[...] a series of Dick Cheney interviews from Meet the Press with Tim Russert. December 9, 2001: RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I agree in large part Word, but some were wrong. For example, the Prague meeting is still very heavily classified, and we just won’t know how accurate or inaccurate it was,

Which is part of my point. Much has been made out of a single “gotcha” remark that Cheney said in December of 2001 on MTP. That’s only a few months after 9/11. Here’s the remark, including a greater block of context than critics are giving to it:

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

[in a previous appearance on MTP, the Sunday following 9/11, when directly asked if there was evidence that Iraq had a part in 9/11, Cheney flat out said "No." So much for the theory that since day one the Bushies had war in Iraq on their collective minds- wordsmith]

CHENEY: 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.

RUSSERT: What we do know is that Iraq is harboring terrorists. This was from Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post that George W. Bush said that Abdul Ramini Yazen (ph), who helped bomb the World Trade Center back in 1993, according to Louis Freeh was hiding in his native Iraq. And we’ll show that right there on the screen. That’s an exact quote.

If they’re harboring terrorist, why not go in and get them?

CHENEY: Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists. That wasn’t the question you asked the last time we met. You asked about evidence involved in September 11.

When one looks at the broader scope of the responses, I can’t fault Cheney for anything he said.

And it is dishonest of Russert to pull the December 2001 “pretty well confirmed” Prague card, and ignore subsequent Prague comments by Cheney on MTP:

MTP 3/24/02:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: With respect to the connections to al-Qaida, we haven’t been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it’s since been public, the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, but we’ve not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaida organization and Saddam Hussein. We’ll continue to look for it.

MTP 9/08/02:

Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, September 16, 2001):

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

(End videotape)

Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn’t he there, again, it’s the intelligence business.

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It’s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it’s unconfirmed at this point. We’ve got…

Mr. RUSSERT: Anything else?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan-we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years. We’ve had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world’s most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he’d shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he’d shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it’s a very complex picture to try to sort out.

And…

Mr. RUSSERT: But no direct link?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t-I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that everybody will recognize that.

Russert is always fishing for “gotcha” statements, regarding 9/11-Saddam connections. He keeps coming back to repeating the same question in all of these interviews.

MTP 9/14/03:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: With respect to 9/11, of course you’ve had the story that’s been publicly 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 any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

Finally, MTP 9/10/06, where Russert tries to play “gotcha”:

RUSSERT: And now we have the Select Committee on Intelligence coming out with a report on Friday, it says here, “A declassified report released [Friday] by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.”

You said here that it was pretty well confirmed that Atta may have had a meeting in Prague, that that was credible. All the while, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee in January and in June and in September, the CIA was saying that wasn’t the case. And then the president…

“Pretty well confirmed” was said in Dec 2001. Why doesn’t Russert bring up Cheney’s subsequent statements on the matter?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, let me, let me—on that—well, go ahead.

RUSSERT: No, go ahead.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I want a, I want a chance to jump on that.

RUSSERT: OK, but, but you said it was pretty well confirmed that it was credible and now the Senate Intelligence Committee says not true, the CIA was waving you off.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No –

RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: (unintelligible) The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, 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 a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. 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.

But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know…

RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Uh. We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …

And yes, I don’t believe that the “Prague connection” has been “debunked”. It’s up in the air.

*UPDATE* Guess I’m a “Johnny-Come-lately”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I love it Wordsmith, “I think the critics have mostly misheard, misremembered, and misrepresented and cherry-picked what was stated by Dick Cheney to Tim Russert.” Is this similar to the hundred years of war we are now hearing about? I think it’s a fun little game to play. OK, he used the words one hundred, years and war in the same speech so let’s create a new sentence attributed to him. Then, if we say it long enough, the sheeple will believe it and continue spouting it until it is “true”. Ahhh, hope!

I am truly amazed at how few people anymore can research and form their own conclusions. How can they find their way to a blog but can’t find their way to try and research what “really” happened. Hell, how do they tie their shoes?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks Missy!
Hindsight 20-20, I shoulda broken the piece down to several parts; a separate post each day for each article of impeachment, and then one post in summary of the stupidity and hollowness of the entire idea. Still, I’m very glad you read it, enjoyed it, and saved it

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The impeachment effort of Cheney is as nutty as Kucinich, anyone taking him seriously needs medication.

Scott Malensek, unlike David, I read the whole thing, put it in my favorites and will cherish it forever, thank you for all your work!

I love this place, read through it everyday, except yesterday, but rarely comment, you guys are top-notch!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I noticed that over at some of the “insert your own odd adjective” blogs they are blaming the decision not to proceed with impeachment on Obama, saying it would put him in an awkward situation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Myself, I side with the 20 or so in Congress who are pushing *for* impeachment hearings. Because I believe that everyone (Republican, Democrat, or whatever) should be held accountable to the constitution.” One thing everyone should remember, the Democrats are experts on impeachment. How many times has it been for Rep Hastings?

“I believe every one should be held accountable to the Constitution” I also believe that. I also believe that there is no time limit on Art III, Sec III of the US Constitution. That is why I urge immediate trial of John (I have been to Paris) Kerry for for his work with the enemy during the Vietnam War. Jay (I immediately flew to to Syria in Jan 2002 and told them) Rockefeller, Durbin , Reid and most of the other Democrat Senators can be tried later. After that we can try the Democrat Reps who have aided the enemy, starting with Pelosi, and Murtha and continuing on——————————————————————————————.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I agree in large part Word, but some were wrong. For example, the Prague meeting is still very heavily classified, and we just won’t know how accurate or inaccurate it was, but given the cloud, I say skip it-even dismiss it as wrong-for now. There are far better examples of the depth of their relationship.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Moreover, while some pre-war claims of ties between the two were incorrect, the vast majority proved to be factual and corroborated by detainees and captured documents.

Aside from this, I don’t believe Cheney ever came close to overstating the extent of possible links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. If he did, it wasn’t lying if he based his point of argument upon the best available information at the time.

I haven’t followed through with it, but I had been planning a blogpost covering all the “gotcha” quotes from Cheney’s Meet the Press appearances. I think the critics have mostly misheard, misremembered, and misrepresented and cherry-picked what was stated by Dick Cheney to Tim Russert.

When you actually go back and look at the transcripts, it’s remarkable how far off the kool-aid drinkers are from being accurate in citing Cheney. If quoted accurately and honestly, there’s very little you can fault the Vice President for in the substance of what he said; ra^ther, they spin the words to mean something more and other than what he actually said.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks Scott (different Scott btw). It’s worth noting that most of David’s comments and allegations are debunked in the article that was linked to which he obviously didn’t read. One could call that jumping to conclusions if the conclusions matched, but he didn’t even look at those.

Try again David?

Like or Dislike: 0  0