More Double-talk from Cheney on Al Qaeda Link
After the 9/11 commission declared it had seen no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda–and thus undermined a fundamental argument George W. Bush had offered for his invasion of Iraq–Bush and Dick Cheney insisted that there had been a “relationship.” Cheney suggested that he was a better source on this point than the commission because he had “probably” seen information the commission had not.
It turns out that Cheney, once again, was misleading the public. That is–if the bipartisan, independent 9/11 commission, which is being run by Philip Zelikow (a Bush I official who cowrote a book with Condoleezza Rice and who served on the Bush II transition team), can be believed. Yesterday it released a statement that said, “after examining available transcripts of the vice president’s public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.”
In other words, there is no additional information that the panel did not see that would cause it to withdraw its conclusion that there was no operational alliance between al Qaeda and Hussein. The 9/11 commission did note in that interim report there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and Hussein’s government in the early and mid-1990s, but it said these contacts never led to a working relationship. Yet before the war, Bush claimed that Hussein was “a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.” Not so, says the commission, Bush and Cheney were wrong.
In response to this recent statement, Cheney’s spokesman said, “We are pleased with today’s statement from the 9/11 commission, which puts to rest a nonstory. As we have said all along, the administration provided the commission with unprecedented access to sensitive information so they could perform their mission. The vice president criticized some press coverage of the draft staff report. He did not criticize the commission’s work.”
This is Washington double-talk. Cheney did blast the media coverage of the 9/11 commission’s report. But he also challenged the commission’s finding. To support his position, he hinted that he knew more than the commission. Now he is conceding–implicitly–that he had no additional inside information upon which to base his claim. So, contrary to what his spokesman said, the story remains. The 9/11 commission reports there is no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” in the years before the invasion; Bush and Cheney keep asserting there was. Who’s to be believed? An independent panel or two guys who consistently overstated the case for war? The burden is still on Bush and Cheney: if they want to take issue with the commission, they should produce their evidence.
Can you talk about the nightline interview where a Bush pr man repeatedly stated iraq would cost no more than 1.7 billion. or is there a site i can go to to check that out?
Comment by Doug — 7/7/2004 @ 10:20 am
The Resolution passed by Congress mandates that the president has the authority to use force against those who are responsible for 9/11, not to take care of Iraq’s WMD, real or imagined.
But, the language requires only a presidential determination, not that that determination be based on fact. The pResident will uphold this determination (and the vice pResident) until hell freezes over. Absent this determination, the legal basis for war is gone.
“A word means what I want it to mean, no more, no less.”
Lewis Carroll
(Whereas we wuz attacked deleted)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force".
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.–That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.–
(1) Specific statutory authorization.–Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.–Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/7/2004 @ 12:15 pm
Doug, Can’t recall which Nightline interview that was. If you find out more, let me know.
Comment by David Corn — 7/7/2004 @ 2:19 pm
Your comments are fine, as far as opinion goes, but I have to call into question your use of the word ‘independent’ when referring to the 9-11 commission. I think it’s a bit disingenuous. The commission might be nominally bi-partisan, but with people like Gorelick there is it really independent?
Comment by wml — 7/7/2004 @ 2:37 pm
Doug and David Corn,
You’ll find the Nightline transcript http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html”>here:
ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn’t even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.
ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?
ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues….
Comment by Carl — 7/7/2004 @ 4:01 pm
Robert Schwartz,
I think you may have gotten your Congressional resolutions mixed up. Congress authorized military action against Iraq, specifically, on Oct 10, 2002:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002′.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
© War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Comment by Bill — 7/7/2004 @ 5:27 pm
Thanks to Carl for reminding us of that absurd remark.
Comment by David Corn — 7/7/2004 @ 7:25 pm
Bill.
Well then, I’ll stand corrected, thank you.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/7/2004 @ 8:28 pm
While Congress has allocated about $18 billion for reconstruction in Iraq, “only” about 3.2 billion has been spent so far. About $1.7 billion came from Iraqi assests seized by the US, and another $800,000 came from cash seized during the invasion. Cost for American taxpayers looks like about $700,000 to date.
Another $15 billion in grants and loans have been pledged from donor nations, the World Bank, and the IMF.
The remarks that guy made to Ted Koppel might not have been as absurd as you think. We’ll have to wait and see.
Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 12:34 am
Two things remain to be seen. How much money will be spent and by whom? Will Iraq be rebuilt?
Comment by BeccaB — 7/8/2004 @ 5:58 am
Bill,
Lets see,
$3,200,000,000 - $1,700,000,000 - $800,000 = $1,499,200,000 or 1.4992 billion.
So
1. You can’t do math
2. If we cut and run now, maybe your friend Andrew Natsios will be close to right.
3. In order to have a reconstruction, you have to have a destruction and you didn’t mention the cost of that.
Comment by iob1kenobi — 7/8/2004 @ 6:56 am
Lets just get the f—- out of there!
