What is Cheney trying to do?

[Neil]

I don't think Bush would have done that.

The welfare for automakers program started on his watch.  His admin poured the 20B in TARP money into GM and Chrysler the first place.

One wonders what the restructuring would look like if the Bush administration was calling the shots.

[The Minsky Moment]

Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ

That was also false as stated by the admin, as per the so far unrefuted findings of the 9/11 commission report.

that is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.

No but as the quoted article points out, Cheney tried to suggest there might be a connection without making a clear affirmative claim, based on the false info concerning the Saddam-al Qaeda relationship.  He may not have lied, but he deliberately obfuscated and misled.

[Martinus]

Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ - that is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.

The administration is guilty in allowing the public to draw incorrect conclusions based on the data provided.

it is simply bizarre how religious people like you are about this - it is right there in the very article you provided, yet you continue to insist it says something it explicitly denies.

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11

Kronn said: "I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11?"

The article clearly shows that they claimed at least the former, no? So not sure how your response is relevant to what I said in response to Kronn.

As for the rest of your post, there is a reason we talk about "misleading" information as something distinct from information that is "false" (but still regard both as equally culpable when it comes to fraud). If they knew there were contacts between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam was not involved in 911, then they should have said so. Saying that Saddam had links to AQ, without offering any additional information (especially when it comes to presenting the information to the general public, in the wake of 911 - which was the first and only time most people ever heard of AQ) is clearly implying that there was a link between him and 911.

[Berkut]

I don't think Bush would have done that.

The welfare for automakers program started on his watch.  His admin poured the 20B in TARP money into GM and Chrysler the first place.

Yeah, but then using the power of the federal government to gift the company to the UAW and hand the UAW tens of billions? Nah, I don't think so.

Bush tried to save GM - I think that was a mistake as well, but Obama is trying to do something very different, he is trying to socialize GM.

[KRonn]

Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ - that is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.

The administration is guilty in allowing the public to draw incorrect conclusions based on the data provided.

it is simply bizarre how religious people like you are about this - it is right there in the very article you provided, yet you continue to insist it says something it explicitly denies.

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11

Kronn said: "I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11?"

The article clearly shows that they claimed at least the former, no?

Yeah, I think you're right in that the Bush admin said that Saddam had met some AQ members. And I think that some people ran with that as proof of Saddam and AQ together, or connections to 9/11, while others used it to show Bush admin was lying about Saddam and 9/11 connections or strong AQ connections. Gets damn messy. But I didn't think that the Bush admin claimed that Saddam was working with AQ in any real way, such as like the Taliban were, or in a lower profile manner.  That's mainly what I was looking to clarify. 

[Berkut]

As for the rest of your post, there is a reason we talk about "misleading" information as something distinct from information that is "false" (but still regard both as equally culpable when it comes to fraud). If they knew there were contacts between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam was not involved in 911, then they should have said so. Saying that Saddam had links to AQ, without offering any additional information (especially when it comes to presenting the information to the general public, in the wake of 911 - which was the first and only time most people ever heard of AQ) is clearly implying that there was a link between him and 911.

I agree, in general - I think the administration, at best, allowed a clearly untrue assumption to stand without clearing it up, and at worst actively encouraged that assumption.

What they did not do is run around claiming that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Just another example of how stupid the politically faithful radicals can be, since they cannot resist exaggerating the issue, which just allows their core complaint, which may be valid, to be dismissed as hyperbole.

[KRonn]

As for the rest of your post, there is a reason we talk about "misleading" information as something distinct from information that is "false" (but still regard both as equally culpable when it comes to fraud). If they knew there were contacts between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam was not involved in 911, then they should have said so. Saying that Saddam had links to AQ, without offering any additional information (especially when it comes to presenting the information to the general public, in the wake of 911 - which was the first and only time most people ever heard of AQ) is clearly implying that there was a link between him and 911.

I agree, in general - I think the administration, at best, allowed a clearly untrue assumption to stand without clearing it up, and at worst actively encouraged that assumption.

What they did not do is run around claiming that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Just another example of how stupid the politically faithful radicals can be, since they cannot resist exaggerating the issue, which just allows their core complaint, which may be valid, to be dismissed as hyperbole.

I also tend to agree that the Bush admin let assumptions about Saddam and AQ be out there, and let people run with that. And that helped cause rumors and other political damage that Bush brought upon himself.

[The Brain]

I don't remember hearing anything about the Bush admin saying that there was a direct link between Iraq and 911 and I don't remember anyone laughing at such a claim. IIRC the claim was that there was a tangible connection between Iraq (the Iraqi regime) and AQ, and it was laughed at.

