Cheney claims ties between Saddam, al Qaeda (again)

[Rspaight]

It sounds like we're down to what the meaning of "is" is re: the "relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Two things about the off-topic content:

1) Only his 25th Cabinet meeting? He can't manage more than one every few months? This might be normal, but it seems kind of sparse to me.

2) Rummy committing war crimes? No, can't be. He never disappoints me. He's just fabulous.

Bush Disputes Panel's Conclusion on Al Qaeda-Iraq Ties
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 17, 2004

Filed at 2:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no ``collaborative relationship'' between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

``There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida,'' Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

``This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida,'' he said.

``We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan.''

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein -- a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Senior members of the commission seemed eager to minimize any disagreement.

``What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there,'' said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who is chairman.

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were ``not that apparent to me.''

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. ``There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,'' the report said. ``Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.''

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaida, but to other terrorist networks as well.

``He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq,'' he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.

Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaida leaders and Saddam, now jailed.

``The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power,'' Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.

It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.

Bush said he told Cabinet members that he continues to have a ``firm resolve'' in Iraq, the scene of escalating violence less than two weeks before the handoff of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

On Thursday, a sport utility vehicle packed with artillery shells blew up in a crowd of people waiting to volunteer for the Iraqi military, killing dozens and wounding over a hundred. Another car bomb north of the capital killed several members of the Iraqi security forces.

``We fully understand terrorists who try to shake our will, who try to shake our confidence to try to get us to withdraw from commitments we have made in places like Afghanistan and Iraq,'' Bush said. ``They won't succeed. Iraq will be free. And a free Iraq is in our nation's interest.''

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: ``The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in.''

[lukpac]

If I keep saying it enough, of course it has to be true...

Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link

Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

However, the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq."

Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.

Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story)

In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."

"What the commission says is they can't find evidence of that," he said. "We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down."

The uncorroborated Czech report, which has been widely disputed, alleged that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague before the attacks.

Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."

[Rspaight]

Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."

Oh, for fuck's sake. That's just pathetic. Bush never misses an opportunity to brag about how he's given the commission "unprecedented cooperation." Until, that is, they reach a conclusion the White House doesn't like, at which point, well, they just don't have all the info, so they don't know what they're talking about.

And he's still trying to sell that Prague story? Anyone else getting a big whiff of desperation off these guys?

Let's put it this way -- Bush, through his connections with the Saudi royals, probably has more of an "al Qaeda link" than Saddam did.

Ryan

[Matt]

An Iraq Sideshow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48002-2004Jun16.html

Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A28

IN A PAIR of interim staff reports, the Sept. 11 commission yesterday gave the fullest and most detailed report on the planning of the attacks that the American public has received to date. Yet showing a peculiar instinct for the capillaries rather than the jugular, part of the public debate immediately focused on a single passing point that is no kind of revelation at all: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Administration foes seized on this sentence to claim that Vice President Cheney has been lying, as recently as this week, about a purported relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The accusation is nearly as irresponsible as the Bush administration's rhetoric has been.

The importance of the two new reports lies not in the clarification of any supposed Iraq link but in the new details that fill in and correct the state of the public's knowledge of the attacks themselves. Osama bin Laden, we learn, has not actually financed al Qaeda himself and never received his famed $300 million inheritance; al Qaeda, rather, "relied primarily on a fundraising network developed over time." Sept. 11 was initially planned as an even more ambitious attack -- involving 10 planes and targets on both coasts. Osama bin Laden was directly involved in key aspects of planning and target selection. There was division within al Qaeda's leadership as to whether the plan should go forward. And internal disagreement among the conspirators at times threatened its success. The reports offer the first substantive look at what key al Qaeda detainees such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh have been telling their interrogators, and it sheds light as well on the likely role of accused conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. The commission, in short, is adding a good deal of new information to the discussion and usefully reprocessing existing data.

All of which makes the flap over Mr. Cheney's statements a bit frustrating. The administration has not recently suggested that Iraq was behind Sept. 11. Nor, in fact, did the commission yesterday contradict what Mr. Cheney actually said -- and President Bush backed up -- earlier this week: that there were "long-established ties" between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Rather, the commission reported that a "senior Iraqi intelligence officer" met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994 and that contacts continued after he relocated to Afghanistan. Captured al Qaeda operatives, the report notes, have "adamantly denied" a connection with Iraq, and the famed meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence operative appears never to have happened. Indeed, there is no evidence of operational support for the group by Iraq, the commission staff argues; al Qaeda's requests apparently went unanswered. That said, the commission has not denied that there were contacts over a protracted period.

