Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11

[Feuer Frei!]

5 Days old but nonetheless...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...about-911.html

[Catfish]

Was there ever any doubt, about all the Bush Administration ?

[BossMark]

Thats unusual a politician lying

[Skybird]

The point to note here is the system failing. Somebody comes along and implies to be authorized to give the order that he actually gives - but is not formally authorized at all. He gets away with it because the implication is not verified and counter-checked.

Of course, Cheney is a lying cheating manipulating bastard, and always was, but the system failure is the far more important thing to take from this news.

Bush should have cut his wings after this and show him his place. I'm sure he didn't, though. When has a hand puppet ever bitten the hand of the puppet masters?

I miss Bush, slamming and slapping Obama is all nice and well, but it just does not feel like kicking Bush around.

[August]

If you read the article it claims there is no proof of his having talked to the president, not that he didn't talk to the president. Typical Liberal propaganda only a sucker would believe.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, all's well then, Cheney is off the hook since it's just Liberal Propaganda.
Phew.
He should sue for character defamation.

[AVGWarhawk]

And we will hear the true story concerning Benghazi 12 years later.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

If you read the article it claims there is no proof of his having talked to the president, not that he didn't talk to the president.

Exactly.

And the original article, is "slightly" anti-Cheney to begin with.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

If you read the article it claims there is no proof of his having talked to the president, not that he didn't talk to the president. Typical Liberal propaganda only a sucker would believe.

sort of my feeling too. I dont see the so-called smoking gun the "article" implies. The entire tone of that blog does not strike me as very objective either.

When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.”

so, President Bush, under oath, testifies that he had verbally authorized his vice-president to give the shoot-down order, but that is not good enough? give me a break.

Typical Liberal propaganda only a sucker would believe.

Believers like those suckers who swallowed the silly propoganda about Iraq and 9/11.
Not mentioning any names of course

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Believers like those suckers who swallowed the silly propoganda about Iraq and 9/11.

I'm pretty sure we all know Iraq was not behind 9/11.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually this is typical Maureed Dowd. She has been heavily biased since she started writing. The only quote from Cheney in the article is the opener about keeping Bush in the air while he went underground. Everything else is claims about Cheney lying, but where does he actually admit that, as the title claims?

I was against the Iraq invasion from the start, and I believe that our leaders both lied and were lied to, but where in the article does Cheney "come clean"? Dowd refers to claims made in a documentary, but is Cheney on the film admitting he lied? We'll see, when this film hits the air.

To be fair, though, Dowd doesn't claim that Cheney admits that he lied, either in her text or in her title. That is left to the person who wrote the blog, and to the person who linked it here.

Dowd claims that Cheney lied, which she has done all along. How solid is her evidence?

The Blogger repeats Dowd's claims, but puts up the false title "Cheney Admits that he lied about 9/11".

It is repeated here without checking to see whether that claim is true, and everybody jumps on the same bandwagon.

Just to be clear, I believe that Cheney lied, and I have always felt that Iraq was the wrong move. This coming documentary may have new evidence, or it may not. That remains to be seen. There doesn't seem to be anything new here, and still no direct evidence. My only quibble is in the rehashing of old news with nothing new to add, under the heading "Cheney Admits..."

I'm pretty sure we all know Iraq was not behind 9/11.

I wouldn't be to sure about that, after all some people still trot out the other silly false claims and say that they really were true, so why should that line of silly propoganda be any different?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I wouldn't be to sure about that, after all some people still trot out the other silly false claims and say that they really were true, so why should that line of silly propoganda be any different?

^This exactly.

So we know Iraq was not behind 9/11, so why is this war of aggression (and it was one) still being defended. Saddam may have been whatever, but he also had been an allied dictator for decades before, as have others, from Pinochet to Noriega.

[Armistead]

The Iraq war should go down as the biggest blunder in US history, for certain is was a tragic war in cost of lives and money. I have no doubt Bush was war hungry.