Mark, the lack of WMD is all the story the left has ears to hear.
They actually still believe that "containment" was viable despite the "oil-for-food" fiasco & our pilots being continually shot at enforcing the UN mandated "no-fly" zone.
They also evidently comfortable w the pre-invasion sunni brutality & genocide against the kurds & shia vs the post-invasion sectarian strife instigated by foreign jihadists.
No surprise there as validated by the silence of the left concerning the muslim slaughter of christians in Darfur.
Posted by: OhioOrrin at April 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Is this story going to have legs or is it going to get buried? I take it by the lack of troll comments, they haven't quite figured out what to do with this one.
Posted by: Rich at April 10, 2006 11:14 AM
Why doesn't the Bush administration make a statement about this? Wouldn't it lift their war approval ratings? Does this mean that conservative bloggers have scooped the state department, DOD and CIA?
Posted by: extramedium at April 10, 2006 12:26 PM
First off, this doesn't show that Saddam was necessarily more of a threat than previously thought; though it does show (if this doc is legit) a desire to attack the US in the middle east.
The debate about the invasion was whether he was threat enough for the US attack Iraq. To me, this document provides more proof Hussein was a problem that needed to be dealt with (which i have thought all along), but I don't believe gives any more credence to the invasion in March '03 -- especially in light of the situation in Iraq now.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at April 10, 2006 01:07 PM
you guys have been trying to build this case for almost 3 and a half years. Seriously, shut up and deal with the fact you were wrong. Its over, we are over there, you don't need to keep grasping for reasons to go, we are already freaking there...
Posted by: steve at April 10, 2006 01:11 PM
Not much of a spirited attack by the trolls. Looks like this one might actually get through the spin.
Posted by: Rich at April 10, 2006 02:03 PM
Steve
There are millions of documents yet to be translated but you've already made up your mind. Who, in fact, is the one that is not open minded and perhaps should need to "deal with it"?
It appears to be you!
Posted by: Warriornation at April 10, 2006 02:10 PM
Can someone explain to me the Al Qaeda link in this memo? Al Qadisya is a district of Mosul.
Posted by: garyb at April 10, 2006 03:09 PM
Nobody ever suggested that Saddam had any warm and fuzzy feelings for this country. Assuming that these documents are genuine -- exactly what do they show?
That an air force brigadier requested a list of those who would be willing to engage in suicide attacks? That Saddam (or his son) wished to attack U.S. assets in the middle east? That Saddam allowed a TV broadcast approved by UBL? That Saddam may have financed weapons for Pilippino insurgents?
Since absolutely none (zip, zero) of these attacks actually occurred -- it is quite a stretch to imply that any of this hogwash represented an "imminent threat" to the U.S. (when the administration does it it is a "contingency plan," for anybody else to do it, it's "a terrorist plot"). I would more correctly place it more in "Saddam's wishful thinking department."
Do we know who the brigadier and colonel involved in this "document" are? Did they set state policy? Would you want Gen. Boykin's rants and pronouncments to be interpreted as representative of U.S. policy?
Oh, and Saddam funded weapons for insurgents?
When you consider this country's long, sad record of arming dictators, insurgents or anybody else who claimed to be anticommunist (now replaced by antiterrorist), it seems the height of hypocrisy to cite Saddam's trifling payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and Philippino insurgents as a serious security threat.
I think Steve hit the nail on the proverbial head when he noted that in three-and-a-half years the adminstration and its myriad apologists have yet to produce any evidence that Saddam had more than a periphreal relationship with UBL or posed any kind of real security threat to the U.S.
You guys are still grasping at straws -- the smoking gun is in Washington.
Posted by: Salvelinus at April 10, 2006 03:47 PM
Garyb
There is no link to Al Qaeda in THIS memo. But there are in other memos released in the last few weeks.
