dick cheney denied having ever said that there was a connection between 911 and iraq, in response to a charge made by john edwards.
WRONG!
the associted press reported that he stated in 2003 that if efforts to establish democracy in iraq succeeded, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, bust most especially on 9/11".
he also said something similar this year on "meet the press."
Hmmm. I don't see the words Iraq had a connection to 9-11 in there. Terrorists HAVE had us under assault for many years. And yes, most especially on 9-11. And it does seem to be a pretty god geographic location for terrorists. Reachin' aren't we? But speaking of the AP;
When the contents of the 911 Commission report came out, the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what the problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.
CNN is no better than AP. CNN Bill Hemmer started a news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the 9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.
The writers and the editors know that Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include that bogus "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant. The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work. This is why people say Bush is a liar. They LIE! LOL. I keep asking for a lie told by Bush, but so far...no takers. Just one??? C'mon.
By the way
SADDAM HAD WMD AND TIES TO AL-QAEDA --- DEAL WITH IT.
One of the Democrats' and The French Poodle's favorite ploys is to harp on is that Saddam had no connection to Al-Qaeda and no weapons of mass destruction. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the left continues to advance the lie. Well, now comes even more evidence of Saddam's ties to terrorism and his weapons of mass destruction.
Iraqi intelligence documents taken by U.S. forces show a number of efforts by Saddam's government to work with Al-Qaeda, along with other terrorists. The documents also show that Saddam had mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction. Read that again. By the way, some of those weapons, artillery shells with sarin gas, have already been found. You did know that, didn't you?
The papers also show that Iraq trained terrorists, along with orders by Saddam to attack Americans in Somalia. Remember that? The particular memo in question was written 9 months before the Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu, And if that weren't enough, the documents include lists of Saddam's terrorist buddies that he worked with, including al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri. The former is still in Iraq, and is responsible for beheading a number of Americans. The latter's voice is believed to be heard on the latest tape broadcast on Al-Jazeera (where else) calling for attacks on Americans everywhere.
No matter how much evidence comes to light that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and that Iraq was a terrorist state, the Bush-hating media and Islamic terrorist apologists will never concede any justification for the war in Iraq. Why?
Because it would help Bush and hurt Kerry...why else?
10-06-2004 05:45 PM