Comment by Kurt — 7/8/2004 @ 9:22 am
iob1kenobi,
I’m terribly sorry, I left off some zeros. That’s 800 million and 700 million, respectively. Or:
3.2b- 1.7b= 1.5b
1.5b- .8b= .7b
Cost thus far to American taxpayers= .7b or 700,000,000.
Thanks for your kind assistance.
BTW, we are talking about “reconstruction” costs, not “destruction” costs. That’s a different subject altogether.
Thanks again and have a wonderful day.
Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 11:14 am
Oops, one other thing… it cost US taxpayers between 1 and 2 billion per year to maintain the “no fly zones". Since they ceased to exist more than a year ago, we’ve saved at least 1 billion. If that savings is applied to the burden of Iraqi construction costs on US taxpayers, then US taxpayers have saved 300 million on the deal at this point.
Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 11:55 am
Bill,
You say: “BTW, we are talking about “reconstruction” costs, not “destruction” costs. That’s a different subject altogether.”
But I ask you, how can one “reconstruct” anything without first “destroying” it? So, I beg to differ that they are altogether different. They are indeed intimately related subjects. At anyrate, just where are you getting your figures. I always like to check sources, you know, that “trust no one” thing of mine. Thanks and a wonderful day to you too.
Comment by iob1kenobi — 7/8/2004 @ 11:55 am
The main point about the one-sentence statement seems to be that Dick Cheney is off the hook because we won’t be requestioning him.
Why Are We Back In Iraq?
Comment by Ron Brynaert — 7/8/2004 @ 4:00 pm
iob1kenobi,
All costs associated with Iraq can be lumped together in one large sum; however the costs are cateogorized according to how they are expended. The cost of bombs to destroy things is a different category than the cost of materials or labor to rebuild things- that’s what I mean when I say there is a difference. The Nightline transcript above refers specifically to “reconstruction” costs, which is a very narrow category. You can see how much how been spent here (in the latest update):
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/
The reconstruction total spent by the US so far is $3,159,534,339.
The amounts of Iraqi assests that went to reconstruction were reported here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_reconstruction_costs.htm
Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 5:16 pm
Bill,
Who do you work for? What is your stake in this? Do you have a job? Are you employed? And, if you are employed, is posting here a requirement your employer places on you?
Comment by Janet — 7/9/2004 @ 12:06 am
Janet,
I’m unemployed, deeply in debt, and had to sell some of my possessions to make rent this month. I’ll have to sell more to make rent next month, if I can.
My only stake in this is to provide an alternate view to what I think are obscenely biased opinions which seem to thrive here.
Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 12:55 am
Janet,
Oh, by the way… Who do you work for? What is your stake in this? Do you have a job? Are you employed? And, if you are employed, is posting here a requirement your employer places on you?
Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 1:28 am
Bill,
I understand where you are coming from, however, my point was merely to point out that in only including costs of re-construction and calling it the “Cost thus far to American taxpayers= .7b or 700,000,000.” is misleading and disingenuous.
As you say yourself, “All costs associated with Iraq can be lumped together in one large sum.” Which leads me to ask, does the American taxpayer not pay for these costs as well? If you wish to present an unbiased opinion (instead of the “obscenely biased opinions which” you seem to post here) then present all costs to the American taxpayer.
In my opinion, Bill, it’s much akin to a car dealer saying, “The car stereo for this car is $700” then saying “The cost to the car buyer [thus far] is only $700.” And not bother mentioning that the rest of the car is $36,000 with $650 monthly payments for the next six years. Even a car dealer is not THAT dishonest.
Comment by iob1kenobi — 7/9/2004 @ 7:03 am
Bill, suck it up and quit whining. It is soooooooo liberal of you.
Comment by Janet — 7/9/2004 @ 12:55 pm
iob1kenobi,
We’re talking about the Nightline transcript above, which is not about the total cost of the war.
Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 1:17 pm
Janet,
Thank you for your compassion. I can feel the love.
Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 1:18 pm
Hey Janet,
Don’t ask a person a question then when they provide an answer give them a personal dig in return! YOU ASKED. Now, why don’t you answer the questions yourself, hmmm?
Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 1:19 pm
Hey Janet,
I’ll answer the questions:
Who do you work for?
None of your damn business.
What is your stake in this?
…ditto Bill’s response.
Do you have a job?
Yes, it’s tring to have a decent debate with folks like you (it’s a tough job…)
Are you employed?
Yes.
And, if you are employed, is posting here a requirement your employer places on you?
No, of course not. What kind of a question is that?
Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 1:23 pm
Bill,
“We’re talking about the Nightline transcript above, which is not about the total cost of the war. ” Yes, you and your friend Andrew Natsios are both talking about the cost of reconstruction as being the “cost to American taxpayers.” It is not the only cost. Further, by all accounts, the reconstruction is far from being complete so to pretend that it will cost a total of 1.7 billion is simply ignoring reality.
I note you don’t take exception to being called “disingeneous and misleading.” Turning a new leaf?
