Video: Cheney and Hannity on interrogations

BS con.

getalife on April 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM

(Laughter) getawife had her starfeelt_dude kicked in the other thread, so is polluting the air over here.

You never answered the question several of us asked you on that thread-you stated that no one is above the law, but when we asked you about a former (Democrat) President committing felony perjury, you cut and ran.

Are you going to do the same thing here as well?

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Of course given how much President Bush wanted something, anything, linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks by al-Qaeda on 9/11/2001, the truth wasn’t the issue.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Yup.

getawife on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM

1. A link between Saddam Huseein and al Qaeda had already been made, 3 years before 9/11, when Clinton’s Justice Department specifically cited it in their indictment of bin Laden, Read the document yourself and get educated:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

2. And in May of 2003, a US Federal Judge in New York City issued a legal ruling in a lawsuit brought by the family members of 9/11 victims that based on the evidence presented at the trial, Iraq did play a role in the 9/11 attacks.

Said Federal Judge was appointed by…Bill Clinton.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Read this:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

starfleet_dude is correct.

getalife on April 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM

LOL, thanks for the laugh, kid. Anonymous sources don’t cut it in our world, only in your parallel universe.

As a US Federal indictment proves, bin Laden had already been tied to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, in 1998. Bush wasn’t President then. Read it yourself.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Del Dolemonte, Saddam Hussein never was a partner of al-Qaeda and had no involvement with the attacks on 9/11, contrary to what that Bush administration tried to insinuate. Nor the the 9/11 Commission conclude that Saddam Hussein was in any way involved either.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM

1. The 1998 Clinton Justice Department indictment says you’re lying.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

2. A Clinton-appointed Federal Judge issued a legal ruling concluding that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Keep trying, kid.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Some ionconvenient facts for the Left.

1. An Iraq-al Qaeda connection is their worst nightmare, because it means the evil Chimpy and Darth Cheney were right. They themselves would rather be waterboarded than admit such a possibility.

2. That nightmare is real, because a Federal indictment said so.

3. The 2003 legal ruling by the Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York is a legtitimate and undeniable legal ruling. It’s not anonymous claims made to anti-Bush “news source” McLatchy.

4. Regime change in Iraq was an explicit goal of the Clinton Administration. Part of that was based on their evidence that Iraq was working with al Qaeda, especially on weapons of mass destruction. Remember the old proverb, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Since none of our trolls want to read the money cite from the 1998 indictment, here ’tis.

From the Clinton indictment of bin Laden in 1998

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Is it just me or are these trolls dumber than a boil on a monkeys butt?

Old Hippie Vet on April 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM

According to MSNBC, O’bama won 70% of the high school dropout vote.

No one had ever done that before, not even Algore. He
“only” got 59% in 2000.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM

would that be called “an inconvenient truth” :-)

oldernwiser on April 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Freudian slip there, sorry.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Sorry Del, but there’s still no evidence of Saddam Hussein knowing about, let along aiding the attacks on 9/11.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM

So in your parallel universe, legal rulings by Federal Judges are irrelevant?

Thanks for clearing that up, kid.

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday found Iraq among those liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and awarded nearly $104 million to the families of two men who died in the World Trade Center.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer marked the first time that a court had pinned some blame for the attacks on Iraq.

“That in itself is significant,” said James Beasley, an attorney who represented the families.

“There’s a bunch of (other) cases in process just waiting to see if we could convince a court (of Iraq’s complicity). So now the principle is established, and we can get the families the money that they need badly.”

Collecting may prove difficult. On March 20, about $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen since 1990 were transferred by President Bush to the U.S. Treasury to be used as a down payment on re-building postwar Iraq. Unless Bush relents, that money appears to be beyond the reach of the plaintiffs: the estates of business analyst George Smith and securities executive Timothy Soulas

It is not known whether the government that assumes power in Iraq will be willing or able to pay the claim.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM