1. 2

    dat er op whitehouse.gov staat dat de vice-president van de USA ontkent dat er bewijs is van betrokkenheid van Osama en dat ze “dat dan ook nooit hebben beweerd” is volgens mij nog niet (goed genoeg) bij al onze bezoekers uitentreure bekend.

  2. 4

    Is dit het laatste punt op hun agenda, ‘get Osama and the Saudis out of the terrorism list’, ‘blame Chavez’?

  3. 6

    Volgens mij verspreekt Cheney zich (freudiaans of niet), maar ik haal uit de context, dat-ie Saddam Hussein bedoelt… vandaar de [sic] van de redactie? Of snap ik het verkeerd?

  4. 7

    Past wel in deze lijn:

    “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” – G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

    “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

  5. 8

    Bin rijdt nu ws op een pakezeltje in de grensstreek met Pakistan. Als je e.e.a. probeert te visualiseren,… afzettend tegen slagkracht VS en tumult…..is mop van de eeuw natuurlijk!

  6. 9

    iets verderop in het interview:

    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 PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn’t realize I’d done that. (Laughter.)

  7. 10

    Generaal William Westmoreland sprak rond 1968 ongeveer in dezelfde bewoordingen als Cheney nú:

    ”We are making progress day by day. It’s tough, hard work, but it’s very important that we prevail there…..”

  8. 11

    “In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

    Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

    Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime.

    “The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein],” says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

    The numbers

    Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.”
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

  9. 13

    ““I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden,” and “Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?” Wolfowitz insists the focus should be Iraqi-sponsored terrorism instead. He claims the 1993 attack on the WTC must have been done with help from Iraq, and rejects the CIA’s assertion that there has been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. (A spokesperson for Wolfowitz later calls Clarke’s account a “fabrication.”) [Newsweek, 3/22/04; Clarke, 2004, pp 30, 231] Wolfowitz repeats these sentiments immediately after 9/11 and tries to argue that the US should attack Iraq. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage agrees with Clarke that al-Qaeda is an important threat. Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, chairing the meeting, brokers a compromise between Wolfowitz and the others. The group agrees to hold additional meetings focusing on al-Qaeda first (in June and July), but then later look at other terrorism, including any Iraqi terrorism. [Clarke, 2004, pp 30, 231-32] Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin also attend the hour-long meeting. [Time, 8/4/02] “
    bron

  10. 18

    Het simpele feit dat hij toegegeven heeft, zelfs opgeschept over zijn ‘betrokkenheid’ cq opdracht ertoe, maakt niet meer uit? Er is misschien nooit bewezen dat OBL erbij betrokken werd, maar de man zelf heeft het nooit ontkend, dus hé.

    Er van uitgaande dat OBL echt bestaat, natuurlijk, iets waar ik persoonlijk altijd aan getwijfeld heb. Maar goed.

    De Centre of Cooperative Research trouwens is los van dat alles op alle fronten een aanrader. Veel pure informatie en stof tot nadenken zonder invulling van wat je moet denken of vinden is heel wat waard vandaag de dag. Ook het steunen waard overigens, tien dollar komt een eind, paypallen!

  11. 20

    Ja, oké, je hebt gelijk.

    Overigens blijft de briljante britse komiek Alexei Sayle erbij dat de CIA het ‘personage’ OBL van hem heeft gejat en gebaseerd is op zijn verbeelding, in 1984 in The Comic Strip van een akelige Saoedische huisbaas met de naam Ozi Bin Liner (later ook opduikend in The Young Ones) :)

  12. 23

    De clue zit m in het woordje “DIRECTLY”, dwz operationeel. Dit klopt ook, de VS hebben altijd beweerd dat Osama de financier en ideoloog van Al-Qaeda is, maar operationeel niet direct bij operaties is betrokken. Lezen en willen lezen zijn twee zaken.

  13. 24

    Nou Caprio, volgens mij zit de clue hem erin dat Cheney per ongeluk Osama Bin Laden zei in plaats van Saddam Hoessein, zoals ie al verderop in het interview zelf toegeeft.

    Lezen is inderdaad een lastig iets.

  14. 30

    De rest ook lezen he….

    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 PRESIDENT CHENEY: 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.

  15. 32

    Before you go and post a thing like that you really should make the effort o freading the entire text. I have and came across this….

    ” 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.”

    This is far less juicy, but don’t make the same mistakes as the bush-administration, by manipulating intel.