Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
He denies that he said it was "pretty well confirmed." If you read the 12/9/01 transcript from the White House web site, however, he said it was "pretty well confirmed."
That conclusion is based on pretty murky statements. It is not clear to me. If it makes you feel better to believe that go right ahead.
It is not clear exactly what he was responding to but it is clear he did not back away from the prior statement since he repeats its content and adds some more to it.
What is your point? That he is a liar?
"that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague"
Borger: You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed." Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.
What in the world is "murky" about that?
Cheney repeatedly says that the report about Atta cannot be refuted or confirmed. How many times does he have to say it? Why are you obsessed with getting identical statements over a period of months when new information was flowing in which might alter his earlier beliefs?
I don't really care if he denies saying what he apparently had said earlier. What is important is that there were ties between Iraq and al Queda, extensive ties and that every bit of information that is added makes that more and more clear.
He may have misspoke himself with regard to his earlier comment. However, when it comes to telling the truth about the enemies we are facing Cheney is superb. THAT is what is important.
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.