Salvelinus....you and others on that side continue to want to pursue a policy of "wait" to be attacked. Wait until it's too late. Haven't we learned anything from 9/11...or from WWII or other eras where we "waited" and felt safe or simply appeased.
Posted by: Warriornation at April 10, 2006 04:16 PM
Salvelinus
Millions of documents yet to be translated...do you know what is in them? Sure seems like you do. Sure seems like your mind is 100% made up already.
Posted by: Warriornation at April 10, 2006 04:16 PM
Warriornation:
Thanks for the clarification. Here is what I read in the lead up to the memo:
A new document from the captured Iraqi files in Baghdad now appears to show that Saddam Hussein's regime not only had ties to al-Qaeda . . .
But, it’s not THIS document that shows it. Got it. Thanks.
Posted by: garyb at April 10, 2006 04:26 PM
Warriornation --
....you and others on that side continue to want to pursue a policy of "wait" to be attacked. Wait until it's too late. Haven't we learned anything from 9/11...or from WWII or other eras where we "waited" and felt safe or simply appeased
-----------
You have taken WAY too many points from the Bush administration.
You have conveniently thrown in 9/11 in talking about attacking Iraq.
No, we are not in a "wait until we've been attacked" mode. We (and everyone in the United States) was all for going after those who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq did not and was not part of that attack. No matter how often you, Bush and all the other righties say so.
Iraq was not an imminent threat. THAT is the beef the Dems have with the Iraq invasion.
I repeat... EVERYONE was for going after Bin Laden and going into Afghanastan... going into Iraq was absolutely taking your eye off the ball.
Posted by: Sick of Lies at April 10, 2006 05:37 PM
I hit POST before adding....
The document in this post says nothing about 9/11 or al Qaeda.
Posted by: Sick of Lies at April 10, 2006 05:40 PM
Keep grasping Libs......"Iraq Liberation Act" of 1998...passed by Congress...signed by Bubba.....ignored by Bubba for a fat intern end of story!!!
Posted by: Lug at April 10, 2006 06:26 PM
Sick of Lies....so who did attack us in 9/11? Are you saying they were all confined to Afghanistan?
You make it sound like Al Qaeda is confined to one country which is absolutely ridiculous.
Terrorism knows no bounds.
Let me ask you this Sick of Lies, Iran hasn't attacked us....what should we do with Iran? Hope? Cut a deal like Bill did with the North Koreans and "hope"?
I hear you complaining time and again...what would you do?
Posted by: Warriornation at April 10, 2006 06:55 PM
Extramedium is right. If these documents are so conclusive then why in the world doesn't even the Bush Administration announce it? And don't give me this MSM blockade of information over Iraq. You know that there are people out there like O'Reilly who would love to announce this. I find it hard to believe that this hasn't caught the ears of any major news program just yet.
This could be very big news if it really means what it does, but I see few people in the big world willing to stand up for it...
Posted by: Alf at April 10, 2006 07:23 PM
Alf,
Are you implying that anything underreported is inherently false? That's just asking for psychological manipulation.
The thing is that most of us agree that one of the conservatives' and the Bush administration's faults is their PR campaign. It may be bad policy, but that doesn't mean this information isn't true.
Posted by: Omega Destructor at April 10, 2006 08:03 PM
I'm not saying it's inherently false, I'm just pretty damned confused as to why more people aren't reporting something like this.
If anything, documents like these need to be scrutinized and analyzed by the public more and more instead of letting a few bloggers here do all the thinking. I've believed for a long time that Saddam was deterrable and that war could be avoided but I'd rather be wrong and find the facts later than be wrong and keep thinking I'm right.
Posted by: Alf at April 10, 2006 08:24 PM
These documents have been released, piecemeal, by the administration or whoever, for a valid reason. There is a very valid reason why Bush is doing it this way. I can't believe you kookbats can't figure out why. Therefore, I won't waste my time explaining it to you. I'm sure Mark Noonan knows why, and I suspect our more-intelligent GOP members here know why too. Mayby you kookbats ought to get your leader, Barney, and his sidekicks, Ash and Slipgrid, to clue you in. I can't believe you can't figure this out--on second thought, yes I can...
Posted by: keefer at April 10, 2006 09:16 PM
Keefer
That would be "Maybe" not "Mayby". It seems that if you knew the valid reason why Bush is doing it this way, you would not hesitate to let us kookbats know. Don't be shy.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 11, 2006 11:27 AM
Keefer be quiet. Don't go spoiling the October surprise.
Posted by: Rich at April 11, 2006 01:34 PM
Keefer
Please tell us why they are being released piecemeal.
No wait, let me guess...it's too steal another election right? LOL
Posted by: Warriornation at April 11, 2006 05:55 PM
Mark, the lack of WMD is all the story the left has ears to hear.
They actually still believe that "containment" was viable despite the "oil-for-food" fiasco & our pilots being continually shot at enforcing the UN mandated "no-fly" zone.
They also evidently comfortable w the pre-invasion sunni brutality & genocide against the kurds & shia vs the post-invasion sectarian strife instigated by foreign jihadists.
No surprise there as validated by the silence of the left concerning the muslim slaughter of christians in Darfur.
Is this story going to have legs or is it going to get buried? I take it by the lack of troll comments, they haven't quite figured out what to do with this one.
Why doesn't the Bush administration make a statement about this? Wouldn't it lift their war approval ratings? Does this mean that conservative bloggers have scooped the state department, DOD and CIA?
First off, this doesn't show that Saddam was necessarily more of a threat than previously thought; though it does show (if this doc is legit) a desire to attack the US in the middle east.
The debate about the invasion was whether he was threat enough for the US attack Iraq. To me, this document provides more proof Hussein was a problem that needed to be dealt with (which i have thought all along), but I don't believe gives any more credence to the invasion in March '03 -- especially in light of the situation in Iraq now.
you guys have been trying to build this case for almost 3 and a half years. Seriously, shut up and deal with the fact you were wrong. Its over, we are over there, you don't need to keep grasping for reasons to go, we are already freaking there...
Not much of a spirited attack by the trolls. Looks like this one might actually get through the spin.
Steve
There are millions of documents yet to be translated but you've already made up your mind. Who, in fact, is the one that is not open minded and perhaps should need to "deal with it"?
It appears to be you!
Can someone explain to me the Al Qaeda link in this memo? Al Qadisya is a district of Mosul.
Nobody ever suggested that Saddam had any warm and fuzzy feelings for this country. Assuming that these documents are genuine -- exactly what do they show?
That an air force brigadier requested a list of those who would be willing to engage in suicide attacks? That Saddam (or his son) wished to attack U.S. assets in the middle east? That Saddam allowed a TV broadcast approved by UBL? That Saddam may have financed weapons for Pilippino insurgents?
Since absolutely none (zip, zero) of these attacks actually occurred -- it is quite a stretch to imply that any of this hogwash represented an "imminent threat" to the U.S. (when the administration does it it is a "contingency plan," for anybody else to do it, it's "a terrorist plot"). I would more correctly place it more in "Saddam's wishful thinking department."
Do we know who the brigadier and colonel involved in this "document" are? Did they set state policy? Would you want Gen. Boykin's rants and pronouncments to be interpreted as representative of U.S. policy?
Oh, and Saddam funded weapons for insurgents?
When you consider this country's long, sad record of arming dictators, insurgents or anybody else who claimed to be anticommunist (now replaced by antiterrorist), it seems the height of hypocrisy to cite Saddam's trifling payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and Philippino insurgents as a serious security threat.
I think Steve hit the nail on the proverbial head when he noted that in three-and-a-half years the adminstration and its myriad apologists have yet to produce any evidence that Saddam had more than a periphreal relationship with UBL or posed any kind of real security threat to the U.S.
