New evidence linking Saddam to WMD and al-Qaeda

[vulturesrow]

News story (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200410\SPE20041004a.html)

[MelchyBeau]

The news source is very right wing biased. Read up on the Prez of the service. He was on Fox claiming that everything the swiftboat biatches said was true. Its parent corporation is a right-wing media watch dog.

Also it states that the memos are unverifiable.

"Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence

The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents have not been made public before now is that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated. "

I find it hard to believe that if something like this came up, the Administration wouldn't be notified.

Also Colin Powell admits it was a mistake to claim that thier were WMDs in Iraq

Melch

[andyfox]

“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”-- Sec. of State Colin Powell, 2/4/01

“… let's remember that [Saddam’s] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”-- National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, 7/29/01

[vulturesrow]

Well did you bother to read the article? It was translated by two seperate individuals and then vetted by several experts, including a former Clinton advisor. It seems to me that the news service was very careful to neutralize any appearance of bias by going this route. I really like how you went right to attacking the source. Nice job.

And actually Rumsfeld has already made a statement about these documents.

EDIT:

Here is a link detailing (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT2004 1004b.html) the methodology used to vet the documents.

[meow_meow]

source = "cybercast news service" formerly "conservative news service", the mouthpiece of the Media Research Center (far right of center)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
source = "cybercast news service" formerly "conservative news service", the mouthpiece of the Media Research Center (far right of center)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post = "I didnt bother to critically read the article but instead immediately fall back on attacking the source"

[ThaSaltCracka]

from the article:

Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence

The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents have not been made public before now is that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated.

"It is unlikely they even know this exists," the source added.

The government official also explained that the motivation for leaking the documents, "is strictly national security and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's attention on facts and away from political posturing.

"This is too important to let it get caught up in the political process," the source told CNSNews.com.






I am sorry but this is completely laughable to me. The Bush Admin doesn't know about these docs, but this news company does? Bullshit. That right there makes me question their authinticity(sp).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry but this is completely laughable to me. The Bush Admin doesn't know about these docs, but this news company does? Bullshit. That right there makes me question their authinticity(sp).

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that this is breaking news, I can see how it is possible. It's not uncommon for amateur detectives and reporters to uncover things the government can't seem to find. That's why we have "America's most wanted". After all the CBS memogate was uncovered by some guy posting on internet forums. And that one girls body that was found in the landfill was found by an amateur.

But you're right, I too am skeptical. I would think they would immediately tell the Bush administration, or atleast the CIA. However, they have pics of the documents, so my interest is peaked. Only time will tell. We will see if drudge, Fox News, RCP, or Rueters pick the story up. I would e-mail the story to one of them. I wonder if it might take a while in fear of a FNC memogate.

[ThaSaltCracka]

these documents were apparently confiscated by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, so I would assume someone of importance has looked at the docs and must have decided they weren't credible. Unless confiscated docs routinely end up in the hands of journalists before they reach the hands of the CIA.

[meow_meow]

So you beleive anything you read on the internet and never consider the source?
When this hits the mainstream newswires that don't have an agenda that fits the story, then it will be worth evaluating. Until then, I'll file it under propaganda.

[vulturesrow]

Salt,

No it probably got bagged and catalogued and sent off for analysis. I find the explanation of how they got it very plausible. People leak documents all the time. Its nothing cosmic.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Yeah but one would think that a document such as this would be broughten immediately to the attention of the President, the Republican party, and Sean Hannity.

Seriously though, a document like this does not sit and collect dust.

[vulturesrow]

Of course not. But the source is one factor to consider. I dont automatically dismiss it because of the source. It may cause me to read more critically but thats about itt.

[vulturesrow]

Its a known fact that we still have tons of documents to sift through from Iraq. One thing you cant fault the Iraqis on is their penchant for record keeping. The US is notably short on Arabic translators and so it is taking quite some time to get through this stuff. It is entirely possible that this is the first theyve seen of it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

lots of things are possible......

