Good news for America, Bad news for Democrats

[ssj_3_derek]

Doesn't that always seem to be the way though? About a 2 weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi's #2, James Clyburn, said that a positive reprt from Iraq would be a real problem for Democrats.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291634,00.htmlScary isn't it? Iraq has become the major front on the war on terror, and Democrats are saying that good news for us

Comments

[boxy__brown]

[ssj_3_derek]

Gotcha, NPR and the print media are the two biggest sources of disinformation about the Iraq war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm/

[ssj_3_derek]

Here's another one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp

Apparently Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 terrorists, was meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, and I somehow doubt they were getting together to have a couple of beers and watch the game.

[boxy__brown]

"Postwar findings indicate that the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessment that the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qa'ida resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" accurately characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not thos of Saddam Hussein. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material support."

[boxy__brown]

And then there's The Man himself:

[boxy__brown]

Also from the pdf linked to above, in specific reference to Atta:
In the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA assessed that "some evidence asserts that Atta met with Prague IIS chief Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani; other evidence casts doubt on this possibility." In the January 2003 version of the paper, the CIA assessed that "the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility."

...
The January 2003 Iraqi Support to Terrorism paper noted that "we are increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani."

[ssj_3_derek]

Check this one out.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraqdossier.pdf

And as much as I hate to say this, I trust British intelligence a bit more than our own about this period of time, given the gutting of our intelligence by the Clinton administration, and the scary, and completely out of place, anti-Bush bias of George Tenet. Why that fool wasn't booted out with his boss is beyond me.

[boxy__brown]

That was from 2002. The one I linked to was a postwar analysis from September of last year, from agents who were there going over the facilities and documents and debriefing captured officials.

[ssj_3_derek]

Ah, but this is from the same committee that recommended that we should ask Iran and Syria for help in Iraq. Given that Iran is causing a lot of the problems in Iraq, and that has been public knowledge for two or three years now, I don't give much weight to it.

[boxy__brown]

And even if the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee (which had a Republican majority at the time) are lying to cover for Saddam because they're Liberals, and that's what Liberals do, we also have that video above of President Bush stating directly that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction and that he had nothing to do with the attacks.

[ssj_3_derek]

lol, I'm not accusing them of lying, I'm accusing them of incompetence.