Comment by iob1kenobi — 7/9/2004 @ 2:35 pm
Anybody with a ‘half ‘an ear, and a piece a- ring ass-hole must see that it is all about the oil. What a better opportunity for two “oil-patch” slicks, like jr. Bush & Cheney to take full advantage of the terror strike,to create a crisis with S.Hussein allied with O.S.B. laden to threaten our way of life, just to fill the coffers of the Carlyle group, & Halliburton. With over 800Americans dead, countless others wounded & limbless,un-known numbers of innocent Iraqiis dead, maimed, father-less, mother-less, child-less, is it any wonder that the deceit & greed of these pirates/crusaders have brought down the wrath of the youth of the Islamic world upon us.???
The November vote is clear,
Comment by lester — 7/9/2004 @ 7:14 pm
O.K., Lester. If we accept your argument then why were we attacked on numerous occasions up to and including 9/11… BEFORE we invaded Iraq?
Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 7:38 pm
Tim, grow up and be a man. You are a buffoon. I’ll do whatever I want you fascist pussyboy.
Comment by Janet — 7/10/2004 @ 4:18 am
Janet,
Define “pussyboy.” Is that a reference to the term metrosexual? If so, I’m sorry, but I’m not one of them. You know, there’s a fascinating subject in itself - the feminization of the American male. Tell me, are you one of those women who, through their actions and words are responsible for this trend? Do you like men who cower at your feet and hang on your every word?
Do you resent me for calling your hand by pointing out your mistreatment of Bill? Or is it that I’m not easily controlled like your pussy-whipped boyfriends?
Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 2:36 pm
Timmy-poo, I’m glad to see you don’t have an issue with being called a buffoon. I have no respect for you. Go fuck yourself.
Comment by Janet — 7/10/2004 @ 11:19 pm
Janet,
The level of discourse you bring to this discussion thread is in the gutter. So typical of folks like you. You will not or simply cannot discuss issues in a rational manner so you try to provoke those of who do. The kind of stuff you throw out meets the definition of “trolling” (look it up.)
Why don’t you just lay off the potty-mouth diatribe? It’s unbecoming of a woman and demeans you personally every time you engage in it. Calling people names is not the mark of a mature person, but then again I don’t know what your maturity level is.
If you just can’t control yourself, go ahead and rave on, but I will not be respoonding to you anymore.
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 9:10 am
Do you cut and paste the same shit to every thread Timmy? Jesus Christ! Even a troll like you can do better. Besides, the double-talk from Cheney on Al Qaeda is what this particular thread is about. Why would a guy that “probably” knows more than a commission, who’s original leader was Kissenger, not share that information? If he really had our safety in mind - would it not be a good idea to communicate that important information?
Comment by Janet — 7/11/2004 @ 11:29 am
Janet,
I accept your apology. You might do well to look up the definition of “troll” however!
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 12:42 pm
Eat shit asswiper timmy.
Comment by Janet — 7/11/2004 @ 3:37 pm
There are two schools of thought when it comes to dealing with misbehaving children. One says you should simply ignore the behavior because the child is just trying to get attention. If you give them the attention when they are misbehaving, then this will reinforce the undesirable behavior. It will reinforce their narcissistic tendencies.
The other (old) school of thought says you do not tolerate misbehavior. The child must receive discipline in order to keep them on the right path and to prevent them from becoming misbehaving (or worse) adults. Personally, I subscribe to the latter tried-and-true approach, but alas I am unable to get my hands on the child. Therefore I have no choice but to ignore her and hope she sees the error of her ways (the classic liberal approach.)
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 4:58 pm
Meet Timmy - our cutter and paster . . .
Comment by Janet — 7/11/2004 @ 7:51 pm
Which is the intelligent choice: to continue to believe leaders who can’t call it-or see it-like it is, or find someone who does see reality in all its brutal, unfair, ugliness & acts to change this craziness. Cheney either cannot or will not own up to reality, he’s had ample opportunity to do so.
Comment by Armida — 7/12/2004 @ 10:39 pm
Obviously, Bill really rescues the law suit holding Bush Culpable for the 9/11, because what is written and passed by the Congress as determinations of Bush, is the cover for the elaborate and preplanned scheme to demolish the WTC in a wild act to bring a Long Term War of US crimes against humanity into play. The problem with the legal status
of the Oct 2002 Authorization to use Military Force, is the following. This authorization was granted through a long term Pentagon led plan that included the demolition of the WTC and so forth. Determinations of the President are of course the general consensus of a aging Congressional body, whom trades on the death of servicemen while causing terrorist attacks involving the transportation system deliberately. Those who believe that the issue will end without a bitter fight- will come to know the meaning of the world comprised of bastards and the unlawful and erroneous assumptions they habitually make. Without testing the true nature of those who hassled Corn for his great work, those not used to really fighting would not have a clue to the intensity of the counter-measures that must be put into play. This is no game of poker however, this is our economic and personal futures at stake here.
Comment by John Smith — 7/18/2004 @ 6:40 pm