Posted on 10/29/2013 5:56:05 PM PDT by Kaslin
On Monday's PoliticsNation, MSNBC host Al Sharpton bizarrely devoted his regular "Nice Try" segment to Dick Cheney denying that he and Wyoming Republican Senator Mike Enzi are "fishing buddies," which the former Vice President did on Sunday's ABC This Week during a discussion of daughter Liz Cheney's bid for the Senate.
As he mocked the former Vice President, Sharpton managed to bring up the Iraq invasion and repeated the false assertion from the left that Cheney had claimed Iraq should be invaded because an Iraqi agent met with one of the 9/11 hijackers. Sharpton:
Is Cheney finally admitting that a 9-1-1 bomber didn't meet with an agent of Saddam Hussein? Cheney used that meeting to justify the Iraq invasion even though it didn't happen.
Sharpton was alluding to a series of edited clips from four interviews the former Vice President gave on NBC's Meet the Press which liberal entities like MSNBC promoted in 2004 to make it appear that Cheney had claimed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
In reality, in each case, Cheney was answering a question from then-host Tim Russert about whether there were links between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq. The then-Vice President informed viewers that a Czech intelligence agent had claimed that he observed one of the 9/11 hijackers meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, but also noted that there was debate whether the account was true.
MSNBC at the time omitted Cheney's expressions of uncertainty to make it appear that he had characterized the alleged meeting as a fact.
Below is a complete transcript of the "Nice Try" segment from the Monday, October 28, PoliticsNation on MSNBC:
AL SHARPTON: Big news tonight from former Vice President Dick Cheney. He's clearing the air. Coming clean about a huge story. Cheney made the admission over the weekend.FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Just simply not true. Never happened.
SHARPTON: But what's simply not true? What never happened? Is Cheney finally admitting that a 9-1-1 bomber didn't meet with an agent of Saddam Hussein? Cheney used that meeting to justify the Iraq invasion even though it didn't happen. Nope. That's not what he's talking about. Is he trying to tell us that he didn't actually shoot one of his friends in the face? Nope. That definitely happened. Is he saying it's not true, that he criticized how President Obama got bin Laden, the terrorist he couldn't get himself? Nope. The former Vice President was weighing in, in one of the great issues of our time: fishing. That's right, fishing. Take a look.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC'S THIS WEEK: Your daughter Liz running for Senate.
CHENEY: She is.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -and in Wyoming has wrankled a lot of feathers in Washington. Most of the Republican Senators supporting the incumbent, Mike Enzi. He himself said this week that he felt a bit blindsided by your whole family. Said he thought you were his friend. How do you respond to that criticism?
CHENEY: Well, Mike also said he and I are fishing buddies, which is simply not true. Never happened.
SHARPTON: They're not fishing buddies. Not true. Never happened. Well, glad he cleared that up. The whole country was worried about who Cheney goes fishing with. The truth is Cheney doesn't want to talk about things that he really needs to get straight. So he can go on national TV to plug his new book or plug his daughter's campaign, but the American people won't forget what he is refusing to talk about. Mr. Vice President, that wasn't even a nice try, but we still got you.
Did I just go back in time about 8 years, or is Alvin just off his meds again and resisting muchly.
how does the human black q-tip still have a TV show?
When Al Sharpton concocts a lie, does it become the truth because he’s Black?
Or, are we just racist for noticing that it’s a lie?
When it comes to Iraq’s possible involvement with the 9/11 hijackers, I always ask people who trash Bush and Cheney, “Approximately how many countries in the world were actually shooting at us 9/11/01? Arming guided missiles and shooting them at our planes?” It would have been reckless and irresponsible to not look at countries that fit that characterization.
(I might be wrong about this, but I think there was exactly one country that was actually shooting at us on 9/11/01.)
This is so ironic. Just today I posted about the message the Afghanis sent to Saddam Hussein within the first 24 hours of when Atta’s photo was published and the source in Prague identified him as the man who met wit the Iraqi guy (was his name Al Ani?) That message was found in Saddam’s palace and said that the US knew that 9-11 was a joint effort between AQ and Saddam and that Saddam should expect the US to retaliate. Other things found in Saddam’s records included information on Saddam’s son putting out a request for jihadis to strike US and British targets all over the world. That was shortly before the Iraqi guy met with Atta in Prague. The Czech government was disgusted that somebody in the CIA leaked the story to the press before Czech intelligence could get their evidence iron-clad. The Czechs finally gave up on helping the US, exasperated by the political lies and leaks.
Really weird to have the subject come up twice today. I mentioned it this morning in the context of a discussion on whether Obama has committed treason by arming our enemies. I contrasted Bashar Assad who has done no harm to the US, with Saddam whose regime was tied to the export of terrorism especially to US and British interests - as we have audio of Saddam saying that this would be the way war would be carried out, by using individual jihadists so that entire countries could not be blamed.
Weird.
OK. Sharpton was on yesterday. Still weird. I don’t even get cable so I had no idea.
How does anyone understand what that knucklehead is saying?
i have no doubt that we knew Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks and that we covered it up so that we wouldn’t have to go all nuclear on him.
Didn’t Obama recently amend the policy that we had to use similar or more deadly force if we are attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? things that make you go hmmmmmm
yep, he did. I really think this is because he now knows that Saddam used Anthrax against us and that if it came out Bush would have had to go against long standing US policy. Thus, he didn't want to get himself in the same jam on a likely coming(or already happened) chemical, radiological or biological attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.