From Tuesday's debate between Vice President Cheney and Senator John Edwards:
Mr. Edwards accused the Vice President of having justified the invasion of Iraq by saying a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Mr. Cheney declared: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." (NYT, 10/6/04)
You might want to read that again: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But . . . .
In the [same] debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having "an established relationship with al Qaeda" and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about "a 10-year relationship" in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several "high-level contacts" over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity. (WP, 10/6/04)
Which is it, Mr. Cheney? Is there a connection, or isn't there?
On June 18, 2004, CNN published the following article:
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
And yet Cheney says that he has "not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Then what the fuck was he "suggesting"??? That Saddam and Osama just liked to have tea or play dolls or something?
Here are the facts: Saddam and Iraq never had any connection to al Qaeda or 9/11, and the Bush Administration has known that all along. However, when they wanted to invade Iraq (for unrelated neo-con reasons), it became convenient for Iraq to be tied to 9/11. So they lied and said that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected.
Now, during the election, it has become clear that Iraq and al Qaeda were never connected. So the administration lies again, now trying to deny that they ever said that Saddam and 9/11 were connected in the first place -- notwithstanding that that was at least half their reason for war.
Unfortunately for the Bush Administration (and especially for Cheney), there is a strong record of what they have said in the press (and on the internet).
The Bush administration's "spin" on Iraq is circling the drain. For example, if you ask them why we invaded Iraq, they'll say that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the Middle East, America, and Isreal.
If you point out that Saddam did not in fact have any WMDs since at least 1991, they'll say, well, then he was harboring terrorists and helping al Qaeda.
If you point out that Saddam actually had no connection to al Qaeda and that Osama in fact hated the Iraqi regime because it was secular, they'll say, well, then Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the Middle East and . . . . .
Talk about a "flip flop."
And this is no ordinary flip flop. This one has already cost over 1,000 American lives, some $200 billion of your tax dollars, and America's hard-earned international reputation as the leader of the modern free world -- a reputation that took World War II and most of the last century to build.
The powers that be in the Bush administration are "neo-con" radicals. They are "true believers." They believe that their vision of the world and America's place in it is the only viable one, and they have spent the last four years trying to prove it. They have failed, miserably. Let's not give them another four years to continue their failed experiments on us and the rest of the world.
(Thanks to bushwatch.net for the above from the debate.)