I likewise am grateful for pure unfiltered Cheney spouting off, lest we forget exactly what core values the Republican party represents. I don't know why he has emerged as their principle spokesperson after their sound defeats of November 2008, but it is only helping his opponents and driving off whatever moderates might have otherwise stuck around hoping for a chance at some reform - Arlen Specter is already gone, and I would expect there will be more - Olympia Snowe might be next.

And I see he hasn't lost the sneer.

Lawrence Eagleburger dropped the perfect one-word description of Dick Cheney: Benighted.

There are better descriptions but "war criminal" is 2 words.

We are witnessing the total destruction of the Republican party, no doubt. The individuals who now are speaking for the Party are wonderful examples of this destruction, and it's fun to watch.

Slick Dick Cheney:
"war criminal"

Newt Gingrich:
Eighty-four ethics charges, most of which were leveled by House Democratic Whip David Bonior, were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Eighty-three of the 84 allegations were dropped.[26] Gingrich denied the charges over misuse of tax-exempt funds; however, he admitted to providing inaccurate statements during the probe over the college course and agreed to pay US$300,000 for the cost of the investigation.[27][28] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[29] The full committee panel did not reach a conclusion about whether Gingrich had violated federal tax law, instead they opted to leave it up to the IRS.[30] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[31]

Tom Delay:
In December 2005, the Washington Post reported that, in 1998, a group of Russian oil executives had given money to a nonprofit advocacy group run by a former DeLay staffer and funded by clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, in an attempt to influence DeLay's vote on an International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy.[11] Associates of DeLay advisor Ed Buckham, the founder of the U.S. Family Network, said that executives from the oil firm Naftasib had offered a donation of $1,000,000 to be delivered to a Washington, D.C.-area airport in order to secure DeLay's support. On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Family Network received a $1 million check via money transferred through the London law firm James & Sarch Co. This payment was the largest single entry on U.S. Family Network's donor list. The original source of the donation was not recorded.[12] DeLay denied that the payment had influenced his vote. Naftasib denied that it had made the payment and that it had ever been represented by James & Sarch Co. The now-dissolved law firm's former partners declined to comment due to confidentiality requirements. After being indicted on September 28, 2005, DeLay stepped down from his position as Majority Leader. He was the first congressional leader ever to be indicted.

And the best for last.
Rush Limbaugh:
On April 28, 2006, Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, went to the Palm Beach County Jail to surrender after a warrant was issued for his arrest on the charge of doctor shopping.[99] According to Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Sheriff, during his arrest, Limbaugh was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted, but not handcuffed. He was then released after about an hour on $3,000 bail.[100][101][102] After his surrender, he filed a "not guilty" plea to the charge. Prosecutors agreed to drop the charge if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician

You go guys!

wow.

for years, Cheney has loudly and aggressively ridiculed anyone and anything that said there was no 9/11-al Queda-Hussein link.

he first blamed terrorists for attempting to discredit his assertion. then, he ridiculed the press. later, he even blamed the "liberal establishment" for "underhanded" attempts to "help the terrorists".

now he's blaming George Tenet for getting it wrong or something?

uh huh.

That's fine and dandy....except Cheney never claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. He only said that there was a relationship between Saddam and AQ, and that with regard to 9/11, there was no evidence one way or another. Nice to keep perpetuating the Straw Man though.....

except Cheney never claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11

Dick Cheney says you're wrong, butch:

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

The Bush administration NEVER SAID that Iraq was behind 9/11. When the event happened most sane people figured it probably was true, so that was followed up on but they soon stated (before the invasion) that there was no evidence. Nobody in the Bush administration said that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. All they noted was, like the 9/11 Commission stated, that there were vague and shadowy ties.

It wasn't that long ago, do people forget that fast?

except Cheney never claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

He claimed Hussein was linked to al Quaeda, and that al Quaeda was responsible for 9/11.

Later, for years, he claimed "we're not sure" if Hussein and 9/11 were linked. But when the 9/11 report came out and dismissed both links, he blasted both the press and the commission for not "having the facts".

it's well-documented that he and Bush worked both sides of the issue, contradicting each other and covering each other, repeatedly.

and so on. butch, what does "conflation" mean? what does "misleading" mean?

what does "mission accomplished" mean? you might want to read the transcript of Bush's speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier.

Christopher Taylor,
Here's the letter W sent to Congress with the Iraq War resolution, that clearly ties Iraq with 9/11 in Section 2.

First, many of Bush and Cheney's statements were nuanced during this time - which only goes to show they knew they were lying us into a war. Their intent was to mislead the FOX viewers, etc...and it worked. Many STILL believe Saddam did 9/11 and that was the marketing plan. Indeed many soldiers signed up to fight in Iraq as a response to 9/11 so this deception actually got people killed.

It's rare that the Bush administration put it in writing what they were trying to sell. This letter is one of those times:

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH

So to quote you: It wasn't that long ago, do people forget that fast?

"Misleading" is practicing deliberate deceit. "Conflation" is a composite reading or blending of issues - kind of like when you continually "mislead" people that Cheney and Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Repeat it enough times, and pretty soon some people will not only falsely believe they actually said that, but that it may actually be true.

I read the transcript of the 'Mission Accomplished' speech: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." No where does it state Saddam was involved in 9/11.

"including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Butch,
Nice to hear from you, first of all. It's like old times.
But which part was Iraq involved in? Did they plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?
They didn't? Oh no, that means the President was lying!

I should relax, maybe he just had a few and was chatting to a friend. What? He lied in the letter to Congress before the resolution vote? I thought he was a godly man? Did Jesus tell him to lie like this?

"Misleading" is practicing deliberate deceit. "Conflation" is a composite reading or blending of issues - kind of like when you continually "mislead" people that Cheney and Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

kind of like when Bush, Cheney, and Rice all conflated--in public, on the record, repeatedly--9/11, Hussein, and al Quaeda. if you're unwilling to accept the record--which is ridiculously easy to find, in a few minutes, using Google--I don't know what to tell you.

I read the transcript of the 'Mission Accomplished' speech: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." No where does it state Saddam was involved in 9/11.

nice try, butch. consider this quote from the speech:

"The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on."

Assertion: The "Battle of Iraq" is part of a war that began on 9/11. hear that, Butch? let's go in for a closer look:

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

Assertion: Iraq is both an ally and funder of al Quaeda, and therefore helped fund and support 9/11. listening, butch?

and it's only a small piece of the years-long conflation, sidestepping, and restating. anybody with interest can find plentiful evidence of Bush, Cheney and Rice conflating al Quaeda, 9/11, and Hussein.

looking to defend your position by saying "but they didn't say *exactly* that "Iraq perpetrated 9/11!" doesn't cut it, butch. it's weak. grownups know better, and can use their critical faculties better than that.

Hi Bill....just like old times indeed. The Iraq war was authorized because Iraq was authorized to enforce UN Sanctions as stated in Part (1). As for Part (2), I'm sure it was just oversight that you missed the word "including".

ecohuman, I'm not going to take sides on the narrow scope of this discussion-parsing words. In regards to;

"the liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding"

I find your "assertion" that this means that Saddam and/or Iraq participated in any form in 9/11 impossible to deduct in a logical, debatable way. You can "assert" all you want, but it won't hold water in a court or even most logical minds.

I find your "assertion" that this means that Saddam and/or Iraq participated in any form in 9/11 impossible to deduct in a logical, debatable way.

that's the point, butch--because it was proven, early and often, that Iraq was not involved in or supporting 9/11, but Bush right there (and Cheney and Rice repatedly for years) called Iraq an ally of al Quada, blamed al Quada for 9/11--and so used that excuse as partial reason for the Iraq invasion.

you know how I know that last part? because Bush stood on an aircraft carrier immediately after invading Iraq and took pains to say it. he made sure to say "we have removed an ally of al-Quaida".

years later, Bush still defended that statement. Cheney did too, even as recently as a year ago. and Rice? despite written government proof to the contrary, she continued to claim the same thing.

What Cheney meant to say was, "So?"

rightwing nut jobs are cracked

give it up

leave 'em broken

start the war crimes prosecutions

Wow. I am stunned by the brevity of Tensk's comment. A record for sure...and as a bonus, no "Liars Larson" reference.... ;-)

I have to agree with LW above. The straw-man here is that by claiming that Saddam and Iraq were "partners" or at least aiding al-Qaida over the years that the Administration meant that Saddam was also involved in the plot.
But that doesn't logically follow. I don't recall anyone after the 9/11 Commission report claiming otherwise, and if you actually read the report you would note the commission found true that Saddam gave al-Qaida harbor and aid for many years prior to the event.

The administration's assertion was that given that relationship, and the fears that Saddam was starting up various weapons programs, those weapons could get into the hands of people who had no reservations about using them on innocent people here in the states.
It was one of several reasons he gave during his state of the union address that year for invading. You don't have to infer here that I agreed with him. I'm simply making the point that the Bush administration didn't push the issue after the 9/11 Commission.

From the text of the article that Jack links to, it doesn't sound like Cheeney is just now coming to that realization, but remembering that at some point around the invasion and 9/11 report it became settled that Saddam had no direct roll. Don't make this more than it is.

and if you actually read the report you would note the commission found true that Saddam gave al-Qaida harbor and aid for many years prior to the event.

if you could point to the specific parts of the 9/11 Commission's report that says that, I'd be grateful. I own a copy.

The straw-man here is that by claiming that Saddam and Iraq were "partners" or at least aiding al-Qaida over the years that the Administration meant that Saddam was also involved in the plot.

I entirely agree.