[...] Curt’s original post, last week: http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/11/pentagon-no-aqiraq-link/ [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

No problem Scott. All this excitement has gotten my juices re-stirred. Despite not having time to write something up I am going to write a post anyway on this and will link whatever you get up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yeah Mark. I know. Thanks. Already got one draft of a detailed response, but I want to post it with a detailed review of the actual report as well.

Put simply, the article that came out before the report (the article based on the word of a single anonymous source rather than the report itself) was almost completely wrong, and this report should not only reopen the issue of ‘how deep was the relationship’, but it should also confirm/document that yes, removing Saddam was in fact a direct part of the war against Al Queda. Anyone who still doubts that….just hasn’t read the report. Anyone who rants the “there were no ties”…..either hasn’t read the report and is ignorant, or has read the report and is being deceitful.

Thanks Mark

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Some absolute slam dunks by Scott.

Scott, I’ll assume you know the full version of the report is out now and I expect you to do something more in depth on it soon.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Of course. Once again it is all someone else’s fault.”
No, not all, but do you dare even imagine that not everything is “Bush’s fault” (ie BDS)? No way.

Steve, you asked why the Bush admin doesn’t put out this information. They do. The problem is only half of it gets reported. I ask, WHY do we only get half quotes that mislead instead of the full quotes presented by the admin? How many times have I seen the quote where Powell says he never saw evidence of regime ties, but the second half of the quote is omitted-the part where he says he expects to see em. How many times do we hear “no evidence” based on the Sen Intel Com phase I report, but no mention of how the report says no evidence is a result of no evidence gathering, and that the matter should be investigated further? How many times do we hear references to the 911 Commission’s statement of no collaborative ties, but the request by 911 Commission members to have the issue of regime ties re-examined and reassessed in light of captured docs and detainees that suggest the relationship was deeper than expected? It’s the world of half quotes and half truths as presented by the opposition politicals and the msm. Steve asks why doesn’t the admin tell us this stuff, and my answer is that they have, but it was only half reported because some people don’t want to hear the other half of the truth. It’s too ugly. Easier to fingerpoint/scapegoat “neocons” or “conservatives” or Bush, etc.

If you want to ask why the admin doesn’t report this “stuff”, then (since the admin does report it), one has to ask why we only hear cherry-picked half quotes and misperceptions presented as fact? Take a look back Steve. You’ll see that those you consistently label as conservatives or neocons or Bush apologists, or whatever…do not rely on Newsmax, Free Republic, or Fox as you claim. Most take their information from govt reports, military blogs, or have actually been at war and are reporting on what they saw as opposed to what the protest leaders describe in their rantings. It shouldn’t be about conservative or liberal, but about truth-THE WHOLE TRUTH, and not the spin you get from the left, or from a media that’s too often lazy, biased, and/or covering their own ineptitudes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “Steve, no one would believe him.”

Re: “Answer (imo), to face the truth: that the invasion of Iraq was in fact necessary (and imo inevitable), is to admit the failures of the Golden Age of the Democratic Party; the 1990’s.”

Of course. Once again it is all someone else’s fault.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m not asking why the Conservatives on this board are 100% convinced that Sddam had a WMD program when the invasion took place in 2003.

Then why bring up, within your same comment, two paragraphs later

The Bush Administration sent Colin Powell to dsplay all those “Mobile Biological Weapons” factories to the world when they thought they were not weather balloon trailors.

???

Missy asked #64:

and I did post this in the old forum. Do you remember this?

I’m not quite sure I follow what you are asking me. Are you talking about a previous discussion here at FA? Or just the incident, itself, you describe of Iraqis who feared showing open support against Saddam’s regime?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Steve, no one would believe him. He already made a lot of the claims, and they were dismissed, spun away by half truths, half quotes, and incorrect assumptions. The mass media (imo) sees itself as a check and balance to power, and as such automatically does whatever it can to cast doubt on claims from the admin in power. We saw that with the constant investigations of Pres Clinton, and with the constant denials of Bush Admin claims. Meanwhile, you might take note that most of the quotes you see here, and certainly all of the pics I present….have come from the admin; not Newsmax, Fox, or whatever you see as a conservative/biased source. Me, I try to use govt reports almost exclusively-like the one that the article which started this thread points to, and this is THE GREATEST example of EXACTLY WHAT YOU’RE ASKING.

Here we have a thread about an article where a guy gets an anonymous tip about a report on regime ties to AQ. He writes all kinds of stuff about the report without ever having seen it, without corroborating sources, and the article goes everywhere. MSNBC carries it, then CNN, FOX, NYT, LAT, every anti-war site on the web, and so on. Fast forward 2days, and when the report comes out it turns out almost everything in the original article was wrong. Why would that be? Here we have the media version supported by the political opposition on the web, and then the government version that tells the truth but doesn’t get the same coverage-not even on FOX. Why would that be? Why doesn’t the government version that we so often point to, or the version from the troops like Chris who have actually been there…why doesn’t that get reported, and instead all we get is your talking points that are almost always half quotes and the like?

Answer (imo), to face the truth: that the invasion of Iraq was in fact necessary (and imo inevitable), is to admit the failures of the Golden Age of the Democratic Party; the 1990′s. It’s also very hard for people in the media to admit that the threat from Saddam in terms of WMD and terror was ignored (see also CNN’s admission that they deliberately didn’t report on atrocities in Iraq when they were in Iraq), and it’s ultimately hard (again imo) for bureaucrats who rose to power in the 90′s to admit their share of the blame for the effects of failed “containment” policies against Saddam.

Just ask yourself, why is the article that started this thread so completely opposite from the real report?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m not asking why the Conservatives on this board are 100% convinced that Sddam had a WMD program when the invasion took place in 2003. I’m asking why, if the evidence is so ironclad, that President Bush does not preempt all of the televisoin coverage on night and display all this 100% solid proof to the United States and the World.

He has that authority. If the evidence completely exonerates his administration about the “no WMD’s” conclusion of the previous administration reports, why does George W. Bush not go on TV and declare, “I told you so”?

Conservatives here can, and will, post volumes of that “rock-solid” proof. Why do we not see it from the Oval Office? The Bush Administration sent Colin Powell to dsplay all those “Mobile Biological Weapons” factories to the world when they thought they were not weather balloon trailors. So there is precedent. Why does the White House not do it again?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry, wrong link to executive summary pdf of the report
Here’s the right one
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Saddam%20and%20Terrorism%20Redaction%20EXSUM%20Extract.pdf

Like or Dislike: 0  0