Ya Gotta Sail With The Captain

Captain Ed is offering great amenities to anyone interested in probing the latest Senate Intelligence Committee report - converted .pdf files that can be searched and cut/pasted.

That just takes away another excuse for not reading them pronto.  Darn.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

I hate to steal this thread, but I found this little nugget.

"And amazingly enough, a Sarajevo newspaper report out just today, actually ties the wartime Bosnian leader, Alija Izetbegovic, directly to al Qaeda."

href="http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.338134636&par=0">http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.3 38134636&par=0

I really gotta learn a little HTML.

Talk about a Maroon that's always on the wrong side of an issue.

[lurker]

Document: Associated Press (AP) Employee Spies For Saddam Intelligence Service. (Translation)

Was this documented in the Phase II Report?

I don't think so.

[Sue]

Tom,

John at http://www.powerlineblog.com/>Powerline notes how quickly the NYTs made a correction. I thought you might be interested.

[Verner]

Just read the Phase II section on the Saddam-Bin Laden connection and can only say, it is laughable. They are largely relying on the word of Saddam and his henchmen to support the notion that there was no co-operation.

Unbelievable!

There is documented contact on numerous occasions between IIS and Al Qaeda, they both hated the Saudi royal family and the US, Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorists, and he thought that Al Qaeda was an effective org.

Saddam had also taken a decided "islamist' turn before the liberation. He has a Qoran written in his blood, built monster mosques, had Allah Akbar added to the Iraqi flag and started the fedayeen Saddam--an islamist, jihadi organization. But we don't want to talk about all of that. No, not at all. He was a secularist!

That's right folks, never mind, nothing to see here--move along, Bush lied.

One is only left asking--why did Bin Laden pledge allegence to Saddam before the war if there was no affinity or alliance? DUH.

[Tom Maguire]

Just read the Phase II section on the Saddam-Bin Laden connection and can only say, it is laughable. They are largely relying on the word of Saddam and his henchmen to support the notion that there was no co-operation.

I think it was the Weekly Standard that was quite good on this.

And the Times/Powerline is a hoot.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The report is also pretty ridiculous in saying that the Zahawie trip to Niger was only to invite the President to Baghdad to talk about buying oil. Ignoring that our Ambassador was told by, iirc, the same guy, that there were other countries, like Iraq, that would pay more for their uranium.

They also accept the documents that turn down an offer of uranium in 2001 by a Kenyan or Ugandan businessman. Not only turn down the opportunity, but lecture the guy about how that would be against the law.

[SteveMG]

Just read the Phase II section on the Saddam-Bin Laden connection and can only say, it is laughable. They are largely relying on the word of Saddam and his henchmen to support the notion that there was no co-operation.

Isn't it interesting that our critical press - the same one that says that their job is to challenge and question government statements, to serve as noble surrogates for the public - seems to be less interested in that watchdog role when this report came out?

No criticism, no dissenting voices, no tocsin sounded about errors or mistakes in the analysis.

The watchdog that didn't bark.

SMG

[Lew Clark]

An AP employee working for the terrorists is a "dog bites man" story! I have heard a rumor that there is one AP employee not working for the terrorists, but it's second hand and I can get no confirmation. But I'm on it!

[clarice]

*thwack* Lew. (I can't winkle out his identity either.)

[Foo Bar]

They are largely relying on the word of Saddam and his henchmen to support the notion that there was no co-operation.

Yes, they interviewed Saddam, Tariq Aziz, etc., but they also reviewed an enormous number of Iraqi documents. In fact, this excerpt (p60) would suggest that the documents were the foremost source used to arrive at their conclusions:

This section of the report will describe the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments regarding Iraq's links to al-Qa'ida. It compares those reports to documents and other intelligence gathered after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in order to assess the accuracy of the prewar judgments.

On p62 and p63 it says that 120 million pages of documents have received an initial review by the DIA, and that the DIA continues to maintain there was no partnership between Iraq and al Qaeda.

I'm trying to remember- who was it that decided earlier this year that it was a good idea to review Iraqi documents for evidence of ties to al Qaeda?

Anyway, the White House likes to cite the Phase I SSCI report conclusion that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their assessments.

When does the fact that a bipartisan and Republican-led Senate committee reached a particular conclusion lend credence to that conclusion? Shall we just disregard both the Phase I and Phase II conclusions and go back to arguing about individual bits of evidence?

Note (p137) that the report that discusses Iraq/al Qaeda and Iraq/Zarqawi was approved 14-1, with some pretty conservative guys (Hatch, Roberts, Bond) voting in favor. Were these guys duped, lazy, what?

