Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cheney Lectures Russert on Iraq-9/11 Link
NewsMax.com ^ | 9/15/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 09/15/2003 6:42:16 AM PDT by kattracks

After telling a national radio audience last week that there was no connection between the World Trade Center attacks and Saddam Hussein, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert got an earful on Sunday from Vice President Dick Cheney, who outlined a mountain of evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 catastrophe.

Recalling that he had told Russert two years ago that he knew of no Iraqi link to the attack, Cheney said Sunday, "Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things."

The Vice President contended that more recent evidence indicates "that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example."

Though he did not specifically mention the South Baghdad terrorist training camp Salman Pak, where radical Islamists rehearsed 9/11-style hijackings on a Soviet-era Tupelov 154 airliner, Cheney noted that "al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved."

Cheney also cited reports of a meeting between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi in intelligence agent in Prague just months before the attacks, saying that U.S. intelligence has not yet been able confirm or discredit the information.

In perhaps his most startling remarks, the vice president became the first White House official to argue that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda's attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, telling Russert:

"We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

The vice president might have also mentioned that Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 attack and whose laptop computer contained plans to crash U.S. airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, entered the U.S. with an Iraqi passport.

After his capture in 1995, the FBI flew Yousef over the World Trade Center and reminded him that his plan to destroy the Twin Towers had not succeeded. His reported response - "Not yet."

Last Wednesday Russert insisted to radio host Don Imus, "No one will say there was a direct involvement of Saddam Hussein in Sept. 11. ... There's no direct link that can be substantiated." The full exchange between Russert and Vice President Cheney on the evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 went like this:

RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know. [End of Excerpt]

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; alqaedaandiraq; atta; cheney; iraq; saddam; youseff; youssef

1 posted on 09/15/2003 6:42:17 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BTTT
2 posted on 09/15/2003 6:43:58 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
There are clear connections but those who refuse to look will never see. RATmedia will never report them.
3 posted on 09/15/2003 6:46:02 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"The vice president might have also mentioned that Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 attack and whose laptop computer contained plans to crash U.S. airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, entered the U.S. with an Iraqi passport. "

Someone please refresh my memory.....when did we find this out about the laptop computers of Yousef's?

4 posted on 09/15/2003 6:48:43 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Whiners & PC'ers.......members of the new OFFENDED Political Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Including some people here.
5 posted on 09/15/2003 6:49:57 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Russert is losing credibility as he shows his partisanship more and more.
6 posted on 09/15/2003 6:51:11 AM PDT by aardvark1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Someone please refresh my memory.....when did we find this out about the laptop computers of Yousef's?

About 1995.

7 posted on 09/15/2003 6:51:15 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Last Wednesday Russert insisted to radio host Don Imus, "No one will say there was a direct involvement of Saddam Hussein in Sept. 11. ... There's no direct link that can be substantiated." The full exchange between Russert and Vice President Cheney on the evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 went like this:

RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

CHENEY: We don't know.

Whats the beef? What's the difference between what Russert said on Imus and what Cheney said on MTP?

8 posted on 09/15/2003 6:55:10 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
You are correct about that.
9 posted on 09/15/2003 7:00:01 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aardvark1
Russert is losing credibility as he shows his partisanship more and more.

Exactly where in the show did Russert show his partisanship. I watched the interview last night and if that was a Democrat official being interviewed we would have screamed about his being throw softballs. Russert wasnt argumentative, he let Cheney finish his thoughts without interupting him. He didnt force him to speak in sound bytes. The purpose of these programs is to ask those appearing tough questions. It's not to be a cheering section for one side or the other. Cheney hit home runs on just about every question, why whine about press bias?

10 posted on 09/15/2003 7:00:01 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

CHENEY: We don't know.

I'm so glad that's all cleared up now. By-the-by, how does this equal a "lecture" by VPOTUS? Sound to me as if he was saying "We don't know" if there was a connection - how does this equal a statement of fact that there was a connection?
11 posted on 09/15/2003 7:05:05 AM PDT by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
I agree! I cheered with every answer our fine VP gave. Including the Halliburton questions.
12 posted on 09/15/2003 7:05:13 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I may hide, but I never leave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
The purpose of these programs is to ask those appearing tough questions. It's not to be a cheering section for one side or the other.

