Cheney Lied... Or Maybe He Didn't
Here's a classic example of why you have to read the source documents. Raw Story and 9-11 Truth News both run with misleading headlines:
Declassified document contradicts Cheney’s claim of Iraqi connection to 9/11
Dick Cheney Lied About Iraq Connection To 9/11 Attacks
A document declassified this week by the National Security Archive reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delivered a briefing to the Bush administration which directly contradicts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta visited an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague.
The document (PDF), dated Dec. 1, 2001 and delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”
Despite this briefing, just days later on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told the late Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, that the meeting in Prague had been “pretty well confirmed.”
What are they both leaving out of their accounts that appears in the source document (PDF)?
That Atta did in fact travel to Prague on June 2, 2000, two days after he did not travel there. Unfortunately, the document in question, prepared by the CIA, is heavily redacted and thus I cannot tell if this completely rules out the possibility of Atta meeting with the Iraqi intelligence agent or not. It is apparent that at some point in time, quite possibly after Cheney's interview with Tim Russert, the administration decided that the meeting had not taken place. It is not apparent that was the case in December of 2001.
Update: And here's another example of why you have to read carefully:
Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.(Italics added for emphasis).
The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him.
Still, the drone program began in September 2000. One drone swiftly twice observed an individual “most likely to have been Bin Laden.” But since the CIA only had permission to use the drones for intelligence gathering, it had no way to act on its findings.
So they had him in his crosshairs shortly after September 2000? But was Bush the president then? No, of course not, Bill Clinton was the president. The writer gets around this problem by implying that they could have had bin Laden in its crosshairs again later, and taken him out, if only Bush had funded it. But... if you read the article carefully, it becomes apparent that the funding issue predated the Bush administration as well:
“Budget concerns … CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level,” an April 2000 document reads. “Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections.” In addition, the Air Force told the CIA that if it lost a drone, the CIA would have to pay for it, which made the agency more reluctant to use the technology.
April 2000. Not under Bush's watch.
posted by Pat @ 12:31 PM
75 comments
75 Comments:
Hilariously delusional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Dick Cheney Lied About Iraq Connection To 9/11 Attacks."
Pat, of course Dick Cheney lied about Iraq's connection to 9/11. He's a politician you silly gurl.
Now that I've established my intellectual superiority by the force of my impeccable logic and, of course, citing myself as an authority, let's get the the crux of the biscuit: Your erroneous belief that the US government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is supported by the complete lack of evidence for the presence of modified attack baboons, nanothermite and silent explosives at ground zero is incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable. We have the US government's patent applications for modified attack baboons, nanothermite and silent explosives. INSIDE JOB! The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the one and only Truth -- which I alone possess -- exposes your crippled epistemology.
Why do youse gurls refuse to learn?
My motto:
The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ah yes! My fellow spammer, king abdaoe. Remember brother, we in the spamming community must stick together. Let's unionize and demand our fair share of the bandwidth.
Down with Internet protocol! Up with fouling the Internet with insane prattle!
Spammers untie! (Oooops, my dyslexia is flaring up again).
My motto:
The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You expect us to believe that Bush's hands were tied because getting bin Laden was not in Clinton's budget? Bush couldn't find a few million here or there? Only counsel for Bush's defense would even think of making such a silly claim--and they'd soon abandon it in favor of the far more credible "imbecile defense".
Ah yes, the "imbecile defense"!
My parents used the "imbecile defense" when Gunn High School tried to have me expelled for soliciting the boys to shave their balls.
And you're right, Pat's erroneous belief that Clinton's demand to shave Bush's balls before leaving the Oval Office, which required Clinton to tie Bush's hands, reveals Clinton's nefarious role in the US government's false flag attack on 9/11. Pat's refusal to acknowledge my intellectual superiority and the unparallelled kewlness of my insane world-view exposes his crippled epistemology.
Why do these gurls refuse to learn?
My motto:
The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
So much easier to blather nonsense you can pretend is funny than it is to try to make sense, isn't it?
Since when has our commentary ever made sense?
