Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html</a> Was Saddam Hussein a security threat to the United States? Did the Iraqi dictator have connections to Al Qaeda or other terrorist ties? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction everyone believed were in his possession? Did Saddam move them? Did they ever exist? All of those questions have been dogging President George W. Bush and his administration since the start of the Iraq war. Politicians and respected U.S. military and intelligence officials have weighed in publicly on both sides of the debate, but until recently the general public has had little of the information necessary to make a fully informed decision on its own. But that is changing. The U.S. government seized thousands of classified Iraqi government papers when Saddam's regime was toppled, and Washington recently released a trove of these documents on the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office Web site. The documents, many in Arabic and with no accompanying translation, provide multiple insights into events inside pre-war Iraq. The dossier, however, is huge and disorganized. "It is my belief," Robison says, "that those who just want to know the truth will find new and shocking information in these documents and may even change their beliefs about the reasons for the war." "However, these documents may not answer every valid question, and conclusions may change based on new documentation." _________________________________________ Read the whole story in its entitety. Its very interesting.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,199053,00.html << Do I see "Fox News" in that link?! That's all I need to see.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon I was waiting for that. All I have to say in re-buttal is: The ONLY news source that is fair and balanced. =]
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon I was waiting for that. All I have to say in re-buttal is: The ONLY news source that is fair and balanced. =]
Originally Posted By gadzuux The link doesn't work - even when I include the parts not underlined. But I don't see evidence of a "smoking gun" here - just a reiteration of the lies and half-truths that were spoon-fed to us during the build up to the war. Do these documents show that saddam was a threat to the US? Do they show purported links to al qaeda? (Some still cling to this utter falsehood.) Do they indicate that saddam had WMDs? A nuke program? Didn't think so. >> but until recently the general public has had little of the information necessary to make a fully informed decision on its own. << We've got direct quotes from bush himself saying that there's no known involvement between saddam or iraq and 9/11 - that isn't good enough for you? Let us know if this story is picked up by some respectable news organization, then maybe I'll give it some credence. As of now, I don't even know what this "story" says, other than we've got a bunch of documents written in arabic.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon You dont think FOX news is respectable? Seriously? In the world of cable tv. FOX news crushes all other news stations. And O'Reilly steamrolls his competition as well. I am going by ratings. Oh, and the story is on the foxnews.com homepage. I wonder why links to fox news never work on this site?hmmmmm. :Z
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon You dont think FOX news is respectable? Seriously? In the world of cable tv. FOX news crushes all other news stations. And O'Reilly steamrolls his competition as well. I am going by ratings. Oh, and the story is on the foxnews.com homepage. I wonder why links to fox news never work on this site?hmmmmm. :Z
Originally Posted By oc_dean ... and you haven't noticed Fox news is the Republican/Right news channel? The whole joke about "Far and Balanced" is that they AREN'T fair and balanced.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Not direct links with al qaeda. But it doesn't exactly paint Pakistan as our best friend, either. Here are a few extracts: .... It deals extensively with meetings between Maulana Fazlur Rahman, an Al Qaeda/Taliban supporter, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice president of Iraq, and other unnamed Iraqi officials. ... BBC Profile: Maulana Fazlur Rahman as "A pro-Taliban cleric in Pakistan … one of the two main contenders for the post of the country's prime minister." ... Fazlur Rahman: The situation is good and the Pakistani people have come together to struggle against America. Vice-President: The new humanitarian method of human rights of the American people in the United Nations. (Fragmented notation) Fazlur Rahman: What is happening in Afghanistan is a violation of the human rights of this country, where Usama bin Laden is one person and the fate of millions cannot be tied to him. (Translator's note: Probably at that time the U.S. is forcing sanctions or pressures on Afghanistan because it is providing sanctuary to bin Laden) ... Can you blockade a country (RR: probably Afghanistan) because of the presence of one man (RR: probably referring to UBL)? This time she (America) got the resolution from the Security Council and it is number 77 (or 771) (RR: probably UNSCR 771 in 1992 concerning Bosnia) relative to Iraq (RR: probably is making a comparison between 771 and a new resolution on Iraq most likely UNSCR 1284 passed Dec 1999 about WMD and humanitarian efforts). And it is the first time that the parliament of a country (U.S. Congress) speaks after a resolution (unclear) and comes out through the Security Council. It is ignorant to send memos and complain to the Security Council because it is a tool in the hands of America the master of oppression and if we do that it does not mean that we are boycotting the diplomatic process. Also the monetary fund (Translator's note: probably the International Monetary Fund) is in the hand of America and she helps according to her interests. My personal stand is with his (RR: probably UBL) call to fight America. ... Fazlur Rahman: Gwadar is the shortest road for them and we spoke with the Afghani government. I met Mullah Omar the leader of Afghanistan and he welcomed the establishment of Islamic relations with Iraq and we foresee to tell them about our needs and they would like to have contacts with Russia but they feel that the Russians (unclear) with Afghanistan, they go to America (RR: probably means that the Russians side with the US against the Taliban). And they (RR: probably the Taliban) say that now we do not feel that Russia is our enemy and we do not know why they support the Northern Alliance (RR: non-Pashtun Afghani militant groups seeking to topple the Taliban). They (RR: probably