Comments on: Report on Saddam’s Iraq Censored?

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:43:07 +0000

PAThmv Sorry, that was Olberman, not Colbert (I was watching a Colbert cip at the time I wrote that). simple mistake there. He said what he said about bulletproof evidence. Fact is, there was none. He lied.

Rumsfeld’s statement was made in 2002, not 2003.

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:06:44 +0000

Jay_C, you might want to actually read even just the basic headline before commenting. Leaving aside the issue of what Rumsfeld meant by "cooperation," and the fact that that can mean something completely different from direct operational ties this report is talking about, notice that it says no connection between Al Qaeda and "Saddam Hussein." Saddam hasn’t been in power in Iraq since 2003. The report does not in any way, shape, or form contradict the statements by President Bush and Senator McCain that al Qaeda is in Iraq TODAY.

But hey, by all means continue to rely on a comedy show to get your news.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:55:19 +0000

On the colbert report today. What this report means:

It means:

• In 2002 Rumsfeld was lying that when he said he had “bulletproof evidence” of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq.
• Last July, Bush lied when he said “the same people that attacked us on 9/11 is a crowd that is now bombing people in Iraq”, he was lying.
• When McCain said to Obama “I have news, ”AlQaeda is in Iraq” without adding “OI know because my political party put them there” He was lying

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:46:25 +0000

Of course a lot of us never thought that the action taken WAS because of contact between the two parties, at least not exclusively for that reason. There was also the fact that Saddam wasn’t keeping to the terms of the cease fire, that he needed to be contained and the sanctions oil for food scheme was falling apart.

The rhetoric to me about connections between Saddam and al Qaeda wasn’t very convincing about an existing relationship, but Bush in particular always seemed to be framing the argument about future potential. And even as we later learned of the absence of stockpiles of WMD, it still stands that Saddam had program capabilities and knowledge that could have been sold to al Qaeda or other enemies of the US, and he wouldn’t have had any compunction about doing so (particularly if his lucrative oil sales were no longer available to him, if we were to have pushed for modification of the oil for food program.)

These are the reasons I’m still not convinced that the invasion was the wrong thing to do, though I wonder if there were other better options, I wonder if the timing could have been better, and certainly can see that the planning should have been better.

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:28:17 +0000

Jay C- I agree. We never would have taken action based on casual contact between the two parties.

I saw an old tape of Rummy the other day, where he swore that Saddam and al queda were tied in together. He offered no caveats, appearing to be absolutely certain of what he was saying to Americans.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:38:32 +0000

Maybe not anything new, but I maintain the Administration is performing their typical:

holdback info that does not support us, and push..push..push.. the info that does support us. Even the flimsy evidence in support of us… treat that as solid fact as well, so that our short term goals are met, and we won’t admit error when the Media fallout comes, it will just fall to the wayside eventually, then just ignore it and move on to the next agenda item.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:26:16 +0000

The point is, most will read this as Michael, kritter and I did. "The report claims that Saddam Hussein didn’t work together with Osama Bin Laden, this while American leaders such as Colin Powell, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, said the opposite in their case for war (again Iraq)."

And to add insult to their own injury, they are making the report more difficult to obtain (not posting on the web). (Plus they are wasting resources…Sending out CD’s? I don’t want my tax money paying for CD’s when the news can even more easily be posted on the web. If this were news in their favor, it would be plastered all over the Whitehouse, pentagon, and D.O.D. websites.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:25:55 +0000

That’s what I don’t get- this doesn’t sound like anything we didn’t already know. Those who oppose Bush will say that this is one more piece of evidence that he lied, while others will say that it doesn’t prove that at all. Since there have been multiple other reports that said the same thing, why hide this one? They seem to be only stirring up more suspicions about a report that sounds like all recycled information anyway- I don’t get it.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:12:05 +0000

Seems the report entirely hinges on the word "operational". The report, from what little bit has come out thus far, does not say that Hussein and al Qaeda had no contact whatsoever, but that they’re weren’t working hand-in-hand.

In other words, it’s almost exactly what the 9/11 Commission already said once and what we’ve all known since before we knocked down the brutal tyrant in Baghdad.

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:34:46 +0000

In my opinion as well. That seems to be the signature of the Bush administration- bury any information that doesn’t support and positively affirm their policies. I’m thinking that historians will criticize their trend to hide all bad news from the public, in the hopes that everyone is just a little too busy to notice.