That’s not quite right.
But TVeblen wasn’t violent, so the call for help had to be modified to only repression.
Arthur wasn’t violent initially, either. Dennis interpreted the call for silence as violence.
And don’t try to tell me that you didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.
I’m recusitating this dead thread to settle the bet publicly. (scroll up if you care to find out) **Leander ** outmanuevered me by asking for ten statements just from Cheney; I was only able to find six, although I ran across several more form Rice, Rummy, W, etc. There may have been more, but alas, whenever I tried to look, I’d just find cite after cite of the same interviews; I actually found all of these in the first couple of hours, then just started hitting blog references quoting them. There may be more, but I’ve had precious little time to spend searching for 'em.
As mentioned, **Leander ** chose his terms wisely; Cheney was the admin member most likely to suggest or imply a 9/11 connection.
At the same time, looking at all of these together (as well as the numerous other statements from other officials) it’s pretty hard to see how anyone closely following the story could have honestly thought that there was an explicit connection being claimed to 9/11. Granted, most people don’t closely follow these things, and they shouldn’t really have to. But any reporters who claimed that the admin’s position had ever been that there was evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 were either dishonest or (more likely) just doing a shitty job of staying up on the facts.
1.
Q: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or the Iraqis to this operation?
Cheney: No.
Meet the Press 9/16/01, cited NYT 6/20/04
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/06/20/weekinreview/20040620_QUOTES2_GRAPHIC.html
2
Gloria Borger: Well, you know that Muhammad Atta the ringleader of the hijackers actually met with Iraqi intelligence.
Vice President Cheney: I know this. In Prague in April of this year as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously that’s an interesting piece of information.
Gloria Borger: Sounds like you have your suspicions?
Vice President Cheney: I can’t operate on suspicions. The President and the rest of us who are involved in this effort have to make what we think are the right decisions for the United States and the national security arena and that’s what we’re doing. And it doesn’t do a lot of good for us to speculate. We’d rather operate based on facts and make announcements when we’ve got announcements to make
11/14/01
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011114.html
3
“I want to separate out 9/11 from the other relationship between Iraq and the AQ operation. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years … “
Q: But no direct link?
“I can’t – I’ll leave it right where it’s at … I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments.”
MTP, 9/8/02, cited NYT 6/20/04
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/06/20/weekinreview/20040620_QUOTES2_GRAPHIC.html
4
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
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.
MTP 12/9/2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html
5
MR. 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?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know.
MTP 9/16/03 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
“Two issues in terms of relationship. One is, was there a relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or the al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence service? That’s one category of issues. A separate question is, whether or not there was any relationship relative to 9/11. Those are two separate questions and people oftentimes confuse them.
On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we’ve never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been – we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.”
Rocky Mtn News 1/9/2004
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/politics/article/0,1299,DRMN_35_2565269,00.html
One of the last things I want to do is revive this moribund pissing match, but one of the principal points of Friday’s senate committee report is that the information on which the claim of a Saddam-AlQaida connection was based is false information.
If Congress can publicly announce that now, we can be pretty sure that the Administration has known that for some time and that the relationship Mr Cheney and the boys have been talking about is the relationship that was alleged in the unreliable information, not some different social acquaintance not related to September 11. Why the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense and even the President should now claim that they are talking about some different relationship when they now have the perfect defense of saying they were duped by the CIA is a little puzzling unless they are now relying on the “right thing for the wrong reason” defense.
furt – I appreciate your graciousness and kind words. Whatever disagreements we may have had in the past, IMHO you are a class act.
And I don’t disagree that those who “closely follow the story” would find the admin’s position as such; however, it seems to me that they are quite obviously and deliberately trying to obfuscate their position and lead a great lot of folks to believe that there could be a connection. As you said, not everyone will follow the story so closely.
Though in the end I doubt we would be in disagreement about the subtle and not-so-subtle deception and manipulation from the Bush admin in re a whole assortment of issues. But you are certainly correct that they have “covered their asses”, so to speak, though I’m not surprised that Cheney was the weakest link when it came to refutations.
If you have a local Children’s Leukemia foundation/research institution, I would be most grateful if you sent them $25.00. Or, if you prefer, you could send them fifty, and (as you came pretty damn close to winning), I’d be glad to send twenty-five to a charity of your choosing.
All in all a fun bet, and thanks for “playing” honestly. 
Nope. Though I actually think the root of it is smugness rather than malice; sort of an attitude that they don’t have an obligation to level with us, that press conferences and national addresses are not part of their job, that if they can win our approval twice in eight years then we all should just be quiet in-between.
Ooooh, damn ye. You got me in a soft spot. Very well. I think Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital does Leukemia (I’ll check), and I put off buying a video game for another week. (Damn you, damn you)
Most of my charities are faith-based, so you pick any private third-world aid group.
If you Google, try adding this, (or something similar), to your query:
‘(site:.gov OR site:.mil)’ this’ll eliminate most blogs and get into the ‘official’ stuff. Next in order is ‘site:.edu’
I don’t know what you’ve done previously. There was a possibility that this info could be useful to you so I thought I’d offer it…
Sounds great, though I will have to wait until I return to the States late next week to send anything out to a charity.
Speaking of, if you could be more specific about where you’d like the money to go, that’d be great. I’m a bit wary of some of the third-world aid groups, as I’ve heard that often the funds are diverted to less than worthy causes (like the warlord down the street). And just FTR, I have no problem with faith-based charities, so if you’ve got something specific in mind just let me know. I live in the LA area if that helps.
SimonX: *Now * you tell me!
**Leander: ** Totally in agreement re: the operations of many relief groups. I sponsor a kid through Food for the Hungry, which is audited by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, and also give money to Opportunity International, a terrific organization which sidesteps governments.