One is only left asking--why did Bin Laden pledge allegence to Saddam before the war if there was no affinity or alliance? DUH.

Well, the main conclusion on this topic (p105) is not that Bin Laden had no interest in an alliance with Saddam. It was that "Saddam was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all request from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operation support".

[Pofarmer]

Iraqdocs.blogspot.com

"Document: Zarqawi in Iraq Long Before the War Started"

"Document: Afghani Taliban Consul Spoke of a Relationship Between Iraq and Bin Laden"

"Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers."

Sorry bout that

The Senate intelligence report is old news, as per normal.

[Sue]

I know. I fought so hard with my husband over the 'wag the dog' meme he and other conservatives were using during the Clinton administration. To find out now there was no connection, none, nada, zilch just makes me sick.

[SteveMG]

To find out now there was no connection, none, nada, zilch just makes me sick.

I'm curious as to why you said this. I'm certainly shocked by the report; but not sickened.

Nowhere in the joint resolution authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam is there a reference to Iraqi and al-Qaeda ties or cooperation. The war authorization lays out about two dozen reasons for using force. Not a single one of those reasons includes any claims that Saddam and Bin Laden were working together.

It is, admittedly, disheartening to learn once again of the failures of our intelligence agencies. Their performance has been deeply disappointing.

But the decision to go to war had almost nothing (I won't say absolutely nothing) to do with a belief that al-Qaeda and Iraq were in a substantive alliance with each other.

SMG

[Pofarmer]

"But the decision to go to war had almost nothing (I won't say absolutely nothing) to do with a belief that al-Qaeda and Iraq were in a substantive alliance with each other."

It's just the left moving the goalposts again. Sometimes they even change fields.

[Pofarmer]

"But the decision to go to war had almost nothing (I won't say absolutely nothing) to do with a belief that al-Qaeda and Iraq were in a substantive alliance with each other."

It's just the left moving the goalposts again. Sometimes they even change fields.

[Sue]

I'm curious as to why you said this. I'm certainly shocked by the report; but not sickened.

I was being snarky. ::grin:: I'm not sure the left has thought this one through. If Bush lied then Clinton did too.

[SteveMG]

I was being snarky. ::grin::

Another one of those snark attacks.

I thought it was a boating accident (Jaws/Richard Dreyfuss character).

SMG

[maryrose]

The Bush lied meme is dead in the water. The only persons still touting it are dumb dems, netroots and the Plames. Everyone else is interested in the real world and in fighting this war on terror to the best of our ability. Dems have nothing as usual;what else is new?

[Foo Bar]

Nowhere in the joint resolution authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam is there a reference to Iraqi and al-Qaeda ties or cooperation

Well there was quite a bit (30 paragraphs or so) in Powell's UN speech.

In any case, what was do you suppose was intended by this section of the AUMF resolution?

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

If that didn't imply at least acquiescence on that part of Iraq regarding the presence of al Qaeda, what did it imply? That Iraq might not be happy about the presence of al Qaeda but was too inept to track them down- and that's a reason to invade Iraq?

[Sue]

And to think, just last week we were arguing that WMDs was the justification for going to Iraq. Next week...the justification will be...

[clarice]

Foo BAr--I want you and your friends to scream about this just as much as you screamed about the dastardly outing of a covert agent by lying war mongers who manipulated intelligence. Now, before you end up on your ass again, you may want to read the original doc on which this report is based. Because I promise you this time the limb you are crawling out on is far shorter. (Hint go to AJ Strata for clues and cites.)
Or don't.
I'm ready for another hearty laugh at the left.

[SteveMG]

Foo:
Nowhere in the joint resolution authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam is there a reference to Iraqi and al-Qaeda ties or cooperation

Well, I don't have much to add. Let me mumble some more.

Again, the claim that the Iraq/al-Qaeda nexus charge was a "central argument" by the W.H. for the use of force doesn't hold up, it seems to me, when one examines the authorization for war.

If it was a key argument, why not include it in the legislation?

Not arguing that the W.H. didn't make the claim. They did. Repeatedly. Only that they didn't enter it into the force authorization (a curious omission, no?).

Re the AUMF and al-Qaeda members in Iraq: What can I say? The pre-war intelligence, according to this SCI report was wrong.

