Yeah, we did the wrong thing..
Monday, December 8th, 2003 - 8:51pm
Quote:
Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press...The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed...
The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the "Anfal," in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert...
The reason that the Democrats desperately want you to believe that we were misled into war, is that they know they can't claim we did a bad thing by going...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
This doesn''t change a thing for some people, ralcydan.
In terms of death toll, Stalin makes Hussein look like a piker yet that didn''t stop him from having scores of apologists and fans throughout the late 20th century.
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
Then there''s Moa who makes Stalin look like a piker. What''s a piker?
I always thought we should just assasinate Saddam. Impressive try we had early in the war with the multiple bunker busters going in the same hole. I''m sure the Isrealis would have wacked him if we let them.
BF2
BF2142
It''s not like they had any international support to lose.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is possible, you know. I know, it''s a pretty complex theory, that a good thing happened despite the ever shifting supposition of motives. Now, Republicans - since we''re apparently drawing with the big brushes today - don''t care if their president lied, or fabricated, or imagined, or was accurate. That''s just not important to them in a president unless he''s a Democrat. They just care that he looked like a badass in a flight suit, and they got some nice pictures to sell for fundraising. And hey, since it has to do with the military, anyone who dares question the administration can be blindly painted as unpatriotic if they ask for specifics.
Still, getting rid of Saddam is quite a boon for the Iraqi people. Of course, there''s a good chance someone just as bad will ultimately take his place, and in the process we''ll lose a few hundred American servicemen and women, and spend a few dozen billion all the while losing ally after ally because on top of not having adequate intel to support a war the administration didn''t have a plan for what to do after the war, but that''s all the crazy specifics only Democrats would care about.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Elysium, can I buy you a beer?
BF2
BF2142
I''m not sure I believe that. If a little girl is drowning, I don''t care if the guy who jumps into save her only does so in order to get his picture in the paper. Do you have another example of this, or are you just trying to sound philosophical while bashing the war? And in relation to the war, what were the ""wrong reasons""? Since you seem to think we were lied to, what was the real reason we went to war?
Only if Bush loses in 2004...
Who are willingly laying their lives down to free the people of a country halfway around the world, and making their own country safer in the long run. Sounds like an admirable cause, at a cheap price - especially given that the cost of doing nothing is already up in the thousands of innocent American lives...
Which is chump change compared to the economic impact of 9/11, and pennies when considering the value of a free and democratic Iraq.
Huh, I didn''t know the point of having allies was so that they could block you from doing what you needed to... Losing is an awfully strong word - a few noisy countries aren''t supporting us in Iraq. That''s hardly the equivalent of NATO being in shambles...
The intel was more than adequate to support a war, and much of it has been shown to be accurate. Much of it is still uncorroborated, but just as much new information has come to light. If Colin Powell had presented David Kay''s recent report back in Feb., there would have been just as much public support for the invasion...
I guess if something is repeated enough, it must be true. Just because the plan doesn''t account for all variables and must be updated from time to time is hardly the same as the administration ""not having a plan"". Liberals must have a special psychosis that makes them believe that since they expect everything to be easy before undertaking a task, everyone else must think the same way. This is a hard task we are undertaking, and no plan in the world would have made much easier.
I see a lot of complaints, most of which have little basis in fact or perspective for the big picture. But regardless...let''s try a different tack. There''s no evidence the president lied, but let''s take the worst case and pretend for a second that the intel was completely wrong and the post-war planning was botched. Even if those things are true, are they enough for you to say you would prefer Saddam still be in power?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I absolutely care. I care very much if the President lies. I couldn''t care less that Clinton was getting hummers from interns. I cared that he perjured himself.
But, after reviewing everything that has been reported, I think the President made the best decision based on the intelligence that was available.
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
So now Ral it wasn''t because of WOMD, but because of the executions? I guess because they couldn''t find evidence of one they had to latch onto the other.
Nope. It was for a lot of things. Our primary reason was for our own security, and WMDs got a lot of attention, because they represent the greatest risk to us. But the President was addressing the brutality of Sadam''s regime all the way back in the State of the Union (and before) - and it was an integral part of the case presented before and after the war.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I don''t think you''ll find anybody saying Saddam doesn''t need a bullet to the head. Better yet, let the Kurds have him.
Not that I support how Bush promoted this war in his arrogant unilateral manner, but there is at least is some support that Bush wasn''t outright lying about WMD.
