If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

[Faun]

Benghazi is the Republican response to 9-11
See? Obama gives up attacks too

Unlike Bush, who Democrats rallied around, Republicans used Benghazi for political gain

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

 

[Faun]

Wow! That's gotta be the epitome in lack of self-awareness.

How many times did post about how Hillary's email reveal she knew about the attack two weeks in advance because YOU cannot read?

LOL, you kids just can't bring yourselves to admit that Hillary and Obama have lied to you about virtually everything.

Your tactic is deflect away from that and pounce on my admission that I misread the article...sucks to be you because no matter HOW much you try to deflect you cannot change the fact they ran guns and got 4 men killed.

Interesting

Nah, they didn't lie. But you sure showed what an imbecile you are claiming that Hillary's email revealed she knew about the attack two weeks in advance, huh?

Of course they lied that's all they do.

You think I'm an imbecile

Look in the mirror you aren't a bright individual and you could never admit a mistake, you aren't woman enough ,bforeit's over you'll have me on ignore like the coward you are young lady.

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

You appear to revel in the fact that you are clueless my friend.

After the conclusion of 8 independent GOP-led investigations (2 shown above) we know there were conflicting reports and that until 9.24.2001, our intelligence community believed the likely cause was the video.

 

[BlackSand]

A new study has just found that there are exactly 541,377 election criteria actually more important than Benfuckingghazi.

Who knew.

Probably no topic is more relevant to my current sigline than this idiotic malarkey. It's hard to believe we're so sheeped-up that somebody actually bought this crap.

Link Please ...

 

[healthmyths]

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

YOUR WORDS verbatim: " HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
2nd...
HOW do you know Cheney was aware of the above memo? YOU privy to everything Cheney knew at the time he made his statement on Meet the Press?

 

[healthmyths]

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on December 9, 2001, then Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a proponent of the theory that Atta had met al-Ani in Prague, acknowledged in an interview on March 29, 2006:
"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.[40] 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."[41]
On September 10, 2006, Cheney responded to questions from Tim Russert about Atta in Prague on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion.
This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it.But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know...
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...[42]
Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BUT AT NO TIME DID CHENEY LIE i.e. KNOWING FULL WELL Ata never went but continued to tell a lie knowing full well the truth!
Cheney never had confirmation at the time of his 12/9/2001 Meet the Press!

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

The memo says the data was from 9/16 and says nothing about when and who received it.
But just keep lying, it makes you look soooooo credible.

 

[Synthaholic]

If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

If we were in a fantasy world where Benghazi WASN'T caused by that video? I would still vote for him.

But in fact the protest in Benghazi WAS because of the video.

 

[Faun]

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

YOUR WORDS verbatim: " HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
2nd...
HOW do you know Cheney was aware of the above memo? YOU privy to everything Cheney knew at the time he made his statement on Meet the Press?

Holyfuckingshit!

Those aren't my words, dumbfuck.

Try harder.

As far as who saw the memo, it was delivered to the White House. Even if Cheney didn't see it prior to his appearance on TV the following day, the White House immediately clarified he was wrong, correct? I mean, the White House didn't simply let that bomb go off without leaving the country believing a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials when they knew it wasn't true, right ... ?

Oh, wait, no, they didn't. They waited almost 2 years before clearing the air on that one.

Well now you know a major factor into why a majority of Americans believed Iraq was in someway involved in the 9.11 attack -- because the Bush Administration put the message out there and didn't immediately correct a message they knew was false.

 

[Faun]

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on December 9, 2001, then Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a proponent of the theory that Atta had met al-Ani in Prague, acknowledged in an interview on March 29, 2006:
"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.[40] 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."[41]
On September 10, 2006, Cheney responded to questions from Tim Russert about Atta in Prague on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion.
This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it.But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know...
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...[42]
Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BUT AT NO TIME DID CHENEY LIE i.e. KNOWING FULL WELL Ata never went but continued to tell a lie knowing full well the truth!
Cheney never had confirmation at the time of his 12/9/2001 Meet the Press!

