Stinger said:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml
Citing new article in this weeks Weekly Standard
"Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks."
Nothing those who have ignored the Democrat spin and actually read the evidence would be surprised about. But those who claim Bush lied and that Saddam was just a warm fuzzy fur ball should read this before they continue with their claims.
Old and wise said:Yeah sure, and the moon is made of green cheese.:rofl
I wonder if these documents that were "found by the UN inspection team" made it into Hans Blix final report.Excerpt from link originally posted by Stinger:
Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
oldreliable67 said:Stinger,
It appears to be you that have not read the Weekly Standard story by Stephen Hayes. If you had, you would most likely have observed that the Newsmax description...
...exaggerates the situation with these documents considerably.
Yes, the titles of the docs are quite suggestive, but apparently the contents are still virtually unkown, hence the above description by Newsmax seems quite presumptive at the moment. The docs in question may indeed - eventually - provide the kind of information touted by newsmax, but right now, the contents are largely still unknown.
In fact, Hayes actually spends very little time discussing the articles themselves. The majority of the article recounts his efforts at simply retrieving copies of the docs (they are unclassified). For example, he says,
Didn't say the Weekly Standard article did I, wasn't post last time I looked but will be a the bookstore today for my weekly visit.
I don't see where you have a basis for that statement at all.
oldreliable67 said:The article in question was available online at the link I posted. It was available for me, consequently I assumed it was available for you as well. Perhaps that was an erroneous assumption on my part. If so, apologies.
This comment is an observation on the differing emphasis of the newsmax story purporting to describe the Stephen Hayes article as compared to the article itself.
The newsmax commentary suggests with near-certainty that the docs in question will show..."that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks."
After you have read the article, you will find that the article documents Hayes quest for the documents rather significantly more than it discusses their possible content and implications.
After you have read the article, I would be interested in hearing whether or not you agree with my observation. If you don't, thats certainly ok -- I recognize that there is a certain element of 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' at work here. We all tend to see/hear/read what we want to see/hear/read and as always, your mileage may vary.
KCConservative said:and there's this...
WMD Findings Reported To Date From Dec., 2002 through June, 2004
KCConservative said:and there's this...
WMD Findings Reported To Date From Dec., 2002 through June, 2004
Well, the the ISG's report of what was actually found once the dust settled is a lot less supportive of KCC's stance. So the use of anecdoatal and later retracted itmes is the best he's got. So cut him some slack.libertarian_knight said:Not entirely sure, but I do recall some of these having been retracted, and how many of these have been substantiated by the US government or the UN analysts?
oldreliable67 said:Stinger,
It appears to be you that have not read the Weekly Standard story by Stephen Hayes. If you had, you would most likely have observed that the Newsmax description...
"Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks."
...exaggerates the situation with these documents considerably. Yes, the titles of the docs are quite suggestive, but apparently the contents are still virtually unkown, hence the above description by Newsmax seems quite presumptive at the moment. The docs in question may indeed - eventually - provide the kind of information touted by newsmax, but right now, the contents are largely still unknown.
In fact, Hayes actually spends very little time discussing the articles themselves. The majority of the article recounts his efforts at simply retrieving copies of the docs (they are unclassified). For example, he says,
"...the quest for the documents, while frustrating, has also been highly amusing. It is a story of bureaucratic incompetence and strategic incoherence. It is also a story--this one not funny at all--about the failure to explain the Iraq war. Two years after I started my pursuit, I'm not much closer to my goal."
Hayes goes on to recount some of his frustrations, which I won't repeat here. Instead, here is a link to the article...
"Where are the Pentagon Papers?" article
Stinger said:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml
Citing new article in this weeks Weekly Standard
"Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks."
Nothing those who have ignored the Democrat spin and actually read the evidence would be surprised about. But those who claim Bush lied and that Saddam was just a warm fuzzy fur ball should read this before they continue with their claims.
kal-el said:Dude, if this article had any credibility or truth to it whatsoever, I have no doubt that the Bush Administration would pounce on it and showcase it like it was the ****ing olympics!:lol:
Stinger said:Why when this administration has a history of no speaking up and defending it's policies? Of course is easy to believe that people would if they had read the reports but then most rely on CNN and MSNBC and CBS et al for their news and they don't hear what has actually been found.
Stinger said:Why when this administration has a history of no speaking up and defending it's policies? Of course is easy to believe that people would if they had read the reports but then most rely on CNN and MSNBC and CBS et al for their news and they don't hear what has actually been found.
Me too. The consensus of the US Intel Community was that and is that there was no collaborative nor operational relationship between Hussein and Hussein. So what's there left to debate? Are the various talking heads more knowledgable or just as knowledgable of a source than the US Intel Community's consensus judgment?ProudAmerican said:I am constantly baffled that there is a debate in the first place.
Simon W. Moon said:Me too. The consensus of the US Intel Community was that and is that there was no collaborative nor operational relationship between Hussein and Hussein. So what's there left to debate? Are the various talking heads more knowledgable or just as knowledgable of a source than the US Intel Community's consensus judgment?
kal-el said:Especially if these same people rely on such gimic shows such as "FOX news" and such, who just propogate what the Bush Administration tells them.
KCConservative said:I am so tired of this lie. Listen Michael Moore Jr., either show evidence that Fox News only "propogates what the Bush Administration tells them" or shut up.
On second thought, keep the lie going. Red state America loves it.....and remembers it in the voting booth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?