BILL CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: ""Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it we might have none of it. But we didn''t know.""
""Lets nuke it from orbit. It''s the only way to be sure.""
Aliens
BF2
BF2142
No, you probably don''t. But, for example, and not a factual or accurate one in this case. If a war were started against a tyrant so another country could come in and dominate that country''s natural resources under the guise of liberation, then yeah, that would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Now, I''m not actually one of the conspiracy fans that believes that was the case here, but it would be a good example.
How anyone could not see how the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons is a bit beyond me.
I''m saying, I''d prefer for that to have been the reason in the first place instead of a myth about national security and WMDs.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
If the primary reason was for our own safety, that begs the question: Are we safer now?
Maybe because invading a country to take over its resources is doing the wrong thing. What you are really talking about is that you don''t like doing something bad, even if it has good side-effects - which doesn''t apply to the Iraq war. It is beyond me that anyone would argue that taking out Saddam was a bad thing, regardless of the reasons.
It actually begs two questions. Are we safer now, and will we be safer in the long run. It is almost impossible to tell if we are safer now because of the war. Terrorists could attack tomorrow, or we may never be hit again - and neither might have anything to do with Iraq. But in the long view, a stable and democratic Middle East will undoubtably make us more safe, and Iraq is one step in that direction. So on balance, I would say that yes, the actions of the administration are making the world safer, even though it may not look that way to the short-sighted.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
He''s not saying it was bad to keep the girl from drowning but that it doesn''t change the fact that the guy is vain. Except replace ""vain"" with ""was misleading and possibly lied"" and you have my problem with the thing. Iraq will be better off eventually, but that doesn''t excuse the misdirection before the war and the lack of planning for after the war. Even Rumsfeld admitted the post-war plan wasn''t as good as it needed to be.
Maybe there are people besides Bush who recognize what an unstable situation that is over there and how disastrous pulling out now would be. Of course they''re not who you''re voting for so they must not count.
He was sort of on a rant there but he was talking about the situation in which another warlord took his place, in which case that wouldn''t be an admirable cause nor would the price be worth it for failure. Feel free to keep leaving out parts that don''t suit your argument though, it makes it pretty easy to respond
I thought the economy was up and better than ever? What economic impact? Of course, again this was in the event of failure so that''s really a non-argument.
I agree losing allies was too strong a word, it''s more like we lost credibility and goodwill. We''re still allied, they just don''t trust us as much. Again, this is a matter of ""right thing, wrong means"". It doesn''t mean it was bad that it was done, just that we now have to live with the international fallout.
Yet he didn''t. Just because it possibly worked out, which hasn''t been concluded yet, does not mean that they should be exhonorated. It was poorly handled if nothing else. And I still haven''t seen anything conclusive one way or the other.
Wow, you really are on a roll with the strawmen here. He never said anything about it being hard. Even at that, the task being hard means the plan must be that much more thought out, not that it''s okay to have a bad plan. This isn''t a matter of bad luck, it''s been admitted that Iraq post-war planning could''ve been better. There may be arguments that thier post-war planning was as good as it could be, but these are pretty poor excuses. What happens when your plan fails and your boss comes up to you and asks what happened? ""it didn''t account for all the variables"", ""it should''ve been updated"", ""it was hard"". Seriously.
You are still failing to make the distinction here. Just because that''s how it was done doesn''t mean that they''re all blameless and that nobody should face the consequences. Regardless of whether or not it works out in the end, there were mistakes made along the way. They could''ve taken more time to plan and assure other countries of our case. They could''ve made it clearer to the public just exactly what our case was. They could''ve made sure to secure financing needed for the long haul, instead of coming back after a few months and asking for $87 billion. That doesn''t mean it was a bad thing to do, just that it was done poorly.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Thats how liberal became a bad word. Thats how compassionate Democrats became ""bleeding hearts"".
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
Of course to keep the analogy correct, you guys are looking to replace the vain guy with someone who wouldn''t have saved the girl at all. I don''t see how that is better. I''ll stick with Mr. Vain.
It is always telling to me when Democrats make charges without providing specific examples, as the current presidential hopefuls do. ""We were misled"" is a good example of this. What exactly were we misled about and who misled us? Give me the exact part of the case you are talking about, show it now to be wrong, and give me proof that the person who presented it knew it was false.
