You know how the NYTimes got in a tizzy the other day about one of the Iraqi documents supposedly telling how to make an atomic bomb? Well---here's some other information in those Iraqi documents that the NYTimes doesn't care to mention. Why? Because they back up our reasons for going into Iraq:

"There's the one that confirms Saddam Hussein's Iraq trained thousands of non-Iraqi terrorists from 1998 to 2003. And the one that shows the Iraqi regime provided money and weapons to Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines. And the one that lists hundreds of jihadists imported from Gulf countries before the war. And the one demonstrating that for a decade, ending only with its overthrow, Saddam Hussein's regime harbored and financed the man who had mixed the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the native Iraqi Abdul Rahman Yasin. It's a document that might be relevant to the national debate--now in its fifth year--about whether Iraq is part of the war on terror or a distraction from it. And yet the Times has not once mentioned it in its pages."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/906fprub.asp

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Only the Weeklypropaganda and other equally biased and unreliable rags seem to notice these documents that are a smoking gun to terrorists. Even the right wing war mongers in this administration seem not to have noticed them.

Or, maybe, even the war mongers have to be careful how they deceive people. They need to make inuendo (Iraq, 9/11, Iraq, 9/11, Iraq, 9/11). But the weekly standard does not have any culpability and need not use inuendo for their lies. They just flat out lie and say all these documents exist and it is just the NY Times that missed them. Yea... right. But then the right wing gullible people is who that rag is designed for, and these people, like JP5, will believe anything, as long as it fits with their war mongering.

Driver says I do not think that this is a case of "war mongering" it is a case of faith in the party. Some people will beleive all that is said and done by thier party.
In JP's case it's the Repubs but there are Demon worhippers also.

Therefore you are being a bit tough on the JP.

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

And then there are those who ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda. They don't bother to do the work of actually looking at any evidence, just pretend it doesn't exist and call the other guy a partisan.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

It is a mute point - Saddam Hussein is no longer a player. History will have all the facts to judge Bush's invasion.

I think most people do not regret the move to remove Hussein - that's not the point of contention. It is the never ending series of excuses the keeps us in Iraq that make people angry.

If the Neo-Cons are seeking to save face, then you will simply have to wait some time for all the facts to be determined and sorted out. I say Bush will proved to be among the worst American Presidents - but I admit, I am biased. I hate him and his entire crew. But, to be fair, I too must wait for history to be the final judge.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

The NYTimes and the libbies, for that matter, cannot continue to "pick and choose" what they want to consider. These are ALL Iraqi documents; records found inside Iraq at their government officies. And it PROVES once and for all that Saddam Hussein was involved in state-sponsored support of terrorists---even harboring one who had mixed the bomb that blew up the WTC in 1993. If that's NOT a direct connection to Al Qaeda, I don't know what else would be.

As far as reasons. There are many, many reasons to invade and unseat Saddam Hussein. Those reasons have been articulated since before we went in there. YOU and other Demos have simply kept your fingers in your ears!! EXCEPT for your Dem leaders who were FOR going into Iraq BEFORE they were against it. Can't count on them when the going gets tough because they simply "get going."

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I would have to agree with JP5 and 12th Man...

They don't get to have it both wqys.

Those Documents are either legitimate or they are not.

Very telling that these Documents had to be "pulled" because they were accurate in how to develop a Nuclear Bomb, isn't it?

Would "fake" Documents have been so accurate in that manner?

Do some people actually want to argue that "some" of these Documents "prove" something, and others do not?

Regards,
Gaar

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

As a matter of simple logic, that is the case. The documents are unwarranted by the CIA; there is nothing with any of the documents that attest to their validity, context, etc. Some will prove to be reliable evidence of something; many will not. Many of the documents seized on by conservative bloggers as "proving" something fail to provide a "smoking gun" even if you assume the document is entirely valid and refers to what they assume it refers to.

But to address the implied argument here: the NYT is not arguing anything. They simply reported that several groups have questioned the inclusion of nuclear-related material on the site, enough that Negroponte decided he should review their availability.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

So you say...

Yet, the only "evidence" supplied by those who refute them is that they are not "proven", even though some of them do IN FACT represent factual information.

It seems that people like yourself are most likely to believe those things that support your assertions and dismiss the things that do not...

Again, picking and choosing those things depending on what it is YOU believe rather than what the Documents say.

Why is that you suppose?

Regards,
Gaar

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

Where is the "evidence" these documents even exist? No, the Republican Standard does not count, that is a lying propaganda machine. Show me the independent translators who can attest to the content. Show me the govenment saying that is what these documents say. The right wing is a bunch of gullible and shallow lemmings who will believe any lie they are told.

And let me ask you a question, if Move-on claimed that they had evidence that Bush was a neo-nazi and had documents to prove it. But they could not produce the documents, and no other source claimed the documents existed, would you believe them?.

The weekly standard is a lying piece of poop. And so unless you guys can come up with a better "source", it is dismissed as another republican/straussian lie.