the Taliban) want Iraq to intervene with Russia. And Russia thinks that the Taliban are supporting the Chechens through providing them 5 million dollars in weapons so the question is from where do they have all this money and weapons and they want Iraq to know their problems and needs. Concerning Hekmatyar (RR: this is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Islamic Party, a faction that vied for control of Afghanistan before the Taliban victory and has been tied to continued insurgent attacks) I delivered him your letter and his reply was positive for "they are our brothers" (RR: Fazlur Rahman apparently delivered a note from the VP of Iraq to Hekmatyar). But in this case the news from Hekmatyar is that he still has contacts against us so how can we have trust between each other (RR: probably how can the Afghani factions unite). We wish to see Afghanistan as an independent country. We will basically agree with them and later the details will come after Afghanistan is under our control. His (Hekmatyar) answer was positive and he thanks Iraq for its role in this matter (RR: probably for helping as intermediary between him and the Taliban). ... (Probably Rahman) I support that Afghanistan and the Taliban, from a religious stand point, do not hand over bin Laden (Probably the VP) The agreement between Afghani parties should not be delayed because the US policy is to keep the world in trouble. (At the end of page 21, right side) Fazlur Rahman: One more time concerning Afghanistan I have a suggestion that a delegation should visit Kandahar and a schedule should be set concerning this issue Vice-President: We will study this in the future. (Page 21 left side, top.) Vice-President: Last time you saw Mullah Omar? Fazlur Rahman: Last July and I proposed to him the subject that I was assigned to and I wanted to meet Mr. President (Saddam Hussein). Vice-President: I gave Mr. President an overview about Afghanistan and its issues.
Originally Posted By DAR <<... and you haven't noticed Fox news is the Republican/Right news channel?>> So I guess if CNN or MSNBC broke this story then it would be legit? With the exception of talk radio, where else can you say the Republican and Right are dominant. Certainly not among the other networks. They're are few newspapers whose editorial staff leans to the right. The Washington Times is the only one I can think of. There's one count it one news channel that leans a little differently and people go absolutely bat crazy over it's success. For the record I do find their hosts to be a little boorish.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> With the exception of talk radio, where else can you say the Republican and Right are dominant << The white house, the senate, the house of representatives, pretty much every hand on the levers of power is GOP. >> There's one count it one news channel that leans a little differently << Their credibility is lowered not because they're 'conservative' but because they're patently biased.
Originally Posted By DAR <<The white house, the senate, the house of representatives, pretty much every hand on the levers of power is GOP.>> I was referring to media outlets. <<Their credibility is lowered not because they're 'conservative' but because they're patently biased.>> And the editorial pages of the NY Times or your favorite paper the San Fransisco Chronicle aren't?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> And the editorial pages of the NY Times or your favorite paper the San Fransisco Chronicle aren't? << Editorial pages are just that - a place for the opinions of the editors. That's a different matter from approaching the the actual reporting of factual "news".
Originally Posted By DAR <<Editorial pages are just that - a place for the opinions of the editors. That's a different matter from approaching the the actual reporting of factual "news".>> And this is why we need an edit feature here. I had meant to say the newspapers themselves. And didn't CBS do the same thing with the whole Bush National Guard story?
Originally Posted By gadzuux The problem with that was that one bogus document allowed bush supporters to invalidate the entire story. There are still 'irregularities' regarding bush's service in the national guard. It's all irrelevant now because if you're looking for reasons to mistrust bush those so muc more to pick from. The reason it was important at the time is that the bush campaign was maliciously maligning kerry for his service in the military - as a decorated officer in combat zones no less. Bush had no reason to throw stones because he couldn't even manage to get through the cream-puff duty that was handed to him as a scion of wealth and privilege. Now he's "Mr commander in chief" - nevermind that it was an unwarranted action that he then botched anyway - appearances are all that matter.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do these documents show that saddam was a threat to the US?> They should, since he was. <Do they show purported links to al qaeda?> They should, since he did. <Some still cling to this utter falsehood.)> We cling to it because it's true. I've presented the evidence to you numerous times. <Do they indicate that saddam had WMDs? A nuke program?> They should, because he did. And although his programs might have been inactive at the time of our invasion, it's almost certain that he would have attempted to revive them at the first opportunity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The problem with that was that one bogus document allowed bush supporters to invalidate the entire story.> Without the documents, there was no story - just the same allegations which had been brought up before and couldn't be verified. <The reason it was important at the time is that the bush campaign was maliciously maligning kerry for his service in the military - as a decorated officer in combat zones no less.> The Bush campaign never maligned Senator Kerry's military record.
Originally Posted By gadzuux They did it from arm's length, but it had rove's fingerprints all over it. And none of it matters anymore.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Gadzuux, you never fail to amuse me with your forever cynical stance towards anything that has anything to do with the Bush administration. A lot of liberals justifiably make fun of conservatives who support Bush no matter what. This stance is wrong, because Bush is simply not always right. But it is just as plain silly for people to automatically take a stance against anything that happens in this country or abroad, if it can be used against Bush. To me, there's not a dime's worth of difference between people who claim Bush is always right and those who claim he is always wrong.
