Cheney claims Al-Qaeda linked to Saddam

[Supreme_Warlord]

From here

Tuesday June 15, 2004 4:31 PM

By MIKE SCHNEIDER

Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had ``long-established ties'' with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president on Monday offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. ``He had long established ties with al Qaida.''

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the decision by Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., countered that the Bush administration had ``a sorry record in the war on terror.'' Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry's presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney's speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.

Some people just don't know when to quit.

[BoredShirtless]

Dick Cheney is a very sick man.

[Montcalm]

Can someone refresh my memory,i thought Saddam was targeted by Al-Quaeda,and if so does Dick knows or was he shoving his fingers in his ears and saying LALALALALALA i don't hear you

[Xenophobe3691]

Yeah, Saddam and Bin-Laden met one or two times. They hated each other so much that they couldn't even cement an alliance against America. Way to go, Dick.

[Supreme_Warlord]

Dick Cheney is a very sick man.

Does anyone know if there is a medical term for the illness where the sufferer is in denial of reality?

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah, Saddam and Bin-Laden met one or two times. They hated each other so much that they couldn't even cement an alliance against America. Way to go, Dick.

But... but... they met! That means they must have been in cohoots in TERROR, barring minor details like them being so ideologically and personally opposed that they want to kill each other about as much as they want to kill us. Clearly that justifies the War in Iraq, because it's clear that it was vengence for 9/11!

[Gil Hamilton]

Does anyone know if there is a medical term for the illness where the sufferer is in denial of reality?

Yes, there are plenty, but Dick Cheney suffers from Doesn't-Know-How-To-Keep-His-Trap-Shut-itis.

[Mayabird]

It doesn't really matter how much logic we throw into this. Cheney & Co. will still be spouting bullshit, and if I had money I'd bet it all that millions of Americans will continue to believe whatever bullshit they say no matter how obviously false their statements are.

It's just like when Anthrax Coulter tried to link feminists and pro-choice activists to terrorism (it was her, wasn't it? She was saying that they are "against life" and so are terrorists) and then linked John Kerry to feminists, thus making him a supporter of terrorism. Stupid, but so is the American public, and they're the ones who are going to be voting this November.

[Durandal]

Isn't the administration trying to distance itself from the wild and ridiculous claims it made about Saddam's al Qaida links before the war?

[HemlockGrey]

Ok, so can someone tell me why, after all the lies and unsubstantiated claims, Bush has not plummeted in the polls?

[Son of the Suns]

Ok, so can someone tell me why, after all the lies and unsubstantiated claims, Bush has not plummeted in the polls?

He has, but the plumit has stopped and now he's gaining ground. Mostly, I think, becuase people are so tired of hearing about the war on terror that they don't care even about placing blame anymore.

[Elfdart]

Cheney missed his true calling. He would have made a first-rate proctologist since he has a knack for pulling things out of his ass.

This is clearly pre-emptive bullshit. They are already holding advance showings for Michael Moore's new movie, which is getting raves. The movie points out substantial links between the Bushes and the Bin Landens -and not the "I met him at a party twenty years ago."- song and dance. Cheney is simply trying to muddy the waters.

A few months ago, when people were comparing Bush's desertion from REMF duty in the National Guard to John Kerry's brave service in Vietnam, the right-wing slime machine kicked into gear.

They accused Kerry of "leaving early" (If you're wounded three times, you got to go home.), they doctored photos to make it look like Kerry and Jane Fonda were best friends, they rolled out convicted felons like Ted Sampley and Charles Colson to try to smear the Senator. They started the whole campaign of lies, innuendo and stupidity about what Kerry did with his medals and ribbons.

The whole thing was calculated to get cretinous newscasters and the rubes who listen to or watch their shows to say "Gee, there are questions about Bush's war record, and also questions about Kerry's."

This bullshit is in the same vein. "Bush has connections to Bin Laden, Saddam did, too. Don't you remember 9-11, you godless, race-mixing, devil-worshipping, dope-smoking, communist fag?"

They're trying to change the subject. Don't let these charlatans and shysters get away with it.

[Axis Kast]

And John Kerry’s service in Vietnam half a lifetime ago tells us what, exactly? That he’s an honorable man? Plenty of people on his side of the partisan line dodged Vietnam. Clinton was among them. His presidency was punctuated by man controversies, but never would I say the nation suffered because he didn’t don a flak jacket.

About the most substantial argument one can make is that John Kerry “knows war.” But that’s also misleading; his voting record on military spending and research-and-development speak of irresponsibility. Despite his purple harts and silver star, John Kerry voted against the procurement proposals for about a dozen major weapons systems that took us to the end of the Cold War. Including equipment meant to replace items at times nearly fifty years old.

As for Moore’s new movie, I’d very interested to see what tortured connections he attempts to set up. After all, we know what a paragon of editing “Bowling for Columbine” turned out to be.

[Elfdart]

Count on Axis Kast to miss the forest for the trees.

Bush made his desertion an issue when (a) his partisans never missed a chance bust Clinton's balls for ducking the war (b) he decided to prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a uniform he didn't have the testicular fortitude to wear when it mattered (c) his partisans accused decorated veterans of cowardice and/ or disloyalty (d) he lied about it repeatedly.

There's a HUGE difference between someone like Clinton or Muhammad Ali who didn't want anyone to go to that war, and chickenhawks like Dubya, Rush Windbag and Dick "I had other priorities." Cheney -all of whom thought the war was swell as long as someone else did the fighting.

Bush and his stooges were obviously scared shitless of comparisons between Kerry and Bush, which is why they scraped the bottom of the sewer to drag out scumbags like Sampley and Colson to try to smear him. Do you think Bush's supporters doctored the Kerry/ Fonda photo just for a laugh?

As for the weapons votes, most of the "no" votes were purely procedural, as Republican Senator Hegel said. Most of the weapons Kerry actually opposed were also opposed by Bush Sr and then-Defense Secretary Cheney. That dog won't hunt, Mr. Kast.

[JME2]

From here

Tuesday June 15, 2004 4:31 PM

By MIKE SCHNEIDER

Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had ``long-established ties'' with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president on Monday offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. ``He had long established ties with al Qaida.''

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the decision by Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., countered that the Bush administration had ``a sorry record in the war on terror.'' Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry's presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney's speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.

Some people just don't know when to quit.

More bull-shit from the horse's ass.

[Axis Kast]

Count on Axis Kast to miss the forest for the trees.

Bush made his desertion an issue when (a) his partisans never missed a chance bust Clinton's balls for ducking the war (b) he decided to prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a uniform he didn't have the testicular fortitude to wear when it mattered (c) his partisans accused decorated veterans of cowardice and/ or disloyalty (d) he lied about it repeatedly.

There's a HUGE difference between someone like Clinton or Muhammad Ali who didn't want anyone to go to that war, and chickenhawks like Dubya, Rush Windbag and Dick "I had other priorities." Cheney -all of whom thought the war was swell as long as someone else did the fighting.

Bush and his stooges were obviously scared shitless of comparisons between Kerry and Bush, which is why they scraped the bottom of the sewer to drag out scumbags like Sampley and Colson to try to smear him. Do you think Bush's supporters doctored the Kerry/ Fonda photo just for a laugh?

As for the weapons votes, most of the "no" votes were purely procedural, as Republican Senator Hegel said. Most of the weapons Kerry actually opposed were also opposed by Bush Sr and then-Defense Secretary Cheney. That dog won't hunt, Mr. Kast.

And count on you to overlook the part where I say that I don't give a flying fuck what Bush did during the Vietnam War, since I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever on how he will make policy. I simply don't care about the distinct you're trying to make. Kerry's time in a gun boat and George's time in the Air National Guard don't make them any more or less decent politicans, in my eyes.

As for the votes, a "no" is still a "no," and enough dissention means a canned program.

Now, for your next post, I'd like to see some substantiation and specifics not only about the positions you claim Bush, Sr. and Dick Cheney took, butr also about the Fonda/Kerry photograph, since as far as I know, it wasn't an official effort by anybody involved with Bush.

[BoredShirtless]

Now, for your next post, I'd like to see some substantiation and specifics not only about the positions you claim Bush, Sr. and Dick Cheney took,

Play in traffic.

[Vympel]

No mindless flames, BoredShirtless.

[BoredShirtless]

Why not, Vympel? He's been presented with stacks of evidence he just asked for again and again and again. If he refuses to acknowledge, then it's my right to flame him for being a stupid piece of shit.

[Vympel]

Why not, Vympel? He's been presented with stacks of evidence he just asked for again and again and again. If he refuses to acknowledge, then it's my right to flame him for being a stupid piece of shit.

Of course it is, but I'd prefer if you say why while you're doing it- take for example this classic republican load of bollocks that he took straight from the great right-wing echo chamber:

his voting record on military spending and research-and-development speak of irresponsibility. Despite his purple harts and silver star, John Kerry voted against the procurement proposals for about a dozen major weapons systems that took us to the end of the Cold War. Including equipment meant to replace items at times nearly fifty years old.

Classic right wing spin. Just classic:

Almost all of them come from Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. That was the FY91 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically. But see, in right-wing bullshit land, voting against an entire bill is actually a vote against specific weapons systems.

Slate put it best:

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Kerry's actual defense voting record is actually quite pedestrian and uncontroversial, by any reasonable standard. Kerry *was* big on cutting other weapons programs- before he entered the Senate. He never followed through on those ideas however, moderating his position quite quickly. That speaks more to his position on defense than virtually a single vote cast against an entire bloated bill (a bill that Dick Cheney himself lambasted the Congress over).

Kerry has voted against entire appropriations bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996. Of the other 16 years of his 19 year tenure, he has voted for them.

(not to mention that Kast's "a no is a no" is complete bullshit- he's basically implying that you should vote for whatever cockamamie pork laden load of rubbish if there's a weapon somewhere in there that might get cancelled if everyone votes against it, rather than the bill ... oh ... i dont know .... gets replaced by a better one maybe ....)

See, then you say go play in traffic.

[BoredShirtless]

My friend, don't let anybody accuse you of not having enough patience.

[Aaron]

And count on you to overlook the part where I say that I don't give a flying fuck what Bush did during the Vietnam War, since I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever on how he will make policy. I simply don't care about the distinct you're trying to make. Kerry's time in a gun boat and George's time in the Air National Guard don't make them any more or less decent politicans, in my eyes.

I don't usually agree with Axis on anything so when I do it should be noted. In this instance he's right. Their war record doesn't matter, if they had been Joint Chief of Staff then it would matter. But at the level they were at it won't make any difference that they fought or didn't. Thats not to say that I don't think that Bush was a coward for doding Vietnam, but it has no bearing on how he runs the country. Although it could be argued that if he had fought then he would have an idea what war is like and may not have rushed into Iraq.

There you go Axis, support from an unexpected quarter.

[Vympel]

As to the Vietnam War issue, in a practical sense it doesn't really matter, though from it alone I can say I bet Kerry has more intestinal fortitude than Bush ever will.

[Elfdart]

The point I was making is that Bush and his supporters are obviously scared shitless about comparisons between Dubya's record and Kerry's. That's the reason for the hysterical attacks on Kerry.

Is Sampley an actual operative of the Bush campaign? While there's no concrete proof, I find it more than coincidental that this scumbag slithers out of his hole when Bush is losing to a war hero. In 2000, Sampley accused John McCain of treason, of being a Vietnamese spy and of betraying his fellow POWs. It's also pretty obvious where the racist "push-polling" in South Carolina came from.

Vympel, Vympel, Vympel, don't you realize that when Kerry voted against those three defense budget it was because he didn't want this country to have any defense whatsoever?

[GySgt. Hartman]

But... FoxNews always said they were linked...
There was a short note on the German news Tagesschau saying that the senate committee found that

"there are no "reliable facts(?)" that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein co-operated with Al Quaeda on the [9/11] attacks" [...]

(Es gebe keine "glaubwürdigen Belege", dass die irakische Regierung unter Saddam Hussein mit Al Kaida bei den Anschlägen zusammengearbeitet habe)

and that "no cooperation seems to have existed"
(translation mine)

I haven't been able to find anything on US news yet.