erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'm sure some of our regular readers of the WSJ read this yesterday, as I did. I thought I'd pass it along to the rank and file here. I cant wait to read some of the responses. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206314952...ew_and_outlooks The links to the report. Enjoy. Click on the links below to download each volume individually. http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive...7%20Vol%201.pdf http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive...7%20Vol%202.pdf http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive...7%20Vol%203.pdf http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive...7%20Vol%204.pdf http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive...7%20Vol%205.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'd like to see the actual report before I believe word-for-word the WSJ's take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'm sure some of our regular readers of the WSJ read this yesterday, as I did. I thought I'd pass it along to the rank and file here. I cant wait to read some of the responses. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206314952...ew_and_outlooks You can release a report that ties the US government to Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'd like to see the actual report before I believe word-for-word the WSJ's take on it. I just linked them, sorry for the delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 And it came from the WSJ which because it deals a lot with finance means it's uber-Conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 It's also pretty sad that all these years later the neocons are sill trying to justify this fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 How come there is never any mention of Saddam offering 25k (and then upping the ante to 35k) to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Is that too blatant of an example of being directly connected to terrorism for anyone to even bother brining it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 How come there is never any mention of Saddam offering 25k (and then upping the ante to 35k) to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Is that too blatant of an example of being directly connected to terrorism for anyone to even bother brining it up? So we went to war for Israel? At least in part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 How come there is never any mention of Saddam offering 25k (and then upping the ante to 35k) to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Is that too blatant of an example of being directly connected to terrorism for anyone to even bother brining it up? I don't think the idea that he was connected to terrorism is a reach, and most people would agree to that. What people were upset about was the idea that "the same people who attacked us on Sept. 11th" were somehow tied to Saddam, which was a link that was suggested by the administration, at the very least. And the Pentagon, in the past, has denied this link An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network. So, the fact that they're saying different now is something to at least discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So we went to war for Israel? At least in part? You really gotta stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 You really gotta stop. I like kicking the sacred cow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I like kicking the sacred cow Do the sheets hamper the kicking motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Do the sheets hamper the kicking motion? lol, any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. You have been conditioned very well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Becuase PPP is chock-full of people defending the Iraq War and how its been carried out. GG thought it was a great idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't think the idea that he was connected to terrorism is a reach, and most people would agree to that. What people were upset about was the idea that "the same people who attacked us on Sept. 11th" were somehow tied to Saddam, which was a link that was suggested by the administration, at the very least. And the Pentagon, in the past, has denied this link So, the fact that they're saying different now is something to at least discuss. Understood - I wasn't so much arguing that he did or did not have ties to Al Queda, but was trying to point out that the standard reaction of "Bah - Saddam had no links to teh terrorzzz" is pretty stupid, because he was pretty fkin public about it: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html I could dig up more links, but 200 of them wouldn't be enough for some people around here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'm sure some of our regular readers of the WSJ read this yesterday, as I did. I thought I'd pass it along to the rank and file here. I cant wait to read some of the responses. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206314952...ew_and_outlooks Hmmm... an unsigned opinion piece that rehashes every tenuous fiber of evidence for Saddam's supposed link to al Queida and in itself concludes: It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation... Convinces me that the Neocons were right all along. Congrats Eryn, you've converted me! But ya know there's still this little inconvienent fact.. The main Iraq intelligence failure was over WMD, but the report indicates that the CIA also underestimated Saddam's ties to global terror cartels. The first part of that statement is undeniable, but the second part? Wouldn't they need something new to back up that statement? There's nothing new in the report. Nothing! But the unnamed WSJ editorialists know that, which is why they used the word "indicates" rather than something stronger like "concludes" or "clearly shows" or "PROVES!" So on second thought, maybe that editorial doesn't change my mind. Better luck next time, Eryn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So we went to war for Israel? At least in part? Yes. See Molson. See Molson misunderstand a topic. Misunderstand, Molson, misunderstand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Hmmm... an unsigned opinion piece that rehashes every tenuous fiber of evidence for Saddam's supposed link to al Queida and in itself concludes: Convinces me that the Neocons were right all along. Congrats Eryn, you've converted me! But ya know there's still this little inconvienent fact.. The first part of that statement is undeniable, but the second part? Wouldn't they need something new to back up that statement? There's nothing new in the report. Nothing! But the unnamed editorialists who wrote the report know that, which is why they used the word "indicates" rather than something stronger like "concludes" or "clearly shows" or "PROVES!" So on second thought, maybe that editorial doesn't change my mind. Better luck next time, Eryn. Read the report, squid boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I definitely hope to get the time to really look this over, considering that a Senate Intelligence committee that was under a Republican majority said otherwise fairly recently, noting that Saddam had specifically turned away AQ help, and that the same 600,000 documents are cited as part of this assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 lol, any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. You have been conditioned very well Not every, just yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts