| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/9/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44324 Activity:nil |
9/8 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/09intelcnd.html NY Times reports that there is no evidence that Hussein had ties to al Qaeda - but liberals fail to understand that not finding the evidence may result in mushroom clouds over one or more major American cities \_ Honestly, do you really believe the Administration line? Or is this just something you believe because it stirs people up? \_ NYT? Could you cite a source that doesn't have a long history of both obvious bias and flat out incompetent screwups? The Daily Cal has a better record than the NYT. \_ http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf But I guess even a bipartisan senate committee report has probably been tampered with by Bill Clinton's chinese army black helicopters controlled by the liberal media in canada in league with the New World Order. In fact the GOP senators who signed off on the above official document only did so to trick you into letting the UN take away your guns and burning your country western albums. \_ I love this "the new york times is all propaganda" campaign you have going on. \_ You can practically see the little gears working in his brain when he reads this. MUST ATTACK SOURCE! \_ If the source sucks there's no reason to post from it. The NYT sucks. Their track record in recent years is undefendable. I used to read it 7 days a week because they actually made some effort to report news and kept the editorials to the op/ed page but now the whole thing is a giant op/ed. I'm not the only subscriber they've lost recently. When they stop sucking they'll sell more papers. In the mean time, thanks for posting the senate.gov document and if you can't get a quality first hand source like that the DC is still a better source than the NYT. \_ The senate.gov link was from the top of the nytimes article, moron. \_ So what? Why not just post the real info instead of forcing people to visit a crap site? And why do you feel the need to personally insult someone? Do you have a vested personal interest in the NYT? \_ FOX NEWS! FAIR AND BALANCED! \_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212897,00.html |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/09intelcnd.html More Politics News The report, sure to intensify the debates over terrorism and the Iraq war before the November elections, contains dozens of pages of findings about the former Baghdad dictator and the terrorists who plotted and carried out the Sept. As for the clich that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Saddam Hussein has told interrogators since his capture in December 2003 that his government had not cooperated with Mr bin Laden. "He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the US, he would have allied with North Korea or China," says a passage in the nearly 400-page report. Mr Zarqawi, widely known as a ruthless killer who personally carried out the beheadings of some kidnap victims in the insurgency and sectarian bloodshed that has torn Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, died in an American airstrike on June 7 President Bush and his top aides have said that Mr Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war points to a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Critics of the administration have countered that any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq was spawned by the American-led military campaign. Those analysts who have been skeptical of any meaningful links between Al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein have noted that some Al Qaeda members have professed deep religious beliefs and embraced martyrdom, while Mr Hussein and his comrades had a more secular orientation and seemed more interested in power and pleasure on earth rather than bliss in an afterlife. For many months, Mr Bush and his top aides have linked the Sept. Critics of the administration have accused the president and his aides of trying to blur the distinction between the pursuit of the terrorists who plotted the 9/11 assault and the Iraq war -- or, worse, of trying to confuse the American public into believing that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks. Central Intelligence Agency concluded that, despite rumors of contacts between two of the Sept. The report also says that postwar findings in Iraq do not support a 2002 intelligence estimate that Iraq was busily reconstituting it nuclear-weapons program or was in possession of biological weapons. The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, told The Associated Press there was "nothing new" in the report, and that members of both political parties had agreed before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. "In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had, and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Mr Snow said. Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told The AP that the report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. The report released today was the latest finding by the committee, headed by Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas. Two years ago, the committee issued a report that found that the assessments leading up to the war were based on deeply flawed intelligence about the degree of threat posed by Baghdad, particularly in regard to its supposed possession of deadly unconventional weapons. The reaction to today's report was quick and sharp and signaled that more bitter debate is ahead. The intelligence panel's ranking Democrat, Senator John D Rockefeller 4th of West Virginia, told the AP that the Bush administration had "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. Democrats were indulging in selective amnesia about their own earlier support of the war and were "cherry-picking through the intelligence and the facts in a political attempt to rewrite history." |
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212897,00.html Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war. The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war. The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections. It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats. Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new." Advertise Here "In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said. But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime." The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program. The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war. The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war. |