I seem to hear some muddling of some waters. But then I'm hearing a lot of things lately.

[Sheilbh]

All the demonizing of the Bush admin over 8 years, to the detriment of the country and its political process. And now we have Pres Obama doing some of the same things that Bush did. Shows me what I figured all along, that much of the angst over Bush was so damn political. Shows how nasty politics gets. Repubs and Dems will do it,  in order to gain political advantage or to slam, or even savage, opponents, even losing sight of the over all picture. Yes, Pres Bush brought some of it on himself but it all went way too far. I stopped seeing some of the Bush excesses due to the crying of wolf over everything, and the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) factor by his haters. So now I'm waiting to see the same happen to Pres Obama, hoping it doesn't as it's ruinous to the political process, but some already is (he's a commie, etc), though he's too popular and the media so far likes him too much for full ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) to set in.

Of course it was political.  It was about politics.  Although for all the talk about the media disliking Bush, which I think is true, I've always thought the left-wing critique was relatively accurate: they were too easy on him after 9/11 and until the Iraq war really, because there was a rally round the flag impulse and I think they felt guilty after that.  In my view they over-compensated when Bush was doing well for their weak and far too reverential coverage when he wasn't.

Actually as I've said a lot there were two Bush Presidencies.  The first one was, I think, overly dominated by Cheney and Rumsfeld.  It ended, I think when Abu Ghraib came out, but was pretty disastrous.  I think there's a second Bush Presidency which when, for various reasons, whether the courts, his own opinion or elections and Congress he began to mitigate what was done in the first term.  This was when the Administration tried, at last, to create a proper legal framework for detainees, they banned 'enhanced interrogation techniques', foreign policy was far more emollient and Rumsfeld went.  I believe Obama's actually said that his policy on detainees, for example, is continuing from Bush's second term to deal with the difficulties of the first term.

Bush was a dreadful strong President but a surprisingly effective weak one.

I think Cheney's taking an argument he's had within the Bush Administration public because he genuinely believes it.  For the first four years he convinced enough people, for the second four he lost ground.  But, I don't think there have been many mea culpas.  I think Cheney genuinely believes in the policies he's advocating and I think Bush grew more uncomfortable with them as time went on and is still relatively uncomfortable.

[Hansmeister]

I know that you're a retard so let's make this simple for you.  Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda, but we have no evidence that he had any ties or knowledge of 9-11.  There, is that still too damn complicated for you?

The contact seemed to have ended long before 2001, though. 

Nope, it went right thru 2003.  There was a reason a lot of Al Qaeda decamped to Iraq in early 2002.  But the alliance was always strictly a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance of convenience (not unlike the Iran-Taleban alliance of today).

[DGuller]

I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I know that's been claimed, and maybe I'm forgetting, but I never got the impression that the invasion of Iraq was due to links to 9/11. There were statements by the Bushies about fears of Saddam supplying terrorists if he gained WMDs, and that sort of thing.

There were no direct statements, but there definitely was a concerted effort in trying to make people connect the dots.  Mention something about 9/11, then immediately afterwards mention something about Saddam and al Qaeda, and soon plenty of rubes will make the connection.

[Siege]

I thought it was a slam dunk? wtf?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related

Woofness.

[Siege]

As far as I am concerned, Saddam had to go.
He was a dedicated enemy of the US, and had the potential to do a lot of harm, regardless of how close his relationship with AQ was.

The one thing we didn't do and should have done, is to take complete control of the iraqi oil reserves.

[KRonn]

I think Cheney's taking an argument he's had within the Bush Administration public because he genuinely believes it.  For the first four years he convinced enough people, for the second four he lost ground.  But, I don't think there have been many mea culpas.  I think Cheney genuinely believes in the policies he's advocating and I think Bush grew more uncomfortable with them as time went on and is still relatively uncomfortable.

I think that Cheney was wrong, misspoke, or exaggerated enough to do plenty of damage to his credibility. He always had a confident way of talking, presenting facts, but I got soured on him when some of what he said were quite wrong. I think some of what he said we should expect in Iraq, and what the US could/would do, and then to find the reality quite different, are examples of items that started turning me against him.

[Norgy]

Nope, it went right thru 2003.  There was a reason a lot of Al Qaeda decamped to Iraq in early 2002.  But the alliance was always strictly a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance of convenience (not unlike the Iran-Taleban alliance of today).

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I am no expert. The only source I have seen is a former Iraqi official quoted in The Looming Tower.