Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertion today that al-Qaeda had links to Iraq despite the fact that the US Defense Department recently released a report citing more evidence that the Iraq's prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group. Cheney stated that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the US invasion of Iraq and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda.
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Lush Rumball during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
Oh, please. Where is Cheney's evidence? Are the American people going to indict the entire government for lying before this corrupt administration finally ends?
Cited story.
- Log in to post comments
We are talking about Zarqawi, right, and not Snowball the pig? I'm not clear on this point.
Proposal: Let's send Cheney to Iraq to dig up the evidence that would prove his charges. Six months, on the ground, traveling throughout the country personally interviewing people who may be able to back up his version -- or not.
Slightly off topic (on Gonzo instead), and you'll probably hear more over there anyway, but the noose is tightening.
As far as Cheney is concerned, I guess he's just redefining Al-Qaeda to suit his purposes.
Bob
I'm afraid that people really didn't hear what Cheney said and what he didn't say:
What Cheney emphasized was where Zarqawi was - in Iraq. This was true. What he didn't do is make any accusation that Zarqawi was in Iraq under Saddam's protection. He wasn't - Zarqawi was in a Kurdish area that Saddam couldn't control and the US military knew where he was in early '03. So Zarqawi was a kind of tool to get the US involved - Look, Zarqawi is al-Qaeda and he's in Iraq, so there must be some connection. We'd better invade was the thought that the neocons didn't say, but hoped that the connection would be assumed, and they were right, as polls showed in '03. This implication that suckered so many then is still being made now - and Cheney and the others aren't telling a lie. Many people are still making the assumption that Zarqawi and Saddam were connected, although that is not being implicitly said.
The real criminal negligence in the Zarqawi situation was that many in the US military & CIA knew exactly where he was located when the invasion occurred, and for whatever reason, his base was not attacked. How many lives of Americans were lost due to that negligence. Even more important, Zarqawi was behind many of the early anti-Shiite bombings, including the mosque in Samarra which has now escalated into the civil war. So we know where the major fault lies in allowing sectarian violence to expand into the current mess.
I don't know why taking an oath will make any difference. This guy invented the idea of a lying politician. He can put his hand on a bible, what does that matter? He is the Antichist.
But Mista' Cynic, them Kurds is on ourn side! Fightin' the War on Terra, agains' Saddam!
War on Terra?! Does that mean they're aliens?!