Quantcast

«

»

Jun 25 2012

Cheney Lied About Iraq. Film at 9/11.

I’m sure this will come as a huge shock to everyone, but Dick Cheney lied when he claimed that there was a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. No really, he did. I know, I know, Dick Cheney is known to be such an honest man, who could possibly make such an accusation? Answer: the CIA.

A document declassified this week by the National Security Archive reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delivered a briefing to the Bush administration which directly contradicts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta visited an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague.

The document (PDF), dated Dec. 1, 2001 and delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”

Despite this briefing, just days later on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told the late Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, that the meeting in Prague had been “pretty well confirmed.”

Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don’t know at this point. But that’s clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

Cheney repeated the same claim, which the CIA had already refuted, again in September, 2003.

23 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    slc1

    Gee, Cheney is a fucken liar. In other news, fire is hot.

  2. 2
    holytape

    Cheney lied?! So the rumors that he denied about him living off puppy blood and unicorn tears are true!

  3. 3
    ArtK

    Dick Cheney is just a big fan of the Secret. If you want something to be true, you just have to wish really, really hard for it.

  4. 4
    Gregory in Seattle

    I am clutching my pearls as I read this. No, really, I am!

  5. 5
    eric

    He’s a creationist without the religion. He already knows the answers, and his only use for data is to convince everyone else of what he knows to be true.

  6. 6
    Marcus Ranum

    But he was telling the truth about how he shot that lawyer in the face. The lawyer really _was_ “asking for it.” Besides, he may have been Saddam Hussein’s lawyer.

  7. 7
    Tualha

    Yeah, but conservative fools will continue to claim there were all kinds of good reasons to invade Iraq, including this one, because after all, just because this one claim was revealed to be (cough) erroneous, that doesn’t necessarily mean Iraq wasn’t involved, right?

    Hey, for that matter, I bet that damned teapot out in space had something to do with it, too!

    And, of course, this claim is being made by the CIA during the Obama Administration. Cue dramatic music! We all know the CIA lies to the American public. And this time they must be lying to advance Democratic Party interests. Right?

  8. 8
    jaxkayaker

    I don’t trust Cheney any farther than I can spit a rat, but neither is the CIA a bastion of truthfulness.

  9. 9
    interrobang

    The problem is not so much that he said it but the enormous percentage of twits in the American electorate who still believe it, even after it has been demonstrably disproven through multiple lines of evidence, for over a decade. Not to mention that anybody who thought there was a connection in the first place was a moron right out of the gate.

  10. 10
    d cwilson

    It doesn’t matter. As any conservative will tell you, several democrats voted in favor of the authorization to use force, including Hillary Clinton. This means. . .. something . . . . I’m not sure what, but it gets brought up any time someone points to the fact that Cheney lied.

  11. 11
    bvork

    I don’t want to defend this despicable person, but the documents do not prove what they are purported to prove. During his two Meet the Press interviews, Cheney refers to an alleged April 2001 (the year wasn’t made clear during the 9 December 2001 interview but was clarified by Cheney during the 14 September 2003 interview to be 2001) meeting between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. The declassified documents discuss Atta’s movements in May and June 2000, and the initial confusion between this Atta and another person named Atta. This isn’t the smoking gun you’re looking for.

    Now, if somebody were to find documents conclusively disproving that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001 (or simply that Atta never traveled to Prague during the time period in question), that would be nice.

  12. 12
    John Hinkle

    If confronted, Cheney could always fall back on that department he created, the Office of Special Bullshit whatever-it’s-called, wherein non-intelligence people “vetted” raw intelligence and stovepiped it to the White House. Funny, the memos from that office always seemed to be:
     

    For the Office of the President of the United States:

    The intelligence indicates it’s time to strafe Iraq with airstrikes, impose democracy on them, and then strafe them with airstrikes.

    Author: Douglas Feith

  13. 13
    harold

    The lawyer really _was_ “asking for it.”

    Despite being a rich old guy in Texas with connections to the Bush family, that lawyer was a persistent Democrat supporter. I’m sure that’s a coincidence. The shotgun went off accidentally. A Democrat just happened to be in the way.

  14. 14
    Captain Mike

    I’m sure anything those leftist hacks at the CIA have to say can be dismissed out of hand.

  15. 15
    Michael Heath

    It would be interesting to analyze Cheney’s dishonesty rate during the Bush Administration relative to his other stints in government. Was he always this dishonest and the lack of the Internet and a more fragmented media concealed this fact or did he greatly increase his dishonesty during the Bush Administration?

    I actually wonder about that in regards to a number of public figures but none more so than Dick Cheney. I think the incentive for conservatives to lie is far more rewarding now with the emergence of Fox News and other media outlets, so my hunch is the rate of conservative dishonesty has increased more than our ability to fact check liars.

  16. 16
    joelgrant

    re bvork @11: You are correct about which documents disprove which claim about Atta. But the “Atta in Prague in April, 2001″ has been disproven to the point that even Cheney himself essentially reversed himself in 2006.

    Multiple sources, including Czech intelligence, dispute that Atta was outside of the US during this time period. The 9/11 commission pretty much debunked this claim.

    Cheney seems to have heard what he wanted to hear and turned a deaf ear when it served his purposes.

  17. 17
    Area Man

    It doesn’t matter. As any conservative will tell you, several democrats voted in favor of the authorization to use force, including Hillary Clinton. This means. . .. something . . . .

    It’s yet another example of this. Someone needs to come up with a fancy name for it.

    The Republicans expect to be held to the same moral standard as one would hold a starving lion or a pathogenic bacterium; basically, something that cannot help but behave selfishly and destructively, and therefore the only ones with moral accountability are those who enabled it or failed to stop it. And for some reason, they still expect people to vote for them.

  18. 18
    democommie

    “Was he always this dishonest and the lack of the Internet and a more fragmented media concealed this fact or did he greatly increase his dishonesty during the Bush Administration?”

    Michael Heath:

    Even Satan didn’t start out as a completely evil and corrupt piece of shit; he had to work up to it. Then again Cheney’s a republican, never mind.

    “and therefore the only ones with moral accountability are those who enabled it or failed to stop it. And for some reason, they still GET people to vote for them.”.

  19. 19
    tommccann

    Ed, banging on about unimportant stuff as usual. That’s old news. Besides, it’s not like anyone died is it?

  20. 20
    dingojack

    tommccann – “Besides, it’s not like anyone died is it?”

    Well only some 250,000 men, women and children (conservatively). But no, not anyone the Republican voters would give a shit about.

    Dingo

  21. 21
    Modusoperandi

    Stop living in the past! The future is now! There are plenty of other countries yet that need a good invadin’, some on remarkably bare and transparent pretext!

  22. 22
    stace

    Was he always this dishonest…

    Well, he pretty much got his start as a Nixon henchman, so yeah.

  23. 23
    twincats

    It’s yet another example of this. Someone needs to come up with a fancy name for it.

    YWSTBWHS (you were supposed to be watching him/her syndrome) observed by me as a youngster after two of my friends got little brothers. Can also be shortened to OSS (older sibling syndrome).

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site