Surprise!

[vraiblonde]

Who amongst us had ever heard of CSN before this story?

Me HOWEVER CNS is run by Brent Bozell, the same guy who runs the Media Research Center which ferrets out liberal bias in the media. So I think we can safely say it's a rightie news source.

But we do know that Saddam was developing WMD AND we know he was funding terrorists. Unless you believe that he didn't know all those Al Qaeda training camps were in his country, and think maybe he was just playing Mr. Potato Head with the nuclear bomb parts and nerve gas that was found by the inspectors.

:shrug:

And you know what's a damn shame? The Democrats are crossing their fingers, hoping that we don't find ObL, hoping we don't catch anymore 9-11 terrorists, and hoping we don't find any evidence of WMD in Iraq because it would screw their chances of installing Kerry in the White House. There's something wrong with that.

 

[Ken King]

I agree... how is it they "obtain" these documents and the entire 9/11 panel didn't :shrug:

Because there are thousands of documents and hundreds of hours of interviews that haven't been reviewed yet.

How did CBS "obtain" the Bush guard documents? Someone gave them to them. Now whether they are true or not is another issue and will probably take a little more time to determine.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I agree... how is it they "obtain" these documents and the entire 9/11 panel didn't :shrug:

Could be that timing may be the issue. CNS says they just obtained the documents.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sean Hannity has picked up on the WMD documents story.

Rumsfeld Cautious on Iraq Terror-Link Documents
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief
October 05, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded cautiously to questions about Iraqi government documents leaked to CNSNews.com indicating that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to terrorists and possessed biochemical weapons.

Asked by conservative radio host Sean Hannity Monday about the documents and CNSNews.com story, Rumsfeld said he could not expand on the claims.

"Until I have a chance to see -- until the people going over documents have a chance to pore through enough of them to come to, to develop some conviction about what they think it means, and then to try to corroborate them by interviews with people, it would be premature for me to get into it," he said.
complete article

 

[Gooseneck]

Wow, what a reputible news source. Does the same guy that made up quotes for Fox work there? Amazing this hasn't been picked up elsewhere.

What reputable news source would satisfy you? CBS News and Dan Rather?

 

[vraiblonde]

CBS News and Dan Rather?

And that's what kills me about this stuff. Liberals scream their heads off over Fox and any other news network that doesn't cater to their agenda, saying it's fake and biased and . Then THEIR network gets busted with forged documents and not a peep, except to say it must have been Karl Rove trying to make Democrats look like fools....

...as if they need any help in that area.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let me see if I've got this straight...

...Saddam Hussein doesn't seem to like the US.

At all.

For some reason.

And he is suspected of wishing us ill will to the point of perhaps helping others harm the US especially if it can be done in a sneaky way.

And we know Saddam has had WMD.

And we know he has used them.

On his own people.

And he's been engaged in a few, uh, disagreements with his neighbors recently, stuff like "Hey! I want your country!".

And we know he had all sorts of advanced scientific capabilties in terms of brain power because, as has so often been mentioned by those who think he's just misunderstood, we helped him at one time. We even have Rummy shaking his hand.

And WMD is pretty easy to hide and shift around and, what the hell, you can just mail it in, right?

And Saddam has broken, for years, agreements to prove he's now a good guy.

Now where have I read this before? It's a document. Probably done on WORD...I see...I see...

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1282.html

BAM!

 

[jlabsher]

Oh wow, a "reputible" news source says Rumsfeld stated there is no connection between Saddam/al Qaeda:


Of course, nobody on here would believe the BBC

 

[2ndAmendment]

Oh wow, a "reputible" news source says Rumsfeld stated there is no connection between Saddam/al Qaeda:


Of course, nobody on here would believe the BBC

Old news. Just a rehash of an old article.

I used to listen to the BBC. I found them to be very reputable until the 1990's when they took a marked liberal bent. The Royal Navy even quit piping the BBC through thier ships because the "news" is so slanted.

 

[Ken King]

Oh wow, a "reputible" news source says Rumsfeld stated there is no connection between Saddam/al Qaeda:


Of course, nobody on here would believe the BBC

What he said was, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." Now how does that equate to "no connection"?

 

[Toxick]

Wow, what a reputible news source. Does the same guy that made up quotes for Fox work there?

I heard that Dan Rather has been shmoozing with them too.

 

[Boogerman]

I'm too lazy to look up the actual articles, but here's some synopses you can use to lookup the articles. Would have included the opposing articles if they were currently being published for 05 October 2004...

1. Rumsfeld Sees Lack Of Proof For Qaeda-Hussein Link
(New York Times)...Thom Shanker
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that he had seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, although he tempered his comment by noting that stark disagreements on that issue remained among American intelligence analysts.

9. Rumsfeld: Al-Qaeda-Saddam Link Is Weak
(USA Today)...Tom Squitieri and Susan Page
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that he hasn't seen “any strong, hard evidence” to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the Sept. 11 attacks, a more direct statement than he has made on the subject before.

