newbie Posted April 4, 2006 Report Posted April 4, 2006 For Immediate Release March 29, 2006 Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct? THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060329-2.html Whoa, talk about a Freudian slip. Quote
geoffrey Posted April 5, 2006 Report Posted April 5, 2006 Not directly involved doesn't mean he wasn't responsible. Taylor didn't personally commit genocide so he wasn't responsibile right? What a ridiculous comment... Osama even claimed responsibility, so what do I need to know past that? It's obvious that Osama wasn't flying the planes, sheesh. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
BubberMiley Posted April 5, 2006 Report Posted April 5, 2006 He meant to say Sadaam, not Osama. This administration has made this mistake many times. It's like they want people to confuse the two. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Black Dog Posted April 5, 2006 Report Posted April 5, 2006 Osama even claimed responsibility, so what do I need to know past that? It's obvious that Osama wasn't flying the planes, sheesh. Actually, he didn't. He claimed he inspired the attacks, but has never claimed to have played any role in planning or executing hem. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 5, 2006 Report Posted April 5, 2006 Osama even claimed responsibility, so what do I need to know past that? It's obvious that Osama wasn't flying the planes, sheesh. Actually, he didn't. He claimed he inspired the attacks, but has never claimed to have played any role in planning or executing hem. After some research it was the video from Dec 2001 and Osama admited to it. BUT it turns out it was not Osama in those tapes. So ya he never claimed it was his doing. The tape was faked, that we know. Who faked the tapes? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 5, 2006 Report Posted April 5, 2006 After some research it was the video from Dec 2001 and Osama admited to it. BUT it turns out it was not Osama in those tapes. So ya he never claimed it was his doing. The tape was faked, that we know. Who faked the tapes? Now how do you KNOW the tape was faked ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
newbie Posted April 5, 2006 Author Report Posted April 5, 2006 Cheney corrected himself moments later apparently, from the same source: Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir. Q Okay. THE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.) Q Yes. Well, otherwise we'd have a whole lot more stories to deal with. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 6, 2006 Report Posted April 6, 2006 After some research it was the video from Dec 2001 and Osama admited to it. BUT it turns out it was not Osama in those tapes. So ya he never claimed it was his doing. The tape was faked, that we know. Who faked the tapes? Now how do you KNOW the tape was faked ? Face was different, the man was wearing a ring on the right hand (Osama does not wear any jewlery), voice was different ect. It was not Osama. Pros even debunked the video. I will try to find that clip for you Micheal. Quote
KrustyKidd Posted April 6, 2006 Report Posted April 6, 2006 Pros even debunked the video. I will try to find that clip for you Micheal. Damm media decided to chase any other story rather than one that would place the US (and Bush in particular) in a bad light instead of the story that would be the scoop of the decade. All they had to do was talk to the 'pros.' Quote We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters
Michael Hardner Posted April 6, 2006 Report Posted April 6, 2006 Pros even debunked the video. I will try to find that clip for you Micheal. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy minded, one only becomes a 'pro' when they have a theory to brandish. If 100 people agree on what happened, they will take the word of the person who doesn't agree just because. This, by the way, is the same tack used by those who submit that the UN Global Warming study is a fraud and their one scientist who disagrees must be the one who is right... The idea put forward is that planes hitting a building wouldn't be 'shocking' enough so demolition of the buildings had to be added to make the scene truly terrifying. Does that not sound farcical to you ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted April 8, 2006 Report Posted April 8, 2006 Pros even debunked the video. I will try to find that clip for you Micheal. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy minded, one only becomes a 'pro' when they have a theory to brandish. If 100 people agree on what happened, they will take the word of the person who doesn't agree just because. This, by the way, is the same tack used by those who submit that the UN Global Warming study is a fraud and their one scientist who disagrees must be the one who is right... The idea put forward is that planes hitting a building wouldn't be 'shocking' enough so demolition of the buildings had to be added to make the scene truly terrifying. Does that not sound farcical to you ? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067365/ http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html * *I hate to use these sites for they are ridiculed by everyone. From the pictures there you can see that the last Osama is a fake. Look at that nose. And this is the man that is in the tapes http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/...laden.tape.html More to come... Quote
KrustyKidd Posted April 8, 2006 Report Posted April 8, 2006 The idea put forward is that planes hitting a building wouldn't be 'shocking' enough so demolition of the buildings had to be added to make the scene truly terrifying. Ohhh, now this is interesting. If the US is in cahoots with the terrorists or even know about it and plant exposives all over Manhattan at great expense, secrecy, risk, effort and trouble, what happens if some check in girl at Logan blows the whistle? Wow, a lot of variables for even more risk. Quote We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.