You guys are still grasping at straws -- the smoking gun is in Washington.
Garyb
There is no link to Al Qaeda in THIS memo. But there are in other memos released in the last few weeks.
Salvelinus....you and others on that side continue to want to pursue a policy of "wait" to be attacked. Wait until it's too late. Haven't we learned anything from 9/11...or from WWII or other eras where we "waited" and felt safe or simply appeased.
Salvelinus
Millions of documents yet to be translated...do you know what is in them? Sure seems like you do. Sure seems like your mind is 100% made up already.
Warriornation:
Thanks for the clarification. Here is what I read in the lead up to the memo:
But, it’s not THIS document that shows it. Got it. Thanks.
Warriornation --
....you and others on that side continue to want to pursue a policy of "wait" to be attacked. Wait until it's too late. Haven't we learned anything from 9/11...or from WWII or other eras where we "waited" and felt safe or simply appeased
-----------
You have taken WAY too many points from the Bush administration.
You have conveniently thrown in 9/11 in talking about attacking Iraq.
No, we are not in a "wait until we've been attacked" mode. We (and everyone in the United States) was all for going after those who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq did not and was not part of that attack. No matter how often you, Bush and all the other righties say so.
Iraq was not an imminent threat. THAT is the beef the Dems have with the Iraq invasion.
I repeat... EVERYONE was for going after Bin Laden and going into Afghanastan... going into Iraq was absolutely taking your eye off the ball.
I hit POST before adding....
The document in this post says nothing about 9/11 or al Qaeda.
Keep grasping Libs......"Iraq Liberation Act" of 1998...passed by Congress...signed by Bubba.....ignored by Bubba for a fat intern end of story!!!
Sick of Lies....so who did attack us in 9/11? Are you saying they were all confined to Afghanistan?
You make it sound like Al Qaeda is confined to one country which is absolutely ridiculous.
Terrorism knows no bounds.
Let me ask you this Sick of Lies, Iran hasn't attacked us....what should we do with Iran? Hope? Cut a deal like Bill did with the North Koreans and "hope"?
I hear you complaining time and again...what would you do?
Extramedium is right. If these documents are so conclusive then why in the world doesn't even the Bush Administration announce it? And don't give me this MSM blockade of information over Iraq. You know that there are people out there like O'Reilly who would love to announce this. I find it hard to believe that this hasn't caught the ears of any major news program just yet.
This could be very big news if it really means what it does, but I see few people in the big world willing to stand up for it...
Alf,
Are you implying that anything underreported is inherently false? That's just asking for psychological manipulation.
The thing is that most of us agree that one of the conservatives' and the Bush administration's faults is their PR campaign. It may be bad policy, but that doesn't mean this information isn't true.
I'm not saying it's inherently false, I'm just pretty damned confused as to why more people aren't reporting something like this.
If anything, documents like these need to be scrutinized and analyzed by the public more and more instead of letting a few bloggers here do all the thinking. I've believed for a long time that Saddam was deterrable and that war could be avoided but I'd rather be wrong and find the facts later than be wrong and keep thinking I'm right.
These documents have been released, piecemeal, by the administration or whoever, for a valid reason. There is a very valid reason why Bush is doing it this way. I can't believe you kookbats can't figure out why. Therefore, I won't waste my time explaining it to you. I'm sure Mark Noonan knows why, and I suspect our more-intelligent GOP members here know why too. Mayby you kookbats ought to get your leader, Barney, and his sidekicks, Ash and Slipgrid, to clue you in. I can't believe you can't figure this out--on second thought, yes I can...
Keefer
That would be "Maybe" not "Mayby". It seems that if you knew the valid reason why Bush is doing it this way, you would not hesitate to let us kookbats know. Don't be shy.
Keefer be quiet. Don't go spoiling the October surprise.
Keefer
Please tell us why they are being released piecemeal.
No wait, let me guess...it's too steal another election right? LOL