Cheney admits Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I firmly believe that based on Dick Cheney's admission that Bin Laden (i.e. Al Qaeda) had nothing to do with 911 that nothing else needs to be said by me here.

From the Tony Snow Show...


Google Video Link





[edit on 4/25/2010 by mikelee]




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
well this is proof positive that we invaded
Afgh for reasons other than 9/11.

thanks for posting

S&F



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Well , imagine that .

My first question would be , when was this taped and when was it aired ?

Talk about arrogance ! Nothing like showing us they are gonna do as they please and then rubbing our noses in it .

And , did that slime-ball just wink at me ?


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Sorry to burst your bubble, but from the context it's clear he meant to say Saddam Hussein, rather than Osama Bin Laden here. It was a live interview and he got his Islamic names mixed up.

His point was that Saddam Hussein being behind the 9/11 attack is a different point from whether Iraqi Intelligence had connections to Al Qaida. According to your interpretation, he's claiming the gov't never said that OBL was behind the 9/11 attack, and everyone on the face of the planet knows the gov't DID say OBL was behind the attack.

Go ahead and advertise this as a "smoking gun", if such things pleases you, but you're really barking up the wrong tree with this, mainly, becuase Cheney was never any better at public speaking than Bush was.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
This is craziness...

I don't believe this is a good person lol

He definitely didn't shoot that guy in the face, while hunting, on accident



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Sorry but after he says he wasn't involved, he states that the Bin Laden aspect is separate validating that he ment to say it and it is credible.


+11 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The Major sees that the truth hasn't gotten in the way of an agenda. The Major also regrettably acknowledges that they don't make ATS members like they used to. There was a time when a recruit here at ATS would do some due diligence before posting something; to make sure the recruit won't later end up on latrine duty. Sadly, if there is a YouTube/Google video that tells the recruit to "go jump off a bridge" the recruit simply asks "which one?"

The Major will now direct you to the transcript of the interview in question:



Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...


Emphasis the Major.

Any recruits out there like to sound off and tell the Major what the purpose of the bolded "[sic]" is?

Here's the answer recruits:



The term sic is most often used in quoted material (usually in square brackets, and sometimes italicized) to indicate that the preceding segment of the quote was copied faithfully, in spite of a mistake or seeming mistake; that is, that the mistake or seeming mistake was in the original text, and not due to misquoting on the part of the present writer.

en.wiktionary.org...


And here is why the [sic] was placed there, the part of the interview conveniently left out of the audio presented here:



Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir.

Q Okay.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)

Q Yes. Well, otherwise we'd have a whole lot more stories to deal with.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. All right. Well, I appreciate it.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...


The Major knows that won't be good enough for some of the troops, and that Darth Vader Dick Cheney said what he knew to be true, and not what he was supposed to. For those recruits, the Major will point out that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim.

Dismissed.




[edit on 25-4-2010 by Major Discrepancy]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 




The vid demonstrates that these folks cannot keep the truth inside regardless of how hard they try. And how hard people like you try to defend them and their lies. Rumsfeld slipped and stated flight 93 was shot down, Bush has slipped on too many occassions to remember and now Cheney's soul is trying to purge the dirty truth from within.

And now, Mike Lee is done. Back to your hole Major Rabbit.

[edit on 4/25/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I agree it is most likely that he meant to refer to Saddam Hussein. If he did indeed mean OBL, then there's some serious context missing because the only subject being discussed in the small audio clip is the once-alleged link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-invasion.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
This is more proof of a false flag operation being done by insiders in the Bush administration and using a handful of military experts in aviation and demolitions to bring down the WTC.
The whole Shock & Awe was to get the American people to rally behind two fraudulent wars. Many members in the Bush administration and in our military would cash in, and I mean in the billions of dollars.
All these years the lying News propaganda and talking heads on CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, sold the lie and convinced the world that OBL DID 911.

Now the real wizard behind the curtain has come out and has admitted OBL had nothing to do with the attacks on 911.
I remember recently reading that the Obama Administration said they would continue to hunt for OBL.

When are we going to see some “accountability,” in arresting high-level political leaders who lie to us, to wage illegal wars of aggression for their political greed?

In my opinion, Dick Cheney is the monster that helped carried out 911 by keeping NORAD out of the loop by not answering his phone when NORAD and FAA officials were desperately trying to contact him. The ball was in Dick Cheney’s lap on 911 and he did nothing, absolutely nothing.

I would love to know how much money Dick Cheney made from both of these illegal wars. Is there anyway of finding out?

Now that we are waking up, we are finding out that OBL is not our “boogie man” after all.


[edit on 25-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
My question is:

Why did he clearly say Bin Laden was NOT involved. Afterall, if Bin Laden was involved, Cheney would have NO REASON to slip up and state that he wasn't.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Funny that Haliburton during the Bush/Cheney years and now, the Obama term is still profiting from their former CEO's (Cheney) position of influence as well the events of 911.

Follow the money...



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yea , and Rumsfeld meant to say plane instead of missile .

Funny how easy it is for top officials to get confused and say one thing but mean another .

Can you say 'double-speak' ?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Sorry to burst your bubble, but from the context it's clear he meant to say Saddam Hussein, rather than Osama Bin Laden here.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is clear he said “Osama Bin Laden,” perhaps you think you can read peoples minds, I don’t know, but you do not know what Dick Cheney was thinking when he made this statement.


It was a live interview and he got his Islamic names mixed up.


Yeah, right! Don’t you get tired of making up excuses, in protecting these criminals?


His point was that Saddam Hussein being behind the 9/11 attack is a different point from whether Iraqi Intelligence had connections to Al Qaida.


Oh boy, this is nothing but speculation, assumptions, and your opinion, nothing else.


Go ahead and advertise this as a "smoking gun", if such things pleases you,


We are delighted, it does please us to know the truth, and we shall spread it all over the internet for the world to hear and read it. I will start with face book I should have no problems in reaching a few million people.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


" ... so we've never made the case (the case he was just discussing) , OR argued the case (separate case) that ...

" ...that's a SEPARATE proposition ( Osama bin Laden ) from the question of ... a relationship between the Iraqi government ... and ... al Qaeda ( first case )

So , you are telling us that the Dick is so stupid that he didn't realize what he was saying ?

Sounds to me like the interviewer was about to crap his pants trying to get the Dick to retract his statement .

" I didn't realize I'd done that " . NERVOUS laughter. ( insert cheshire
grin )

" Oh yes . All right ." heh heh ...




[edit on 25-4-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I'm sorry, but I need to know this...



...what money?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
This is from the Tony Snow show? For those who may not know, Tony Snow died of cancer in 2008. Thus, this is clearly old news.

I think it is obvious he misspoke, which is probably why many of us are just now hearing about it. If there were something to this, it would have been all over the internet in 2008 (election year).

I'm sure someone will accuse me of defending Cheney, which I'm not...I just don't think there is anything to this story other than a possible freudian slip, if that.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Saying that the evidence has not been forthcoming (they cannot directly like Bin Laden to 9-11) and saying that he had nothing to do with 9-11 are two different things.

There are murder cases, right here in the US where its difficult to like the crime to the suspect.

Your going to need some hard proof to prove this. This ain't it.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Why did he clearly say Bin Laden was NOT involved. Afterall, if Bin Laden was involved, Cheney would have NO REASON to slip up and state that he wasn't.


Wishful thinking. The entire clip is about Iraq involvement he mumbles on and on and mixes up OBL for SH. Tony then goes to clarify but the crafty video editor quickly cuts that short so that he can preserve the corrupted context.
Have to love L/R politics, nothing but lies and trickery.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is clear he said “Osama Bin Laden,” perhaps you think you can read peoples minds, I don’t know, but you do not know what Dick Cheney was thinking when he made this statement.


You have never misspoke? When you get older you even call your own children by the wrong name. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the context and then account for the fact that a 65 year old man thats had half a dozen heart attacks might have slipped up. The clip goes on to correct it but is cleverly edited out. I know you don't like him but trying to make a mountain out of this molehill won't help your cause; it'll just make you look petty.

[edit]
By the way, based on this logic there are actually 57 states in the United States. Where are other 7? What is Obama hiding? How long has he been covering up these 7 states? Let me guess: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey? I knew it! He's an Islamic Cleric -- that was proof!

[edit on 26-4-2010 by ararisq]





new topics
top topics
 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join