12.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

12.9.2001 -- "that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP

 

[Pogo]

A new study has just found that there are exactly 541,377 election criteria actually more important than Benfuckingghazi.

Who knew.

Probably no topic is more relevant to my current sigline than this idiotic malarkey. It's hard to believe we're so sheeped-up that somebody actually bought this crap.

Link Please ...

For you chere, sure. Here's several of 'em.

 

[Flipper]

LOL, you kids just can't bring yourselves to admit that Hillary and Obama have lied to you about virtually everything.

Your tactic is deflect away from that and pounce on my admission that I misread the article...sucks to be you because no matter HOW much you try to deflect you cannot change the fact they ran guns and got 4 men killed.

Interesting

Nah, they didn't lie. But you sure showed what an imbecile you are claiming that Hillary's email revealed she knew about the attack two weeks in advance, huh?

Of course they lied that's all they do.

You think I'm an imbecile

Look in the mirror you aren't a bright individual and you could never admit a mistake, you aren't woman enough ,bforeit's over you'll have me on ignore like the coward you are young lady.

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

You appear to revel in the fact that you are clueless my friend.

After the conclusion of 8 independent GOP-led investigations (2 shown above) we know there were conflicting reports and that until 9.24.2001, our intelligence community believed the likely cause was the video.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

 

[Flipper]

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

The memo says the data was from 9/16 and says nothing about when and who received it.
But just keep lying, it makes you look soooooo credible.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

The memo says the data was from 9/16 and says nothing about when and who received it.
But just keep lying, it makes you look soooooo credible.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

 

[Flipper]

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

The memo says the data was from 9/16 and says nothing about when and who received it.
But just keep lying, it makes you look soooooo credible.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

I'm sure that this was something intellectually stunning however there is nothing there

 

[healthmyths]

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on December 9, 2001, then Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a proponent of the theory that Atta had met al-Ani in Prague, acknowledged in an interview on March 29, 2006:
"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.[40] 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."[41]
On September 10, 2006, Cheney responded to questions from Tim Russert about Atta in Prague on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion.
This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it.But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know...
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...[42]
Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BUT AT NO TIME DID CHENEY LIE i.e. KNOWING FULL WELL Ata never went but continued to tell a lie knowing full well the truth!
Cheney never had confirmation at the time of his 12/9/2001 Meet the Press!

12.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

12.9.2001 -- "that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP

You wrote: "2.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001"

OK now I'll write:
"2.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001"

Just as supported with NOTHING as your quote is...!

 

[Faun]

Nah, they didn't lie. But you sure showed what an imbecile you are claiming that Hillary's email revealed she knew about the attack two weeks in advance, huh?

Of course they lied that's all they do.

You think I'm an imbecile

Look in the mirror you aren't a bright individual and you could never admit a mistake, you aren't woman enough ,bforeit's over you'll have me on ignore like the coward you are young lady.

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

You appear to revel in the fact that you are clueless my friend.

After the conclusion of 8 independent GOP-led investigations (2 shown above) we know there were conflicting reports and that until 9.24.2001, our intelligence community believed the likely cause was the video.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

While that memo was not finally evaluated intelligence, the intelligence community was informing the White House that they believed the catalyst to the attack was a protest over a video.

You don't have to like that, but several GOP-led investigations reached that same conclusion.

And why are you calling me, "honey?" Are you gay? Sorry, but I'm a happily married heterosexual with absolutely zero interest in you. Please troll for dates elsewhere, thanks.

 

[Faun]

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

First of all, I made no such claim about Bush. You're just an imbecile who apparently thinks I did.

Secondly, now that you've clarified a lie is knowingly saying something false, I'm confident even a sycophant like you will agree Cheney lied since the Bush Adminstration was informed hijacker Mohammad Atta had not traveled to Prague prior to Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press that day...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on December 9, 2001, then Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a proponent of the theory that Atta had met al-Ani in Prague, acknowledged in an interview on March 29, 2006:
"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.[40] 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."[41]
On September 10, 2006, Cheney responded to questions from Tim Russert about Atta in Prague on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion.
This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it.But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know...
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...[42]
Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BUT AT NO TIME DID CHENEY LIE i.e. KNOWING FULL WELL Ata never went but continued to tell a lie knowing full well the truth!
Cheney never had confirmation at the time of his 12/9/2001 Meet the Press!