Silly gurl.
My motto:
The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pat, are you aware that your crippled epistemology is eligible to collect benefits from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program? In fact, I've leveraged my alter ego Brian Good's crippled epistemology and increased my income by $800 per month.
As they say, life is a shit sandwich, so the more bread you have the thinner you can spread the shit.
Is America great, or what?
Internet--the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
Do we really need yet another troll here? Granted, this one is on "our side" but is it really neccessary?
He's not on your side. He makes you look really, really, dumb.
Not half as dumb as you made your parents look when, in the spring of 1964, you tried to shave the balls of every boy in Gunn High's freshman class.
Silly gurl.
Internet--the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
I kind of agree with Brian on this one... We have enough trolls, really. Brian included.
So Pat, is it really your thesis that Bush wanted to stop bin Laden but Clinton wouldn't let him?
Pat, is it really your thesis that Clinton demanded to tie Bush's hands and shave his balls as a condition for leaving the oval office?
Silly gurl.
Internet--the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
Don't you have an appointment to go kill Kenny or something?
This comment has been removed by the author.
scum.bag brays, "...So Pat, is it really your thesis that Bush wanted to stop bin Laden but Clinton wouldn't let him?"
Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.
Pat never claimed that Clinton prevented Bush from doing anything. He's arguing that the timeline for the events does not support the contentions made by Raw Story and 9/11 Troof News.
Did you bother to read Pat's OP, numb-nuts?
Oh, that's right! You don't give a damn about the content of the OP. You're a troll. Thus your mission is to conjure up fallacious arguments, which you use to hijack the thread.
Asshole.
UtterFail, yes, I read the OP, I read the underlying document, and it seems that unlike you I read to the bottom of the OP where Pat makes much of funding shortages under Clinton that Pat seems to believe prevented Bush from doing anything about Osama.
"...So Pat, is it really your thesis that Bush wanted to stop bin Laden but Clinton wouldn't let him?" -- scum.bag, 21 June, 2012 11:44
"...and it seems that unlike you I read to the bottom of the OP where Pat makes much of funding shortages under Clinton that Pat seems to believe prevented Bush from doing anything about Osama." -- scum.bag, 21 June, 2012 13:50.
Contradicting yourself again, troll?
Keep it up, goat fucker. Toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
You're not here to "debate." You're here for one reason and one reason only: To end the debate.
Asshole.
NOTE:
The US fiscal year begins on 1 October of the previous calendar year and ends on 30 September of the next year.
E.g., the United States government fiscal year for 2001 (i.e., "FY 2001") is as follows:
1st quarter: 1 October 2000 – 31 December 2000
2nd quarter: 1 January 2001 – 31 March 2001
3rd quarter: 1 April 2001 – 30 June 2001
4th quarter: 1 July 2001 – 30 September 2001
Thus, 11 September 2001 fell in the fourth quarter of FY 2001. FY2001 WAS CLINTON'S BUDGET.
You're an idiot, scum.bag.
Now toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
Asshole.
Gutterball, your erroneous belief that 9/11/2001 fell on a date before September 30, 2001 is incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable.
Now that I've established my intellectual superiority by the force of my impeccable logic and, of course, citing myself as an authority, I must say that your refusal to acknowledge my intellectual superiority and the unparallelled kewlness of my insane world-view exposes your crippled epistemology.
Why do youse refuse to learn?
Internet--the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
You expect us to believe that Bush's hands were tied because getting bin Laden was not in Clinton's budget? Bush couldn't find a few million here or there? Only counsel for Bush's defense would even think of making such a silly claim--and they'd soon abandon it in favor of the far more credible "imbecile defense".
Brian, nobody cares about your incredulity. You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.
UtterFail, yes, I read the OP, I read the underlying document, and it seems that unlike you I read to the bottom of the OP where Pat makes much of funding shortages under Clinton that Pat seems to believe prevented Bush from doing anything about Osama.
Brian, just because you read something doesn't mean you understood it. You lack the mental capacity to mop floors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, Pat is clearly arguing that Clinton's budget tied Bush's hands when it came to dealing with al Qaeda. I am sorry, but not surprised, that you lack the analytical skills to recognize that.