[caretaker1]

1) Did I miss something, or did the article say nothing about Al-Qaeda?
2) "The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land" - no surprise here, in the eyes of some, American soldiers are invaders on Arab soil and thus some would wish them dead for this
3) Interesting, but a more unbiased source would be more convincing. Also, shouldn't the administration already have readily available information regarding the certainty that Iraq had WMDs? After all, it was used as a justification for invading the country. We shouldn't need any media source to tell us this for the first time (independent of a member of the administration).

[Knockwurst]

So let me get this straight:

1. An unnamed senior government official finds a file of documents outlining Saddam's terrorist ties and detailing his possession of WMD's among thousands of untranslated documents. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

2. This unnamed senior government official does not want to turn these documents -- highly vital to the war on terrorism -- into a political circus. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

3. So instead of going to the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department or the CIA with these documents, he bypasses all of them, bypasses any other news organizations such as the Washington Post, L.A. Times, ABC and NBC (you can even throw in the Wall Street Journal, Fox, and Washington Times) and goes straight to a third-rate, backwater, right wing "news agency" about a half -step above a blog, connected to the Media Research Center to give them the exclusive -- because he doesn't want to make it political. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

4. What's wrong with this picture? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Knockwurst]

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
4. What's wrong with this picture?

[/ QUOTE ] I think if you are a Bush supporter, nothing.

[caretaker1]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Funny, yet perhaps sadly true

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha, I like taking pot shots.
But Vulture, GWB, et all know I am just joking with them.

[Ionphore]

Just to reply to the article...

I don't care if they find a nuclear underground facility in Iraq. It still doesen't justify the war. The reasons the administration gave for going to war gave specifics on weapons bunkers, where everything was stored. They made it clear there were wmd's. Its fairly clear we were misled. You were misled, but continue to be misled and want to beleive so badly you are willing to go out of your way to do so. For some information to come almost 2 years after the war started from a news source that may or may not have political leanings doesen't really mean much at all. Sorry to break it to you buddy...

[adios]

Obviously the Bush administration thought they'd find WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Why lie before the war and tell the truth afterward?

[Mano]

Obviously the Bush administration thought they'd find WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Why lie before the war and tell the truth afterward?

I believe that the administration did believe that they would find the WMD's, but they misreperesented what they knew to be true and what they believed to be true. When Colin Powell gave his address, it appeared we knew what they had, how much and where it was. This clearly was not the case.

[wacki]

“No one on this planet was more convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then I was.” General Tommy Franks. Fox interview, 3 Aug 04.




O'REILLY: What happened to Saddam's chemical arsenal? Do you know?

BUSH: No. I don't. We thought we'd have stockpiles. We do know he had the capability of making weapons. And that capability could have been passed on to terrorists, and that was a risk, after 9/11, we could not afford to take.

O'REILLY: No, I understand that. But you, to this day, don't know what happened to his chemical weapons. He didn't tell us...

BUSH: No. Not yet.

O'REILLY: He hasn't given us much, has he?

BUSH: No, well he doesn't have anything to, to gain by giving us much. I mean, he's going to go on trial, and the Iraqis will lay out a case. And, I mean, why would he tell the truth?

Like I said, I can't fault them for that.

[ QUOTE ]
but they misreperesented what they knew to be true and what they believed to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a bold statement. There is a phrase called CYA, or cover your A$$. If you are always in the CYA mode as an intel expert, detective, or a lawyer, nothing gets done.

I haven't seen anything to this date that isn't CYA that makes me think Bush misrepresented. That may change, but I haven't seen anything definitive yet. There was bad intel, yes, but it was comming in from all over the place, and not from just one source.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to reply to the article...

I don't care if they find a nuclear underground facility in Iraq. It still doesen't justify the war. The reasons the administration gave for going to war gave specifics on weapons bunkers, where everything was stored. They made it clear there were wmd's. Its fairly clear we were misled. You were misled, but continue to be misled and want to beleive so badly you are willing to go out of your way to do so. For some information to come almost 2 years after the war started from a news source that may or may not have political leanings doesen't really mean much at all. Sorry to break it to you buddy...


[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is the true liberal opinion in a nutshell. I dont care if Bush et al were right about WMD after all, that the intel was in fact on the right track, it was still wrong! At least one of you finally came clean with how you really feel. Bravo.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to reply to the article...

I don't care if they find a nuclear underground facility in Iraq. It still doesen't justify the war. The reasons the administration gave for going to war gave specifics on weapons bunkers, where everything was stored. They made it clear there were wmd's. Its fairly clear we were misled. You were misled, but continue to be misled and want to beleive so badly you are willing to go out of your way to do so. For some information to come almost 2 years after the war started from a news source that may or may not have political leanings doesen't really mean much at all. Sorry to break it to you buddy...


[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is the true liberal opinion in a nutshell. I dont care if Bush et al were right about WMD after all, that the intel was in fact on the right track, it was still wrong! At least one of you finally came clean with how you really feel. Bravo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, good one vulturesrow, I can't believe I missed that.

Ionphore..... If you want people respecting your posts at all you better start making better posts. I don't know if you could of made a worse post. Your the kind of liberal that gives good liberals a bad bad name. Shame on you.

[andyfox]

"We do know he had the capability of making weapons. And that capability could have been passed on to terrorists, and that was a risk, after 9/11, we could not afford to take."

This statement alone is enough for me to vote for anybody but Bush. We were told he had weapons. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women are put in harm's way because of it. Now, oh well, you know, he had the capability to make weapons. Well of course he did. What country doesn't?

Now it's unclear to me whether Bush meant the "capability" could be passed on to terrorists, or the weapons. Bush says we couldn't take that risk after 9/11. We could take it before 9/11? What weapons did the 9/11 terrorists use? Were we afraid that, after 9/11, Hussein would pass along box cutters and flight schedules to terrorists?

9/11 had nothing to do with WMDs.

Mislead us into thinking he had WMDs and a nuclear capability that, if we didn't act, could lead to a mushroom cloud in America. Then tell us if he didn't have 'em, well he had the capability to have them.

The man deserves to be fired.

[andyfox]

They weren't right about WMDs. All the specifics they gave were either trumped up or wrong. Rice and Powell, before 9/11, both said Hussein was essentially emasculated. Bush had a report on his desk from the I.A.E.A. saying exactly the opposite of what he told us I.A.E.A. reports said about Hussein's nuclear capability.

I'm astounded to the tenacity with which people cling to the delusion that our leaders will give us the straight facts when they're planning to go to war.

[vulturesrow]

And I find it amazing that people equate bad intel with intentional deception. That being said its obvious that no one is going to change their mind on this. I will enjoy watching the wriggling if this story does prove to be true.

[andyfox]

Bush's assertion that Hussein had nuclear capability was not bad intel. He deliberately ignored a report that had been given to him the day before he made his assertion. The intel that Condi and Powell saw before 9/11 led them to assert that Hussein wasn't a threat.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
And I find it amazing that people equate bad intel with intentional deception. That being said its obvious that no one is going to change their mind on this. I will enjoy watching the wriggling if this story does prove to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry vulturesrow, I see your point. I'm just going to wait and see if other networks pick it up before I decide. I e-mailed it to O'reilly and I suggest you do the same to a few sources.

[sam h]

Shouldn't there be quotation marks around the word evidence in this post title?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't there be quotation marks around the word evidence in this post title?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.... that was harsh.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"We do know he had the capability of making weapons. And that capability could have been passed on to terrorists, and that was a risk, after 9/11, we could not afford to take."

This statement alone is enough for me to vote for anybody but Bush. We were told he had weapons. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women are put in harm's way because of it. Now, oh well, you know, he had the capability to make weapons. Well of course he did. What country doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]


I really disagree, Andy. Saddam's Iraq having the inclination and capacity to restart WMD programs is far different than a more benign, less antagonistic country having those same attributes.

And I definitely think based even SOLELY on Saddam's history and inclinations, that he should have been removed before he would have the chance to work more WMD mischief in the future. Andy, if Jeffrey Dahmer had stopped his killing spree for, say, 5 years, does that mean he should be considered OK for society? Saddam was a menace potentially forever; he was our enemy; he had had WMD programs; and there was every indication he had all along tried to get away with as much as he could in that area---he should have been taken out long ago on his record and animosity towards us alone--but given that he was not, the slightest hint of a restarted WMD program should have been compelling reason to take him out.