15. Iraq-Al Qaeda Tie Called Unlikely
(Miami Herald)...Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott
A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al Qaeda, saying there is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, U.S. officials said Monday.

 

[jlabsher]

What he said was, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." Now how does that equate to "no connection"?

Well, he is the sec of def, maybe if there was evidence or intel, do you think he would be seeing it? I also loved the part that said He also said he had seen the intelligence "migrate in amazing ways".

I can imagine which direction the intelligence migrated in.

 

[Ken King]

Well, he is the sec of def, maybe if there was evidence or intel, do you think he would be seeing it? I also loved the part that said He also said he had seen the intelligence "migrate in amazing ways".

I can imagine which direction the intelligence migrated in.

Yeah, I think (and hope) it would make it to his desk. And he's probably starting to get more and more of those documents to look at and that is why the intel is now migrating.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Rumsfeld is not going to be sucked in. He has spoken off the cuff and gotten burned. Migrating intelligence has nothing to do with interpretation; it has to do with further gathering of info that mitigates or changes previous thought. Something like this. A note is found that says, "It's a bomb". And the implication is there may be an explosive device involved. Then another note is found that says, "What do you think of Joe's car?". The interpretation immediately takes on an new light or "migrates".

Got it?

 

[Boogerman]

What he said was, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." Now how does that equate to "no connection"?

I think Rummy's playing it safe until he has some real hard evidence. Yeah! Just like he said "strong, hard evidence"

 

[vraiblonde]

So how do we know what to believe? All through the Clinton years we heard about Saddam's threats and WMD programs. We had acts of terrorism by Al Qaeda and ObL's name was mentioned quite frequently in connection with this. We heard about how terrorists were meeting with Saddam. We heard about Al Qaeda camps in Iraq.

Now Rumsfeld is coming out and saying that was all a lie? And is he saying that Saddam had no ties to terrorism whatsoever or just not to the actual 9-11 guys?

If what Rumsfeld says is true, then John Kerry should quit talking about how he's going to fight this illegal war and talk about how he's going to pull ALL troops out of Iraq and drop ALL charges against Saddam Hussein and send him back home, since he hasn't done anything to us.

JLab, can I get an amen?

 

[Boogerman]

Now Rumsfeld is coming out and saying that was all a lie? And is he saying that Saddam had no ties to terrorism whatsoever or just not to the actual 9-11 guys?

Baiting... so you can him.

 

[Larry Gude]

Forget all this nuance crap...

...one side is saying, in hindsight and because the intel wasn't PERFECT that somehow, SOMEHOW we are worse off with Saddam Hussein gone.

He killed over 1,000,000 Iraqi's during his reign and no one disputes this.

He used WMD on his own people and on Iranians.

He HAD stockpiles of WMD.

He did NOT prove he got rid of them.

He dicked around for 12 years meaning ANY reasonable person would be concerned what he was up to.

He had a nuke u lar reactor. Israel blew it up in 1980 or so.

He fired missiles at Israel in the Gulf War.

He warred with Iran for 10 years.

He invaded Kuwait.

He was a constant threat to the free flow of oil at market prices.

It is simple common sense to understand that he would help America's enemies in ANY way he thought he could get away with.

He had people trained and qualified to build WMD programs. They'd done it for him before. It is stupid to not understand how easy it would be to do again. Some of those skills are EASILY transferable.

He corrupted France, Germany and the UN.

Read the IWR. Read the damn thing. John Kerry voted correct on it. So did Edwards.

How is anyone going to see George W Bush as stupid when people on the left are showing the intelligence of a gnat in regards to Iraq????

1,000 troopers dead and 25,000 wounded is no small price but WE ARE ALL BETTER OFF WITH HIM GONE.

You dopes on the left need to understand one thing about Kerry: If he wins, the fight will go on. He's said so. Troopers will still die. Iraqis will still die. Al Queda will still die. In fact, because Kerry does not face the attacks W does, it is a good bet that Kerry will escalate the violence in an effort to get it over with.

And you will then say...what????????? Kerry will be saying the same things W is saying now and you all will just stand there, jaws agape, holding your Micheal Moore dolls.

WHY DON'T YOU GET IT???????????????????????????????????

 

[vraiblonde]

Baiting... so you can him.

Just trying to find out the truth, that's all.

The fact of the matter is that if we truly had no reason to go into Iraq and depose their President, then this war is illegal as hell and our Savior, John Kerry, should be saying so and talking about how we're going to pull all troops out of Iraq, give Saddam his country back and prosecute the whole Bush Administration as war criminals.

He should be saying that Bush IS Hitler, not saying how we're going to "stay the course" and fight a "more intelligent" illegal war against people who did nothing to deserve it.

Common sense, right? JLab? Isn't that common sense?