On the May 2 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, co-host Dan Caplis accused state Rep. Mike Cerbo (D-Denver) of “really offensive conduct” and falsely claimed that Cerbo “opposed including ... those who have died fighting for us in Iraq in a ... memorial to those who have died in the war on terror.” Although Cerbo did reportedly oppose the inclusion of the words “war on terror” in the bill to create the memorial, he never suggested excluding from the memorial the names of service members killed in Iraq. Moreover, when Cerbo appeared on the show to discuss the memorial, Caplis repeated the debunked falsehood that “the intent in going into Iraq was part of this effort to protect us from terrorists, including terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction from” former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Accusing Cerbo of “petty partisan politics” during the first hour of his show, Caplis falsely stated that during debate over Senate Bill 86, Cerbo “jump[ed] up and oppose[d] including those who have died in Iraq” in the “fallen heroes memorial.” However, as The Rocky Mountain News reported on May 2, Cerbo simply “opposed the wording in Senate Bill 86, which would create a 'War on Terror Fallen Heroes Memorial' for service members killed in the war on terror, including those who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.” According to the News:

Cerbo said the conflict in Iraq is a “civil war” and not part of the “war on terrorism.”

“We're just buying into a myth that was propagated when we got involved in this civil war, and I don't think we should propagate it any further,” said Cerbo.

Initially, the House adopted an amendment by Cerbo that struck the phrase “during the war on terrorism” from one line in the bill.

But later in the day, Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, an Army Reserve officer who has served two tours in Iraq, joined Republican sponsors in requesting a roll call vote challenging the amended bill.

When Cerbo joined the program by phone later to defend his amendment, Caplis again attacked him for making “a petty political point against President Bush and the war in Iraq” and asked, "[W]hy is it so important to you to deny that whether you agree with the tactics in Iraq, whether you agree with going into Iraq -- that ... it was part of an effort to protect us from being attacked again by terrorists?" Caplis later asked, "[C]an't you acknowledge that the intent in going into Iraq was part of this effort to protect us from terrorists, including terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction from Saddam?"

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, the notion that the war in Iraq had “begun” with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has long been discredited. In fact, Bush himself admitted in September 2003 that there is “no evidence” Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

Caplis' claim that “the intent in going into Iraq was part of this effort to protect us from terrorists” echoed numerous members of the Bush administration -- including President Bush, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who, before and after the war began, asserted a specific link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But as Media Matters for America has noted, a September 8, 2006, Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded, “Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak [training facility in Iraq] or anywhere else in Iraq.”

Media Matters has also noted that the 9-11 Commission found that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no “collaborative and operational relationship,” and the September 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that Saddam's government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward” now-dead Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and his associates. Similarly, the report broadly concluded that, based on postwar evidence, “Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support.”

Finally, a March 2, 2004, Knight Ridder Newspapers article cited “a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003” in reporting that "[s]enior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings. Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said."

Additionally, as Media Matters has noted repeatedly, not all of the available intelligence before the war supported the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's purported weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). For example, a September 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report found “no reliable information” to substantiate the claim that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. Moreover, while the intelligence community believed Iraq possessed biological agents that could be quickly produced and weaponized, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) made clear that the agencies lacked hard evidence to back up this assumption: “We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal.”

Despite using falsehoods to argue his case, Caplis accused Cerbo of “dodging” the “facts” and told him, “Well, you can have your own opinions; you can't have your own facts.”

From the May 2 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's Caplis & Silverman show:

CAPLIS: Few things have upset me as much recently as this. We hope to get state Representative Mike Cerbo with us. I think he acted in a very small and petty and offensive way yesterday when he opposed including Iraq -- those who have died fighting for us in Iraq in a, a memorial to those who have died in the war on terror. I mean, a real straightforward deal. A bill at the legislature. Hey, we're going to create a fallen heroes memorial to memorialize those who've died fighting the war on terror, and, and this guy jumps up and opposes including those who have died in Iraq. How outrageous. Fortunately, a fellow Dem -- and, and Joe Rice, all the credit in the world to him. And I've got a call in to Joe. Hopefully he'll join us later in the show as well. Later in the day, the extraordinary maneuver of Joe Rice stepping up and saying, “Oh no, we're voting on that again.” And he reopened it, and Joe Rice joined with Republicans, and they set the world back on its axis and said, “Oh no, this memorial is going to include those who died fighting terrorists in Iraq.” So, can't wait to get Mike Cerbo on the show and see how he can possibly try to defend that, that really offensive conduct he engaged in yesterday. But, but to me, that just -- the depths of petty partisan politics, to, to strip those who've died for us of an honor so he can make some, some little political point he wants to make. It's just garbage. But hopefully he'll join us later in the show.

[...]

CAPLIS: Well, you can have your own opinions; you can't have your own facts. The reality is we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are terrorists. The day we went in, Saddam Hussein was funding terrorists. Those are simple facts. So, why did you have to do that? Please explain this to us. Why did you have to do that? The only possible justification was because you wanted to make a petty political point against President Bush and the war in Iraq. And, and that's the only reason you did this. And even your own -- some of your own Democrats turned on you eventually.

CERBO: I think you're, you're, you're blowing out -- you're blowing up Representative Rice's amendment to my amendment, I guess it was. He came down to me and he told me, “Look, 'the war on terrorism' is a term used in the, in, in the Department of Defense for our, our battles over there. I've got medals with 'the war on terrorism' on it.” And I said, “Look, this is not -- it's just a matter of semantics. I'm not going to go to the mat over this, this whole issue. If you want to, to propose to put the words back in I'm gonna -- I'm gonna oppose that, but I'm not gonna make a big issue out of it.” And that's what it -- that's what happened.

CAPLIS: But you still opposed him on it. Even after he pointed out to you you were factually wrong, you still opposed him on it. Why? Why couldn't you just let these men who died in battle and their families have whatever peace they might get from knowing that their loved ones died as part of, of a global effort against terrorists? Why couldn't you just let that happen?

CERBO: I was not factually wrong.

CAPLIS: Well, please, let's get back to it. We're --

CERBO: “The war on terrorism” is a, is a loosely used term.

CAPLIS: We're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. They attacked us on 9-11. They're terrorists, right?

CERBO: Then, then, then we should have a memorial for those that fought against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

CAPLIS: Oh my goodness. Why is it -- why is it so important to you to deny that whether you agree with the tactics in Iraq, whether you agree with going into Iraq -- that, that it was part of an effort to protect us from being attacked again by terrorists?

CERBO: It's -- I, I don't know. You're, you're -- I, I didn't know Iraq was attacking us with terrorists. I don't know what you're talking about.

CAPLIS: You didn't know, you didn't know that Saddam Hussein was funneling cash to terrorists at the time we went into Iraq?

CERBO: We went into Iraq because he had weapons of mass destruction.

CAPLIS: Right. I just asked a factual question. You didn't know that Saddam was funneling cash to terrorists at the time we went in?

SILVERMAN: Well --

CERBO: Saddam's been meddling in that region of the world forever. You know, I'm sure -- you know, I, I don't know what you are trying to get at.

CAPLIS: Well, here's what I'm trying to get at: Factually, this is part of the war on terror. The fact that you want to make a petty political point at the expense of these dead men I think is outrageous. Number two --

CERBO: That, that's outrageous -- accusing me of making a petty political point on, on the behalf of dead soldiers. That's nonsense.

CAPLIS: Well, I -- people can judge for themselves. I'm offering facts and, and you're dodging my facts. Number 2: If Saddam is funneling cash to terrorists on the day we go in, and President Clinton, you know, four years before, five years before had declared that Saddam was aiding and comforting terrorists, then why is it a stretch to imagine that a guy with weapons of mass destruction would fu -- would also transfer those to terrorists? He's paying terrorists cash to go blow people up. Why is it a stretch to believe that he'd, he'd take that next step? And even if you believe it's, it's some kind of stretch, can't you acknowledge that the intent in going into Iraq was part of this effort to protect us from terrorists, including terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction from Saddam?

CERBO: Dan, it's really hard to take you seriously. You just accused me of making a petty political point on behalf of -- against dead -- our dead troops, and I -- you know, it's really tough having a, having a straight conversation with you.

CAPLIS: Well, I think the problem is you can't rebut my facts.

CERBO: I don't know -- you know, you're throwing a lot of facts in there. You're getting way off the subject of the fallen heroes, heroes memorial construction fund that the, the res -- the bill was about.