Skip to comments.9/11, Iraq: Cheney again claims tie - VP attacks Dems for first time since Libby conviction
Posted on 03/13/2007 12:57:13 PM PDT by SmithL
Washington -- Vice President Dick Cheney, lashing out at Democrats for the first time since the felony conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his former top deputy, resumed his controversial claims Monday that the war in Iraq is the central front in the worldwide U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003.
In remarks to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Cheney contended that U.S. Marines face al Qaeda operatives in Anbar province, that the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown has unmasked al Qaeda car bomb operations in Baghdad and that Osama bin Laden has promised to make Baghdad the capital of a radical Islamic empire reaching from Indonesia to Spain.
"As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts," Cheney told the annual conference of the pro-Israel group, which interrupted his speech at least 27 times with applause.
"Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain," Cheney said. He said al Qaeda terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the U.S. war against terrorism.
The U.S. invasion, occupation and counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq over the past four years has claimed the lives of at least 3,193 U.S. soldiers,
...Cheney has long contended that the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago this month was justified in part because of suspected ties between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yes, but al Qaeda wasn't there before we went into Iraq.
So, if al Qaeda HAD been in Iraq before 9-11, it would justify us being there now.
But al Qaeda IS there now, and liberals insist we withdraw?
Have I got the liblogic down on this one?
THIS IS THE SAME GROUP THAT BOOED PELOSI! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Tsk, tsk, tsk Mr. Powell, this is an absolute lie. You know what happens to liars, don't you? Keep repeating the mantra and it becomes true.
Sad thing is that 50% of the voting population gets it's 'truth' from such sources.
Though I will. Saddam bore a pan-islamist mindset. Pan-islamism is the ENEMY. Pan-islamists should be killed in masse.
Mow may muslims are islamist?
Yes. War against al Qaeda in Afganistan good. War against al Qaeda in Iraq bad.
It's amazing that libs are so stupid they cannot see that terrorists/al Qaeda are flocking to Iraq to fight the U.S. military there. Is that bad?
There were numerous connections between al Queda and Iraq going back at least 10 years. al Queda fled Afganistan for Iraq after our attack.
But the most significant reason we attacked was to prevent Saddam being able to develop WMDs. He had an entire nuclear weapons research program run in Libya which we did not even know about until Libya turned it over after the invasion.
For some strang reason this Treason Media COMPLETELY covered this up and refuses to investigate it or even discuss it. It never happened if we don't speak of it is their motto.
Even Dick (Dumbass) Clarke claimed Iraq and al Queda were cooperating in the chemical weapons program in the Sudan as did SecDef Cohen.
Iraq-Al Qaida connections are well-documented in Stephen Hayes' or Richard Miniter's books. It's obvious that Saddam and Bin laden were linked, both wanted to destroy America.
Iraq is also strongly suspected to be behind 9/11 as supportive regime. Terrorists in Salman Pack were trained to hijack planes and paid by Saddam. The Atta-Iraqi ambassador meeting in Tcheckya has been attacked by the 9/11 commission, but they had no definitive answer. It's clear now that the 9/11 commission spent more time clearing Clinton's disastrous record on the War on terrorism than looking for Saddam-Bin Laden links.
Zarkawi's group on northen Iraq was also linked with Saddam, who gave money to them. Al Qaida's operative in Afghanistan moved in Iraq in 2002.
Just incredible isnt? However we should not be surprised by the lies of the media anymore, they cannot but lie and lie all the time. Iraq is the absolute center front of the war on terror. It is in Iraq where terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran decided to fight us, either directly or indirectly using their Iraqi agents and it is in Iraq where we are annihilating these terrorists by them tens of thousands. Once they are defeated in Iraq, and they will be defeated, it is over for the terrorists worldwide, and both the Iranian and Syrian terrorist regimes will not last longer after their defeat in Iraq.
This has got to take the prize for the worst article in quite some time.
Lashing out after the Libby conviction? As IF Cheney's speech on the WOT has anything to do with Libby. Then the obvious garbage word-twisting.
I watched the speech on C-SPAN. Cheney linked Iraq to the WOT and AQ using direct quotes from bin Laden and his minions, AQ believes that Iraq is the central front in its war against us. That's a fact. He also qutoed AQ on what an American defeat in Iraq would mean to achieving their objectives, including Baghdad becoming the capital of their caliphate.
I too can link al-Qaeda with Iraq pre-9/11. All one has to do is read Osama's infamous 1998 fatwa calling for the killing of innocent Americans where Osama spends 20% of the fatwa talking about Iraq.
OSAMA'S 1998 FATWA:
The Al Shifa plant connection and the remarks on it by Richard Clarke are certainly interesting. The 9/11 Commission Report relegates it to a footnote though.
Libs are also too stupid obtuse and/or afflicted with BDS to understand that Iraq was the most natural refuge to which al Qaeda would flee, or source of logistsinc support, once war started in Afghanistan and we gained at least some coopertion from Pakistan's Musharaff in standing firm against al Qaeda taking over Pakistan.
As if, had the US only sent military forces to Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be standing ground and fighting us there. NOT.
They'd have fled like rats to camps in Iraq or camps in Yemen supported by Saddam Hussein's Iraqi intelligence. (No, they would not have gone into Iran enmasse because Iran might not have let them operate freely against the West - Iran is more selective in its terror operations)
Imagine the war against terror if we were NOT engaging al Qaeda in Iraq.
The administration has failed to nail down this strategic multiple front consideration over and over and over again until at least the most stupid conservative fully understood it.
That's what I saw too.
Cheney was quoting AQ sources
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.