12.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

12.9.2001 -- "that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP

You wrote: "2.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001"

OK now I'll write:
"2.8.2001 -- INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001"

Just as supported with NOTHING as your quote is...!

The Bush administration was made aware that Atta (the 9.11 hijacker) was not in Prague meeting with Iraqi officials, yet they allowed that meme to remain for almost two years.

Deal with it.

 

[Flipper]

Of course they lied that's all they do.

You think I'm an imbecile

Look in the mirror you aren't a bright individual and you could never admit a mistake, you aren't woman enough ,bforeit's over you'll have me on ignore like the coward you are young lady.

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

You appear to revel in the fact that you are clueless my friend.

After the conclusion of 8 independent GOP-led investigations (2 shown above) we know there were conflicting reports and that until 9.24.2001, our intelligence community believed the likely cause was the video.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

While that memo was not finally evaluated intelligence, the intelligence community was informing the White House that they believed the catalyst to the attack was a protest over a video.

You don't have to like that, but several GOP-led investigations reached that same conclusion.

And why are you calling me, "honey?" Are you gay? Sorry, but I'm a happily married heterosexual with absolutely zero interest in you. Please troll for dates elsewhere, thanks.

Nope, sorry.

The good General informed Pinetta and Obama both that it was no video.

With all due respect your posts are quite effeminate, it was an honest mistake.

 

[Faun]

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

You appear to revel in the fact that you are clueless my friend.

After the conclusion of 8 independent GOP-led investigations (2 shown above) we know there were conflicting reports and that until 9.24.2001, our intelligence community believed the likely cause was the video.

I'm sorry honey but you are misinformed.

The CIA memo makes it clear that it was indeed a Terror attack.

General Ham also makes it clear that he informed both Pinetta and Obama that is was a Terror attack.

We knew it had nothing to do with a video.

While that memo was not finally evaluated intelligence, the intelligence community was informing the White House that they believed the catalyst to the attack was a protest over a video.

You don't have to like that, but several GOP-led investigations reached that same conclusion.

And why are you calling me, "honey?" Are you gay? Sorry, but I'm a happily married heterosexual with absolutely zero interest in you. Please troll for dates elsewhere, thanks.

Nope, sorry.

The good General informed Pinetta and Obama both that it was no video.

Not my problem you still can't understand; but then again, I am saying this to the person who claimed repeatedly that Hillary knew about the attack 2 weeks in advance because you couldn't understand that article either.

Again, that "information" was not finally evaluated intelligence. It took nearly two weeks until the intelligence community did determine the actual cause of the attack. We know this thanks to 8 Republican investigations.

You've got to be dumber than dirt (which I can believe) to think anyone gives a shit because brain-dead rightwing zombies are not happy with the results of 8 Republican investigations.

With all due respect your posts are quite effeminate, it was an honest mistake.

Yet you're the one posting effeminately with terms of endearment. Go figure.

 

[toxicmedia]

How many times have we recently heard reporters badgering GOP candidates
"knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?"

So based on these quotes:
According to Woods the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed by terrorists on 9/11/12 in Benghazi, Libya., after offering her condolences on the loss of his son, Clinton told him that the U.S. government would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted
Hillary Clinton to father of American murdered in Libya We ll make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted RedState

Now the question to those of you that voted for Obama...
If you knew in Sept 18,2012 that the bumper sticker "Osama dead, GM Alive" i.e. war on terrorism
WAS NOT going well i.e. Benghazi was done by well organized terrorists group AND not the video that Hillary told the above was the cause...would you still vote for Obama???

I didn't vote for Obama, and the whole Benghazi thing wouldn't have affected my vote no matter which way it went.

It's all just something Republicans have been tying to turn into an asset for years