One almost has to give credit to the Bush administration -- and especially de facto president Dick Cheney -- for the way they continue to equivocate and lie, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, about the Iraq-Al Qaeda myth.
As reported in today's LA Times, Cheney is still leaving open the possibility Saddam was behind 9/11 (when we now know it was a plot hatched by Fidel Castro and financed by Syria and Iran):
Asked if Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack during an interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," he replied, "We don't know. You know, what the commission said is they can't find any evidence of that."
... and still clings to the Mohammed Atta-Iraqi Intelligence Agent meeting fantasy:
Cheney said "the one thing we have" indicating Iraqi support for the attacks is a Czech intelligence service report saying that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on April 9, 2001.
"That's never been proven," he said. "It's never been refuted."
Cheney would do well to read the commission's report. From the Times's article on the Atta meeting:
In its report on the Sept. 11 plot, the commission staff disclosed for the first time F.B.I. evidence that strongly suggested that Mr. Atta was in the United States at the time of the supposed Prague meeting.
The report cited a photograph taken by a bank surveillance camera in Virginia showing Mr. Atta withdrawing money on April 4, 2001, a few days before the supposed Prague meeting on April 9, and records showing his cellphone was used on April 6, 9, 10 and 11 in Florida.
What part of "no collaborative relationship" don't these jokers understand?
UPDATE: Saturday's Times provides an explanation as to why the administration is clinging so tightly to the Iraq-Al Qaeda business, and provides this juicy nugget:
One outside adviser to the White House said the administration expected the debate over Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda to be "a regular feature" of the presidential campaign.posted by dack
"They feel it's important to their long-term credibility on the issue of the decision to go to war," the adviser said. "It's important because it's part of the overall view that Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you discount the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then you discount the proposition that it's part of the war on terror. If it's not part of the war on terror, then what is it — some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?"
Cheney & Dubya are lovers. Must be. Well, could be. We don't have evidence they're NOT. That means they could. Probably are. Proximity = guilt, you know.
This is the same logic they're using about WMDs, al-Qaeda/Saddam link, etc. It all stands to reason...
Posted by: jeff on June 21, 2004 08:01 AM