[fsjeffrey]

A set-back for the left.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

[Waitone]

Settles nothing.

Those who want to believe in linkage will say, "see, proof!."

Those who do not want to believe in linkage will dismiss it. . . just like Jay Rockerfeller did today.

Even if it is iron-clad, lead pipe cinch material the current panel of democrat candidates will ignore its implications because there is political hay to be made.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Another version but still citing the weekly standard

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35634

Everybody says GW is a dummy. I have yet to see it. Everytime the Dems try to outflank him, he is already on the next level. We went from the Iraqi "quagmire" to the economy to the WMD to the Iraq/Al Qaeda link. He is right on all fronts.

What new "crisis" will the dems sell now?

[Sergeant Bob]

What new "crisis" will the dems sell now?
Probably his strategy of handing over control of Iraq to it's own govt by next summer.

[Sean Smith]

If the article is accurate, the arguments against invading Iraq suddenly look alot less tenable. Should this be confirmed & get alot of play in the press, those opposed to the war will be very vulnerable. As if the jump in GDP and decline in unemployment weren't enough. :D

[Waitone]

One woulda thought a memo from the bowels of the intelligence committee detailing how one party intended to politicize intelligence failures in the run up to the war would have sparked considerable interest. Never did.

Democrat 2004 platform
1>Bush is a liar--personal
2>Bush screwed up Iraq--foreign policy
3>Bush gave away manufacturing job--domestic policy

[greyhound]

I agree that it doesn't matter. Thanks to the media and Democrats' constant harping about Bush and the war, more and more people have made up their minds and no amount of evidence will change them.

The left has made the absence of WMD the one issue that resonates with the American public, and the only hope for those who supported the war is that they will be found, IMHO.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The Kay report, which I believe will be updated before the election, stated that Iraq had the research, staff, equipment, cascades, bio labs, ...in short, all of the means to produce nuclear, biological, chemical. And delivery systems. But no actual WMD material was found.

So if Iraq has no WMD, then we need to analyze the following:

Mr. X is a thief. Everybody knows he is a thief. His family members have been interviewed by the police, and they confirm he is a thief. A complicated $100M heist occurs. His fingerprints are there. You have found and questioned his accomplices, and they admit he committed the crime. Third parties also act as witnesses.

The DA holds round table meetings, very public, presenting all of the facts and try to come to a concensus that Mr. X is, in fact, the man. A whole bunch of hand wringing. No conclusion Six months later, the police chief decides to act independent of the politicians.

They find all of the complicated gear necessary to perform the heist. They find bank records. They find travel vouchers. They have documented proof, means, motive. But they do not find the money.

Does Mr. X go free? Is that the standard we use for prosecution here?

I think the WMD question is answered.

[El Tejon]

I think Wait nailed it.

Kindly Uncle Saddam has long been the Emir of the New Barbary Pirates. Did not WE at THR discuss long before the war his involvement with THE Base (as well as others)? However, the Left which hates America and is determined to destroy it will not let this fact stop them.

[Chris Rhines]

Unverifiable information from unnamed sources is hardly a smoking gun. Unless, that is, you trust the government to be honest and forthright... ;)

Browsing thru the memo, all of the left-handed references to human sources make me think that the enitre thing is a DO fantasy. The CIA has very few (some say no) human sources, and they have proven to be almost completely unreliable as providers of useful intelligence.

But we will see.

- Chris

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'll withold judgement on why this information is just now coming out in an article dated 8 days hence in a low-circulation, right-wing publication. Or why none of the administration supporters has taken it up in defense of the war. Let's assume it's all true. Do we commit unilateral, unprovoked war on every nation that has ties with our enemies? I don't see us attacking Pakistan or Indonesia. The pretext for the war was Iraq's alleged failure to comply with UN resolutions, though the Security Council could not be convinced that such enforcement was effective or necessary. At the very least, we were lied to about the admin's motives for dragging us in. Nor would I be convnced yet that this was the best way to address the threat.

