Gyrfalcon: Both the stories mentioned refer to a Cheney quote for their source date. I.e., Cheney said April at one time, May at another.

I am sure I don't follow.

Both stories? Cheney referred to April and "five months previously" which is April.

Are you looking at something else?

Gyrfalcon: Also CHENEY is not noted for being a bastion of accuracy. Both the stories mentioned refer to a Cheney quote for their source date. I.e., Cheney said April at one time, May at another. Given that that comes down to trusting Cheney for what Cheney said, I'm inclined to throw the whole thing out as complete b/s.

I agree. If there was one thing surrounding the war in Iraq... it was a veritable cornucopia of bullshiat.

halfof33: Things that make farkers RAGE at old halfof33.

Where? Nobody seems particularly enraged here. And go ahead and ignore my tip to you about talking in the third person. If you want people to think you're one of those creepy folks who talks about themselves in the third person... good luck with that.

unlikely: It takes two for a like like that to work. One to TELL the lie and one to BELIEVE the lie.

We're all guilty here.

Speak for yourself, please. Not everyone bought the lies when they were being sold. In fact, some of us took a lot of abuse for not believing the lies.

JohnnyC: Where? Nobody seems particularly enraged here. And go ahead and ignore my tip to you about talking in the third person. If you want people to think you're one of those creepy folks who talks about themselves in the third person... good luck with that.

halfof33 is totes down with that, brohibo!

This just in -- the Spanish didn't blow up the battleship Maine. Where was this document when it mattered and where were the people who wrote it?

runwiz: This just in -- the Spanish didn't blow up the battleship Maine. Where was this document when it mattered and where were the people who wrote it?

It did not matter and does not matter. The linked article is bullshiat. The dumbass author is conflating two separate incidents.

It really is a travesty that he, Bush and Karl Rove aren't behind bars.

Amazing that they not only get away scot-free, but all are still stinking rich to boot.

DeltaPunch: Nadie_AZ: Someone send him an invitation to the Hague? Along with all those others that helped pull this off. You'll find a lot of them working for the Romney campaign, nowadays.

THIS

The voters NEED to know this. Elliott Cohen, Robert Kagan, Robert "16 words" Joseph, Dan Senor, and Eric Edelman... instead of walking away from politics with their heads hanging in shame, they see Romney like a piece of putty: get in now, and they'll once again have the White House and Pentagon under their control.

And they've made it perfectly clear that they want war with Iran.

and Sheldon Adleson is also wanting war with Iran and he's put tens of millions into making sure his puppet lands in the White House.
it's the PNAC all over again.

Go fark yourself, mr. cheney.

halfof33: runwiz: This just in -- the Spanish didn't blow up the battleship Maine. Where was this document when it mattered and where were the people who wrote it?

It did not matter and does not matter. The linked article is bullshiat. The dumbass author is conflating two separate incidents.

Except for the fact that you're wrong and the "other" incident wasn't what Cheney was talking about.

5 deferment - war monger using a heart that some deserving person should have received.
A true GOP hero!

So, I'm trying to sort this out. Somebody tell me if I got this straight:

The declassified document says that the Atta who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000 was not the terrorist named Atta. A few days later, according to the same document, the terrorist Atta (denoted in inverted colours) went from Bonn via bus to Prague, and then took a plane to Newark.

Cheney's another interview had him clarify that he meant April 2001: "CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of '01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague." Cheney also mentioned the confusion between the two different people named Atta.

So, did terrorist Atta return to Prague at some point? None of the events in the declassified memo occurred in an April of any year.

It does seem to me that Cheney's statement in the 10 September 2006 interview, "That was the first report we had that he'd been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer-on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion. This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he'd been in Prague. The-later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it," is a definite lie, because the now-declassified CIA report was sent on 08 December 2001 - one day before the first interview.

cameroncrazy1984: Except for the fact that you're wrong and the "other" incident wasn't what Cheney was talking about.

And this is the part of the thread where you back that up, sport. Because we all know that won't happen, because the person that hijacker Atta allegedly met with, Ahmad Samir al-Ani had been expelled from the Czech Republic PRIOR TO MAY 1 2001.

On May 31, ANOTHER Muhammed Atta, from Pakistan, was ejected from CZech Republic.

Two or three days later the hijacker Atta, left Frankfort and returned to the US THROUGH PRAGUE. No one, including Cheney ever claimed that Atta met with Ahmad Samir al-Ani in May or June because he was expelled in April.

The CIA files refer to Paki Atta from, and therefore the douchebag's Raw Story claim that it shows Cheney intentionally lied IS FALSE.

Any questions people? Drop the butt hurt and open your god damn minds.

bVork: So, did terrorist Atta return to Prague at some point? None of the events in the declassified memo occurred in an April of any year.

YES he did. In June, from Frankfort to Czech Republic to Newark.

Well give the guy a PNAC and hope he doesn't choke on it.

Old halfie is right, guys. There was never any deliberate deception of any intelligence to support the many different (and revolving) reasons that the US needed to invade Iraq.

FormlessOne: Like Oliver North, I expect. After all, he, too, carried water for a corrupt Republican administration.

I can understand Cheney lying, because he was in the GW Bush administration. It is a well known fact that the only prerequisite required for working for that administration was to be able to talk the fantasy while not laughing.

Ollie North is a different matter. Given the Marines support or non-condemnation of his lying, I can only assume that to be a US Marine is to be a liar. Here I thought that jarheads were only around to be the front wave to collects the bullets. Once Ollie North appeared, I realized their real purpose was to tell bald face lies. I'm sure that's what they teach in boot camp. As I understand it, one of their catch phrases is "Lie like Chesty!"

halfof33: bVork: So, did terrorist Atta return to Prague at some point? None of the events in the declassified memo occurred in an April of any year.

YES he did. In June, from Frankfort to Czech Republic to Newark.

Um, the memo discusses his movements in June 2000. Cheney talks about a meeting in Prague with an Iraqi official in April 2001. What is the source of the latter date? After June 2000, did he exit the US, go to Prague, and then re-enter the US? When did these movements occur?

bVork: Um, the memo discusses his movements in June 2000. Cheney talks about a meeting in Prague with an Iraqi official in April 2001. What is the source of the latter date? After June 2000, did he exit the US, go to Prague, and then re-enter the US? When did these movements occur?

YES! Terrorist Atta did leave the United States. In May of 2001.

He traveled to Frankfort, and the coincidentally returned to Newark through Prague in early June.

THis was three days AFTER another person of the same name was refused entry because he did not have a visa. It is this second person that is the subject of the CIA reports in the linked article.

This has nothing to do with the ALLEGED meeting in April, and the linked article is absolutely wrong.

Gyrfalcon: I have a question: spit or swallow?

Your mouth, your call, champ.

halfof33: bVork: Um, the memo discusses his movements in June 2000. Cheney talks about a meeting in Prague with an Iraqi official in April 2001. What is the source of the latter date? After June 2000, did he exit the US, go to Prague, and then re-enter the US? When did these movements occur?

YES! Terrorist Atta did leave the United States. In May of 2001.

He traveled to Frankfort, and the coincidentally returned to Newark through Prague in early June.

THis was three days AFTER another person of the same name was refused entry because he did not have a visa. It is this second person that is the subject of the CIA reports in the linked article.

This has nothing to do with the ALLEGED meeting in April, and the linked article is absolutely wrong.

You didn't answer the question. What source alleges this?

joonyer: Old halfie is right, guys. There was never any deliberate deception of any intelligence to support the many different (and revolving) reasons that the US needed to invade Iraq.

Never said that.

Just pointed out that the attached article was wrong.

Sorry you need a straw doll to get off, bro. Facts are facts.