UNLESS, of course, you are Hillary Rodham Clinton....in which case Russert melts like putty in her hands, smiling and giggling like a school boy with a crush on his Ashley Judd look-alike first grade teacher.

13 posted on 09/15/2003 7:05:19 AM PDT by nfldgirl (RE: Miguel Estrada's nomination....so much for "filibuster-lite.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
During the Dimocrat debates Kucinich and Dean repeated the same tired mantra over and over again:

"there was no link between Saddam and 9/11"

It's amazing to me how these liberals can find a conspiracy in every corner when it comes to corporate America or conservative Christians; but as far as terrorists are concerned, they assume innocence even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

They are convoluted in their logic, and one need only look to our neighbors in California to see the inevitable mess made by the application of their philosophy.

14 posted on 09/15/2003 7:10:28 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Maybe I saw a different interview yesterday.

I was appalled when Russert showed figures on the economy the day President Bush took office and compared them to today. He never mentioned the effects on the economy of 9/11, corporate scandals, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, etc... Russert instead asks VP Cheney to look at the figures and asks "how can you run for re-election?" (how can you be such a moron Mr. Russet?)

Also, when talking about Iraq, he stated as fact:
1).There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
2).He stated as fact that the US was not at all welcomed as liberators.

Isn't it amazing that Timmy can know this as fact. I have read reports contradicting his facts.
15 posted on 09/15/2003 7:16:18 AM PDT by Republican Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Tim Russert suffers from Lingering Camelot Syndrome (LCS), but not as much as Chris Matthews. They are both waiting for a JFK Second Coming.
16 posted on 09/15/2003 7:21:55 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
I'm so glad that's all cleared up now. By-the-by, how does this equal a "lecture" by VPOTUS? Sound to me as if he was saying "We don't know" if there was a connection - how does this equal a statement of fact that there was a connection?

In an abundance of caution Cheney said "we don't know." He then laid out specific evidence of links.

17 posted on 09/15/2003 7:28:27 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Did you notice that when Russert talked about previous statements by Cheney about the deficit, the photos of Cheney that accompanied the text of the statements were both of Cheney scowling? Even Cheney commented on MTP's selection of such bad pictures.
18 posted on 09/15/2003 7:31:20 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Lingering Camelot Syndrome (LCS)

LOL, LOL ...........
19 posted on 09/15/2003 7:35:41 AM PDT by oh8eleven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Isn't it amazing that Timmy can know this as fact.

Dennis Millers' response during his interview was great on how it is to be a ex-liberal:

TAE: You’ve become more conservative over the years. How do you explain this shift?

MILLER: I’m not as sure of my guesswork anymore. To be on the Left, you have to be amazingly certain about things you’re guessing at,

20 posted on 09/15/2003 7:41:06 AM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Tom Brokaw did an almost identical report on the nightly news about a weel ago. I think Russert and Brokaw coordinated the stories. At any rate Brokaw started by saying despite the public impression aside (70% believe there is a link) no evidence exists to support it. This certainly was no news story. It was a false report designed to shape public opinion against Bush. The liberals will do anything to regain power, even if they have to put someone like Al Sharpton in office.
21 posted on 09/15/2003 7:43:03 AM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The big problem is, Liberals want to deny links between 9/11 and anybody.

Unfortunately for them, bin Laden has already claimed the credit. So, now they have to deny the links between bin Laden and anybody else!

22 posted on 09/15/2003 7:57:58 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Tim Russert needs to care more about the truth and a great deal less about his own personal bias. I have lost faith in him, and if I have, I'd be willing to bet others have, too.

When the facts get in his way, Tim slides over them with clintonian style, caring less about truthfully informing our fellow citizens. Tim would rather use innuendo to damage actual known facts than in to ever allow anything positive about this administration to creep thru his dialogue.

It has to hurt to be Tim Russert.

The clintons have done this to the liberals.

Their anger stems from their guilt...at least in those who still have a conscience.

23 posted on 09/15/2003 8:06:00 AM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Russert looked like a scoled child after the Vice President was finished with him. Did anyone else notice that Russert could not talk over the top of Mr. Cheney or interupt him when the Vice President was making his points. I have never enjoyed a Russert interview until yesterday. Bravo Mr. Vice President
24 posted on 09/15/2003 8:08:24 AM PDT by i are a cowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Yousef's laptop:

Seized in 1995, it detailed the "bojinka" (Bosnian for "big bang") project, an elaborate plan to plant bombs for simultaneous detonation on up to 13 aircraft over the Pacific. That got everyone's attention. But there was also a sketchier scenario on the laptop about hijacking aircraft and flying them into "government buildings" in Washington.

Insight mag May 27th, I don't have a direct link for you, but this will get you there:

www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/Insightmag_052702.htm

25 posted on 09/15/2003 8:37:16 AM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Thank you.
26 posted on 09/15/2003 8:39:10 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Whiners & PC'ers.......members of the new OFFENDED Political Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
...sorry, Insight mag May 27th, 2002.
27 posted on 09/15/2003 8:39:10 AM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Republic
"I'd be willing to bet others have, too."
I stopped watching Timmy about a year ago. I only watched the repeat last night after reading reports of it on the Sunday Talk Show Thread. Cheney was great. Timmy still isn't worth watching.
28 posted on 09/15/2003 8:47:22 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Too bad the administration chose to emphasize Iraq's WMD arsenal rather than the Saddam-9/11-OBL connection prior to the war. Yeah, I realize that the evidence supporting that connection is still mounting daily, but we had enough to justify our actions many months before the war began.
29 posted on 09/15/2003 8:49:53 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; Poohbah; Chancellor Palpatine; BOBTHENAILER; dighton; Luis Gonzalez; Howlin; ...
WOW!!

If Cheney is mentioning the Prague connection, I think that Mr. al-Ani has been singing like the proverbial canary.

And Salman Pak, too.
30 posted on 09/15/2003 9:17:48 AM PDT by hchutch (The National League needs to adopt the designated hitter rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
cheney looked and sounded great-took that toad russert to school.
prague...clinton's old haunt............
31 posted on 09/15/2003 9:26:36 AM PDT by newzhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; Destro
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

I mentioned this exact same point to Destro( I think) the other day on a thread.

We have the intelligence files and they are a gold mine!

32 posted on 09/15/2003 9:32:31 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Angelus Errare; Coop; Jacob Kell; Miss Marple; BOBTHENAILER
FYI...
33 posted on 09/15/2003 9:34:27 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Also, when talking about Iraq, he stated as fact: 1).There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. 2).He stated as fact that the US was not at all welcomed as liberators.

No he didnt. He used some phrase like some say.... Maybe you ought to read a transcript the day after if you are not capable of watching it live without your internal censor causing you trouble.

34 posted on 09/15/2003 9:34:28 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dog; Poohbah
And they weren't destroyed?

Looks like we got lucky. Bill Gertz probably will be working some of his sources big time, IMHO.
35 posted on 09/15/2003 9:48:17 AM PDT by hchutch (The National League needs to adopt the designated hitter rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
At any rate Brokaw started by saying despite the public impression aside (70% believe there is a link) no evidence exists to support it. Cheney, you and I may believe there is but you are going beyond the evidence to say that there IS a connection.

Cheney still says there is no evidence that Saddam knew of and funded/directed the 9/11 attacks. He merely was pointing out that there were some connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Is there a link between Saddam and terrorism, yes. Is there any proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? No and that was the point of the question. 9/11 means the attacks on NY and Washington, not supporting terrorism in general.

Your logic is about the same as saying that Reagan ordered the Israelis to attack the Osirik Nuclear plant in 1981 to destroy Iraq's nuclear program. Reagan didnt order it, he didnt fund it, he may have known it was going to happen but so did any thinking person.

36 posted on 09/15/2003 9:49:19 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dave S; Republican Red
Just looking at the transcript now.

Regarding 2)He stated as fact that the US was not at all welcomed as liberators.

The transcript reads as follows:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to one of the most quoted passages from MEET THE PRESS when you were on in March, and that was trying to anticipate the reaction we would receive from the Iraqi people. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct and we’re not treated as liberators but as conquerors and the Iraqis begin to resist particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s unlikely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with various groups and individuals, people who’ve devoted their lives from the outside to try and change things inside of Iraq.

