-11 attacks, met an Iraqi spy in the Czech Republic before 9-11, which is saying that Iraq helped the terrorists who masterminded 9-11.

And this is a lie because actually Mohammed Atta was in the USA when he was alleged to be in the Czech Republic!

Here is a quote from the Newseek article that I referred to in my original post:

[quote]In a Sept. 8, 2002,

[quote=“Mark Nagel”]And this is a lie because actually Mohammed Atta was in the USA when he was alleged to be in the Czech Republic!

Here is a quote from the Newseek article that I referred to in my original post:

[quote]In a Sept. 8, 2002,

xp+10k,

Do you believe Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi spy in Prague?

[quote=“jplowman”]xp+10k,

Do you believe Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi spy in Prague?[/quote]

At this time, I believe it more than I don’t. It’s a factual matter, and in particular, a factual matter of a kind which is not readily determinable from my position of observation.

I might add that I have at least some doubt about almost everything.

Wrong. Saying that Mohammed Atta, one of the real masterminds of the 9-11 attacks, met an Iraqi spy in the Czech Republic before 9-11, is NOT the same thing as saying that Iraq helped the terrorists who masterminded 9-11.

What it says is that we have evidence of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq and while we do not know exactly what these contacts pertained to, we do know that we do not want them to evolve into any sort of collaborative relationship.

No. If it is true that Atta was not in the Czech Republic, that would make the statement false. Incorrect. But, not necessarily a lie.

This is from the website for The Center for Cooperative Research:

[quote]Czech Police Chief Jiri Kolar says that there is no evidence that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001. He also says

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=272

For those interested in the lies, misrepresentations and sneaky figures used in the VP debate, you could do worse than take Cheney’s advice - well at least what he meant to say anyway. Both sides get burned a little…

[quote]Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted “for the war” and “to commit the troops, to send them to war.” He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry’s proposals.

Edwards falsely claimed the administration “lobbied the Congress” to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.

[/quote]

I think the strategy is to sound bite and manipulate the press rather than to out right lie. Just keep the idea out there and alive. Cheney is a master of that.He simply states issues to breathe life into them and create a sence of doubt and possibility. He is after all the Vice president, at best it is irresponsible, at worst is it malicous scandle mongering to suite the purposes of the Bush administrations expansion of America’s military power and to secure the resources of middle eastern oil.

[quote=“Mark Nagel”]This is from the website for The Center for Cooperative Research:

[quote]Czech Police Chief Jiri Kolar says that there is no evidence that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001. He also says

Looks like the Republicans can lie pretty well about the big things, as well. Just wondering if the Republicans can tell the truth about anything these days. I suppose I’d better repeat my challenge – Republiconmen, can you find any Bush or Cheney statement that turned out to be true?

Such a struggle for these guys.