• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pentagon finds no link between Iraq and alCIAda

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Gee, the brilliancy of reading a thread and then adding two posts together to make a point :roll:

Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.

For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.
No, this isn't about your lame ad hom remark about the Weekly Standard. It's about you failing to refute a single point in that article. I really don't care what YOUR opinion of the WS is and trying to wave the content of the article away with a derisive flick of your hand is pitiful and weak, and you know it.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Gee, the brilliancy of reading a thread and then adding two posts together to make a point :roll:

Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.

For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.
No, this isn't about your lame ad hom remark about the Weekly Standard. It's about you failing to refute a single point in that article. I really don't care what YOUR opinion of the WS is and trying to wave the content of the article away with a derisive flick of your hand is pitiful and weak, and you know it.
You have failed to discuss the topic at hand. Please move on.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Gee, the brilliancy of reading a thread and then adding two posts together to make a point :roll:

Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.

For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.
No, this isn't about your lame ad hom remark about the Weekly Standard. It's about you failing to refute a single point in that article. I really don't care what YOUR opinion of the WS is and trying to wave the content of the article away with a derisive flick of your hand is pitiful and weak, and you know it.
You have failed to discuss the topic at hand. Please move on.
Still can't refute the content of the article, I see.

Well that's no surprise.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Gee, the brilliancy of reading a thread and then adding two posts together to make a point :roll:

Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.

For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.
No, this isn't about your lame ad hom remark about the Weekly Standard. It's about you failing to refute a single point in that article. I really don't care what YOUR opinion of the WS is and trying to wave the content of the article away with a derisive flick of your hand is pitiful and weak, and you know it.
You have failed to discuss the topic at hand. Please move on.
Still can't refute the content of the article, I see.

Well that's no surprise.
The argument is in my first post to you in which you refuse to prove otherwise. Either get with it or drop it.

Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.

For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Yeah, I'm sure William Kristol has no agenda. :roll:
Everyone has an agenda. You do too.
My agenda for today was to point out that the Weekly Standard is nothing more than neo-conservative propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American conservative[1] opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Yeah, I'm sure William Kristol has no agenda. :roll:
Everyone has an agenda. You do too.
My agenda for today was to point out that the Weekly Standard is nothing more than neo-conservative propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American conservative[1] opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997.
Which proves nothing in regard to the content of the article.

Was the article wrong? If so, where. If bias and agenda exists surely it should be simple for you to point out where it resides.

Otherwis you're using an ad hom argument just as PC Surgeon is as a tactic to dismiss facts that you don't want to address or admit.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Yeah, I'm sure William Kristol has no agenda. :roll:
Everyone has an agenda. You do too.
My agenda for today was to point out that the Weekly Standard is nothing more than neo-conservative propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American conservative[1] opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997.
What does that prove? :roll:

Just because The Weekly Standard is directly involved with the Bush administration proves no bias at all.

Of course the above is sarcasm intended to show the naiveness of some Bush apologists. There are a number of analogies one could throw out to prove the point being shown here.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Yeah, I'm sure William Kristol has no agenda. :roll:
Everyone has an agenda. You do too.
My agenda for today was to point out that the Weekly Standard is nothing more than neo-conservative propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American conservative[1] opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997.
What does that prove? :roll:

Just because The Weekly Standard is directly involved with the Bush administration proves no bias at all.

Of course the above is sarcasm intended to show the naiveness of some Bush apologists. There are a number of analogies one could throw out to prove the point being shown here.
Still can't argue the content of the article, eh? I guess that's what can be expected of the BDS crew members in here.

(Hey, if you want to tag people as apologists then BDSer is a label you most definitely deserve. That blade cuts both ways.)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
I'll refer you to my earlier post (in this thread) on this topic.

The one about how "np operation links" went directly to "no links'.

Much of what is in the Weekly Standard article was mentioned in the McClatchy article. So, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand the WS article.

Yes, we all know that the Weekly Standard is a right -leaning publication, but it's a professional one and as such should be attacked on a factual basis (e.g., the "facts" it details within the article), and an analytical one as to the conclusions that are, or not, drawn in the article.

For example:

Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.
If this were indeed told the court, it quite likely can be verified or refuted by checking against court records available from the case.

(I also note this is of some interest to me as we recently had a thread about some BBC article (IIRC) wherein some ATer's held it proved AQ did not exist before the invasion of Iraq.)

When I compare the McClatchy and this article, I'm begining to think Saddam had more of a link to AQ (and related terorist groups) than I had previously thought. I assume we shall see much more about about this Pentagon report. It may well be very interesting, both for the facts and info uncovered by searching through 600,000 documents and the spin that's sure to accompany it's release to the public.

I'm not suggesting that this validates the "war". In hindsight almost everyone agrees another course of action would have been better. But the MSM's rush to deny/dismiss such links, that otherwise appear true, is illustrative of the poor state of journalism today.

Edit: I'm also reminded of the recent NIE report and the rather facile conclusion that Iran is not seeking nuke weapons because they claim not to be. No matter the fact that they are proceeding as if they do intend to.

Fern
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: Fern
I'll refer you to my earlier post (in this thread) on this topic.

The one about how "np operation links" went directly to "no links'.

Much of what is in the Weekly Standard article was mentioned in the McClatchy article. So, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand the WS article.

Yes, we all know that the Weekly Standard is a right -leaning publication, but it's a professional one and as such should be attacked on a factual basis (e.g., the "facts" it details within the article), and an analytical one as to the conclusions that are, or not, drawn in the article.

For example:

Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.
If this were indeed told the court, it quite likely can be verified or refuted by checking against court records available from the case.

(I also note this is of some interest to me as we recently had a thread about some BBC article (IIRC) wherein some ATer's held it proved AQ did not exist before the invasion of Iraq.)

When I compare the McClatchy and this article, I'm begining to think Saddam had more of a link to AQ (and related terorist groups) than I had previously thought. I assume we shall see much more about about this Pentagon report. It may well be very interesting, both for the facts and info uncovered by searching through 600,000 documents and the spin that's sure to accompany it's release to the public.

I'm not suggesting that this validates the "war". In hindsight almost everyone agrees another course of action would have been better. But the MSM's rush to deny/dismiss such links, that otherwise appear true, is illustrative of the poor state of journalism today.

Edit: I'm also reminded of the recent NIE report and the rather facile conclusion that Iran is not seeking nuke weapons because they claim not to be. No matter the fact that they are proceeding as if they do intend to.

Fern
It was a video by the BBC "The Power of Nightmares" thread.

There is some level of truth to this propoganda. Just like there was some level of truth to Al Qaeda's caves. Yes there were caves, but their significance was greatly overplayed and trumped up just like this information here is. Even if the documents were completely and honestly correct in every facet, who would ever believe this administration after all it has put the American citizen through? I still see it as a *BIG* if, ask the administration about "yellow cake". A fabricated mess it has become, a "cry wolf" story if you will.

As for The Weekly Standard, there is no way anyone can take their words with more than a grain of salt when it involves this administrations objectives. Pure propaganda machine. I advise you to look at the members of PNAC (Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney), the owner of The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdock, also owns Fox which is enough in its own right) and who is the editor of The Weekly Standard (William "Bill" Kristol). Its easy to see the connection of like minded interest with these things in mind.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Fern
I'll refer you to my earlier post (in this thread) on this topic.

The one about how "np operation links" went directly to "no links'.

Much of what is in the Weekly Standard article was mentioned in the McClatchy article. So, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand the WS article.

Yes, we all know that the Weekly Standard is a right -leaning publication, but it's a professional one and as such should be attacked on a factual basis (e.g., the "facts" it details within the article), and an analytical one as to the conclusions that are, or not, drawn in the article.

For example:

Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.
If this were indeed told the court, it quite likely can be verified or refuted by checking against court records available from the case.

(I also note this is of some interest to me as we recently had a thread about some BBC article (IIRC) wherein some ATer's held it proved AQ did not exist before the invasion of Iraq.)

When I compare the McClatchy and this article, I'm begining to think Saddam had more of a link to AQ (and related terorist groups) than I had previously thought. I assume we shall see much more about about this Pentagon report. It may well be very interesting, both for the facts and info uncovered by searching through 600,000 documents and the spin that's sure to accompany it's release to the public.

I'm not suggesting that this validates the "war". In hindsight almost everyone agrees another course of action would have been better. But the MSM's rush to deny/dismiss such links, that otherwise appear true, is illustrative of the poor state of journalism today.

Edit: I'm also reminded of the recent NIE report and the rather facile conclusion that Iran is not seeking nuke weapons because they claim not to be. No matter the fact that they are proceeding as if they do intend to.

Fern
It was a video by the BBC "The Power of Nightmares" thread.

There is some level of truth to this propoganda. Just like there was some level of truth to Al Qaeda's caves. Yes there were caves, but their significance was greatly overplayed and trumped up just like this information here is. Even if the documents were completely and honestly correct in every facet, who would ever believe this administration after all it has put the American citizen through? I still see it as a *BIG* if, ask the administration about "yellow cake". A fabricated mess it has become, a "cry wolf" story if you will.

As for The Weekly Standard, there is no way anyone can take their words with more than a grain of salt when it involves this administrations objectives. Pure propaganda machine. I advise you to look at the members of PNAC (Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney), the owner of The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdock, also owns Fox which is enough in its own right) and who is the editor of The Weekly Standard (William "Bill" Kristol). Its easy to see the connection of like minded interest with these things in mind.
So you're more than willing to take "some truth" as the truth when it suits your own agenda but dismiss it completely when some truth doesn't suit that same agenda?

Seems hypocritical to me.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So you're more than willing to take "some truth" as the truth when it suits your own agenda but dismiss it completely when some truth doesn't suit that same agenda?

Seems hypocritical to me.
Nope, just critical of the propaganda machine that you seem to love.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So you're more than willing to take "some truth" as the truth when it suits your own agenda but dismiss it completely when some truth doesn't suit that same agenda?

Seems hypocritical to me.
Nope, just critical of the propaganda machine that you seem to love.
You're a propaganda machine and I don't love you.

Sorry to break the news to you, mang.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
It was a video by the BBC "The Power of Nightmares" thread.

There is some level of truth to this propoganda. Just like there was some level of truth to Al Qaeda's caves. Yes there were caves, but their significance was greatly overplayed and trumped up just like this information here is. Even if the documents were completely and honestly correct in every facet, who would ever believe this administration after all it has put the American citizen through? I still see it as a *BIG* if, ask the administration about "yellow cake". A fabricated mess it has become, a "cry wolf" story if you will.

As for The Weekly Standard, there is no way anyone can take their words with more than a grain of salt when it involves this administrations objectives. Pure propaganda machine. I advise you to look at the members of PNAC (Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney), the owner of The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdock, also owns Fox which is enough in its own right) and who is the editor of The Weekly Standard (William "Bill" Kristol). Its easy to see the connection of like minded interest with these things in mind.
I have nothing against "taking it with a grain" approach. I think given the present state of journalism we'd all be well advised to do that, no matter the source. But to dismiss it out-of-hand is another matter, and quickly devolves into "cherry picking" news soley on the basis similar ideology.

NO, NOT THE CAVES AGAIN! Aaarrg :D

Fern
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
It was a video by the BBC "The Power of Nightmares" thread.

There is some level of truth to this propoganda. Just like there was some level of truth to Al Qaeda's caves. Yes there were caves, but their significance was greatly overplayed and trumped up just like this information here is. Even if the documents were completely and honestly correct in every facet, who would ever believe this administration after all it has put the American citizen through? I still see it as a *BIG* if, ask the administration about "yellow cake". A fabricated mess it has become, a "cry wolf" story if you will.

As for The Weekly Standard, there is no way anyone can take their words with more than a grain of salt when it involves this administrations objectives. Pure propaganda machine. I advise you to look at the members of PNAC (Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney), the owner of The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdock, also owns Fox which is enough in its own right) and who is the editor of The Weekly Standard (William "Bill" Kristol). Its easy to see the connection of like minded interest with these things in mind.
I have nothing against "taking it with a grain" approach. I think given the present state of journalism we'd all be well advised to do that, no matter the source. But to dismiss it out-of-hand is another matter, and quickly devolves into "cherry picking" news soley on the basis similar ideology.

NO, NOT THE CAVES AGAIN! Aaarrg :D

Fern
LOL

:thumbsup:

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,697
21,869
136
Originally posted by: Fern
I'll refer you to my earlier post (in this thread) on this topic.

The one about how "np operation links" went directly to "no links'.

Much of what is in the Weekly Standard article was mentioned in the McClatchy article. So, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand the WS article.

Yes, we all know that the Weekly Standard is a right -leaning publication, but it's a professional one and as such should be attacked on a factual basis (e.g., the "facts" it details within the article), and an analytical one as to the conclusions that are, or not, drawn in the article.

For example:

Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.
If this were indeed told the court, it quite likely can be verified or refuted by checking against court records available from the case.

(I also note this is of some interest to me as we recently had a thread about some BBC article (IIRC) wherein some ATer's held it proved AQ did not exist before the invasion of Iraq.)

When I compare the McClatchy and this article, I'm begining to think Saddam had more of a link to AQ (and related terorist groups) than I had previously thought. I assume we shall see much more about about this Pentagon report. It may well be very interesting, both for the facts and info uncovered by searching through 600,000 documents and the spin that's sure to accompany it's release to the public.

I'm not suggesting that this validates the "war". In hindsight almost everyone agrees another course of action would have been better. But the MSM's rush to deny/dismiss such links, that otherwise appear true, is illustrative of the poor state of journalism today.

Edit: I'm also reminded of the recent NIE report and the rather facile conclusion that Iran is not seeking nuke weapons because they claim not to be. No matter the fact that they are proceeding as if they do intend to.

Fern
Does that article say anywhere that the Iraqi was a representative of Iraq's government? I saw no mention of that.

The WS article mentions some uncited and uncontextualized passages from documents in the midst of their 3,000th pro war editorial. The problem is that they do this all the time. Why is it that every time they make claims that we have to go do legwork to hunt down whatever BS they've spouted out? Their reputation on Iraq is so bad at this point that I can't see why it's still necessary. Not just among left wing people, but period. I mean they have been so catastrophically and self servingly wrong so many times... it's a matter of public record. (just go back and search their archives for all of their declarations of victory from 2004-2006)

Any editorial taken from the Weekly Standard on the issue of Iraq to me has about as much validity as an editorial from dailykos. Neither one should be used as a serious argument.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Yeah, I'm sure William Kristol has no agenda. :roll:
Everyone has an agenda. You do too.
My agenda for today was to point out that the Weekly Standard is nothing more than neo-conservative propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American conservative[1] opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997.
What does that prove? :roll:

Just because The Weekly Standard is directly involved with the Bush administration proves no bias at all.

Of course the above is sarcasm intended to show the naiveness of some Bush apologists. There are a number of analogies one could throw out to prove the point being shown here.
The content of the article is based upon document reviews, including the aforementioned Pentagon summary report of captured Iraqi documents. Regardless of the bias of The Weekly Standard (and EVERY SINGLE NEWS ORGANIZATION IS BIASED), the facts contained in the document reviews, from captured Iraqi documents (just emphasizing that point), are just that -- facts. You can ignore the spin put on those facts contained within The Weekly Standard article, and that's perfectly acceptable.

However, the fact that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had connections to groups with ties to Al Qaida is significant -- unless you consider that statement to be spin, as well (though the Iraqis themselves admit it through their documents). The most important aspect of the article I posted was not the commentary (I bolded that one section, which is commentary, for a short version of the entire article) but the various documents cited within.

If you care to address those Iraqi documents, please do. If not, please acknowledge that you consider those documents irrelevant to the discussion predicated upon another review of Iraqi documents. I'd enjoy seeing that assertion.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Yeah, I'm sure William Kristol has no agenda. :roll:
Everyone has an agenda. You do too.
My agenda for today was to point out that the Weekly Standard is nothing more than neo-conservative propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American conservative[1] opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997.
What does that prove? :roll:

Just because The Weekly Standard is directly involved with the Bush administration proves no bias at all.

Of course the above is sarcasm intended to show the naiveness of some Bush apologists. There are a number of analogies one could throw out to prove the point being shown here.
The content of the article is based upon document reviews, including the aforementioned Pentagon summary report of captured Iraqi documents. Regardless of the bias of The Weekly Standard (and EVERY SINGLE NEWS ORGANIZATION IS BIASED), the facts contained in the document reviews, from captured Iraqi documents (just emphasizing that point), are just that -- facts. You can ignore the spin put on those facts contained within The Weekly Standard article, and that's perfectly acceptable.

However, the fact that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had connections to groups with ties to Al Qaida is significant -- unless you consider that statement to be spin, as well (though the Iraqis themselves admit it through their documents). The most important aspect of the article I posted was not the commentary (I bolded that one section, which is commentary, for a short version of the entire article) but the various documents cited within.

If you care to address those Iraqi documents, please do. If not, please acknowledge that you consider those documents irrelevant to the discussion predicated upon another review of Iraqi documents. I'd enjoy seeing that assertion.
Seems like you need to study about Team B. Get back to me when you do, you may understand a bit better.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,697
21,869
136
Originally posted by: AndrewR

The content of the article is based upon document reviews, including the aforementioned Pentagon summary report of captured Iraqi documents. Regardless of the bias of The Weekly Standard (and EVERY SINGLE NEWS ORGANIZATION IS BIASED), the facts contained in the document reviews, from captured Iraqi documents (just emphasizing that point), are just that -- facts. You can ignore the spin put on those facts contained within The Weekly Standard article, and that's perfectly acceptable.

However, the fact that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had connections to groups with ties to Al Qaida is significant -- unless you consider that statement to be spin, as well (though the Iraqis themselves admit it through their documents). The most important aspect of the article I posted was not the commentary (I bolded that one section, which is commentary, for a short version of the entire article) but the various documents cited within.

If you care to address those Iraqi documents, please do. If not, please acknowledge that you consider those documents irrelevant to the discussion predicated upon another review of Iraqi documents. I'd enjoy seeing that assertion.
That's a dishonest argument. Saying that every news organization is biased is probably true (to a very small extent), but almost no news organization is as publicly or as egregiously biased as the Weekly Standard is. That's like saying "sure PRAVDA is biased, but so is ALL media!". And no, I don't consider that to be a comparison that is that far off.

As I said before, what he is saying in that article is all fine and good, but they are unsourced quotes removed from context. So much of that article is obviously propaganda that it's impossible to take the rest of it seriously. Read the weekly standard's mighty 'proof'. It's not even of the form that is disprovable because it barely even says anything. Their government had vague plans they never followed through on, they issued bad passports (OH MY GOD), they had discussions with anti-US groups (gee, I wonder why... nobody would ever have guessed that). Despite all that, there was no 'smoking gun' because Iraq never took action on these things.

This is (yet another) attempt by the weekly standard to throw up a whole bunch of bad sounding things that had no identifiable real world impact or any sort of explicit connection to the claims that our administration made before the war in the pathetic hope that people will make that jump themselves just because. It's another vain attempt to cheerlead for the Iraq war.

There are reasons for invading Iraq that are fairly valid, the mythological connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq is not one of them. There are publications that support the invasion of Iraq that have credibility, the weekly standard is not one of them at this point.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY