Is Dick Cheney Delusional or Dishonest?

Clay Fink · September-29th-2003, 10:44 AM

Just dishonest and worth impeaching...

These guys ARE smart. If you repeat something often, even if you say that it's unconfirmed, people will believe it. And last time I checked most Amreicans still believe that Iraq had "something" to do with 9/11. By innoculating the public with this disinformation they will be able to maintain the necessary amout of consent they need to govern. These guys would make great dictators.

Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney

By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A01

In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation

The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.

Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.

Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.

When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.

The vice president's role in keeping the alleged meeting in Prague before the public eye is an illustration of the administration's handling of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war, when senior officials sometimes seized on reports that bolstered the case against Iraq despite contradictory evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community.

Cheney's office declined to comment. Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Cheney who still provides the vice president with advice, said Cheney's job is to focus on "the big picture." His appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, she said, was intended to "remind people that Iraq is part of a bigger war that will require patience and sacrifice."

Cheney does not fully vet his speeches or public statements with the CIA or the wider intelligence community for accuracy, according to several administration officials, but usually gives the CIA a list of possible points or facts that might be used in a speech or appearance.

Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources. "His job is to connect the dots in a way to prevent the worst possible case from happening," she said, but in public "he has to tiptoe through landmines of what's sayable and not sayable."

The claim that Atta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker, had met with al-Ani in early April 2001 has been a constant element of the vice president's case against Iraq. Surveillance cameras at the Radio Free Europe building in Prague had picked up al-Ani, an intelligence officer at the Iraq embassy, surveying the building in April, five months before the Sept. 11 attacks. The tape was made available to Czech intelligence. Al-Ani was expelled at the U.S. government's request soon afterward for conduct incompatible with his diplomatic status.

In October 2001, after pictures of Atta had circulated publicly, an Arab student who worked as an informant for BIS, the Czech Security Information Service, told the service he had seen Atta meeting with al-Ani in April.

That November, Stanislav Gross, the Czech Republic's interior minister, said publicly that al-Ani and Atta had met in Prague. A short while later, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told Powell that the two had discussed targeting the Radio Free Europe building, not the Sept. 11 targets.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

But that same month, Czech President Vaclav Havel was retreating from the more definitive accounts provided by his government, saying there was "a 70 percent" chance the meeting took place. Indeed, while Czech officials never officially backed away from their initial stance, officials at various agencies say that, privately, the Czechs have discredited the accuracy of the untested informant who came to them with the information. According to one report, Havel quietly informed the White House in 2002 there was no evidence to confirm the meeting.

The Czechs had reviewed records using Atta's name and his seven known aliases provided by the CIA and found nothing to confirm the April 2001 trip. Meanwhile, CIA and FBI officials were running down thousands of leads on Atta and the other 18 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 plot.

U.S. records showed Atta living in Virginia Beach in April 2001, and they could find no indication he had left Virginia or traveled outside the United States.

Even so, on March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

A few weeks later, in April, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a San Francisco audience, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The FBI, he said, could find no evidence that Atta left or returned to the United States at the time.

In May, senior FBI and CIA analysts, having scoured thousands of travel records, concluded "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.," according to officials at the time.

But on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

"What does the CIA say about that?" asked host Tim Russert. "Is it credible?"

"It's credible," Cheney replied. "But, you know, I think the way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."

As war loomed closer, the Atta allegation generally began to disappear from the administration's public case against Iraq. Bush did not mention Atta or the Prague meeting in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, when he sought to show Iraq's links to terrorism.

But behind the scenes, the Atta meeting remained tantalizing to Cheney and his staff. Libby -- along with deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a longtime Cheney associate -- began pushing to include the Atta claim in Powell's appearance before the U.N. Security Council a week after the State of the Union speech. Powell's presentation was aimed at convincing the world of Iraq's ties to terrorists and its pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

On Jan. 25, with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room. "We read [their proposal to include Atta] and some of us said, 'Wow! Here we go again,' " said one official who helped draft the speech. "You write it. You take it out, and then it comes back again."

Libby described the material as a "Chinese menu," simply the broadest range of options, according to several administration officials. "The papers were designed to assist [Powell's] preparation by organizing a lot of materials so that he could choose the order and evidence he found most compelling, although some of it, in the end, could not be declassified," said one administration official.

But other officials present said they felt that Libby's presentation was over the top, that the wording was too aggressive and most of the material could not be used in a public forum. Much of it, in fact, unraveled when closely examined by intelligence analysts from other agencies and, in the end, was largely discarded.

"After one day of hearing screams about who put this together and what are the sources, we essentially threw it out," one official present said.

Cheney's staff did not entirely give up. Late into the night before Powell's presentation, Libby called Powell's staff, waiting at the United Nations in New York, to question why certain material was not being included in the terrorism section, according to two State Department officials.

Earlier this month, on his most recent "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney once again used Atta to subtly suggest a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001.

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story . . . the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

Defense and intelligence officials say al-Ani, who was apprehended by U.S. forces earlier this year, has denied meeting with Atta.

Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Gary Sisco · September-29th-2003, 10:56 AM

Dishonest.

I have a video tape of Oliver North lying to Congress. Sitting right next to him, with a huge, shiteating smirk on his face, the kind that makes you just want to slap the mofo with an open hand, really hard, is -- Richard Cheney, the miserable, lying, vampire.

BFrank · September-29th-2003, 12:20 PM

Gary - You're description of Dick "Dick" Cheney is way too kind.

September-29th-2003, 12:27 PM

Dishonesty, when practiced repeatedly, has a way of making one
delusional. I'm sure Cheney believes a few of the lies he puts out there,
or I'm sure he has some weirdly convoluted but clearly patriotic reason for them.

Uli · September-29th-2003, 12:47 PM

I hope he is delusionally dishonest. Like most of them cats in the present gov'mint. I don't think they should get away with it.

RBS · September-29th-2003, 01:10 PM

Ask O.J.

jesus marion joseph · September-29th-2003, 02:52 PM

I'll have to admit that I am genuinely puzzled by Cheney's behavior. Following a president who was a demonstrable serial liar, Bush/Cheney had a real opportunity to gain a large share of public trust by being as transparent as possible in their dealings within government and with private entities. Instead, they appear to become more and more insular, leading to the inevitable conclusion that they are hiding something. They have become the type of big brother-esque administration they railed against during the Clinton/Gore years. Mary Matalin seems (if I read her correctly) to intimate that Cheney knows more than he is *able* to say; that we should read between the lines, but I'm less and less willing to buy into that rationale.

I've always liked Cheney's easy demeanor, but it now grates on me. I'm not saying that I think Cheney is a complete liar, but he's giving that impression by hanging on doggedly to an argument that appears to have had the legs cut out from under it.

Just my $.02 worth.

September-29th-2003, 03:36 PM

If you are going to talk about "serial" liars, JMJ, Clinton is a rank amateur compared to the current, appointed mob. Bush lies constantly (serially), but he is so uninformed that one has to wonder if he always is aware of it. Cheney, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, and the rest of that bunch are certifiablly serial liars--their jobs are dependent on concealing the truth. Recently they have had to escalate to the point where their spins are almost farcical. Rice was completely out of control on Sunday's Meet the Press, for example, and Powell is now having to face his taped contraictions.

Clinton, I wish to remind you, lied about a personal marital indiscretion when millions of tax-payers money was spent on a witch hunt--what he did was wrong, to be sure, but hardly earth-shaking. Furthermore, unlike the Bush people's lies, nobody died as a result of any of his fibs. Remember that the country prospered under Clinton--Bush and his gang are flushing it down the toilet, both financially and image-wise. I am glad that you are finally seeing Cheney in a truer light, but you have a long way to go on that reality check!

graypencil · September-29th-2003, 05:17 PM

I'm still wondering which gnome in Zurich is in charge
of the **hidden** Cheney account that is no doubt
recieving on a daily basis, great quantities
of bakshish from Halliburton,
Brown and Root, Bechtel, et al.

he's been doing a great job for all of his buddies..

Ron Thorne · September-29th-2003, 05:51 PM

Cheney is both dishonest and delusional, in my estimation. He's not alone, however. Virtually every single person in the highest levels of this administration are keeping him company.

Is it possible, just possible that something ... anything could wake up Americans sufficiently to put an end to this madness, both at home and abroad? I'm not optomistic, frankly. Sad to say, most folks aren't nearly as concerned, informed or involved as we. We are, and will likely always be in the minority. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

jesus marion joseph · September-29th-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris A
If you are going to talk about "serial" liars, JMJ, Clinton is a rank amateur compared to the current, appointed mob.

I was limiting my comments to those who have actually been *proved* to be liars, not just those who might be liars in my personal opinion. In that regard, Clinton is in a class of his own. Additionally, though I hesitate to plow old ground, Clinton is more of a pathological liar. By that, I mean that he will lie about anything, no matter how big or small, then go to great lengths to hide the lie (even enlisting innocent parties to perpetrate the lie further), until the naked truth completely boxes him into a corner, at which point he sheepishly admits to the lie, then begs forgiveness for his "weakness". Accordingly, I think it matters little what the subject of the lies are, as I have pointed out in the past ad nauseam. In fact, I worry more about the pathological type of liar than one who at least has some reason to lie (however misguided it may be).

Clay Fink · September-29th-2003, 06:16 PM

I don't doubt that Clinton was/is a liar. As to being a pathological liar in the true clinical sense I don't think he fits the bill (so to speak). I've known true pathological liars and you just wouldn't believe...

Anyway, a lying politician isn't news. It's part of the art and craft of being a successful politician. I mean that in all seriousness and I don't think it's a cynical point of view. Deception is different than lying. What Cheney is doing in this case is a very subtle form of propaganda. It's not like Clinton lying about Monica of Bush lying about "Kenny Boy" Lay. Cheney is just planting enough doubt in the mind of the public to keep the justification of the war alive. To the point that he actually believes it, I don't know. And again, to an extent, this sort of deception is just another item in the bag of tricks that successful politicians use. The deal here is that what they are trying to get awau with involves killing and getting killed. It's not your standard deception or lie about fucking or stealing.

JMJ, I don't understand how you could really tink thet the substance of a lie makes no difference, but you are entitled to your opinion. Clinton seems to make otherwise intelligent people irrational. I suppose Bush does that to an extent but it seems Clinton has a much stronger negative effect on people.

Jazzmoose · September-29th-2003, 06:18 PM

Dishonest, but the Supreme Court will overrule my vote and make it Delusional anyway...

Jazzmoose · September-29th-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
I was limiting my comments to those who have actually been *proved* to be liars, not just those who might be liars in my personal opinion. In that regard, Clinton is in a class of his own. Additionally, though I hesitate to plow old ground, Clinton is more of a pathological liar. By that, I mean that he will lie about anything, no matter how big or small, then go to great lengths to hide the lie (even enlisting innocent parties to perpetrate the lie further), until the naked truth completely boxes him into a corner, at which point he sheepishly admits to the lie, then begs forgiveness for his "weakness". Accordingly, I think it matters little what the subject of the lies are, as I have pointed out in the past ad nauseam. In fact, I worry more about the pathological type of liar than one who at least has some reason to lie (however misguided it may be).

If you want to see true sickness, take a look at those who are still so obsessed with Clinton that they begin foaming at the mouth at the thought of anyone with that surname, and think bringing up his name trumps any argument...

jesus marion joseph · September-29th-2003, 06:47 PM

I'm not the one who mentioned his name-and that was done purposely, since your inane response is about what I would expect, albeit from different sources.

jesus marion joseph · September-29th-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clay Fink
Clinton seems to make otherwise intelligent people irrational. I suppose Bush does that to an extent but it seems Clinton has a much stronger negative effect on people.

No shit.

Jazzmoose · September-29th-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
I'm not the one who mentioned his name-and that was done purposely, since your inane response is about what I would expect, albeit from different sources.

You're welcome; I'm here for you!

Ron Thorne · September-29th-2003, 09:35 PM

jmj, my friend, with all due respect, it would be refreshing to see you respond to a criticism of a Republican without bringing up Bill Clinton. Trust me, we know how you feel about that man.

I'm not gonna be a part of any pile-on-jmj routine, either. This thread is about Dick Cheney, however. There's no liar competition in-progress, and this is not a comparative thread on past and present liars. To quote someone familiar to most in these parts ... sheesh.

Yeah, Cheney's a real dick, alright. A first-class, pompous, smarmy, tight-assed dick. There, I feel a little better.

Dr Dave · September-29th-2003, 10:59 PM

Cheney's not lying. He wants to believe. So he believes. And wants others to believe what he believes. That's the Bush Administration in a nutshell. They think if they believe something hard enough, they can make it true. Alas, believing you have evidence of impending national peril--enough to go to war on--is not the same as having it. Believing the enemy will roll over and install democracy within a few months is not the same as having it actually happen. Believing lower taxes for the rich will increase employment is not the same as seeing employment actually rise. Etc., etc., etc.

BFrank · September-30th-2003, 01:43 AM

Cheney's boss (although, that's debatable)

jesus marion joseph · September-30th-2003, 07:44 AM

Once again, and in my own defense, I only made passing reference to the C-man, without mentioning him by name. It was others who jumped on the don't-touch-my-hero bandwagon, then accused me of being reactionary.

Sheesh indeed.

Gary Sisco · September-30th-2003, 08:23 AM

Fuck the C-man. He's history. Or his blowjob is, anyway.

Cheney et al were up to their bald pates in Iran-Contra and we want to question who is a serial liar? This administration is made of serial liars and is entirely built on a lie and denial of reality to begin with. Who would ever have imagined the Repub party having a deserter during wartime as their celebrated president, a felon at large?

Cheney and his corporate friends are also making *tons* of cash in Iraq, today, yesterday, tomorrow. Not to mention the utter crassness and venality of their "energy" policies, speaking of making tons of cash.

The liars in this admin are legion. John Negroponte's been a career liar going back to Vietnam days, where he helped, among other dishonesties and betrayals, Kissinger schtupp their puppets in Saigon. You can watch him on the PBS series recounting how they did it, and he has a big, gleeful grin throughout. Incredible. And he was also the ambassador to Honduras, throughout the Raygunist Contra war. He lied through his teeth with an ease that would make Clinton blush -- and not about blowjobs but about tens of thousands of dead Nicaraguans, mainly civilians, murdered by a mercenary army they wouldn't at the time even admit they were supporting in the first place.

There are so many liars in this admin it's easier to point to the ones who *aren't* liars.

jesus marion joseph · September-30th-2003, 08:49 AM

"Schtupping the puppet". I like it.

BFrank · September-30th-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

There are so many liars in this admin it's easier to point to the ones who *aren't* liars.

Gary - Please enlighten us! I didn't know that there were any 'non-liars'.

hornplayer · September-30th-2003, 04:47 PM

crazy as a fox....... just "looking out for Number 1!"

Gary Sisco · October-1st-2003, 09:15 AM

BFrank -- I don't think Powell is a liar, personally, but he was a professional soldier and he will therefore do what he's told for as long as he serves. Please note, however, that he's already given his notice and won't be hanging on for an imaginary second term of Bushist rule. He has been willing to stretch logic beyond reason in the way he's responded to much of what he knows to be bullshit, on the face of it. He's not stupid enough, by a long shot, to believe the way True Believers believe; he learned that lesson as a combat officer in Vietnam. Guys like that can't be made to *really* Believe.

What I'm waiting to see is if Clark is a fighting general or just another successful bureaucrat and upper-level manager, as Hackworth says (and Hack's word goes very far with me). So far, the only notable thing about him is his caution and fear of making a mishap of some sort, which would indicate that Hack's right, again. He was also proved right about McCain, by McCain's own behavior. At this point, I'd easily say I wouldn't want to have to follow Clark into combat, thanks. If we're going to have a general at all, let's have a carnivore. That's my party line. He was also right about Powell, far's that goes. I don't know how Powell can sleep at night, given his own experiences and knowledge.

So far as *proven* liars go, I mean, how much proof do we need? Court-room style? And if so, are we talking convictions or being pardoned in advance for "cooperating" (in short, for plea bargaining)?

October-1st-2003, 10:20 AM

Powell lied on more than one occasiopn. He lied about something that was very important. His lies contributed to the death of many people, the injuries of even more. His lies contributed to something that will be felt, negatively, for years to come.

Gary, don't try to whitewash this coward. Not wanting to join the Bush team for another 4 years (wishful Rove thinking here), is meaningless--he should have quit the minute he realized what these thugs were up to. Well, he did not quit, so that tells me everything I want to know about him.

Gary Sisco · October-1st-2003, 10:35 AM

Call him what you want, Chris, but a combat officer with a proven record in combat is not a coward, period.

Whether he's a liar or not is another question, as is whether I agree with him politically speaking.

Pardon me for saying so, but few in the US of Powell's generation, never mind since, have any call for using words like "coward" to describe a soldier.

Clay Fink · October-1st-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Call him what you want, Chris, but a combat officer with a proven record in combat is not a coward, period.

Whether he's a liar or not is another question, as is whether I agree with him politically speaking.

Pardon me for saying so, but few in the US of Powell's generation, never mind since, have any call for using words like "coward" to describe a soldier.

I'm curious: just what is Powell's combat record? The only thing I ever heard about his record was his being asigned to investigate the My Lai massacre.

I'm sure he's not a coward as to his military record, but having fought in a war doesn't excuse you from criticism for things you do later in life - including not standing up to a partiularly unacceptable situation when you know full well what's wrong. Powell has gone a long way in discrediting himself by his association with the Bushist regime. To his credit, though, I think he has stuck it out because he thinks things would be much worse with one of the Bush/Cheney/Rummie crowd as Secretary of State. He's in a situation where all his alternatives are bad.

Gary Sisco · October-1st-2003, 04:34 PM

I didn't say it excused anything and never would. I just said that there's a couple of generations who, almost to a man, should think very carefully before accusing another of cowardice, and that's all. Colin Powell commanded combat troops in Vietnam. It's hard enough to keep from shitting yourself in combat, all by itself. Having your wits about you enough under fire to also command troops and make rational decisions adds even more to the stress and danger. You can't hide. You can't cop out. Whatever else can be said for him, and I've lost a lot of respect for him for going along on this ride, the man isn't a coward. He's faced the fire and that alone is more than can be said for almost all of his critics, who themselves would not, in most cases, have the courage to say to their boss what they expect Powell to say to his. He took the job of Sec of State, and, being a soldier, he'll do what he's told to do, as his job dictates. He's also already announced he's leaving it when the term is up. Very few guys in the world voluntarily relinquish power. If I'm to believe it's for "personal reasons" or "family reasons," for a career soldier, it's a bit hard to swallow. That's normally the ruling class's signal that they're bailing because they don't approve of what's happening.

In any case, he's proven where it counts that he's not a coward.

The same cannot be said for many of his admin cohorts, or the one before that, either.