SMG

[Verner]

Clarice:

A little A J for the lazy:

"The US government did not conduct a similar postwar investigation of Iraq’s links to terrorism. Indeed, the nature of the question of whether or to what extent Iraq was linked to terrorist organizations, including al-Qa’ida, does not lend itself to an on-the-ground fact finding investigation as easily as the WMD case. One is not able to search Iraq for the presence of linkg to al Qa’ida as one can search for the presence of WMD and the industrial facilities capable of producing WMD.

Emphasis mine. Clearly the report is stating there is no way to definitively ascertain the terrorist links. It clearly says it had no way to do a postwar investigation. It would be interesting to hear if Committee Staff did any review of the analysis being done on the thousands of documents seized in Iraq and showing all sorts of connections never before reported."

Saddam might not have liked Bin Laden, but he could read the tea leaves. And they still haven't explained how Zarqawi got into Iraq, and integrated with Saddam's upper level security people so quickly. Kind of like, do you believe the CIA and Saddam, or your own lying eyes. LOL.

[Foo Bar]

just as much as you screamed about the dastardly outing of a covert agent by lying war mongers who manipulated intelligence

Hmmm, have I always been fully dedicated to promoting the idea that the Plame leak was so terrible? Maybe you could ask TM where he got those Dana Priest chat quotes about how she doesn't buy the idea that the leak seriously damaged out intel. Or, find">http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/_facts_that_ref.html">find out for yourself, if you're so inclined. TM loved those quotes so much he's recycled them several times, as recently about a week ago.

Is this the AJ Strata post you're referring to? AJ says it "would be interesting to hear if Committee Staff did any review of the analysis being done on the thousands of documents seized in Iraq and showing all sorts of connections never before reported". That's kind of a strange point to make given that the doc says the DIA reviewed millions of docs.

SMG:

Again, the claim that the Iraq/al-Qaeda nexus charge was a "central argument" by the W.H. for the use of force doesn't hold up

I agree, to say it was central (and I guess that was the language used in one of the big news stories about the report; I forget which paper just now) is an exaggerration. And those on the left who say that pre-invasion Bush never talked about democratization are also wrong. WMDs was the biggest justification; Iraq-Al Qaeda ties and democratization were each lesser justifications cited at the time.

One is not able to search Iraq for the presence of linkg to al Qa’ida...

Uh-huh, and how about including the next sentence (p10):

The Committee did, however, examine documents uncovered in Iraq and new intelligence collected, including Intelligence Community debriefs of detained Iraqis and al-Qa'ida members, as a basis of postwar findings with which to judge the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments about Iraq's links to terrorism.

[Foo Bar]

Whoops, screwed up the find out link.

[Specter]

OT...BUT IMPORTANT. A Moment of Silence.

New stuff on Lamont on Monday.

[Specter]

But Foo,

There are thousands and thousands of documents that have not been translated yet. I guess the committee used the famous "Comey-Fitzgerald Mind Rays" to figure out what was in all of those. The reason it came out now was for political expediency - the dems yelling they needed something (anything) before election and the Republicans afraid not to. But the study of post-war Iraq is far from complete.

[Specter]

I guess I should have said the post-war study of pre-war Iraq is far from complete....

[Foo Bar]

the Republicans afraid not to

So your theory is that even these are truly still open questions, the Republicans (nearly unanimously) signed onto this report- giving the false impression that the questions have been resolved- because they judged that the political cost of not producing any report before the elections was greater than the political cost of a report that concluded e.g. that Saddam tried to capture Zarqawi (rather than harboring him)?

Hmmm...

Regardless of how many more documents remain to be translated, if we've already found documents which positively affirm that Saddam was trying to capture Zarqawi, it's a little hard for me to imagine documents that might be translated later on that turn that conclusion on its head and lead us back to the idea that Saddam was somehow supporting Zarqawi. I suppose it's conceivable, but it doesn't seem too likely to me.

[Verner]

Here's a question for you Foo. Why did Zarqawi come to Iraq in the first place? He could have stayed in Pakistan with Bin Laden. And if they wanted to capture him, it certainly doesn't seem like they tried that hard. His main allies have always been hard line Sunnis--you know Saddam's people. Are you trying to tell us that they protected Zarqawi from dear leader's secret police? I don't think so.

[JM Hanes]

Haven't read the SSCI's latest, but I wasn't aware that "millions" of the captured Iraq documents had actually been translated yet. I suspect we may largely be talking about initial, relatively cursory, scans for organizational subject matter, portions of which have been picked out for translation.

[lonetown]

I'm surprised they didn't come right out and say it - Saddam was working for US!

This was just a removal operation like removing a CEO and let's face it, he was a lot easier to remove than Steve Case.

[Bob]

Ah...Poop Bar

This is all I need to know!

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm>Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and Beyond

and this from WSJ in 2003... http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046>Iraq and al Qaeda

Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn't one. Our point is that U.S. government and intelligence officials ought to be open to the evidence of any links between state sponsors and terrorists. But for many Administration critics, it seems, nothing less than smoking-gun proof that 9/11 was an Iraqi-al Qaeda joint operation will do.

I'd say it a better than 50/50 chance Iaraq and AQ are bed fellows!

[lurker]

Seems that she has stopped writing articles by around 2003. We sure miss Laurie Mylroie's writings of late. Wish she would reconsider writing more articles.

[Patton]

If a group of bank robbers rob a bank and kill the guards and customers, then one of those robbers drives off and stops at someones house and they take him in and hide him from police.

NO, they arean't bank robbers, but they are certainly guilty of aiding and abetting the bank robbers.

SO WHEN A WTC BOMBER RUNS OFF TO BAGHDAD AND SADDAM SETS HIM UP WITH A HOUSE AND GOVERNMENT PAYCHECK, ONE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT AIDING AND ABETTING THE BOMBING OF THE WTC.

[Sue]

I would imagine that Saddam is getting a kick out of this.

I haven't read the report yet. If any of you have, can you tell me if it mentioned anything about Saddam waiting for sanctions to be lifted in order to reconstitute his illegal programs?

[Sue]

And, was there any mention as to how AQ found so many safe houses so quickly after the invasion? How they knew which houses, which families, which towns, would support them?

[Sue]

I'm going to have to download the dadgum thing. I have too many of my own questions. One more, did they explain how Saddam was unable to find Zarqawi? Who was hiding him? Which hospital he went to? Is that event true? Did he go to the hospital? Did they interview the doctors? I really need to read the report.

[Pofarmer]

Isn't it just peachy what the left latches on to? They think in order to win they need to tear the country down.

[Pofarmer]

I wouldn't look for too much truth in the report Sue. From what I gather, it's mainly a political document, much like the 9/11 report.

[lurker]

I have yet to read the original 9/11 report and have no desire to. Neither will I read Phase II report.

In my opinion, it was money, time, and effort wasted.

It's no surprise that Bush objected to the creation of this commission because he knew it would end up as a partisan fight.

[lurker]

These attacks emulate the fight between Christianity and Ottoman Empire and the lead up to World War II.

As long as we appease to Islamofascism, we will lose.

As long as we ignore and refuse to recognize Islamofascism, we will lose.

Only way to win is to face Islamofascism HARD.

Regardless of appeasement or face it, there will always be threats as long as Islamofasicsm continues with the desire of reverting back to the 7th century lifestyle.

[Extraneus]

The whole premise of all the carping about Iraq is that the war was a failure. But that's really quite debatable, and much more important a subject than that of the stated (central or otherwise) reasons for invading. In fact, we've replaced a tyrannical enemy regime, a constant thorn in our side for over 10 years, with a friendly elected government, and liberated many millions of people in the bargain, at the cost of around 3000 Americans and allies. The debate, rather than starting from the premise that that was a bad bargain, should be about the bargain, not the gotchas on intelligence, etc. Was it a bad bargain? I say no. I like our strategic position better now than back in the days of no-fly zones and cruise missiles and Hans Blix.

Speaking of premises, are we at war with "Al Qaeda" or with a bloodthirsty Islamic movement that includes whatever "Al Qaeda" is or was as a subset of a much larger enemy? As we meekly accept the censorship of cartoons and surrender luxuries like breath spray on airplanes, these debates, in addition to being kind of silly on an intellectual level, take on more and more of a fiddling quality to their sound.

[Sue]

I wouldn't look for too much truth in the report Sue. From what I gather, it's mainly a political document, much like the 9/11 report.

After the 9/11 report came out, and it didn't lay the sole blame on Bush's doorstep, the democrats were in an uproar. Now, they are using the report they found fault with to claim The Path to 9/11 is full of inaccuracies because it doesn't follow the commission's report. Strange world we live in. What was isn't and what is wasn't.

[lurker]

Are you guys ready for this?

Bush Investigations To Rival Watergate

Bush will be forced to devote his time to these investigation that he would not be able to do his job.