The read we get on the people of Iraq is there’s no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.

37 posted on 09/15/2003 9:52:32 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; hobbes1
Sounds to me like Cheney's been listening to Mylroie. By October next year they will lower the boom on people who were anti the Iraq campaign.
38 posted on 09/15/2003 9:54:41 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (This tagline is 100% Ben & JayLo free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Well, Tanenhaus was ascribed to having said theat Wolfowitz belives both Mylroie, AND possibly JAYNA DAVIS
39 posted on 09/15/2003 9:58:32 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
Beat me to it. I was just going to post that.

As for my statement that he asked the VP how he could run for re-election:

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Mr. Vice President, the economy and the Bush-Cheney record. The day you took office, Inauguration Day, as compared to now. Dow Jones is down 11 percent. Unemployment rate is up 49 percent. A $281 billion surplus is now a $500 billion plus deficit. Jobs, net loss of 2.6 million. The debt is up 20 percent and still growing. How can you run for re-election on that record?
40 posted on 09/15/2003 9:58:38 AM PDT by Republican Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Link = connection, not to 911, but between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Hell, one of the participants in the '93 WTC bombing was an Iraqi, maybe not Saddam's cousin, but still an Iraqi.

Saddam is/would/will do any thing, and side with anyone to harm America and Americans. Only Maddy Halfbright could miss the connection.

41 posted on 09/15/2003 10:01:36 AM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dave S; Republican Red
Thanks RR. I didn't catch that part of the interview.

Dave, here is a link to a post that I think was meant to be addressed to you.

Post 40

42 posted on 09/15/2003 10:03:23 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government.

That's an interesting exchange because it points out precisely why this debate has gotten so screwed up. Basically, it's a glossing over of the context in which the issue of resistance was being discussed.

The question prior to the war was whether there would be mass resistance by Iraqis that would require bloody house-to house fighting. The scenario was thousands of dead Americans -- the comparison was the Battle of Stalingrad. Do a search for Baghdad Stalingrad, and you'll see it. The Administration was saying they thought that degree of resistance was unlikely, and they were right.

What we are seeing is low-intensity resistance by isolated groups. Lives are being lost. But that was not the scale of resistance being considered prior to the invasion. Nobody, as far as I'm aware, promised that the entire population of Iraq would welcome the U.S. as liberators, and that there wouldn't be some resistance by citizens. The issue was mass resistance by the bulk of Iraqi citizens, and that has never transpired.

43 posted on 09/15/2003 10:10:12 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Good point!

And didnt we train al-qeida in Afghanistan during the 1980's?

Didnt we train the 19 hijackers/illegal immigrants how to fly jets from 1999-2000?

Didnt 15 of the 19 hijackers come from Saudi Arabia?

Havent their been links identified to the Saudi royal family to al-qeida?

Doesnt the Bush family and the Carlyle group have strong ties to both the Saudi royals as well as the bin-Ladens?

Why the hell are in Iraq again Mr Cheney?

How many billions of our tax dollars are being siphoned to Halliburton Mr Cheney?

Who did you meet with in your Energy task force Mr Cheney?
44 posted on 09/15/2003 10:26:03 AM PDT by opusprime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dog
name the Iraqi...
45 posted on 09/15/2003 10:27:34 AM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is HUGE news. The administration has been mum on this up untill now. I wouldn't expect Cheney to say this unless he was serious.

They could be in panic mode I guess. in the past they have tried to make points that aren't really necessary when they feel pressed. But this is stuff is too serious to play games with, and I'd expect Cheney to realize that.
46 posted on 09/15/2003 10:48:25 AM PDT by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog; hchutch
And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files,

Those files, along with the singing canaries, are gonna bury the anti-American RATs, in 04.

We've only seen the tip of the iceburg.

47 posted on 09/15/2003 1:42:59 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Though he did not specifically mention the South Baghdad terrorist training camp Salman Pak, where radical Islamists rehearsed 9/11-style hijackings on a Soviet-era Tupelov 154 airliner, Cheney noted that "al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved."

BIG FAT BUMP!

48 posted on 09/15/2003 3:10:48 PM PDT by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug, Holier - Than - Thou Socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson