1115.org

(1)
Do you remember the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Dick Cheney does too, just not the same way as you or I:

“There was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up… That’s something the director of the CIA was telling us.

“We know that he was making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers… We know there were other terrorists… who had found safe harbor in Iraq over the years,” Cheney said. “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence to confirm, that he was involved in 9/11… But the fact of Saddam Hussein being a terrorist-sponsoring state… was, I think, a fact.”

I guess the real news is that he’s taken the first baby steps on the road back from delusional fantasy to the real world. At least he now unambiguously rejects his oft-repeated prior claims “that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.”

For Prick Cheney, that’s real and unexpected progress. But he has a long way to go before we can welcome him back to reality:

Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A U.S. military report released in 2008, had concluded “after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States” that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda.

(2)
In other bombshells, Cheney confounded everyone by apparently endorsing man-on-dog unions:

I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.

Seriously, though, the big news there is supposed to be that:

…in the past, Cheney has said that “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.” Today, he used he (sic) word “union.”

Cheneyology must be what all those ex-Kremlinologists turned to. Apparently, because he said “union” and not “relationship”, he has therefore (for the first time ever, gasp!) endorsed same-sex marriage rather than civil unions.