Nice quote from Dean. Of course it''s all lip service:
Or in other words, what we are doing is risky. Not exactly news. And let''s look more closely. Before we started, there were two tyannical regimes who hated the US, sponsored terrorism against the West, and were seeking WMDs for themselves and for the terrorists. Now those regimes are gone, and as long as we stay the course, will be replaced by the first real democracies in the Middle East. Are you really suggesting that because things might go back to the way they were in the unlikely event that we fail, that we shouldn''t have tried? We''ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Actually, if it works out, meaning that the evidence of Saddam''s WMD programs and ties to terrorism continue to be uncovered as they are now, and Iraq becomes a pro-US, democratic state, the administrationwillhave been exonerated... And as far as your not having seen anything conclusive, of course you haven''t - acknowledging the evidence would put a serious crimp in your complaints about the administration.
Which isn''t the same as the silly notion that the administration ""didn''t have a plan"". I''m glad you disagree with that assertion of Elysium''s as well.
I hate to tell you, but overthrowing a fascist tyranny, defeating an entrenched guerrilla force with nothing to lose, and establishing democratic institutions for the first time among a people who have no experience with it is a little different than adding a new forum to the website
What we are doing is a tremendously complex undertaking, that regardless of the planning, has the unfortunate problem of having to deal with actual people whose actions may not fit any plan, and who in many cases will kill themselves and others to try and stop you. All things considered, things are going pretty darned well in Iraq - must be some good people handling the planning and events.
That''s the best I can figure out, because nothing else makes sense to me. The complaints I hear from liberals can be summed up as ""I hear bad news coming out of Iraq, therefore the administration must not have had a plan"" or ""I hear bad news, so we must be failing"". Well, difficult things are often messy, and the complaints I hear don''t seem to take that fact into account - they seem to think that this kind of job should be easy, without complications, setbacks, or bad news.
As an aside, I especially like the choruses of ""I could do better"" from the crowd that wouldn''t have done anything to begin with - like our current Democratic contenders. Nothing quite so presidential as Monday morning quarterbacking...
I am a fairly young person, but have no doubt in my mind that the price leaving tyrants in place in the Middle East will be a nuclear weapon detonated in the US, Europe, or Israel within my lifetime. I would love to be wrong, but history is on my side. The Democrats would prefer to play kick the can, and leave the tyrants in place, hopefully appeased to the point where we are left alone. You ask about the price of failure. Well the price of the failure of the Democrat''s plan is paying a butcher''s bill that makes 9/11 look laughable.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
For the record, I thought the drowning girl analogy was a bad example of what I was talking about. Much like you said, a guy wanting to get his picture in the newspaper for saving a drowning girl is about as close to analogous for war as starting a new forum section.
See this is where we''re not communicating. Or more particularly where you''re hearing what you want to hear. There are two issues: 1) taking out Saddam. I don''t think there are many people arguing that Saddam shouldn''t have been taken out, largely for the good of the Iraqi people. 2) The reasons given for going to war. If you don''t think a nation should be held accountable for the evidence it uses in waging war, regardless of whether that war _could_ have been justified, then there''s honestly nothing you and I have to talk about on the matter.
Well, the plan as executed is so sad that it''s hard to tell for certain if they didn''t have a plan at all, or if the plan was just really really bad. You can choose which of those options you prefer.
Anyway, I''m done. I put a lot of words up there, so twist away.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Explain, please. Exactly how is history on your side in this?
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
If we want to take the analogy to absurd extremes, didn''t we help throw the little girl in the river in the first place? And aren''t there quite a few other drowning girls in the river? What about them?
Oh and Ralcydan, since i have seen you demand proof and exact facts and so forth from others, how about you show me some proof that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were actively partnered. Now I don''t mean old already discredited intelligence reports. I mean factual evidence. Otherwise please refrain from insinuating the alleged linkage as established fact in your arguments again.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
For those who show up late to class
A slightly different intro to the same topic
Case closed.
The intelligence in these reports hasn''t been discredited by anyone. Of course some people will refuse to believe in a connection until they see the homemade porno of Osama sucking off Saddam - and even then they will say it isn''t proof because it''s ""too grainy"".
I like your new standard of evidence by the way, Ockham. Let''s apply it everywhere:
* No more postings supporting the pro-choice side of abortion until we have factual evidence that babies have no soul.
* No more postings saying Church should be separate from state until we have factual evidence that God wouldn''t want it that way.
* No more postings saying Hillary didn''t kill Vince Foster until we have factual evidence that she wasn''t the trigger ""man"".
* No more postings saying Bill Clinton didn''t commit perjury until we have factual evidence that he lied about Monica. (wait, you can scratch that one off).
* No more postings saying Saddamdidn''thave a connection to Osama until we have factual evidence...well, you know the rest.
Now everyone must refrain from insinuating any of the above - Ockham says so.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Although first you have to prove that such a thing as a soul exists...
But first, prove the existence of God...
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
So whose right? Bush or Doug Feith?
Are you sure?
So even the DoD said it''s inaccurate?
Of couse some people will refuse to believe that Iraq was NO threat to our national security until ... oh wait nevermind, Bush and his cronies ended that debate for us, no way to tell for sure now, so they must have been a dire, imminent threat!
I was only responding to your ''a priori'' assumptions while demanding others prove every inch of their cases, to whit:
* No more postings supporting the pro-life side of abortion until someone completely proves babies have no soul because I , Ralcydan, believe they do.
* No more postings saying Church should not be separate from state until we have factual evidence that God wouldn''t want it that way, because obviously he does, since I, Ralcydan, believe that.
* No more postings saying Hillary didn''t kill Vince Foster. Unless you can provide I, Ralcydan, with complete and utter proof of her innocence I will assume she''s guilty.
* No more postings saying Saddam didn''t have a connection to Osama because I, Ralcydan decree it absolute fact ... what? George Bush said there was no provable link?
If all you''re going to do is demand proof and facts from others then turn it around on them when they ask for same, then I can see there''s no need for me to continue. You aren''t really interested in discussing anything at all it seems. Although I must say it was kind of fun turning your rather weak attempts at being the GWJ incarnation of Ari Fleischer around on you.
Cheers.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
Ah trolls... We have so few here - it''s nice to see them when they pop up. Welcome, Ockham!
1) So because Bush doesn''t share top secret material, he is contradicting it? Doesn''t follow. The administration has connected Saddam to Al Qaeda many times, without going into the specifics of classified intelligence, as represented in this memo. And if you would have actually followed what has been said instead of getting your quotes from conspiracy theory web sites, you would know that Bush has said there is no provable link between Saddam and9/11, not that there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
2) I stopped reading your second link right about where it assumed an answer to the rhetorical question: ""America has never been guilty of nihilism, have we?"" Between that and the fact that the window title was misspelled: ""case clsoed"", this didn''t strike me as a particularly rebuttal-worthy piece...
3) For those of you with reading comprehension problems, the DOD does not say that the Feith memo is innacurate. Read closely, and you will see that the DOD is merely saying that it didn''tconfirmthe memo. But again, I doubt you read the actual DOD quote. Why bother, when you can get this stellar analysis:
I know. How dare I ask people questions and follow their reasoning out to a logical conclusion? People should be allowed to make completely unsubstantiated statements without anyone mentioning it. In that spirit, let me apologize for pointing out that you were wrong about what the DOD release says. You saw the word ""inaccurate"", and figured it didn''t actually matter what the other words were. It was totally inappropriate of me to be so boorish and correct you...
I should be so lucky.
You asked for facts, and I gave them to you. The US intelligence services have compiled years of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have now been reported by the US media. Your rebuttal? Links to a cursing rant from from someone who can barely read, and a conspiracy diatribe that reads like it was written by a nutty high school student (and not a very good student, at that).
However, if you would like to do so, please continue to declare victory. You have indeed turned my weak attempts at thought around on me. I have never been so thoroughly bested in a debate. Well, not really, but anything to spare me from reading more nonsense like that in your last post.
PS - I would respond to your lengthy rebuttal to my joke, but...it was a joke.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
For of those of you whose reading comprehension and logical capabilities extend beyond their own personal blinders and biases please note that the DoD memo did indeed say that
""News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.""
The memo then concludes
""The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions. ""
What this means in non-Ralcydan is that there was no new information in the ''Case Closed'' memo by Doug Feith, that info was already well known by the intelligence community and between all those agencies and career intelligence analysts, it was not enough to make a case proving any links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Again, if such a link could be proven we would have heard conclusively about it by now, instead of hearing Bush backtracking about it on national television.
But dear old Ralcydan will still believe what he wants to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary. Because it''s abundantly clear that he takes these things on faith and will brook no argument to his cherished beliefs. We all know faith never mixes well with things like logic and reason.
And Ralcydan, before you start composing your point by point pseudo-deconstruction of my post, wherein you decry me as a troll and proclaim that because I spelt ''the'' wrong or didn''t capitalize a word or something, then I am of course totally wrong. Just save it. i''m going to bed.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
Well, let''s see if I can remember the 7th grade...