[Verner]

I nominate this as the all time most ridiculous paragraph in the entire document:

(U) The FBI provided two summaries of statements made by Saddam
Hussein regarding his regime’s relationship with al-Qa’ida. The summary said
that when told there was clear evidence that the Iraqi government had previously
met with bin Ladin, Saddam responded, “yes.” Saddam then specified that Iraq did
not cooperate with bin Ladin. In response to the suggestion that he might
cooperate with al-Qa’ida because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Saddam
answered that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy. He claimed that Iraq only
opposed U.S. policies. He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the
enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China.17’

After reading that, How can we take anything else it says seriously?

Oh, and by the way, he was working with North Korea to by missles on the eve of the invasion.

[Verner]

by=buy

[Pofarmer]

C'mon Verner.

Ya think that Saddam would LIE?

Really?

[Pofarmer]

Has anybody else got the feeling that the effectiveness of the Senate is severely compromised right now?

No matter what the results of the Nov elections, there is going to be a serious dustup. If the Dims win seats, they are going to push and push and push this Anti-bush Agenda.

If they stay even, or lose seats, they are going to scream voter fraud, disenfranchisement, etc, to high heaven. Any way it goes, it's gonna get ugly.

[Terrye]

Foo Bar:

I do not know if certain Democrats were smoking dope back in the 90's or if they suffer from ADD or what, but I remember Clinton talking about Saddam running an outlaw regime with close ties to international terrorists.

In fact ABC did a special on Saddam and Bin Laden back in the late 90's and no Democrats threatened to pull their license or raised any fuss at all.

In fact it was considered to be an obvious truth at the time. It was not until the subject became a matter of partisan politics that we saw these kinds of efforts to cover ass.

And that is all this is. Partisan Democrats and a couple of nervous Republicans facing a reelection are trying to find a way to cover themselves for the fall elections.

Thr truth is when Powell went to the UN and made mention of Zarqawi Saddam did not ask that someone come get the bad man cause he was scared of him. Hell no, he blew them off, just like he blew off the inspectors.

When his people picked up one of Zarqawi's people, Saddam had him turned loose, there was no explanation for that. He just did it. Just like he let him come in the country in the first place. But as far as finding physical evidence of them plotting together, I doubt you will ever find that.

Al Capone killed God knows how many people and the Feds can only get the guy on tax evasion. Saddam is a criminal. He is not going to leave behind witnesses.

[Pofarmer]

Another thing that is worth mentioning here, is that the Dems will cite non-classified sources when they know for a fact that there are classified sources contradicting them that can't be used becuase, well, they're classified. Witness the recent Santorum brew ha ha on WMD's found in Iraq. That whole thing is still not declassified, and, presumably, there's much more in it. The Dims are behaving in a most vile and irresponsible manner.

[Florence Schmieg]

I am tired of the meme that Bush is responsible for dividing the country after 9-11. Juan Williams was spouting this again this morning. I watched the cable channels obsessively in the months after 9-11 and the beginning of our war with Afghanistan, when Bush had a 90% approval rating. And no lie, it was like a switch was flipped. Once Congress recessed for holiday break in December 2001, just 2 months after the Afghan war started and we were still fighting, the Dems (including Lieberman) swarmed the shows to start bashing Bush!! It was startling and abrupt. Then in Jan. 2002 they tried to smear him with the Enron scandal and also accused him of being too mean in the Afghan war. They desparately needed to lower his ratings before the 2002 elections. Didn't work. But so much for who was responsible for the country's divide. How can they take themselves seriously making that claim?!

[Terrye]

Florence:

It really changed when the Democrats lost seats in 2002. They knew that support for Bush was helping Republicans so they decided to go after him. Too bad they did not devote that kind of single minded attack on Osama, we might could have avoided some of this.

Juan is a typical liberal in many ways. He just got smeared himself by the likes of Sharpton for suggesting that maybe black leaders have let down the black community. As far as they are concerned right now Juan is divisive.

I have never heard Bush go after Clinton or any other major Democratic figure. Even when he was in a campaign he did not accuse people of the kind of stuff they routinely throw at him. I honestly do not know what he could have done to make that different.

[topsecretk9]

Are people comment spamming TM with racist material?

L & L

[clarice]

Lurker, Laurie should have a new article out next week--I think in the Spectator.

[CNJ]

Cheney, as usual, did well in MTP this morning.

After declining to answer about Libby pardon, Russert asked:

What about Armitage?

Cheney: Does he need a pardon?

About the elections the VP said he did not expect Pelosi to become the speaker.

[Patton]

Can you imagine the mind set of the 9/11 Commission in the 1940s?

If I were Bush I would distance myself from those on the Commission from what I saw this morning.

Imagine we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to create a fortress America so as to attempt to stop terrorists from attacking us, BUT, let's go ahead and give the terrorists the rest of the world to play in.

It is a ludicrous policy, there are over 1 Million Americans living in the Middle East region, not including our troops. You can't just use a super law enforcement around fortress America and claim we are safe...it is completely worthless.

Can you imagine if someone said, let the Nazis have the rest of the world, lets them kill all they want, let them exterminate the Jews, the Homosexuals, etc. will just erect walls around America and will be just fine.

[Sue]

LOL. I don't know if this belongs on any topic we are discussing, but I had to share.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/>Howard Dean then:

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Howard Dean this morning on FoxNews Sunday and I'm paraphrasing here until the transcript comes out:

What we need to be doing is hunting bin Laden down and killing him.

[JM Hanes]

Forence & Terrye:

Actually, I think it started with the 2000 election loss, interrupted by brief post 9/11 spasm of unity. Once he took office, Bush started upsetting the status quo (& internationalism in particular) almost immediately, rejecting Kyoto, discounting the arms treaty with Russia (the official name of which escapes me at the moment), etc.

[Thomas Morrissey]

Sue

I haven't read the report yet. If any of you have, can you tell me if it mentioned anything about Saddam waiting for sanctions to be lifted in order to reconstitute his illegal programs?

From today's C.Q,

Although Iraq no longer had a large scale BW production capability after 1996, Iraq did retain an inherent dual-use BW capability. Iraq retained technical B W know-how through scientists who were involved in the pre- 199 1 B W program, as well as civilian facilities and equipment that could be bent to a BW purpose. Iraq also retained some BW-related seed stocks until after Operation Iraqi Freedom; and conducted BW-applicable research after 1996, but the ISG judged that the research was not conducted for the purposes of a BW program.

The ISG assessed that Iraq could have re-established an “elementary” BW program within a few weeks to months, but would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. In addition, the ISG found no evidence that Iraq had plans after 1996 for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. The ISG found undeclared covert laboratories used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service for research in BW agents until the mid-l990s. While uncertain of the laboratories’ purpose, the ISG noted that the work probably included development of poisons for assassination. The ISG found no “conclusive links” between these labs and a BW effort despite speculation and rumor of a possible BW role. Thus, while the Intelligence Community correctly identified many Iraqi dual-use BW capabilities, it incorrectly judged that they represented an active BW program.

Saddam had a latent program which could have been restarted after sanctions were lifted.

How any one can give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam about not wanting to re-acquire these weapons after he already used them, on his own people and Iran during the war is baffling.

He had both the scientists, and facilities,to re-start his program after his bought off allies like Russia and France got sanctions lifted, anyone who doubts he would not have re-stared them soon after is naive to the point of dementia.

Apparently, they decide to ask Saddam,and decided to take him at his word.

I think they watched the first few frames of "Fahrenheit 911" with him and concluded his Iraq was a collection of peace loving kite enthusiasts.

[JM Hanes]

Sue:

Dean ought to check in with Nancy Pelosi who just recently admitted she didn't think capturing bin Laden would make much difference at this point. Meanwhile Congress just voted to fund the disbanded bin Laden unit at the CIA! It's a mad, mad world in Washington.

[Terrye]

JM:

You are probably right. The truth is the Democrats just can not handle being a minority party.

[PeterUK]

The problem is seeing the wood for the trees,Oil for Food was Saddam Hussein's weapon,it was this that gave him the capability to outsource weapons development,the mafia don't make guns, but they have them.
The Pecksniffian fixation with finding paper work which provides conclusive proof of Saddam Hussein's malfeasance,is getting deranged.No signature of Hitler authorising the Holocaust will be found on any document from the Wannsee Conference,the undertaking was so vast however,it is impossible that Hitler did not know.Since Iraq was under sanctions,forbidden to even dream of WMD,why on earth does the left believe they will then leave an incriminating paper trail?
Was the note saying "Jimmy Hoffa's gotta go",ever found?

[Thomas Morrissey]

PeterUK,

A certain "Chancery" obsesssion with process as well,over substanive action.

Like "Jarndyce and Jarndyce ", this discussion will never end.

[Pai]

Oil for Food was UN using the Iraqis when they had no other options. The UN is never for a sovereign country.

[maryrose]

Dean is a consistently bad spokesperson for the dems. Why they don't realize this is beyond me. He hails from an ultra liberal state and just doesn't understand the Midwest and Southern mindset. It will prove to be his undoing.The dems chances diminish every time they allow him to open his mouth.

[JM Hanes]

I think Dean is there to keep the nutroots happy, in hopes they won't destroy the party from within.

[clarice]

Hush yo mouf, maryrose.

[CNJ]

OT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901079.html>GOP Ad Blitz("Opposition research is Power")

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

[PeterUK]

I yield to no one in my total admiration for Howard Dean,statesman and leader of men,he has been an inspiration to peace loving egalitarians the world over.America is privileged.
How am I doing Clarice?

[PeterUK]

I yield to no one in my total admiration for Howard Dean,statesman and leader of men,he has been an inspiration to peace loving egalitarians the world over.America is privileged.
How am I doing Clarice?

[Pofarmer]

Ya know

The Dem's have really painted themselves into a corner with the whole "Bush lied" thing. I think that's part of the whole push against "Path to 9/11". They know that they've badly misframed the debate. Letting the truth come out could well knock the wheels off. You've got them coming to the same conclusions early in 2000 that Bush came up with in 2001. You've got Clinton's resolution for the ouster of Saddam. You've got a whole party that was for it before they were against it. Unbeleivable.

[Terrye]

Peter:

Yah, right sure you betcha.

[CNJ]

OT:
I recall Cheney boldly predicting Bush win
in 2004,even giving the margin as 52-47. This morning he told Russert in MTP:
"I'll even bet you a dinner that we hold both houses."

[Syl]

So it turns out Iraq wasn't an imminent threat afterall?

::rolling eyes::

Rockefeller was touting Iraq as an 'imminent' threat before the war. Bush wasn't.

I guess this report just tears down the strawman many Democrats set up.

The Democrats fight strawmen, the Republicans fight terrorists.

That about sums it up.

[lurker]

"

Ya know

The Dem's have really painted themselves into a corner with the whole "Bush lied" thing. I think that's part of the whole push against "Path to 9/11". They know that they've badly misframed the debate. Letting the truth come out could well knock the wheels off. You've got them coming to the same conclusions early in 2000 that Bush came up with in 2001. You've got Clinton's resolution for the ouster of Saddam. You've got a whole party that was for it before they were against it. Unbeleivable.:

What's worse, Profarmer, is that once they have control of either house or WH, they would be "for it".

Flip

Flop

Flip

Flop

Go ahead and toss your coin according to how your wind blows.

Clarice, thanks for letting us know that Laurie may have an article up. Do you know what she will be covering in her new article?

[Jane]

The Democrats fight strawmen, the Republicans fight terrorists.

Bumper sticker alert!

[richard mcenroe]

"Actually, I think it started with the 2000 election loss, interrupted by brief post 9/11 spasm of unity."

JM Haines -- There was NO spasm of unity. There was only a brief pause while the Democrats tried to cover their ass and figure out how to cash in on the tragedy.

[clarice]

lurker, I'm afraid I've forgotten, but she is so brilliant, I'm certain it will be well worth reading.

[clarice]

I yield to no one in my total admiration for Howard Dean,statesman and leader of men,he has been an inspiration to peace loving egalitarians the world over.America is privileged.
How am I doing Clarice?

PUK, you have missed your true calling. I placed that statement into the government- provided career counseling analyzer and it says:"The author of this statement would be best suited for the following positions:crimes of fraud and deception or politics"

[Rick Ballard]

What's the difference?

[clarice]

The analyzer can discern none though there is a notation that being rich at the start makes the second choice more feasible. It notes,hoever, that there are ample means to make that happen even if career seeker is poor and the second choice is selected.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Abu Ghraib Prisoners: "We Want the Americans to Come Back"

In Abu Ghraib

A week after American forces handed the Abu Ghraib prison over to Iraqi authorities, prisoners are screaming for the Americans to come back: Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib. (Hat tip: Dean.)

How many front page headlines will we see at the New York Times about this?

Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.

Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.

“The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better,” said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism. ...

The witness gained access to the prison just days after the Americans formally handed over control to the Iraqi authorities on Sept 1.

Inside the 100-yard long cell block the smell of excrement was overpowering. Four to six prisoners shared each of the 12ft by 15ft cells along either side and the walls were smeared with filth. The cell block was patrolled by guards who carried long batons and shouted angrily at the prisoners to stand up. Access to the part of the prison containing terrorism suspects was denied, but from that block came the sound of screaming. The screaming continued for a long time.

“I am sure someone was being beaten, they were screaming like they were being hit,” the witness reported. “I felt scared, I was asking what was happening in the terrorist section. ”I heard shouting, like someone had a hot iron on their body, screams. The officer said they were just screaming by themselves. I was hearing the screams throughout the visit.“

The witness said that even in the thieves’ section prisoners were being treated badly. ”Someone was shouting ‘Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back’," he said.

Although the idea of sticking it to the New York Times for their disgraceful coverage of Abu Graib, I find it troubling that the Iraqis are reverting to Saddam tactics with their increased power.

[clarice]

You did notice that these prisoners call their jailers"Iraqis"? That does suggest the prisoners are not, doesn't it? Were they in Fallujah for the pomegrante festival?
I'm too old to pretend these creeps have any credibility or that I care that they are being hung by their fingernails by Iraqis who are sick of getting killed and of watching the reconstruction stall because of these guys.

[Terrye]

clarice:

hear hear!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I'm not sure that I care all that much either Clarice, but for those who think the Americans are the devil incarnate and that our enemies are pure as the driven snow, this story tells a different tale.

I'm so angry today about the dems and Rockefeller and the lies they constantly spew, I can hardly keep from exploding.

If I can sit here in noplace, USA, being a middle-aged nobody and read the translated documents and see Saddam giving all kinds of instructions to obfuscate the weapon's inspector's mission and lie and lie and manipulate, how is that those on our intelligence committees can be so stupid? Self-serving traitors, all of them.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Rockefeller is the scum of the earth. He is already under investigation for leaking and he should be in shackles. His trip to Syria prewar where he made sure that Saddam knew what was coming is beyond the pale. He is an ignorant ignorant politico who cares not a whit about anything but his own sleazy bank balance.

[Sue]

Squig,

Not to worry. Just as soon as human watch groups get through at Gitmo, they will head to Iraq and see what the truth is. Priorities.

[JM Hanes]

** YO PLAMERS! THIS JUST IN **

Dana Priest "will be online to discuss 'Sept. 11: Five Years Later.'" at the WaPo, tomorrow, 12:30 pm.

You can start submitting questions anytime -- although it may take awhile to figure out how to make them sound like they're on topic.

[richard mcenroe]

PUK, you have missed your true calling. I placed that statement into the government- provided career counseling analyzer and it says:"The author of this statement would be best suited for the following positions:crimes of fraud and deception or politics" --Clarice.

What's the difference? -- Rick Ballard

Scale, people, only scale.

[Sue]

Druge is reporting that The Path to 9/11 has already been shown in New Zealand with minor edits to the controversial scenes.

[topsecretk9]

--You can start submitting questions anytime -- although it may take awhile to figure out how to make them sound like they're on topic.--

JMH

You always make me laugh.

[JM Hanes]

Sara:

Assuming anybody is actually still paying attention, I can write the script right now: The administration turned Abu Ghraib over to the Iraqi's because the Dem's had made us quit torturing prisoners ourselves. Bush/Rumsfeld/Gonzales will be accused of giving approval and encouragement, rather than putting a stop to it.

Frankly, I'd have said we had an interest in seeing Abu Ghraib turned into either a model prison, or a memorial to Saddam's victims. Allowing it to revert into Depravity Central is the kind of continuity nobody needs.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Hewitt has a reaction that was posted on Free Republic by someone from Australia who has seen it. Lovely comment thread, too. (scroll down)

[lurker]

Oh, I read today's Parade and it included a list of books now banned in the school libraries and some libraries, which include:

Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
All Harry Potter books
To Kill a Mockingbird
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Catcher in the Rye
Garfield" His Nine Lives
The Handmaid's Tale
Little Red Riding Hood
The Adventures of Captain Underpants

Weren't alot of books...burned by the Nazis prior to WWII?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I wonder if it ran in the unedited version in Australia? The quote about any men in Washington or only cowards was in one of the clips Red State has up what I thought was one edited out.

[lurker]

Flopping Aces - check one democrat comment about banned books.

And there will be a 25th Annual Banned Book Week, sponsored by ALA.

Guess somebody needs to write ALA lots of letters about why the above books were to be banned.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

The dictionary is a banned book? No wonder we are raising generations of illiterates.

Anne Frank, To Kill a Mockingbird and Huck Finn were all required reading in my high school literature class. How times have changed. Yikes! I don't remember when I first was introduced to Catcher in the Rye, but probably sometime in high school as well. The rest are after my school days I think, although I don't know about Captain Underpants, that's a new one to me.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Correction -- Little Red Riding Hood was long put aside as reading material before I even started kindergarden.

[sbw]

"To Kill a Mockingbird" stands at the top of my list of American novels because, once read, for the rest of your life it cannot be recalled without exercising your character.

It speaks to how you decide what to do. Funny. It applies to all JOM reports.