The trouble for the administration is that Mr. Cheney has not always been careful to distinguish between Iraqi ties to al Qaeda and supposed support for the attacks. Indeed, it was he who kept the Prague meeting story alive long after others in the government thought it discredited. His recent comments not only overstate what now appear to be rather tentative ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but they probably help to keep alive in the minds of many Americans a link between Iraq and the attacks that not even Mr. Cheney still alleges. If the U.S. intelligence community now believes that the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein consisted of no more than what the commission reports, Mr. Cheney ought not be implying more.

[Rspaight]

That editorial makes no sense.

Administration foes seized on this sentence to claim that Vice President Cheney has been lying, as recently as this week, about a purported relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The accusation is nearly as irresponsible as the Bush administration's rhetoric has been.

Indeed, it was [Cheney] who kept the Prague meeting story alive long after others in the government thought it discredited. His recent comments not only overstate what now appear to be rather tentative ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but they probably help to keep alive in the minds of many Americans a link between Iraq and the attacks that not even Mr. Cheney still alleges. If the U.S. intelligence community now believes that the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein consisted of no more than what the commission reports, Mr. Cheney ought not be implying more.

So, "Administration foes" are being "irresponsible" for accusing Cheney of lying, but it would be good if Cheney stopped lying?

My head hurts.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Perhaps they are trying to say that people are wrong for calling Cheney a liar because he's not lying, just grossly misleading people?

[Rspaight]

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

Here's what he said:

He was a patron of terrorism. He had long established ties with al Qaeda.

As far as I'm concerned, that qualifies as both grossly misleading and a lie. It's grossly misleading because putting those two sentences together creates the impression that Saddam was a *patron* of al Qaeda, which there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever.

But it's a lie, because Saddam had no "long established ties" with al Qaeda. When bin Laden was in Sudan, he was actually running operations with the Kurds *against* Saddam. Sudan wasn't hip on this, as they were friendly with Saddam at the time. So they got bin Laden to cut his ties with the Kurds in exchange for continued sanctuary. Then they went further and actually arranged a meeting between bin Laden and one of Saddam's guys. bin Laden asked for a bunch of stuff (training camps, expertise) and got nothing.

Later, when bin Laden was in Afghanistan, there were some more conversations of that sort:

"Will you do this for us?"
"No."

That could accurately be described as "a history of contact with the intent of establishing ties," but it ain't "long established ties."

Here's what Bush said in the run-up to war:

You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations and there are al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq.

"Can't distinguish" sounds like a pretty close collaborative relationship to me.

From yesterday's press briefing:

Q Scott, I'm a little confused, and it could be a factor of age, but I'm just wondering, you were saying this morning that the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which definitively say that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, are completely consistent with your position that there was such a collaborative relationship. And I'm just wondering if you could explain how those two disparate thoughts are completely consistent.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. If you go back and look at what the September 11th Commission said, they talked about how there had been high-level contacts between the regime in Iraq and al Qaeda. And they specifically pointed out to contacts between Iraqi intelligence officials and bin Laden in Sudan; and they talked about other contacts. And if you go back and look at what Secretary Powell outlined before the United Nations, this was back in February of 2003, he talked about how we know -- this is quote, "We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service." So he talked about some of contacts in his presentation to the United Nations.

Q Right, but the 9/11 --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that is perfectly consistent with what the September 11th Commission talked about in their report yesterday.

Q But here's where the two positions diverge, and that is that the 9/11 Commission says, yes, there were these contacts, but they did not result in any kind of collaborative relationship. It means the same thing as you and I contact each all the time, but I don't think anybody here at the White House would account you of having --

MR. McCLELLAN: John, we made it clear a long time ago --

Q -- a collaborative relationship with me.

MR. McCLELLAN: We made it clear a long time ago that there is no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the attacks of September 11th.

Q But they say -- the 9/11 Commission is saying, not only is there no evidence to support that or any collaboration in any other attacks on America, but no evidence to support any kind of collaborative relationship which you have claimed.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if you go back and look at what Secretary Powell said, and look at what Director Tenet said -- let me point out what Director Tenet said, as well, let me read you facts because you're talking about impressions, let's talk about the facts. I think you need to look at the facts, and look at exactly what was said prior to the decision to go into Iraq and remove that regime from power.