You are giving Saddam way too much benefit of the doubt. Also, we cannot afford to let our enemies arm with nukes--or to even allow the chance today that our enemies arm with nukes.

Saddam deserved to be dethroned; Bush deserves not to be fired but to be applauded for doing what should have been done.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
the slightest hint of a restarted WMD program should have been compelling reason to take him out.

[/ QUOTE ]
What WMD program? I mean you make it sound like there was actually proof that he was thinking about starting a WMD program? Nearly every claim by the Bush Administration has been proven to be false. See, here's what I don't understand, many people on here are taking the Bush approach to the war in Iraq. First it was about WMD's and terrorist ties, neither of which are true(atleast we know this now), and now its just about "we had to oust Saddam, because he was a threat". How is he a threat when he doesn't have WMD's or ties to Al Qaeda? But people are forgeting what the war was about, and that was overthrowing Saddam because he was a threat, had WMD's, and terrorist ties .

I watched the O'Reilly interview with Bush, and I was unconvinced. O'Reilly really let Bush dodge the question IMO. I just find it sad that over 1000 U.S. soldiers have died because of faulty intel, and Bush blaiming faulty intel is not good enough for me. He really needs to look at the people around him feeding him this intel and telling him things which turned out not to be true. I have said many times that I don't think Bush is the one to blame for Iraq, I think someone misled him, and then he in turn misled us, and I do think he misled us.


Question about Saddam, do you arrest someone for simply thinking about commiting a crime, or for that matter even hinting at a crime?

[Cashcow]

WOW...
What an incredibly unbiased opinion. I'd vote for you any day.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
the slightest hint of a restarted WMD program should have been compelling reason to take him out.


"What WMD program? I mean you make it sound like there was actually proof that he was thinking about starting a WMD program?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You know Saddam had WMD programs in the past. You know he did everything possible to hold onto those programs as long as he possibly could. You know he used WMD irresponsibly against the Kurds. Can you actually claim with a straight face that you think he wasn't at least thinking about or scheming how to get hos WMD programs going again?


[ QUOTE ]
Question about Saddam, do you arrest someone for simply thinking about commiting a crime, or for that matter even hinting at a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of civil or criminal law, where in our system the suspect gets the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It's a matter of national security, and Saddam was our enemy, and he was no good and had to go and that way he couldn't create a threat in the future.

Our citizens get (or should get) the benefit of the doubt in domestic criminal affairs. Saddam was however guilty until proven innocent based on his past record and FWIW that's the way national security matters must be handled on the international front. To give your country's proven enemies the benefit of the doubt in very serious matters is to court disaster.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you actually claim with a straight face that you think he wasn't at least thinking about or scheming how to get hos WMD programs going again?

[/ QUOTE ] It is entirely possible he was trying or thinking to get those weapons back, but there is no proof he was. Thats the point. You don't base foreign policy on hunches, you need to have proof, or atleast have a theory based upon some evidence. I don't consider 10 year old evidence good enough for a decision like going to war, and that is really all the admin had.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam was however guilty until proven innocent based on his past record and FWIW that's the way national security matters must be handled on the international front.

[/ QUOTE ]This is an incredibly dangerous policy IMO. What if North Korea decides our Navy base on Okinowa(sp) represents a threat to them because of the proximity to them and our policy of pre-emptive strikes and decides that they should attack us first before the threat grows? Can you see the similarities? I agree that known enemies, with a history of violence, should be dealt with in a manner different than other countries, but this notion of attacking based upon hunches and old evidence is frigthening and dangerous.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam had many chances to show his cooperation and non-belligerence and he flouted them all. That combined with his history and his enmity was sufficient IMO to warrant pre-emption.

Saddam fits your description of "known enemies with a history of violence".

Put all of the above together and that is why I said that any hint of evidence that he was restarting his WMD programs should have been sufficient cause for us to invade and preempt.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Put all of the above together and that is why I said that any hint of evidence that he was restarting his WMD programs should have been sufficient cause for us to invade and preempt.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but there was no evidence, except faulty and completely incorrect evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had many chances to show his cooperation and non-belligerence and he flouted them all. That combined with his history and his enmity was sufficient IMO to warrant pre-emption.