Any of you want to explain how I've missed something?

cameroncrazy1984: You didn't answer the question. What source alleges this?

What source alleges what? You didn't ask a question.

Did you read the farking linked CIA documents which specifically mentions that the Iraqi Diplomat that Cheney said he had met has been expelled from the Czech Republic BEFORE MAY of 2001??? Cheney never ever said that Atta met him in May of 2001, because the guy was gone.

Therefore, the linked article is bullshiat.

Cripes guys, do ten minutes of farking research. Fark, read the farking linked article. It is transparently phony.

Or don't, I got a fresh 12 pack in the fridge, and a lunch meeting tomorrow in the burbs, so I'm sleeping in.

You reading impaired libtards want to dance?

halfof33: Therefore, the linked article is bullshiat.

Cripes guys, do ten minutes of farking research. Fark, read the farking linked article. It is transparently phony.

Or don't, I got a fresh 12 pack in the fridge, and a lunch meeting tomorrow in the burbs, so I'm sleeping in.

You reading impaired libtards want to dance?

What's funny is that after you did your pissy little martyr's "everyone gets mad at me!" dance, you're still the only poster in this thread who is absolutely frothing, foaming and generally going nutzo.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: What's funny is that after you did your pissy little martyr's "everyone gets mad at me!" dance, you're still the only poster in this thread who is absolutely frothing, foaming and generally going nutzo.

Yeah, you are probably correct.

I just could not believe the partisan putzs in this thread who swallow absolute garbage like this article.

I mean he quotes Cheney about april of 2001, and then links documents about May of 2001, and no one says anything?

I point it out, and farkers are like wrrgggbbblll.

I understand now that I expected a little bit more other than sheep. I got frustrated. My bad.

Hey, I hear that Mylie Cyrus got a belly button tattoo! YAY!

Because I'm the only on who cares about the obviously false link, I get that now.

yay American Idol!

halfof33: bVork: Um, the memo discusses his movements in June 2000. Cheney talks about a meeting in Prague with an Iraqi official in April 2001. What is the source of the latter date? After June 2000, did he exit the US, go to Prague, and then re-enter the US? When did these movements occur?

YES! Terrorist Atta did leave the United States. In May of 2001.

He traveled to Frankfort, and the coincidentally returned to Newark through Prague in early June.

THis was three days AFTER another person of the same name was refused entry because he did not have a visa. It is this second person that is the subject of the CIA reports in the linked article.

This has nothing to do with the ALLEGED meeting in April, and the linked article is absolutely wrong.

The declassified document only discusses MAY AND JUNE 2000. That's when terrorist Atta went through Prague to Newark. And, three days before, not-terrorist Atta was spotted. In 2000. Not 2001.

Not a single thing corroborates (or, to be fair, demolishes) Cheney's statements about an alleged meeting with an Iraqi official in April 2001. And, again, what documentation do we have about the movements of terrorist Atta post-June 2000?

bVork: The declassified document only discusses MAY AND JUNE 2000. That's when terrorist Atta went through Prague to Newark. And, three days before, not-terrorist Atta was spotted. In 2000. Not 2001.

Not a single thing corroborates (or, to be fair, demolishes) Cheney's statements about an alleged meeting with an Iraqi official in April 2001. And, again, what documentation do we have about the movements of terrorist Atta post-June 2000?

That is exactly why I have been explaining why the linked article is absolutely wrong. The CIA documents in the linked article do not address the alleged meeting with Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April of 2001, and the linked articles assertions are absolutely false.

What do you want to know about Atta after he arrived in Newark? He went back to Florida, took flying lessons, coordinated the muscle hijackers, and hijacked AA 11 and crashed into the North Tower of the WTC.

Why just blame Mr. Cheney? Why not also blame Congress, who voted for the war, including Hilary Clinton. Congress had access to the same intelligence.

Okay. So we're actually in agreement, but were talking past each other.

I want to know about terrorist Atta post-Newark because the alleged Iraqi meeting took place in April 2001. That is after his movements in Prague in June 2000, which means that he exited the United States and went to Prague a second time, then re-entered the United States. That, to me, is the crux of the matter: whether he actually did meet with an Iraqi official before the attacks. Knowing his movements would be one step towards figuring out if this is the case.

bVork: Okay. So we're actually in agreement, but were talking past each other.

I want to know about terrorist Atta post-Newark because the alleged Iraqi meeting took place in April 2001. That is after his movements in Prague in June 2000, which means that he exited the United States and went to Prague a second time, then re-entered the United States. That, to me, is the crux of the matter: whether he actually did meet with an Iraqi official before the attacks. Knowing his movements would be one step towards figuring out if this is the case.

The answer is no, he did not meet with an Iraqi diplomat in the Czech Republic in April of 2001, Atta was in the United States. It is essential to note that the just released CIA document do not deal with this alleged meeting, and the linked articles contentions to the contrary are false.

He also did not meet with Ahmad Samir al-Ani in June of 2001, as Ahmad had been expelled in late April of 2001. No one (other than the dope writing the attached article) has ever claimed that he did.

I know that the linked document has nothing to do with any alleged meeting. After all, it only discusses May/June 2000 while the meeting supposedly happened in 2001.

This also means that Cheney's statement that the "CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of '01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague" is either a deliberate lie, or extremely erroneous intelligence - either way, it doesn't look good for the possibility of a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

halfof33: He also did not meet with Ahmad Samir al-Ani in June of 2001, as Ahmad had been expelled in late April of 2001. No one (other than the dope writing the attached article) has ever claimed that he did.

I should add that the fact that terrorist Atta was undoubtedly in the Czech Republic in early June of 2001 added credibility to Czech Intelligence claims that Atta met with Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April of 2001.

It turned out to be a terrible coincidence.

The point is that there is no evidence that Cheney or the CIA knew that at the time Cheney gave the interviews quoted in the linked article.

bVork: s either a deliberate lie, or extremely erroneous intelligence - either way, it doesn't look good for the possibility of a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Oh there is no doubt that it turned out to be terrible intelligence. It was provided by what was thought to be a strong intelligence operation of a new friend, and was specifically mentioned by the Czech president as being 70% reliable.

It was an embarrassing fark up by the Czechs

Gyrfalcon: We're all guilty in the sense that we keep putting these assholes back into office...AND believing the lies over and over again. These same b/s lies got us into Vietnam, Grenada and Panama. But they keep telling them and we--as in the majority of the American public--keeps swallowing them hook, line and stinkers.

I generally blame the Republican supporters for Iraq... well... and Katherine Harris... and Ralph Nader. If they win this year, I'll probably end up blaming them for Iran too.

/I don't think they will, but there is a chance.

Bhasayate: [www.upsidetrader.com image 500x327]

No. It won't be old news until someone is held accountable. It won't be old news until the people involved learn from their "mistake" and when I call it a mistake I'm being incredibly generous. That includes everyone who supported the invasion, regardless of political ideology.

The Why Not Guy: Bhasayate: [www.upsidetrader.com image 500x327]

No. It won't be old news until someone is held accountable. It won't be old news until the people involved learn from their "mistake" and when I call it a mistake I'm being incredibly generous. That includes everyone who supported the invasion, regardless of political ideology.

They must BE PURGED? For sake of party purity? Line 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em! =p

Bhasayate: They must BE PURGED? For sake of party purity? Line 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em! =p

I don't think holding the people who led us into an unjust war based on lies accountable for their actions is unreasonable. We've lost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our troops. We'll be paying for health care for the wounded for decades. Meanwhile the people responsible carry on as if they did nothing wrong, and people like you mock any call to hold them accountable.

That says a lot more about you than it says about me.

Dear Leader Cheney would not lie to the American people.