Thanks to Drudge this time (finally)
Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards.
This is the kind of smear & crap that the Republicans try to pull. And the worst is, people believe Cheney when he says stuff like this. When’s it going to stop???
Sometime you can acknowledge someone without really meeting them. Chances are that Edwards wasn’t very memorable.
Chances are that Edwards wasn't very memorable.
Nevertheless, he shouldn't say it unless he knows it to be true. It was done to make a statement about Edwards which probably was false in itself. When Cheney goes up to the Hill on Tuesday, he probably meets w/ Republicans mostly, yet he didn't tell us that. Spin & nothing but spin I say.
Nevertheless, he shouldn't say it unless he knows it to be true. It was done to make a statement about Edwards which probably was false in itself. When Cheney goes up to the Hill on Tuesday, he probably meets w/ Republicans mostly, yet he didn't tell us that. Spin & nothing but spin I say.
Maybe all of us shouldn’t say things unless we know them to be true…
Dahhhh - you figure, huh?
The articles just keep coming - Cheney rewriting history.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda. But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda—a claim that is now more in question than ever—the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night’s debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons. When Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the administration’s case last year before the United Nations Security Council, for example, he said nothing about Iraq being cited by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The claim would have been especially unimpressive to a fellow member of the Security Council, the ambassador from Syria, whose country has been on the same list for years, as well as five other General Assembly members that are also on the list. Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda. But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda—a claim that is now more in question than ever—the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night’s debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons. When Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the administration’s case last year before the United Nations Security Council, for example, he said nothing about Iraq being cited by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The claim would have been especially unimpressive to a fellow member of the Security Council, the ambassador from Syria, whose country has been on the same list for years, as well as five other General Assembly members that are also on the list. |
And the stuff that Cheney said about Zarqawi also have not been substantiated to any degree:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Cheney said last night that Zarqawi, who once ran a terror camp in Afghanistan with loose links to Al Qaeda, had “migrated to Baghdad” after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and “set up shop” there, overseeing a “poisons facility” at Kurmal, in northern Iraq. In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime. “The information on that is not clear,” said one U.S. official familiar with the report. “It’s still being worked.” Cheney also left out the fact that the alleged poisons facility that Zarqawi allegedly supervised was in a part of northern Iraq not controlled by Saddam’s government. |
What upsets me the most is that if a Democrat was doing this, the right-wing would be calling them on every account. It would be on every right-wing radio station & extremist web site out there.
No surprise, Cheney is a lying sack of poop, and always has been.
Hey, d’ya think saying that sort of thing will get the FBI to my house?
Bush / Satan '04! 