Trying to start the merry-go-round up again, scum.bag?
I explained why his hands were tied at time-stamp 21 June, 2012 14:41, idiot. Clearly, you have no clue how your own government works.
Now toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
Asshole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You "explained" that Bush's hands were tied by Clinton's budget. An absurd insinuation that only counsel for the defense would even consider--and then discard for the more plausible "incompetence" defense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The budget is LAW--you droolin' moron.
The president can't retroactively change the previous administrations' budget.
Now argue that 9/11 occurred on a date after 30 September 2001, jackass.
Or better yet, toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
Asshole.
Bush doesn't have to change the budget, moron. You are clutching at straws.
I'm not "clutching at straws" at all, jackass.
FACT: FY2001 ended on 30 September 2001, which means that Bush's budget wouldn't be enacted into law until 1 October 2001.
FACT: Bush had no power or reason to modify the previous administrations' lawfully enacted budget.
Furthermore, you completely missed the point of Pat's OP, jackass. Pat argued that the timeline for the events does not support the contentions made by Raw Story and 9/11 Troof News. And he's absolutely right.
You're just trying to draw attention away from the complete failure of the 9/11 Truth movement's latest attempt to hoodwink their readers. You don't want that failure to be discussed, so you're desperately trying to hijack the thread and change the subject.
Now toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
Asshole.
Bush had no reason to modify? Not Clinton's warnings about al Qaeda? Not Clarke's warnings about al Qaeda? Not warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices and the CIA?
Thanks for exposing your agenda as a total BushBot, ButtGale. I suspected it all along. Your desperation only shows that the forces of truth and light are winning.
scum.bag lies, "...Bush had no reason to modify? Not Clinton's warnings about al Qaeda? Not Clarke's warnings about al Qaeda? Not warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices and the CIA?"
Based on what, your word? Your word isn't worth a hill of beans, jackass. Your argument, moreover, is irrelevant.
Get it through your thick skull: He had no power to modify the previous administrations' lawfully enacted budget, jackass. And you can't produce the law that allows him to modify the previous administration's budget. Thus, you're blowin' smoke up our collective ass--you pervert.
Now, either produce the law that allows the president to modify the previous administration's budget, or STFU, scum.bag.
Now change the subject or toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
Asshole.
Power to modify is an absurd red herring. You are resorting to nonsense. Thanks for the blatant melt-down, BushBot!
scum.bag brays, "...Power to modify is an absurd red herring. You are resorting to nonsense."
Based on what? Your word? Your word isn't worth a hill of beans.
Prove it.
Or better yet, toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread.
Asshole.
Poor goat fucker, he's trying to draw attention away from the complete failure of the 9/11 Truth movement's latest attempt to hoodwink their readers. He doesn't want that failure to be discussed, so he's desperately trying to hijack the thread and change the subject.
Pathetic.
Your are arguing that Clinton's budget tied Bush's hands so he could not fight al Qaeda.
Only a psychotic would make that argument. Thanks for revealing that you have always been a total waste of time.
As predicted, you can't substantiate a word of your idiotic argument. FACT: You can't produce the law that you allege Bush should have relied on to modify the previous administrations' lawfully enacted budget. In other words, you're blowin' smoke up our collective ass. Why does that outcome fail to surprise me?
All you have are fallacious arguments that are designed solely to hijack the thread.
Pathetic.
I don't need to produce anything. You need to substantiate your absurd claim that Clinton's budget tied Bush's hands.
Thanks for revealing that you've been nothing but a BushBot all along.
"...You need to substantiate your absurd claim that Clinton's budget tied Bush's hands."
Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.
I never said that anything or anyone "tied Bush's hands." Those are your words, jackass. I said that Bush had no power to modify the previous administrations' lawfully enacted budget--which is the REAL context of the statement you quote mined from Pat's OP.
Are you still trying to assert that the president has the power to change laws retroactively, jackass? Once again, we see that you couldn't pass an examination in a high school-level civics.
So when do you plan to produce the law that you allege Bush should have relied on to modify the previous administrations' lawfully enacted budget?
Yeah, I know, when Hell freezes over. Right, you thread hijacking troll?
Now toss out another fallacious argument until you succeed in hijacking the thread, butt-plug.
So Brian, now you're arguing that Bush should have gotten bin Laden? That's funny, because last spring, you were crying hysterically about poor Osama bin Laden and how nobody read him his Miranda rights when the SEALs found him in that compound in Abottobad.
Plus, why would you want Bush to get bin Laden anyway? You believe in controlled demolition ordered by the Bush administration, remember?
This comment has been removed by the author.
You sillies. ButtGale, now you're just quibbling about semantics in an effort to defend your absurd claims. So you're saying Clinton's budget required Bush to change laws retroactively to go after bin Laden, that this did not "tie Bush's hands", but this explained Bush's non-action on al Qaeda.
Ian, I'm not saying Bush had to "get" bin Laden, I'm saying Bush did absolutely nothing to interfere with the 9/11 attacks even though there were warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA.
I'm sure I was not crying hysterically about Miranda rights. The fact has come out now that Obama ordered that Osama be killed rather than captured alive--which seems kind of strange when you consider that questioning Osama might yield valuable intelligence.
Ian, I'm not saying Bush had to "get" bin Laden, I'm saying Bush did absolutely nothing to interfere with the 9/11 attacks even though there were warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA.
So Bush isn't responsible for 9/11? So what about all the dumbspam you posted about invisible, silent explosives and magic spray-on nanothermite? Did you just post that because you want us to think you're a delusional liar?
I'm sure I was not crying hysterically about Miranda rights. The fact has come out now that Obama ordered that Osama be killed rather than captured alive--which seems kind of strange when you consider that questioning Osama might yield valuable intelligence.
Nobody cares. I'm just glad that you've finally accepted the reality of what happened on 9/11. I assume there will be no more babbling about "essential mysteries" or magic thermite or silent, invisible explosives or the like.
Ian, you can't possibly be dumb enough to believe your own nonsense.
Ian, you can't possibly be dumb enough to believe your own nonsense.
My, such squealing!
Anyway, it's a Friday night, and I'm confident that you will spend another lonely weekend babbling about magic thermite elves on this blog, as you have done every weekend for the last 3.5 years. Life must be tough when you have no job, no friends, and have been banned from every blog and message board except for this one.
"“Budget concerns … CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level,” an April 2000 document reads. “Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections.” In addition, the Air Force told the CIA that if it lost a drone, the CIA would have to pay for it, which made the agency more reluctant to use the technology."
What?
Inter-Agency squabbling? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say.
" The writer gets around this problem by implying that they could have had bin Laden in its crosshairs again later, and taken him out, if only Bush had funded it. But... if you read the article carefully, it becomes apparent that the funding issue predated the Bush administration as well..."
Pat, do you expect me to believe Bush didn't have access to a time machine? He probably killed Kennedy too.
Thanks for proving my point. You're making the irrational claim that Clinton prevented Bush from doing anything about bin Laden.
Thanks for proving my point. You're making the irrational claim that Clinton prevented Bush from doing anything about bin Laden.
We'd better listen to him, guys. He's a former White House chief of staff.
Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who believes in invisible widows. He also uses big-boy words like "irrational" even though he has no idea what they mean.
Hey Brian, you still haven't answered my question about whether the widows will have their questions answered this weekend. The widows have been looking for answers for over a decade now, and you don't care one bit whether those questions get answered this weekend. Why do you revel in the widows' pain? What's wrong with you?
Ian, smart people recognize that the ad hominem is a logical fallacy normally employed by those who have not got a rational argument.
Awesome Blog i have never seen this much blog keep it on.
In ‘01, Cheney said this on MTP:
CHENEY: It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.
on 6/19/04 CNBC, he said:
GLORIA BORGER, TV SHOW HOST: You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”
CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
CHENEY: I never said that.
BORGER: I think that is…
CHENEY: Absolutely not.
Nah... he never lied.
Ian, smart people recognize that the ad hominem is a logical fallacy normally employed by those who have not got a rational argument.
Poor Brian. He's delusional enough to think that there's a rational argument going on.
Brian, nobody is going to rationally argue against your delusions about controlled demolition. That's over with. We're just here to mock you now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, for you to infer from my declaration that you have no rational argument that I am mistaking your argument for a rational one only shows your intellectual incompetence. You're just playing with words.
Lying declarations of victory are another irrational argument much favored by those, like you, who have no rational argument.
Ian, for you to infer from my declaration that you have no rational argument that I am mistaking your argument for a rational one only shows your intellectual incompetence. You're just playing with words.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Brian Good is an unemployed janitor!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Lying declarations of victory are another irrational argument much favored by those, like you, who have no rational argument.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Well, I supposed I shouldn't declare victory just yet. It's possible that Brian will get his "meatball on a fork" model published tonight, or that the "widows" will have their "questions" answered tonight. Yes, maybe the years and years Brian has spent posting spam all over the internet will finally pay off.
Of course, if that doesn't happen, I'll be here tomorrow, laughing at Brian's hideous haircut and the fact that he lives with his parents because he has no job.
Also, Brian, in the last thread, you claimed you didn't know who was piloting the planes when they hit the WTC.
There's this amazing tool called "Google" that will allow you to find out such things. Maybe if you knew how to use it, you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11.
Ian, maybe if you didn't believe everything you found on google, you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11.
Ian, maybe if you didn't believe everything you found on google, you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11.
What makes you think I believe everything I find on Google? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?
See, Brian, because I'm a normal person with a functioning mind, I can use reason and evidence to accept or reject things I find on Google. For example, Google told me that the Holocaust is a myth, that man-made climate change is a myth, that the moon landings were faked, that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and that the WTC towers were destroyed in a controlled demolition. However, I reject each of these propositions because the evidence for them is nonexistent, while the evidence against them is overwhelming.
You, unfortunately, are delusional liar and mentally ill unemployed janitor, and thus are incapable of thinking logically or weighing evidence. Thus, you babble about magic thermite elves destroying the WTC.
Ian, you're a liar.
And, as expected, Brian has been completely humiliated again, and all he can do is lamely repeat "liar" because he knows I've won.
Poor Brian. If only he'd seek the psychiatric care he needs.
Ian, your lies humiliate no one but yourself.
Ian, your lies humiliate no one but yourself.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he's been humiliated by someone half his age who has accomplished far more than he ever will (I got through more than one semester of college without failing out, for one) and he can't deal with it.
Brian, if you'd just admit that the widows will never have their questions answered, that there will never be new investigations, and that your "meatball on a fork" model will never be published in a journal of engineering, you'd probably be much happier with your life. You failed as a truther, but that's OK. All truthers failed. Just move on with your life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, new investigations are inevitable. The 9/11 Commissioners admitted that many questions remained unanswered, and NIST admitted that it could not explain the total collapse and pleaded that their computer capabilities were not up to the task of modeling the collapses.
Your belief that you are accomplished is given the lie by your irrationality and the fact that you waste your time lying on the internet. Any idiot can get an MBA. It's just a matter of time and money. It's nothing to brag about.
Poor Brian. He's squealing hysterically because he knows there will never be a new investigation, and it humiliates him, since he dedicated his worthless life to 9/11 truth insanity.
It also humiliates him that I'm smart and successful, while he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, if you're smart how come you write such dumb posts? Endless repetition of the same childish jokes is no indicator of intelligence in my experience.
New investigations are inevitable. As computer power increases, attempts at modeling the collapses will become a very popular study area for graduate students in engineering schools all over the world. It will be interesting to see how much they have to cheat to get symmetry, totality, pulverization of the concrete, and acceleration at nearly the rate of gravity.
Any idiot can get an MBA. Your belief that it's an accomplishment only further demonstrates your intellectual handicaps.
Post a Comment
<< Home