The priceless part was when Saddam says he warned the US about future terrorists attacks. The smoking gun turned out to be a leaky water pistol.
The bs story worked on one level. As we see in this thread, the Bush Only Fans are so desperate to believe. The clip I saw on the ABC Nightly News made it look like some water cooler bs discussion about what could happen in the future. Fox will chip in when strategically needed to keep the story running. I am surprised it did not surface in October before the election. I guess that is when we will get the next Bin Laden tape or whatever.
I hate American politics myself and for many of the same reasons. On this particular story, I don't really think it is significant as Saddam would not have had the ability to attack us in any way for at least a decade. I don't doubt that he talked about attacking the US on a regular basis, but such talk still would not justify the invasion of Iraq IMO.
I Tivo'd, or time warnered, the segment and watched the "report" this morning. Three things stood out: First, how little we know about Saddam's programs and intentions. I would not say this constituted a "smoking gun", but it was clear (and to get this much you'd have to have done some independent research of your own) that Saddam intended to restart full WMD production as soon as the sanctions were lifted. For those of you who put such faith in the Duelfer Report, remember that was one of the conclusions. Given what we know from the Wiecker Report about Saddam's efforts to overturn the sanctions, and the duplicity of the French, Germans, and Russians in this regard, is there any doubt he would have succeeded? And in his own words, theres Chemical Ali telling Saddam they haven't revealed everything. And Saddam's claim of warning is laughable! what'd he do, send a cable to Madeline Albright? Second, how superficial and vapid the "report" was. a total of about 5 minutes, sandwiched between a rebroadcast of Fox's interview w/ Cheney, and the neo-natal story. A few soundbites, the cheesy voiceovers. I rarely watch TV news anymore, but if this is the quality of "reporting" that goes on most nights, it's no wonder americans are rapidly abandoning the medium. Lastly, I'm struck by the complete lack of intellectual curiosity by those on this board who oppose Bush, triumphantly dismissing this information as "nothing" (I was going to write "oppose the war", but it's obvious to me that their real objection is to who is fighting it). Congressman Hoekstra noted we have 35k boxes of untranslated materials. We many, many, many reports from former senior iraqis re WMD that haven't even been fully investigated. How can anyone, w/in or w/out government pretend we know the full story? and how can anyone feel so sublimely smug in their ignorance?
This information conforms to what we already knew. Saddam had some WMD at some point, was thwarting the inspectors as best he could, and wanted to re-establish said programs after US et al left. (BTW, I don't think these tape sheds much new light on saddam's weapons programs. The tapes are reportedly from 1995, right? His son-in-law is on the tapes right? His son-in-law did defect and spill the WMD beans tothe US. Thus, what was on the tapes was known to us. We also still has ongoing UN inspection regime. Thus, from the time of the tape to 2000-ish, the UN removed more weapons and there was also was Operation Desert Fox, which may have taken out some weapons as well.) What we didn't know but surmised was that Saddam did not have the intent of striking the US on its own soil. This was one of GWB's major justifications for the war. Conservatives should actually be upset that the tape was made public, since it does them political damage.
Never heard of this- you're saying there are still leads to WMD that have not been investigated? I'd love to read any links. At this point... man, how long ago did we invade? The real question is, how are you still hanging on to hope that WMD will be discovered? FInding WMD was priority number one to prove the legitimacy of the war. The idea that leads have been left untouched or untranslated or uninvestigated after all this time is.... well, it's worthy of Colonel Cathcart. (Did I spell that right?)
Will you please get with the program! The war was never about WMDs! NEVER!!! It was about spreading democracy throughout the middle east sheesh! And we could have had those boxes of documents translated by now if we didn't go around and systematically fire any translator that questioned the administration's rush to war.
Haven't watched it yet, so I have no opinion or knowledge of its quality (nor that of Pajamas Media in general), but here's an interview with Rep. Hoekstra: http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/wmd_files/2006/02/andrew_marcus_interviews_congr.php And yes, you spelled it right. From what I understand, the lag in investigation is primarily a manpower issue, as there as literally tons of documents/evidence.
Hadn't heard that one, but I know we fired a bunch of them because they were gay. ****ing ridiculous.
An Interview with Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She was fired in the spring of 2002 after reporting her concerns about sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence to superiors. http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2917
Just read that, and the 60 Minutes write-up of their segment on her, doesn't look like it has anything whatsoever to do with Iraq (what I assume you're referring to when you say "rush to war"), but is centered on her exposure of general malfeasance, incompetence & bureaucratic b.s. turf wars within the FBI's translation department (which has been proven correct, see here). But I could be wrong. p.s. I think we can both agree she's a grade-A hottie: p.p.s. hope you didn't think the f'ing ridiculous comment was directed at anything you posted (looking back it could be read that way), but at the "don't ask don't tell" policy of the armed forces.
I don't doubt that there are more possible leads regarding WMD. But the truth of the matter is that we looked at the most credible and likely leads first. Those were our top priority. This wasn't a case of the Bush administration wanting to save the best ones for last. So after investigating all the leads with most support and likelihood of turning up WMD, there was nothing there. It is fine to search around and follow other less credible and less likely leads, but it doesn't promise much.
what's your basis for this claim? how can we know whether any of the materials contained in the 35k boxes is more or less credible than any other material if it has yet to be examined or translated?
If the "War on Terrorism" is the Bush Administration's top priority, why hasn't this material been examined or translated as of yet???
Well here is something from the Iraq Survey Group. In addition as pisspoor and horrible I think the management of the Iraq war has been, I don't doubt they would search for these most dangerous or weapons, which pose the gravest of threats to the U.S. first in the places they would most likely find them. Would you expect the U.S. to just search at random? Remember there are terrorists and people who want to harm the U.S., U.S. forces, and others running all over Iraq. Wouldn't the U.S. want to do its best to make sure they can't get their hands on any WMD's? It seems that our armed forces would go after the places most likely to have those weapons early on. What strategy do you think they used in searching for WMD's if not to go for the most likely areas first? Here is some more on the top priority sites being cleared. I h