Here's Director Tenet to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a letter October 7, 2002:

"We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda had discussed safe-haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad."

So those are the facts. And I think if you go and look back at what the September 11th Commission report said yesterday, it's consistent with that report.

"Contacts" does not equal "long-established ties." (Let alone "patronage.") I have contact with all sorts of software companies that call me hawking their services, but I have no long-established ties with them.

They are desperately trying to have it both ways, and looking like idiots in the process. They need to either admit there's no real collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda, or say they dispute the 9/11 commission's findings. They can't claim both.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

The White House is in chaos.

Now Condi Rice comes out and helpfully lets us all know what the 9/11 commission MEANT TO SAY, as opposed to what they actually SAID, insisting that the commission was merely noting that Saddam didn't *control* al Qaeda. Shut up, Condi. The commission is saying there was no "collaborative relationship." It's perfectly clear. Please go away and stop lying to us.

Lie? Oh, Ryan, stop saying "lie." That's so extreme.

Oh, yeah?

Rice says:

What I believe the 9-11 commission was opining on was operational control, an operational relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq which we never alleged.

The president simply outlined what we knew about what al Qaeda and Iraq had done together. Operational control to me would mean that he (Saddam) was, perhaps, directing what al Qaeda would do.

Bush said:

[Saddam] is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army.

"Use al Qaeda as a forward army?" Sounds like he's alleging "operational control" to me. I'm gonna call a lie a lie here. They *know* that the commission report is threatening to bring down the whole "we attacked Iraq because of 9/11" house of cards, and they are scared witless.

Fortunately, the commission is having none of it. Kean looks like he's trying to cover for the administration by limiting the terms of the discussion to 9/11, but even he's having trouble keeping up with the White House's wildly veering talking points. Hamilton, however, is starting to get testy.

9/11 Report Cited No Iraqi 'Control' of Qaeda - Rice
Fri Jun 18, 2004 05:16 PM ET

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In publishing a report that cited no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the Sept. 11 commission actually meant to say that Iraq had no control over the network, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.

As the White House strove to curb potential damage to President Bush's credibility on Iraq, his closest aide on international security denied any inconsistency between the bipartisan panel's findings and Bush's insistence that a Saddam-Qaeda relationship existed.

"What I believe the 9-11 commission was opining on was operational control, an operational relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq which we never alleged," Rice said in an interview with National Public Radio.

"The president simply outlined what we knew about what al Qaeda and Iraq had done together. Operational control to me would mean that he (Saddam) was, perhaps, directing what al Qaeda would do."

Intelligence reports of links between Saddam and the group blamed for the 2001 attacks formed a cornerstone of Bush's rationale for the invasion and occupation of the turbulent Arab country, where 833 U.S. soldiers have died after 14 months of violence.

The chairman and vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission differed with Rice's characterization of their panel's findings in separate interviews with Reuters.

"We don't think there was any relationship whatsoever having to do with 9/11. Whether al Qaeda and Saddam were cooperating on other things against the United States, we don't know," Commission Chairman Thomas Kean said.

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he was unaware of anyone ever claiming that Saddam had directed al Qaeda.

"The word 'control' is new," Hamilton said.

"The president talks in terms of a relationship between the two. The vice president talks in terms of a tie between the two. We talk in terms of contacts between the two," he added.

"All of those words are similar, but clearly relationship and ties suggest more than contacts."

The Sept. 11 commission's staff report said there had been contact between Iraqis and al Qaeda members including a Sudan meeting between al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officers.

But the panel concluded that Iraq never responded to a bin Laden request for help and said there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

[Rspaight]

More chaos. Rumsfeld is now suggesting that Zarqawi, who Bush continually trots out as evidence of an al Qaeda link (and who we purposely did not kill before the war for some reason), may not be al Qaeda after all.

The other thing I would say is that it appears -- I guess I don't know if I should say this or not, but I -- I suppose I can -- it appears that Zarqawi -- who is, everyone in the intelligence community seems to agree, is engaged as a significant leader of a network in Iraq and has in his past been identified by at least some intelligence as being a leader with respect to terrorist activities in other countries, not just Iraq -- may very well not have sworn allegiance to UBL. But he -- maybe, because he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be “The Man” himself, and maybe for a reason that's not known to me.

Now, therefore you probably -- someone could legitimately say he's not al Qaeda.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

Here's a nice clip from the Daily Show entitled "Missing Link":

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.ph ... /8154.html

[lukpac]

CIA: No Iraqi officer link in al-Qaida meeting
White House official denies commissioner's statement that tied Saddam's Fedayeen unit to al-Qaida

By Knut Royce
Washington Bureau

June 22, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The CIA concluded "a long time ago" that an al-Qaida associate who met with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia was not an officer in Saddam Hussein's army, as alleged Sunday by a Republican member of the 9/11 commission.

Commissioner John Lehman, who was Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan, said "new ... documents" indicated that "at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen," an elite army unit, "was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."

Lehman's remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" lent support to the Bush administration's insistence that there were strong ties between Hussein and al-Qaida.

The administration official said the CIA and U.S. Army obtained the lists of members of the Fedayeen shortly after the invasion of Iraq last year. Some, he said, had names "similar to" Ahmad Hikmat Shakir. But, he said, the CIA had concluded "a long time ago" that none were the al-Qaida associate. He would not say whether the al-Qaida associate is in U.S. custody. Other sources said he was not.

A report last week by the 10-member commission concluded that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden had "explored possible cooperation" with Iraq and that there had been contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, but that these did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

Lehman said that, since the report was issued, new intelligence had arrived "from the interrogations in Guantanamo and Iraq and from captured documents. ... Some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."

His comments were made after Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration's strongest advocate of an alleged link between Hussein and al-Qaida, said in an interview Friday that he, Cheney, "probably" saw intelligence not reviewed by the Sept. 11 commission.

In alleging that a Hussein army officer was an al-Qaida operative, Lehman also acknowledged that the claim "still has not been confirmed" by the commission. But he insisted that Cheney "was right when he said he may have things we [the commission] don't have yet."

An administration official familiar with the CIA intelligence on the matter identified the al-Qaida associate who met with hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawar al Hazmi in Kula Lampur, Malaysia, in early 2000 as Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi. Some of the early planning for Sept. 11 allegedly occurred at the meeting.

Lehman could not be reached for comment. Commission spokesman Jonathan Stull said the commission staff was looking into the allegations and, if deemed credible, they would be included in the final report to be released in July.

The claim that the Iraqi officer and al-Qaida figure are the same first appeared in a Wall Street Journal editorial on May 27. A similar account was then published in the June 7 edition of the Weekly Standard, which reported that the link was discovered by an analyst working for a controversial Pentagon intelligence unit under Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

[Patrick M]

I think all you naysayers need to read this.

[lukpac]

From Amazon:

"5 out of 5 stars The leftists are at it again, June 22, 2004
Reviewer: Ross Bartlett (see more about me) from El Cajon, California USA
Did y'all notice the left-wing comment on "timing". I'm sure glad all the leftist books coming out now won't be "good timing". Oh, great, I just bit my tongue in my cheek.
These people never read that book, and neither have I. But I've read volumes about this, and watched interviews on the TV, and listened to it on the radio. Only an ignorant fool (or a leftist anti-American would deny hat Sadaam was harboring and financing terrorists. Even Vladimr Putin of Russia said Sadaam was preparing to attack the United States. I swear, these leftists will spin anything they can to have it their way.
Of course, when some left-wing whacko says Reagan didn't help bring down the Berlin Wall, even though Gorbachev says it was the two of them, you know you are never going to get a straight answer from them. There is no honesty now that the leftists are taking over the Democratic party, and this is an example. "

[Patrick M]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 62104.html

25a. Before the war, do you think Iraq did or did not provide direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group? IF YES: (Is that your suspicion only), or (do you think there's been solid evidence of that)?

Code: Select all

            -----------Provided Support------------      Iraq did not       No
            NET   Suspicion only     Solid evidence     provide support     op.
6/20/04     62          38                  23                 33            6


Compare to: Do you think Iraq has or has not provided direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group?

Code: Select all

            Provided    Not provided     No
            support       support      opinion
1/28/03        68           17           15


25b. Do you think the Bush administration (intentionally misled the American public) about possible links between Iraq and the Al Qaeda (Al KY-da) terrorist group, or do you think the administration (told the American public what it believed to be true) about this?

Code: Select all

            Intentionally misled      Told the American public         No
            the American public      what it believed to be true     opinion
6/20/04              48                          50                     2


[Rspaight]

The Daily Show demolishes Cheney:

http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm

Ryan