(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, said:
I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other
top administration officials have often asserted that there were
extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link
was "overwhelming."
...
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11
mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official
before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the
meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Atta met with a lot of people who weren't intimately involved in
carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of
terrorist funding."

Sorry, I missed the reference to being involved in the 9/11 attacks in
that reference. And I hope you don't have doubts about Iraq's funding
of other terrorist organizations... state sponsorship of terrorism is
the biggest security risk to the civilized world today. I hope that
doesn't become clearer than it already is.

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful
in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of
the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us
under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Funny thing - I've had more than a few people throw that quote up as
the best proof of their position. Funny thing is, they all leave out
the rest of the exchange, immediately following:

"MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who
were responsible for 9/11?"

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect
to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed
everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that
time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in
particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan,
which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in
Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11
is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which
the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home
territory. And it’s a global operation.

THAT explains the "connection", but those who traffic in sound bites
to get their political opinions tend to miss the nuance. OTOH, the
vast majority of links on the 'net that include the Cheney quote you
included do NOT include the following clarification. You'd almost
think the press and the bloggers were trying to change the meaning of
the interview, huh? Check out Wikipedia, for example - the first half
is there ("proving" the point you're trying to make), but they
conveniently leave out the second half of the story.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...11_challenged/
But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised
interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning
"more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the
Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials
who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

To quote VP Cheney in that very article:

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in
terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Besides, the article makes no claim that Cheney claims a direct
involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Iraq, only that they had reason to
believe that Al Qaeda operatives met wtih Iraqi officials.

What do I win?

A nice second-place trophy. It was a two-man race though.

Mark "would you prefer a cigar?" Hickey