Dick Cheney:"So we've never made the case...that somehow OBL (sic) was directly involved in 9/11"

[CGowen]

...

Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden (sic) was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.



....

Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir.

Q Okay.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37e-oxmsSF0

[nebula]

1. Dead Eye Dick comes clean.

In a saner country, this stunning admission by the VP would be on the evening news.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. What stunning admission?

He made a mistake and corrected it.

[CGowen]

3. At least it shows his indifference n/t

[nebula]

5. Sure he did.

Always quick with the Cheney defense.

[Flatulo]

6. Some truther-seekers seem to really avoid the truth...

Geez, some people are clutching desperately at straws. Cheney did not 'admit' that OBL (sic) wasn't involved in 9/11. The guy mis-spoke, and then corrected himself.

> Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin
> Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not
> involved in September 11th?

> THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir.

> Q Okay.

> THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)

How on earth could anything be more crystal clear?

On edit - spelling

[nebula]

9. The interviewer is trying to cover for him

as the media has always done.

His laughter at the end is revealing.
Cheney made no mistake. It's all a big joke to him.

Nothing can be more clear.

[Flatulo]

11. Yeah, the entire media world, literally tens of thousands of journalists

are such staunch conservatives and Cheney lovers that absolutely not a single one of them will present this exchange as proof, proof I say, that Cheney knows that bin Laden had no hand in 9/11.

Simply amazing. I am without speech.

[nebula]

13. Let's try it again

Dead Eye never corrected himself. The interviewer did it for him.

And then he laughed about it. Why did he laugh? What's so funny about it?

[Echo In Light]

24. Journalists don't decide what gets covered: corporate owners/editors w/political ties do

[Flatulo]

25. And you think every single publisher in the world, without exception,

is in BuscCo's pocket? You believe there is not one publication on the planet that would be willing to publish an amazing 'confession'?

Do you really believe this?

I am incredulous.

[Echo In Light]

28. This isn't the first slip of the tongue. Whether it's a "confession" or not, unsure

However, yes, in the early 90s there were approx forty corporations controlling the media. Due to various anti-democratic "de-regulation" measures promoting corporate consolidation, there are now a mere five corps managing mainline media, making it much easier to simultaneously create an illusion of choice with numerous outlets under one corp parent, while in actuality simplifying efforts to streamline and unify the 'right' version of "reality" sold to the public mind.

[Flatulo]

31. So in a perfect world with a (per your beliefs) truly free media, what

would this headline be?

"Cheney Confesses to Complicity in 9/11 Attacks - Then Retracts it Three Seconds Later"?

Do you believe this to be an accurate reflection of what happened?

I guess we're not experiencing the same version of reality, you and I.

[Echo In Light]

34. To respond to your question: no

However, I attempted finding some common ground, and outlined very provable facts re the corporate media apparatus, yet you persist with the catty swipes/personal attacks ...and, I've decided that I'm done debating aspects of 9/11 with anyone who insists on that level of discourse. So ... later.

[SpiralHawk]

4. I wish the freepers would pick up on this from Dickie "Five Military Deferments" Cheney

But they prefer to ignore facts...

[Flatulo]

7. Pick up on what? What do you think happend in the OP?

Do you think Cheney 'admitted' that OBL had no involvement in 9/11?

Or do you think he mis-spoke and corrected himself, as the most basic interpretation of the english language proves?

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. Actually, he didn't 'correct himself', the questioner corrected him by suggestion..

It's like getting someone back on script or something...

It's like when little Billy goes of with Timmy, but told mom he went off with Johnny. Mom hears him talking about it at a later time and questions him because she heard him say "then Timmy and I went down to the creek and did some fishing..."

Mom: "Don't you mean when you and Johnny went to the creek and went fishing"?

Billy: "ummm.. yes mom, that's what I meant, me & Johnny. Thanks for correcting me"...

Does mom ever question whether Billy really went off with Timmy instead of Johnny, or does she just write it off as being that he "mis-spoke"?

Think about it...

[Flatulo]

10. So let me make sure I understand this perfectly -

You believe that Cheney basically admitted that OBL had nothing to do with 9/11. One of the masterminds of the whole nefarious plot forgot for a moment that he was not supposed to admit that he did it? And then only remembered the 'official' script when prompted by a confederate in the media.

And the entire MSM is avoiding this because they love Cheney so much?

You completely reject the possibility that he mis-spoke?

How would you feel if the man's testimony in a court of law were held to this type of standard? DO you think it is fair that people not be allowed to correct their statements?

How then could a person this stupid and detached be the mastermind of 9/11?

Did you ever mis-speak?

This whole thread just blows my mind.

I am seriously considering tombsoning my self if the level of the discussion has become so silly. This should not even be a thread.

Edited to add even more incredulity

[nebula]

12. People don't mis-speak about such basic and critical information

Especially not when they're the Vice President of the United States.

And they certainly don't laugh about it.

[Flatulo]

14. So tell me Nebula - this is the story of the millenium.

"Vice President admits bin Laden had no connection to 9/11"

Why do you think that in the entire world of professional journalism - with tens of thousands of writers, publishers, editors and researchers, and dozens of left-leaning publications, all itching to take down Darth - why do you think that NOT ONE SINGLE publication has made this into a story?

Do you really believe that the entire world is wrapped up in a conspiracy of silence on this remarkable revelation? The ENTIRE WORLD, except for a few visionaries on DU?

DO you really truly believe this?

Do you really believe that there is not a SINGLE publication - Rolling Stone, The Nation, Salon - all left-leaning - willing to publish the most remarkable story in the history of the world?

[nebula]

16. When has the mainstream media EVER reported anything

that went contrary to the official story?

[Flatulo]

18. Why do YOU think this is? Do you think every single writer, editor

and publisher in the country - nay, the world - is on the BushCo payroll? Do you think that writers and publishers have been whisked off to Gitmo at the merest hint of spilling the beans?

Do you think that every journalist is afraid? Do you think that journalists - over 200 of whom have been murdered, while doing their jobs, in Iraq in Bush's misguided war - are all araid? Every single one of them?

Journalists are among the most courageous of us. They go in with the troops when the bullets are flying. They jump put of helicopters with the first infantrymen to hit the ground. They risk getting blown up by roadside bombs and by mortar attack. They risk being captured and decapitated on the Internet.

Do you really, truly believe that every single journalist in the world is afraid to publish the 'truth' about 9/11?

[Flatulo]

15. Another point of contention...

You said:

> People don't mis-speak about such basic and critical information

So if he did not mis-speak, then he must have been speaking the truth by your logic. But if he realized that he had inadvertently 'confessed' and then corrected himself, then he must have mis-spoke.

But I thought he could not have mis-spoken on an issue of such import?

I can't follow this logic. I wonder why?

> Especially not when they're the Vice President of the United States.

So now are you arguing that Cheney is a competent and articulate speaker? If so, then how could he have possibly 'cracked out of turn'?

[nebula]

17. Sorry, this playing dumb defense

ain't gonna work for Darth Cheney, the evil genius who knows exactly what he's saying.

This isn't the Idiot Bush we're talking about.

[Flatulo]

19. This makes no sense.

If he knew exactly what he was saying, then why did he rebut the official story, thereby implicating himself? Does he want to get caught?

He either mis-spoke, or he confessed to being an accessory to 9.11.

If he's an evil genius (your words) then how did he forget the First Rule of Evil Geniuses - DO NOT FUCKING CONFESS?

Edit - grammar, as usual

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

21. Apologist? I think the man should be tried at Gitmo and keel-hauled.

He's done more than enough to warrant impeachment proceedings. How's that for my opinion of the man?

Having said that, it is the height of silliness to grasp on to absurd points like this to 'prove' he was complicit in 9/11.

[Twist_U_Up]

22. So your in favor of torture too....go figure.

[Flatulo]

26. Actually, the best way to punish people like this is to take away their money. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. No, I don't "completely reject the possibility that he mis-spoke"...

I do, however, have the ability to see the other side of the coin and to explore and question that side.

It's all about questioning ALL possibilities, isn't it? What about Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the Pentagon? Did he simply mis-speak... or did he accidentally or subconsciously let some truth slip out?

Maybe what you fail to realize is that yes, we have some very vile people embedded in our government who wish to do away with our way of governing and with our way of life and they are more than willing, and able, to do vile things to accomplish their goals.

Another thing you fail to realize is that he was *specifically* asked about *Saddam*, yet Cheney subconsciously answers about bin Laden:

"Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?"

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden (sic) was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.

See, they had been trying to make the case that Saddam & Osama were in cahoots together... remember that? Funny thing is, Osama isn't on the F.B.I.'s ten most wanted list for 9-11. They have absolutely NO solid evidence tying bin Laden to 9-11. They do, however, have proof that money for Atta came from within the Pakistani Government and proof that the hijackers had assisstance from our FBI & CIA. Why aren't they following those leads and investigating that??

To me, there's way too many people from this misadministration who "mis-speak", from George Walker Bush down to Alberto Gonzolez. When it all boils down, what you have left is the simple fact that they are fucking liars, pure & simple. EVERY ONE of their lies needs to be investigated fully, as do ANYTHING they say from here on out. They are proven liars and are NOT to be trusted or believed without actual proof that what they say is true.

Question Everything!

PEACE!

Ghost

[Flatulo]

27. I admire your objectivity, but truthfully, I think this is a non-story.

I revert back to my belief that if this story had anything to it, it would be the revelation of the millenium.

To each his own.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. It very well may be a non-story, this much is true...

but to reject any thoughts of delving deeper into it doesn't do it any justice. If there is even the most remote possibilty that the story leads elsewhere, it needs to be examined, not rejected outright without further investigation.

The tiniest of details are sometimes the most crucial. Take the firing pin on a gun, for example.. without it, that little half a centimeter piece, the gun is totally useless.. right?

ALL details and scenarios need to be examined, not just the ones that fit your own view of things. (not *you* personally, but *you* in general terms)

[Flatulo]

30. I'm not sure what-all you'd investigate here. The man said something

and then retracted it. He's old and has pinholes for veins. He's been eating beef 3X a day for 70 years.

He had a 'senior moment'.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. I guess we differ on what we see as "retracting"....

To me, he didn't actually "retract" in as much as he was "lead" to correct his statement. I call "retracting" realizing your own mistake and changing what you said. This was more like a lawyer leading a witness at a trial.

Of course, it's easier for me to be an armchair investigative journalist after the fact and say what question should have been asked next. Especially when we already know what was said, and seeing how Cheney said he "hadn't even realized I'd done that" I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here.

One question could have been:

"So, you're saying neither Saddam *or* Osama had anything to do with 9-11"? or something to that effect.... or the reporter *could* have continued along, but used Osama instead of Saddam.. and seen how long it took Cheney to notice... like I said, it's easier to think of questions after the fact...

And yes, it very well could have just been a "senior moment" also...

PEACE!

Ghost

[nebula]

33. A senior moment?

Was Cheney having a senior moment when he made a bald-faced lie about Saddam Hussein
being responsible for 9/11, or when he declared that Iraq had nuclear weapons?

Yeah, I guess we should simply forgive Cheney for all those 'mistakes' as well.
After all, he was just having 'a senior moment.'

[Flatulo]

35. I believe that was a deliberate falsehood to churn up support for war.