[Khornet]

get over this 'we were lied to' meme. It's been well disproved long hence. It's right up there with the "Bush said it was imminent" mantra. It doesn't rise to the level of debate. We can do better than that.

[bountyhunter]

Link between Saddam and Osama

I read about this starting last Friday. The strange thing is, I have yet to hear a word about the "revelation" from the White House or even a single GOP congressman. I thought for sure somebody would be on Meet the Press or Face the Nation trumpeting the administration's vindication.

Considering:

1) A few months back, the CIA published findings that there was no CREDIBLE link between Hussein and Al Qaeada

2) GWB himself, Rumsfeld and Cheney all made public statements about a month ago acknowledging there is no credible link between Hussein and Al Qaeda

It just seems odd in the extreme that it now comes out that there was a massive and detialed report in which the CIA was quoted which states the opposite. I am not saying that it is not possible, but I am curious as to why Bush has been silent on this at a time when public support for the war is waning and he desperately needs something to help shore up his case for why the war was necessary.

Another thing that struck me odd was that the only "major" news outlet that listed it was Fox news. No offense to the "Weekly Standard", but I have never heard of them.

It sure seems strange that if this was true, it should be making front page and should have been picked up by the major papers. If there is actual proof that Hussein was connected with 9/11, the headlines would be jumping off the papers.

I'll keep watching, but all I am hearing is silence (?)



Another important point is that all of the reports I've read only make reference to contacts between OBL and some Iraqi officers in their intel service. Maybe that did happen... the point is, OBL and Hussein hated each other. Most of Hussein's underlings hated him too, but served for the money. It's completely possible (even probable) that some of them could have been working with OBL toward their common goal: the destruction of Saddam Hussein, which OBL had said publicly was his aim. I don't have any doubt there were elements within Saddam's government who supported OBL and radical Islam fundamentalism (and wanted Hussein dead), but I don't think we can stretch that to prove that Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda as a general policy or was involved in launching the 9/11 attacks.

We have proof that there is a significant segment of the saudi Government supporting OBL (including members of the royal family), and OBL probably has supporters in all Arab states. That doesn't prove anything other than the fact he is popular and there are many fundamental Islamic sects in the area.

[CMichael]

No government official said there were no links between Al Qaida and Hussein. What they said was there was no concrete evidence of links between Hussein and directly to 9 11. That is a big difference.

[bountyhunter]

Here is what you said:

"No government official said there were no links between Al Qaida and Hussein. What they said was there was no concrete evidence of links between Hussein and directly to 9 11. That is a big difference."


Here is what I read and heard them say:

1) A few months back, the CIA published findings that there was no CREDIBLE link between Hussein and Al Qaeada

2) GWB himself, Rumsfeld and Cheney all made public statements about a month ago acknowledging there is no credible link between Hussein and Al Qaeda

And FWIW, our combined intelligence agencies have been trying to pin anything and everything (including 9/11) on Hussein for years and have found (according to you) no CONCRETE evidence. That pretty much says it all right there.

[CMichael]

I am afraid that what you heard and read are inaccurate.

[RocketMan]

Also reported by Fox News.

From the Fox News story:
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (search), R-Kan., said he expected to ask the Justice Department and the Pentagon to determine if the leak constituted a crime. If it did, a criminal investigation should be conducted, he said.

Link to the story is here:

Senate Panel Wants Justice Dept. to Review Leak (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103351,00.html)

[Malone LaVeigh]

get over this 'we were lied to' meme. It's been well disproved long hence.Your statement doesn't make sense. Are you saying it's going to be disproved someday? It sure has been supported by all of the evidence so far.

I, for one, don't think that it's OK for the prez to lie about his motives for getting us into a shooting war. Or to mislead the people about the threat posed by Saddam.