(subject) ""news reports"" (verb) ""are inaccurate"". Now, I know, I included adjectives, but the DOD release nowhere states that the information in the letter is inaccurate, as Ockham tries to say.
Now of course, for the crowd that sees two words and can''t help but put them together, you are still saying, ""Ah-ha! The DOD is saying that the news report about the memo is inaccurate."" Well, no.
Question: So whatisinaccurate about the reports?
Answer: Any statement ""that the Defense Department recentlyconfirmed"" the information in the report.
In other words, the DOD hasn''t confirmed the Top Secret information contained in the leaked memo. Or, ""duh"", as I like to say.
Actually that''s slightly dishonest. You only provide a partial quote of what the DoD release concludes. Here''s the whole statement:
So while the DOD makes it clear that the classified annex presented to Congress drew no conclusions, the DOD also clearly states that the evidence in that annex represented reports and products from the CIA, the NSA, and the DIA, and that this evidence was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community.
I''m not sure what you think you''re presenting here. The DoD didn''t confirm the information - but it can''t since that information is classified. The classified annex containing the information drew no conclusions, but as regards this annex, that is the job of Congress - and in no way an indication that there are no conclusions to be drawn.
Like I have said, some people don''t recognize a conclusive link when it is right in front of them. You have heard about it - it''s all over the media. The administration doesn''t talk about it, because the information is classified.
And as an aside, I stated above that Bush has never denied a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, ""backtracking"" as you call it. I would ask you for an actual quote, but I have a feeling that your complaints that I ask for ""facts"" was really just a pre-emptive way to avoid research. Suffice to say you are wrong about what Bush has said.
The leaked letter contains 50 pieces of evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda.
Your first link, here, is laden with inaccuracies and innuendo, but more importantly contains exactly zero rebuttals to any of the actual evidence.
Your second link, here, which I think might have been written by a crazy person, also contains zero rebuttals to any of the evidence.
Your third link, here, contains the text of a DoD release and an inaccurate analysis of what the release says, which you then inaccurately repeat. Twice.
I am getting an idea why my silly requests for ""facts"" bother you so much...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
It''s getting hot in here.
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
I am not taking off all my clothes, Sigfreid...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Watch out for that tiger, roy.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Well I think it''s a little early in the morning to be reading the bile Ralcydan spews and then calls argument. But here goes nothing.
Let''s distill your post down a bit. Shall we?
First you attack my grammar and accuse me of dishonesty, then you provide more text from the DoD memo and follow it with
You''re the one being dishonest and reading it incorrectly, here''s the whole sentence from the memo
You made it sound like the evidence was factually shown to be accurate, but it was not the intelligence itself that was cleared, it was ''the provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee'' that was cleared. The act of providing the annex was cleared, not the annex itself.
Then you go on to say
So it becomes worth it to quote the entirety of the DoD memo.
Doug Feith made some claims while testifying to the Committee, and they then asked him to back his claims up with facts, much as I asked you. He then provided the annex of raw intelligence data to the Committee, and it was also leaked to the press. At which point the DoD had to publish their own memo to explain that yes they did provide the raw data to the committee, but that it was not an analysis and drew no conclusions.
It seems like the memo is basically the DoD saying, ""Yes we provided the info that Congress asked for, we can''t confirm or deny if any of it means anything and any news reports saying we did are wrong.
You said it was Congress'' job to draw conclusions about the annex, but then you seem to base rest of your argument on saying those facts do conclude a linkage.
However it seems that others besides me disagree with your interpretation of the annex and Feith''s claims. Starting with a couple of choice quotes from a column by Josh Marshall where he discusses the how Feith handled the data in the annex.
Further down,
The last paragraph is also elucidating.
Marshall isn''t the only one who seems to think the intelligence data is questionable. Here''s something from a Newsweekarticle
The rest of the article goes on to refute some specific claims of the memo. Near the end they even admit that some of the claims may not be as easily dismissable, which I can easily agree with because unlike you Ralcydan I don''t claim to know more than both professional journalists and the government intelligence community. The article ends with,
So now we''ve come around full circle. If your entire argument is that the leaked memo discussed by the Weekly Standard constitutes a factually conclusive link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, you''re going to have to do better to convince me.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
This is getting too personal. Pull it back a bit, gentlemen.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis