It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Cheney Has No New Evidence for 9/11 Commission

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 06:38 PM
On June 20 Vice President Dick Cheney was invited by the 9/11 commission to provide evidence to back up his claim that there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S.A. Today the 9/11 commission said that Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary....

July 6, 2004 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no collaborative links between Iraq and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.

The 10-member bipartisan panel investigating the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington said it reached its conclusion after reviewing available transcripts of Cheney's public remarks asserting long-standing links between the former Iraqi president and Osama Bin Laden's Islamist militant network.

"The 9-11 Commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9-11 attacks," the commission said in a statement.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

There has been no immediate comment from Dick Cheney or his staff.

The failure to provide information to back up his claim leaves Dick Cheney in a precarious situation when he made a clear connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the attacks of 9/11 in a television interview.

Following that interview the 9/11 commission made the invitation to Cheney to produce evidence for investigators. But in the end there is no new evidence, And NO clear connection backed up by evidence.

Of course this does not mean that there is no evidence, Just that Cheney for what ever reason has not produced it.

Related ATSNN News/Discussions:

9/11 Commission Wants Evidence From Cheney

Cheney's Energy Policies To Remain Secret

[edit on 6-7-2004 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:25 PM
I think this kind of proves that the Bsh and Co cabal have no proof of anything. So the reason we invaded Iraq is??????

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:14 PM
No surprise here. At the end of the day, who do you trust. The 911 commission who has been researching, investigating this for some time or Cheney who hides out in a cave. Once again, he spouts with nothing to back it up.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 12:19 AM
This is more interesting than its being credit for. As much as the administration wants to parade our good intentions for liberating Iraq as our reason for invasion, its NOT the reason that congress gave approval for military action.
Here's where things get sticky....There were 15 points made by Bush/Cheney in seeking congressional approval for war with the most important being the IMMEDIATE threat of WMD. This was presented as a LEGAL argument kiddies.
Their failure to find these weapons is a MAJOR issue regardless of the rhetoric presented. After the 'Watergate' scandal, congress made it an "impeachable" offense to lie to congress. This was one of issues that came up during the Iran/Contra hearings with Reagan. It was ultimately dismissed because of his "senility".
So, regardless of the humanitarian reasons made for the invasion and the subsequent blame game for lack of reliable intelligence...the 'burden of proof' required for the congressional authorization has and will always remain WMD. And it falls squarely on the adminstation to prove. This is the case they made...legally...
You're starting to hear rumbles about this only now because the REpublicans control the senate and the house, but if Bush/Cheney win re-election look for the democrats to take control of the legislature and watch for an impeachment. Even if nothing comes out of it it will still incapacitate the Admin till 2008. Sorta like Clinton in 98 and 99.

Politics is a dangerous game.

there is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by James the Lesser

So the reason we invaded Iraq is??????

Remarks by G.W. Bush:

[...] "Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal: [...]

Events can turn in one of two ways. If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times.

With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorists allies, then the attacks of September 11 would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. [...]

These nations can show by their example that honest government and respect for women and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. [...]

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. " [...]

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
September 12, 2002


[edit on 7-7-2004 by Riwka]

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 01:57 AM
listen, cheney could walk in there and say whatever he wanted to. he never testified under oath. he cant be charged with lying if he wasnt under oath. he can basicly, walk in there, flip them off, and walk right out. hes the best thing to happen to democrats since, g.w. ...see ya in november!!!

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:10 PM
Riwka, I meant why did Bush invade Iraq. He said WMD's, which they didn't have. He said god told him to. But voices aren't a good source. He said to liberate Iraq, but are they? If they are free why are we still there? he said the war was over how long ago? And yet the troops still there. if the war is over, why are we there?

new topics

top topics


log in