[bountyhunter]

I, for one, don't think that it's OK for the prez to lie about his motives for getting us into a shooting war. Or to mislead the people about the threat posed by Saddam.

FWIW, I have always been dead set against the war and very angry that the administration has shoveled enough horse manure to fertilize Nebraska and Iowa to explain the reasons.

That said, I don't think Bush intentionally lied at the outset. I think he took the oath of office knowing he was going to kill Saddam Hussein, for a number of reasons. The top of the list was that he tried to kill his daddy, but also the fact that the world would just be better off without him.

I actually don't think those are bad reasons to kill somebody, I agree with him up to there. I just think it's a bad reason to go to war. Problem is, Hussein is harder to kill than a New Jersey cockraoch. Clinton already authorized the CIA to kill him and they failed twice. So, GWB figured tho only way to get him was a war.

That's when the problems started. I am 100% convinced that the environment around Bush was such that NOBODY told him anything that didn't dovetail in with the plan of going to war with Iraq. I believe the intelligence he got was selectively censored to shape it to support that. It's still his fault because he is in charge. The only exception was Powell, and Bush only used him as a prop to show the world we were trying to find a peaceful resolution via the UN.

Bottom line, "lying" depends on the eye of the beholder. There is no question that some of the intel they interpreted as proof of WMD's was so shaky it was laughable, but they saw what they wanted to see. It stands as proof of an old adage:

When everbody thinks alike, nobody actually thinks at all.

[Khornet]

you got one thing right: people see what they want to see. The Bushies have their blind spots, but so do the left, and they had concluded Bush lied before he even spoke. Bush could say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and the left would declare it some kind of lie to enrich Halliburton.

[bountyhunter]

I am afraid that what you heard and read are inaccurate.

Since I heard the words coming out of their mouths on video, I believe your asessment is inaccurate.

What you are furiously trying to tap dance away from using semantics is that all three of the top members of this administration publicly admitted they had no proof of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Period. And they did it two days before a major article was printed which said exactly that.

You are also avoiding admitting that this was a 100% reversal of their previous positions and was reported exactly as such on all major news programs. One of them actually provided a "video history" of the statement's from the administration by GWB on the subject of the Hussein/Al Qaeda connection, as well as Rice and Cheney's statements up to the point of the reversal.

Tap dancing doesn't change it: they made a sudden U-turn on the key issue of a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda. And my original point stands unchallenged:

If there is any CREDIBLE evidence supporting the administration's original position (that Hussein supported Al qaeda), why have they not said one word about it?

[bountyhunter]

but so do the left, and they had concluded Bush lied before he even spoke.

Maybe in general, but on the key reasons Bush claimed we had to race to war (Hussein was supporting Al qaeda and Iraq was near having a nuclear device), it was widely known those claims were pure BS even by our own CIA long before the war. It was also public knowledge to those who wanted to look, because I posted links to the information about the Saudi's funding Al Qaeda about three months before the war. The nuclear thing never came close to holding water. The Israelis would know the instant Iraq even sniffed in the direction of having a weapons program.

[Khornet]

but that don't hunt. There was hardly a 'race' to war...took over a year.
There has been evidence of a WMD program, even if the actual products haven't been found. No, it has in no way been shown that the nuke claims were BS.

And, as you yourself say, nukes were ONE of the reasons given by Bush. ONE of them. So is it a lie if SH doesn't turn out to have had every item we accused him of?

Was Bush mistaken? Mebbe. Was the intel bad? Mebbe. Reasonable people can disagree about these things. But reasonable people don't debate by crying "Bush lied". That's what partisans do, not what truth-seekers do.

And if the Israelis are such good sniffers, how come Osirak was almost online before they took it out?

I agree that it appears the Saudis are a major terror resource. That doesn't address the rightness or wrongness of Iraq though. And it begins to look as if the Saudis can be brought around by means other than war. Unless you mean the consciousness-raising brought about by invading Iraq.

[Coronach]

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.Off-topic.

Coronach