[/ QUOTE ] Saddam was cooperating to some extent. Riddle me this MMMMMM, why would Saddam do anything to end his cushy oil for food kick backs?

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
the slightest hint of a restarted WMD program should have been compelling reason to take him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at a cost of 1000 American lives, 28,000 American wounded and over $120 billion. I think we need more than a hint for that price tag.


[ QUOTE ]
You know Saddam had WMD programs in the past. You know he did everything possible to hold onto those programs as long as he possibly could.

[/ QUOTE ]

The operative word here is "past" he had them in the past. That's what the weapons inspectors were in there for. But the Bush administration was bent on not giving them time to make a proper assessment of his capabilities. War is the least cost-efficient alternative and should be a last alternative. That wasn't the situation here.

[ QUOTE ]
You know he used WMD irresponsibly against the Kurds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though I'm not sure what responsible use of WMDs includes. In any case, as yet another report details today, Saddam's WMD program was waning.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you actually claim with a straight face that you think he wasn't at least thinking about or scheming how to get hos WMD programs going again?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what hos you're talking about, but I'm sure Saddam's WMD's are not with them. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In any case, his schemes and plans are not the justification we were given, nor would such a justification have been accepted by the American people as a reason for going to war. Nor does Saddam's schemes and plans justifiy the costs mentioned above. We had a stranglehold on the country. A no fly zone for over half the country, a trade embargo. His military was in tatters as demonstrated by how well they fought against us in the invasion.


[ QUOTE ]
It's a matter of national security, and Saddam was our enemy, and he was no good and had to go and that way he couldn't create a threat in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's true that national security matters are not analogous to our criminal justice system. Before we engage in a very costly war and invasion, we should be pretty damn sure about the reasons why we're going in. The adminstration had every reason to doubt theirown claims about Saddam's nuclear program and the imminent danger from his biological and chemical programs.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam was however guilty until proven innocent based on his past record and FWIW that's the way national security matters must be handled on the international front. To give your country's proven enemies the benefit of the doubt in very serious matters is to court disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, he shouldn't have been given the benefit of the doubt. But then it's a leap to say because we're not giving him the benefit of the doubt, we're going to invade a country, depose its leader, and then occupy it until they are stable enough to govern themselves. We had inspectors in there, we had a no fly zone, his military was still recovering from the first gulf war. There were still a number of measures we could have taken short of invading Iraq, including effectively isolating Saddam by tightening the embargo, preventing the movement of helicopters, tanks and armor with the planes we were using for the no fly zone, pressuring governments that were doing business with him, and letting the inspections continue.

[vulturesrow]

We were still at war with Saddam. A cease-fire is what we were operating under.

One thing I would like to point out about the whole no-fly zone thing. THe public doesnt really understand what sort of climate this was creating in the military, at least on the aviation side. Because of the requirement to enforce the no-fly zones, we really got into a rut so to speak. We didnt do much outside of flying Operations Northern and Southern Watch. This limited our ability to train with other countries, participate in multinational exercises, etc. This may not seem a big deal to some, but I can tell you its a real morale crusher to know when you go on deployment youre going to the Gulf as fast as you can and might get 1 or 2 decent liberty ports if you are lucky. Part of the allure of serving in the Navy is to see the world, and our guys havent seen much of it. Continuing the no-fly zone enforcement IMO would have been very damaging to the military, esp. for the Air Force and for Naval Aviation. Just sort of a new perspective for those who casually throw out suggestions like continuing to enforce the no-fly zone.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I hear what your sayig Vulture, but sorry to say, thats their job. The government spent millions of dollars to train all of them to fly airplanes for the military. I am sorry, but if you don't like the job, go find a new one. I for one, would love to fly [censored] like that all day.

[MMMMMM]

So what was the cost of enforcing the no-fly zones over a decade or more? What other hidden costs (many) in dealing with him? What would the costs have potentially been if the worst-case scenario panned out?

Also, there were other good reasons for deposing Saddam, not the least of which was the humanitarian reason.

All in all I'd say the costs of removing him have been justifiable. Maybe it is too bad we didn't do it over a decade ago, when we had a larger army with more manpower better suited to sustained occupation and control.

[Cyrus]

When I have some more time, I might post the relevant articles : The UN sanctions were clearly working. And the intelligence services were monitoring that progress.

What's also clear is that people in Washington, come what may, wanted to attack Iraq -- WMDs or no WMDs.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Not at a cost of 1000 American lives, 28,000 American wounded and over $120 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always have to laugh when the liberals parrot their leaders about the cost of the Iraq war. If a war is justified the cost doesn't matter. Reasons 1 and 2 matter not reason 3 though.

We really need to fight this war and it's worth the lives it will cost and the wounds that it will inflict but we won't undertake this war because it costs too many dollars. That is the logic behind statements that criticize the war because it cost too much money. In other words if reasons 1 and 2 are valid, reason 3 doesn't matter.

[wacki]

There's always Putin's Quote (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1242517,00.html)

Saddam hated us. We were the "Devil".

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If a war is justified the cost doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

true, to bad this one wasn't.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If a war is justified the cost doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous

[vulturesrow]

Salt,

I really dont need you to preach to me about the nature of my job. You missed my point but I probably didnt make it well enough. In my opinon, continuous no-fly zone enforcement was weakening the training of Air Force and Navy aviators because mostly what we did was ONW and OSW. I never meant to imply that I dont like my, I very much enjoy what I do. Thanks for your sage advice though.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Well did you bother to read the article?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's there to read? Just the usual propaganda techniques of (1) frontloading strong claims while burying weak "evidence" down at the bottom; (2) juxtaposing scary statements about terror with quotes from original sources, thus implying while failing to assert any conneciton between the two; and (3) ignoring the text of the documents and instead relying on "interpretation" evidence from unnamed or partisan sources.

Take, for example, the documents (available only by links) that purport to “show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.” That quote is in the first paragraph.

Excavating, we find the only hint of this rests on a 1993 memo that says, in full: <ul type="square"> "In a continuity with our former book#7184/K on Dec. 20th, 1992, it's decided that the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends. Take the necessary steps
Stay well for struggle" [/list]Citing only the forgoing (falsely as proof of "Saddam's Connections to Al Qaeda"), CNN offers the following: "On Oct. 3, 1993, less than nine months after that Iraqi memo was written, American soldiers were ambushed in Mogadishu, Somalia by forces loyal to Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden."

So an 11-year-old memo urging the Baath party or "friends" to "hunt Americans" in places including Somalia, coupled with the "alleged" ties between Somalian warlord Aidid, "shows" that Saddam "work[ed]" with al Qaeda to "target Americans." Of course, CNS conveniently drops the fact that al Qaeda or bin Laden are never mentioned in the key memo or that it refers only to Americans on "Arab land." But I'm sure they were careful that the only operative verb in the memo, "hunt", was scrupulously translated by their unidentified translators.

This is comical, but CNS knows its audience won't click the link or think about what they're reading. They're targeting the buffs of the liberal media conspiracy to obscure the "true facts" about Saddam's plan to conquer the U.S. while being unable to conquer his own country.

What about the documents that "show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders?" These we don't get to see at all. The only description of them, at the end of the article, refers to "ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries [that] are listed on the papers," "many" of whom "are described as having 'finished the course at M14,' a reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having 'participated in Umm El-Ma'arek,' the Iraqi response to the U.S. invasion in 1991." In other words, the papers list the names of people trained by Iraqi intelligence, undoubtedly Iraqi intelligence officers. Nothing about terrorism or training terrorists at all.

Only someone who thinks Laurie Mylroie should be credited as a "Clinton advisor" would be dumb enough to fall for this. You are unwittingly laundering the credentials of someone who has made a career from peddling Saddam-gonna-gitcher-momma stories, attributing to him everything from the first WTC bombing to the anthrax scare to global warming. Of course, her credibilty bolsterers are unvariably the same neocon crazies that led the march toward war, the Woolsey-Perle-Wolfowitz axis. You aren't even pausing to consider that her thesis boils down to a plot by Saddam to get the U.S. to invade his country, depose and imprison him.

[vulturesrow]

I dont have the time nor desire to point your out the errors in yet another one of your entertaing Chonskyesque rants. I will just drop one question for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Only someone who thinks Laurie Mylroie should be credited as a "Clinton advisor" would be dumb enough to fall for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Laurie Mylroie advise Clinton or not ? (Hint: answer = yes) If so then how is it incorrect to label her as a onetime Clinton advisor?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Laurie Mylroie advise Clinton or not ? (Hint: answer = yes) If so then how is it incorrect to label her as a onetime Clinton advisor?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a tough one. During the last four years this former Saddam apologist has written two scaremonger tracts promoting war with Iraq on the absurd grounds that the CIA and State Department have been covering up overwhelming evidence of Iraqi WMD and ties to al Qaeda, even though the verdict from both the Senate Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 Commission, and virtually every real expert outside a small circle of neocon imperialists is exactly the opposite. She is, in short, "a crackpot" who "believes that Saddam was not only behind the '93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself." Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html). Now her opinions are invoked to help substantiate a connection between Saddam and bin Laden with documents that say not a word about bin Laden or his group.

Fourteen years ago, she gave Clinton advice during his first campaign.

From this you defend your description of her as a "Clinton advisor," without more, to stress her likely objectivity.

Only an idiot would find this reasonable. To defend it as technically correct is the kind of quibble for which people justly ridicule lawyers.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Chief, I knew what you were talking about. My brother, two of my cousins, and a family friend are all in the military.

You never said anything about weakening training though. I am intrigued, school me man. BTW, what does ONW and OSW mean? You do the same [censored] as my brother, you use acronyms out the ass and expect is civi's to know what the hell you are talking about. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a war is justified the cost doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. There are many reasons where you don't go to war, even if you can "justify" it, whatever that means. Mainly, if you are going to get ruined and destroyed because you go to a justified war, then you shouldn't. If it costs 1,000,000,000 lives (I know this is extreme) to win a justified war, well, then, I don't think you need to go there.

Let's say you are Kazerstan (doesn't exist, BTW, ^^), and some first-world country, (US, Europe, Japan) has done something that allows you to fight a justified war, should you go there when you know that you will get destroyed if you do?

At the same time, even if Saddam does not have WMD's, the US can, and maybe should go into Iraq, even if you CAN'T fully justify it, or if you can't prove Saddam had WMD's.

If the EV of going into Iraq is greater than the EV of not going into Iraq, we should go into Iraq. Of course, you've got to be right how probable it is that Saddam has nuclear weapons, if you don't know if he does have them or not.

You must find the course of action that results in the least amount of American lives, Iraqi lives, and money spent. And yes, money's important. The government can't spend 100 billion dollars to save a hundred lives, unfortunately. They need the money to do other things. The key is to spend the money where it will make the most difference.

Either way, it's all about picking the option the results in the best effects, long-term, and short-term. You can't be afraid of going into war, because then people like Osama can bully you around all day. But, you can't go after everything, or else you're going to get stretched too thin.

And yes, a lot of times you are stuck between a rock, and a hard place. And in that time, if your hunches are very, very good (I'm talking Holmes-caliber here), yeah, go with them.

My beef, if I have one, is the way Bush handled the war. He was very, very aggresive, and this is often good, but there are a few times where he could have slowed down and tried to bully a, IMHO, very weak Saddam that would agree to almost everything Bush said.

And you've got to have a good postwar plan. That alone means a lot of EV swinging your way, and a lot better case for going to war, no matter if Saddam has WMD's or not.

[vulturesrow]

My point about not being able to participate in multinational exercises was an attempt to imply lost opportunities for training, and also my statement about being in a rut. Sorry for the acronym thing, even people in the service complain about them but we still do it. ONW/OSW= Operation Northern/Southern watch. Ill amplify a bit. When I found out we were going to Afghanistan on my first deployment as an aviator, I literally knew nothing about that place other than where it was on a map and just from my own knowledge a little bit about their government. Beyond that I had no idea what sort of air defenses they had, what their military was like, etc. I could tell you everything you wanted to know about the all the major players in the Middle East proper however. Now this is my opinion but I felt it made us very one dimensional. The only guys who really had any other experience were the guys in the forward deployed air wing in Japan. Hope I was a little clearer this time. My apologies for being short.

PS I'll let you know the next time I am rolling near Sea-Town, we'll go drink a beer for your bro and all the rest of them. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

ahhhh.... that makes sense...

you better believe it, you come to sea-town and you are getting piss drunk. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[vulturesrow]

You might want to rethink your desire to get a Navy guy piss drunk. Drunken sailors is a cliche for a reason /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

naw, it'll still be fun.

[tolbiny]

You are giving Saddam way too much benefit of the doubt. Also, we cannot afford to let our enemies arm with nukes--or to even allow the chance today that our enemies arm with nukes.


How do you feel about the allegations that Iran and North Korea have both advanced their nuclear technology sig during the Iraq war. A major knock against this war is that saddam clearly did not pose the most immenient threat.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
We really need to fight this war and it's worth the lives it will cost and the wounds that it will inflict but we won't undertake this war because it costs too many dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this ridiculous? I think so and that's the logic behind the statement that MaxPower is using. If the cost is too high in lives and bloodshed, the monetary cost is a none issue because it can never be worth the monetary cost. When someone states that

"It costs over 1000 soldiers lives, there were 28,000 wounded, and it cost $120 billion"

the implication is that there is a monetary threshold where the 1000 soldiers lives and the 28,000 wounded would be worth it. If 1000 soldiers lives and 28,000 wounded is not worth it then the $120 billion is irrelevant as to the justification for the war.

If the cost in lives and bloodshed is worth it, again the monetary cost is a none issue.

"The war will result in over 1000 U.S. soldiers killed and over 28,000 wounded and it is worth it to eliminate the threat to the U.S. but hey we can't undertake this war and the threat must remain because it will cost $120 billion. If it only cost $60 billion we could spill the blood."

Again the $120 billion is irrelevant. The portion of my post you cited was in reference to the above as you/ve quoted me out of context yet again.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. There are many reasons where you don't go to war, even if you can "justify" it, whatever that means. Mainly, if you are going to get ruined and destroyed because you go to a justified war, then you shouldn't. If it costs 1,000,000,000 lives (I know this is extreme) to win a justified war, well, then, I don't think you need to go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that's not what I said. Go back and reread my post.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
true, to bad this one wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can certainly understand why you would say that and your opposition is principled IMO. If it wasn't worth the human cost it could never be worth the money.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
"It costs over 1000 soldiers lives, there were 28,000 wounded, and it cost $120 billion"

the implication is that there is a monetary threshold where the 1000 soldiers lives and the 28,000 wounded would be worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. It suggests that when factoring in the "cost" of the war you look at human costs as well as other costs (such as financial, diplomatic, and others).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The portion of my post you cited was in reference to the above as you/ve quoted me out of context yet again

[/ QUOTE ]

I love that you say I quoted you out of context when you are now suggesting that it is only a monetary cost that is irrelevant. Note that the person you were quoted mentioned several costs, one of which was monetary. Perhaps you were responding to them out of context.

Just so you don't have to look back, here is the original quote you were responding to (I can only assume you were responding to the whole thing, because you quoted it in your response)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at a cost of 1000 American lives, 28,000 American wounded and over $120 billion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[your response]
I always have to laugh when the liberals parrot their leaders about the cost of the Iraq war. If a war is justified the cost doesn't matter.



It sure was crazy for me to assume you were responding to the whole quote (that you cited) and not just the last clause of it.

[meow_meow]

So...2 days later and I haven't seen a word of this in the mainstream media.
Wait - that must be evidence for liberal media bias.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
So...2 days later and I haven't seen a word of this in the mainstream media.
Wait - that must be evidence for liberal media bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually yes. Whether or not you believe it true or not, I would argue that it is newsworthy. Either it is a massive blatant attempt at a fraud or it is some very damning evidence. I believe either one of those stories are newsworthy. You may believe otherwise.

By the way, here is a link (http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410051141.asp) for you to peruse. It states the editor of CSN has received requests from several media organizations to review the documents.

[wacki]

vulturesrow , you are starting to look pretty good!

I like this sentence But it’s interesting to note the difference in the mainstream media’s reaction to the CBS memos and these documents.

How the hell did you spot this thing before anyone else did anyway?