Oscar Jr. Was Here

It's up at Rantburg. Drudge may have crashed the Standard's server.

It was some weeks ago that I came across an entry at some weblog mentioning a Weekly Standard piece that argued a connection between Hussein & the Iraqi government and bin Laden & al-Qaeda. I had thought of a possible response that I could have posted at that entry, but I do not recall at what blog that entry is at.

But since this entry is also about this topic - re: the Weekly Standard and the allegations of Saddam/Osama 'links' - I can post those thoughts here.

Out of many publications, the Weekly Standard has hardly any legs to stand on when it comes to allegations of links to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

A few weeks ago (probably after I came across that aforementioned entry at that blog), I posted a comment at several blogs regarding entries that I had just posted at my own blog. This is one version of that comment that I posted. (As you can see, that blogger re-posted it in an actual entry.) I just did a Google search, and found that your blog was one of those where I posted [a different version of] that comment [it was at this entry...].

In that comment, I point to my blog entry (it is currently the 8th one down the main page, I think) which deals with Wesley Clark, and points out connections between the general, the Clinton administration, and Osama bin Laden terrorists.

In that blog entry, I also link to a comment that I posted awhile back at one of Patrick Ruffini's blog entries. In that comment, I asserted that out of many regimes and countries (including some that we are allied with right now), the Ba'athists of Iraq have had one of the weakest relationships with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But also, as I indicate at my blog, if you scroll down past the first 10 paragraphs of that comment, you can see evidence of how the Clinton/Gore & Albright administration indirectly worked with Osama bin Laden to finance and support Islamic terrorists (and the neoliberals and the neoconservatives, such as those at the Weekly Standard, staunchly supported these policies). There is a lot more information available on the web - and in other places - about this subject.

These policies helped bin Laden, and they could be one of the reasons why we so far have been unable to find him. Check out the comment that I posted at this entry of Sgt. Hook's from a few weeks ago. That is one idea about where Osama bin Laden may be hiding out right now - I think that that may be one major 'blind spot' in our War on Terrorism.

Aakash:

First, I apologize for not responding to your earlier comment. I missed it.

That said, why does it matter which news source published the contents of the memo? Even if the Weekly Standard was not credible, and I debate that, it's the content of the memo that counts.

As regards the Clark-Clinton-Osama theory, I find it insubstantial.

Finally, as to bin Laden being in Kosovo or Chechnya, it's certainly possible. I think he's dead, though.

So does this mean the case isn't closed?

Please, say it ain't so Weekly Standard.

Instaquack and the other gullibles, *cough* Oscar Jr. *cough*, who swallowed the Weekly Standard article which didn't even bother to release the actual memo... even though it was purportedly coming from Feith...

Altogether now:

HACKS!

Adam:

How does pointing out that Hayes agrees with the Clinton Justice Department qualify me as a "hack"?

Were Janet Reno's employees lying to us?

Reno lied, Uday died?

The DoD has disowned the Feith memo, Oscar.

Give it up. Your side screwed up bigtime.

"[D]isowned" is disingenuous. You might re-read the press release.

Has the DoD disowned the indictment filed by the Clinton Justice Department?

And this "[y]our side" stuff is ridiculous. Are you still in high school?

Oscar, I already answered your Reno article. Yes, they were wrong too. Does that make you feel better?

As to whether the DoD statement disowns the WS article... yes it does:

DoD statement proves the WS article is full of shit. Hayes said the case was "closed" and cited this leaked memo as proof. Winger bloggers/commenters were nearly besides themselves with glee. Fact is, this is just another case of stovepiped intelligence, read Sy Hersh article, that the Wingers bought hook line and sinker. Instapundit was lamenting the fact that the SCLM hadn't caught this connection. DoD says it is just an index of supportive raw intelligence with no substantive analysis or conclusions.

Well the case certainly isn't closed. It is just another example of the Right grabbing onto any piece of raw intelligence that on the surface seems to help them idealogically. The DoD statement specifically refutes that the memo provides a "case closed" conclusion. Hayes just saw a bunch of raw intelligence and did his best administration pre-war skewing of intelligence results. That is all.

I think I have a new name for these pro-war idiots: neocon stovepipers. What do you think?

Occam must be rolling over in his grave. The Clinton administration asserts that al Qaeda collaborated with Saddam. The Bush administration asserts that al Qaeda collaborated with Saddam. The DoD publishes a press release stating that, "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions." Hardly a disavowal.

I'm not persuaded to change my initial conclusion.

As to Sy "Quagmire" Hersh, you can keep him. I've read the article. And as for your neologism, it won't travel well.

Oscar Jr. for your own integrity... will you at least admit that the DoD statement rebuts the WS article and it's premise? That the connection between Saddam and al Quaeda is proven because of this memo? Surely, you have the honesty to admit this? No?

For the sake of posterity, here is the DoD press release:

DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

Adam, please don't feel the need to worry over my integrity. I shall do so. That said, I don't see how the DoD press release "rebuts" anything.

The memo disavows "confirming new information." I agree that the quoted portions of the memo in the Weekly Standard article do not confirm new information. The press release, however, does not disavow old information, nor does it disavow conclusions reached by the previous administration.

I've found evidence that the Clinton administration believed al Qaeda and Iraq collaborated. The Bush administration has asserted the same. Hayes cites a memo alleging this, too. Your assertion that all of these parties are wrong is based on what?

For now, I stand by the conclusions reached by two opposing administrations. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. If not, will you?

So you can't bring yourself to admit that the WS article was full of shit. The memo didn't close the case as it had asserted. And you are incapable of honesty in the glaring face of the facts.

Adam,

If we were having this discussion over coffee or a beer, would you call me a "hack", say that my "side screwed up bigtime," and question my integrity and honesty? Can you not admit that people of good faith, and honestly arrived-at political convictions, might view things in different lights while being completely honest with each other?

To answer your questions, I don't believe that there are facts in evidence that the Weekly Standard article is "full of shit" (and please consider the fact that my family reads this site). The DoD memorandum does not say that the information in the "classified annex" which Hayes interprets is incorrect.

The memo was not intended to close any case. Hayes stated that the memo closed the case as far as he and presumably the Weekly Standard were concerned.

As for your last sentence, all that this proves is that the "face of the facts" is blurry to some of us. The Clinton administration looked at the facts and found something with which you disagree. The Bush administration did the same, as did Hayes, and as did I. Some of these parties may be dishonest. I guess you'd say that all of them are. I resent that implication, and not only toward me.

Seems a pretty clear disavowal to me ...

"News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."

The DOD denies confirming the truth of some report that landed across its desk. If this shit were true, especially considering how important it is to Bush's fading case for war, don't you think they would have confirmed it??

Hell, even I'll get in on this ...

Yeah, Reno probably DID lie ( = sex up scant evidence) to get support for bombing the poo out of Baghdad by linking bin Laden and Iraq. Note that the time table on this was November, 1998, approx the same time as Clinton's investigations by Starr were at their peak.

And I submit that if there were REAL evidence of an Iraq/al Qaeda link, it would have come up by now.

AND ... I FURTHER submit that I can more easily find you REAL bona fide links between the US (specifically, Reagan, GHW Bush) and al Qaeda

... and between the US (specifically, Reagan, Rumsfeld) and Iraq.

Nads,

It seems like a great disavowal if you only quote the most general statement in the press release. Please tell me what you think it disavows.

If you think that the Clinton administration lied, that the Bush admininstration lied, that the Weekly Standard lied, and that I perpetuated all of these lies from disparate parties, there's not much that I can say. One of us is clearly wrong in that case.

Pondering the alleged Reagan-Bush-al Qaeda links, or the alleged Reagan-Rumsfeld-Iraq links, I reluctantly conclude that we live in different worlds.

1998 was a terrible year for the Clinton administration. Those of use who are conservatives or Republicans (as well as many others) supported the impeachment of Slick Willie because he was a liar, and his administration was corrupt. There were some people - conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and others - who wanted to add the Clinton/Albright bombings to the impeachment charges...

Remember Clinton's fly-by-night bombing of the medicine factory in Sudan in fall of that year? (That was just a couple of days after he made that infamous 'apology' speech, in which he admitted his relationship with Monica.) After Clinton took us to war with Iraq in December, the Washington Times suggested that the Republicans should add that to the impeachment charges.

Wag the Dog!!

As I have stated several before, the Clinton administration was known for using deceit, deception, and misleading or questionable 'facts' in order to justify bureaucratic spending and federal government expansion - domestically and abroad. Those of us who are conservatives and Republicans (along with some liberals, libertarians, Libertarians (big-"L"), and even some Democrats) opposed the policies and positions of the Clinton/Gore administration, and we urged that the liar be removed from office.

And, as I pointed out in the blog entry and the comment post that I mentioned in my comment above, there is evidence that the Clinton/Gore/Albright administration, and Gen. Wesley Clark, indirectly worked with Osama bin Laden to support militant Muslim terrorists. While I'm not alleging this, it is possible that the Clinton administration had a stronger relationship with al-Qaeda and bin Laden than the Hussein administration did.

Re: Clinton:

Oscar, you have probably never seen my website with 'The Clinton Calendar' - This document was originally published by Rising Tide, a publication of the Republican National Committee. This is one of the best documents that I have ever come across; it is really neat. I took that Calendar, modified it some, added my own web links within the text, and published it on the web. Check it out:

The Clinton Calendar
(1993-1997 ~ Covering the administration's first term)

Sorry, I don't think that the RNC published one for the second term. Keep in mind that my version of the calendar is modified some from theirs, and theirs did not have embedded hyperlinks within the text; I added those myself.

I hope you like it.

But, to conclude my earlier comment:

Liberals and Democrats are experts at using falsehoods and questionable claims in order to garner support for state-sponsored intervention and the massive spending of federal taxpayer dollars, and the expansion of the 'welfare-warfare' Leviathan state. This is a hallmark of the leftist and Democratic agenda - they will do all that they can to justify liberal spending and state action.

Sometimes Republicans do it too.

oscar ... we may be living in different worlds, but mine is planet Earth ... what the fuck??? you canNOT possibly be so dense and ignorant in MidEast politics to be unaware of the FACT that we (the US) supported, financed, trained Hussein's rise to power, while simultaneously deciding to overlook his human rights' record.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

I'll let you ponder this earth-shattering revelation for a while ... if it still makes your head hurt, I'll drop the same info on how we supported the rise of al Qaeda in Afghanistan to combat the Russians ... again, overlooking some of their less applaudable activities.

And just for kicks: you DO know that Ollie North was a profiteering arms dealer???

Nads knows how to change the subject.

Anyone impressed should applaud Nads.

For what it's worth, I'm not impressed.

Nads, while we're writing of ignorance, did Hussein "rise to power" in the 1980s? Was al Qaeda formed before the Soviets left Afghanistan? If you really want to make my head hurt, please continue to provide evidence of your ignorance of history here.

Aakash:

I agree with much of what you write about the Clinton administration. To concede that the December 1998 bombing of Iraq may have had political motives is not to concede that there were no legitimate motives, though.

And I am greatly skeptical of the thought that Mary Jo White would include false information in a filing before a court of law for political motives.

The Clinton Calendar that you link is an impressive document. I hope that's never done to me...

Again, regarding the Clinton/Gore/Albright/Clark/al Qaeda theory, I still find it insubstantial. The idea that the Kosovo war may have helped al Qaeda neither implies intent nor a relationship.

As to the "'welfare-warfare' Leviathan state," this notion strikes me as silly. I'll be happy to see government spending decline, but not at the cost of timidity in a war that's been declared against us all.

Fine ... back to subject at hand:

1) Memo purporting to be "facts" of Iraq/al Qaeda link comes to light at the time when the war effort seems to be going badly and US public support is dwindling as the lies this whole escapade was built upon start to crumble

2) Memo leaked to The Weekly Standard, a partisan hack of a publication, owned by Rupert Murdoch

3) Memo is touted as "hard proof" by Fox News talking heads all day Saturday ... Fox News also owned by Rupert Murdoch

4) DOD releases statement saying that they do NOT support the memo as true, and that it is at best preliminary info.

5) Partisan hacks throughout media and blogistan continue to run with the original memo as if it were God-given truth, choosing to ignore or pretend ignorance regarding the DOD rebuttal.

Oscar ... even when speaking of the subject at hand, you're continuing to obfuscate ... your side fucked up ... just like it did with EVERY WMD CLAIM that's come up so far (like those clean trailers!!!).

Yet another alleged justification for an illegit war that is again revealed to be a lie.

Does it bother you to be a front for these liars???

1) Memo purporting to be "facts" of Iraq/al Qaeda link comes to light at the time when the war effort seems to be going badly and US public support is dwindling as the lies this whole escapade was built upon start to crumble

It is interesting to me, and telling, that almost nobody is disputing said facts.

As to timing, the Weekly Standard article indicates that the memo was written in response to a recent request by the Intelligence Committee. I suspect that it was leaked in response to the Committee's own recent leakage problem.

2) Memo leaked to The Weekly Standard, a partisan hack of a publication, owned by Rupert Murdoch

3) Memo is touted as "hard proof" by Fox News talking heads all day Saturday ... Fox News also owned by Rupert Murdoch

Why does it matter what news organizations published and discussed the memo? The contents of the memo speak for themselves.

4) DOD releases statement saying that they do NOT support the memo as true, and that it is at best preliminary info.

Again, please tell me what the DoD memo disavows. Did you read Josh Chafetz's interpretation? With what do you disagree?

5) Partisan hacks throughout media and blogistan continue to run with the original memo as if it were God-given truth, choosing to ignore or pretend ignorance regarding the DOD rebuttal.

Again, what does the DoD memo rebut? What facts in the original memo have been disavowed?

Oscar ... even when speaking of the subject at hand, you're continuing to obfuscate ... your side fucked up ... just like it did with EVERY WMD CLAIM that's come up so far (like those clean trailers!!!).

Yet another alleged justification for an illegit war that is again revealed to be a lie.

Does it bother you to be a front for these liars???

I ask you, as I asked Adam, to please keep in mind the fact that my family reads this site when choosing your words.

That said, what lies? Was the Clinton administration also telling lies about the collaboration? Clinton lied, Bush lied, the Weekly Standard lied, and I fronted all these lies? You're free to believe this, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's true.

I read through this with something like horror. At first, I wanted to add something useful and intelligent to the dialog--but I find myself thinking that it may not be possible to achieve. The "Bush lied" folks simply will not leave their position. Even if the memo does not constitute concrete evidence in and of itself, it does give credibility to the belief that Bush (and the Clinton administration as well) truly had reason to believe that there may be a connection. On top of all the other exceptionally good reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, this is quite damning.

But reading these folks who would rather attack Bush, any assumption that he acted on principle seems to be impossible to communicate.

As for the thought that the Clinton administration played at wagging the dog, I simply don't agree with that. No, I didn't vote for Clinton, nor did I like him as president, but I try to stay away from demonizing those across the fence for the most part. The US and the world community had very good reason to scrutinize Hussein and his regime--and the thought that Hussein would support terror attacks against the US is not so out in left field.

Thanks for trying to keep things sane and polite, Oscar. It's a conversation worth having, but not with people who insist that those like me are just dupes who can't do their own thinking, or, worse, liars in the name of the GOP.

All right, sorry about the language ... didn't know your family was reading.

But the position you guys are taking on this particular case is, frankly, untenable. Your arguments center around a single HIGHLY dubious memo which is under question as to its accuracy regarding its claims (can we agree on this??).

The justifications for this war have shifted sveral times within the past year, from trying to link Iraq and al Qaeda, to Saddam's purported WMDs, to Iraqi liberation. Each subsequent shift is a blatant attempt to justify this war.

So forgive me and other "Bush lies" people for pointing out that Yes, this admin DID in fact lie to start this war.

It pains me to have people like you and Zombyboy contend that Bush acted on "principle" when there is simply NO evidence to support his hunch, or what he would have LIKED to have been true.

You do NOT, as president, send soldiers to die for this kind of shaky evidence -- this does amount to LYING, worse than what Clinton ever did with Monica. 417 US soldiers dead; 9000 Iraqi civilians dead. Writing numbers like this make me swear sometimes ...

Furthermore, you and people like Zombyboy continue suggesting that there weren't adequate reasons to topple Saddam. I contend that people like the current administration are the very REASON that people like Saddam are in power in the MidEast, similar to Bush's currently friendly position with Uzbecki prez Islam Karamasov (who has been known to boil his political opponents in oil). The GOP cannot be trusted on matters of international security because of its long history of supporting autocrats and dictators. Someone competent should be in charge, and it isn't your boy king.

Thanks for the kind words, Zombyboy. You certainly have made a useful and intelligent contribution.

I can't imagine what it must be like to go through life assuming bad faith on the part of everyone with whom one disagrees. It would make me miserable, but some folks seem to find it energizing.

Regarding the "Wag the Dog" theories, you're probably correct. The timing was curious, but these words spoken at the time seem compelling to me:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

Clinton lied, Iraqis died!?

Nads:

All right, sorry about the language ... didn't know your family was reading.

Why would you assume otherwise?

But the position you guys are taking on this particular case is, frankly, untenable. Your arguments center around a single HIGHLY dubious memo which is under question as to its accuracy regarding its claims (can we agree on this??).

First, my arguments do not center on a single memorandum. Did you even read my post? Second, what facts listed in said memo are under dispute? I ask again, did you read the Josh Chafetz post linked above? Where is he wrong?

The justifications for this war have shifted sveral times within the past year, from trying to link Iraq and al Qaeda, to Saddam's purported WMDs, to Iraqi liberation. Each subsequent shift is a blatant attempt to justify this war.

Whose justifications have shifted?

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

So forgive me and other "Bush lies" people for pointing out that Yes, this admin DID in fact lie to start this war.

Again, what lie? Do you also assert that the Clinton administration lied?

It pains me to have people like you and Zombyboy contend that Bush acted on "principle" when there is simply NO evidence to support his hunch, or what he would have LIKED to have been true.

Who are "people like you and Zombyboy"? Regarding your baseless assertion about principle, can you provide a shred of evidence to the contrary?

You do NOT, as president, send soldiers to die for this kind of shaky evidence -- this does amount to LYING, worse than what Clinton ever did with Monica. 417 US soldiers dead; 9000 Iraqi civilians dead. Writing numbers like this make me swear sometimes ...

Again, I dispute the idea that this evidence was "shaky." And let's not forget those 24,683,313 freed from the boot of a murdering dictator. Typing numbers like that makes me proud to have supported this portion of the war.

Furthermore, you and people like Zombyboy continue suggesting that there weren't adequate reasons to topple Saddam. I contend that people like the current administration are the very REASON that people like Saddam are in power in the MidEast, similar to Bush's currently friendly position with Uzbecki prez Islam Karamasov (who has been known to boil his political opponents in oil). The GOP cannot be trusted on matters of international security because of its long history of supporting autocrats and dictators. Someone competent should be in charge, and it isn't your boy king.

I can't speak for "people like Zombyboy," but I contend the exact opposite of what you write. I've already addressed your mastery of history; your knowledge of diplomacy appears to be equally elevated.

The GOP cannot be trusted on matters of international security because of its long history of supporting autocrats and dictators.

In the last two years, our military, under a GOP Commander-in-Chief, has removed two autocratic dictatorships from power, the second removal of which you argue was in bad faith error. Who's supporting whom here?

So, to summarize the thread, we have on the one hand, clear evidence that the Feith memo is a crock of garbage.

On the other hand, we have an endlessly repetitive, tendentious argument to the effect that an indictment regarding actions in 1993 that happens to appear in the crock of garbage proves that everything else in the memo is true and that all the above proves that an invasion in 2003 was justified.

Strip out all the pomposity and posturing, and that's what one has.

Did Al Qaeda collaborate with Iraq in 1993? Basically, who cares? Go back a couple more years and you'll find Donald Rumsfeld collaborating with Iraq to provide chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to that nightmare regime. NONE of this is a basis to throw over the basic tenet of international law that has guided this world ever since the Nazis invaded Poland, claiming to have been attacked by the Poles, namely that invasion is not justified except in the event of imminent attack.

If there's one lesson we've learned since 1993, it's that apologists on the right simply don't care about the truth. They will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER admit they're wrong.

Don't ask for respect when what you're doing is just plain contemptible, Oscar.

Oops (is that you, Adam?):

So, to summarize the thread, we have on the one hand, clear evidence that the Feith memo is a crock of garbage.

Here's my summary: The Clinton administration said Iraq possessed WMD, collaborated with al Qaeda, and was a sufficient threat to justify 70 hours of bombing. The Bush administration said Iraq possessed WMD, collaborated with al Qaeda, and was a sufficient threat to justify bringing to an end 12 years of hostilities with a murderous regime. Some of us, in good faith, think this was a good thing. Others do not. I respectfully disagree with you; you call me names.

To what "clear evidence" do you refer? The DoD press release? What words in that press release disavow the facts cited by the Feith memorandum?

On the other hand, we have an endlessly repetitive, tendentious argument to the effect that an indictment regarding actions in 1993 that happens to appear in the crock of garbage proves that everything else in the memo is true and that all the above proves that an invasion in 2003 was justified.

To what argument do you refer? Is the existence of the indictment in question? You question its relevance, I don't. I'm not saying it proves that anything in the memo is true, and I certainly don't think it was necessary to justify the removal of Hussein's regime. I'm simply saying that people in two administrations, people in a position to know, disagree with you regarding collaboration.

Strip out all the pomposity and posturing, and that's what one has.

Have I been "pompous and posturing?" Where?

Did Al Qaeda collaborate with Iraq in 1993? Basically, who cares? Go back a couple more years and you'll find Donald Rumsfeld collaborating with Iraq to provide chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to that nightmare regime. NONE of this is a basis to throw over the basic tenet of international law that has guided this world ever since the Nazis invaded Poland, claiming to have been attacked by the Poles, namely that invasion is not justified except in the event of imminent attack.

I care -- past collaboration implies the possibility of future collaboration, no? Regarding Rumsfeld, can you point to any legitimate source for your assertion? And regarding international law, which law would that be?

If there's one lesson we've learned since 1993, it's that apologists on the right simply don't care about the truth. They will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER admit they're wrong.

Another baseless assertion. I've already expressed a willingness to admit error, and asked if you would do the same. You haven't responded. You assert that the Clinton Administration was wrong, that the Bush administration was wrong, that the Weekly Standard was wrong, and that I am wrong. Based on the DoD press release, I'm not convinced. But at least I'm willing to be.

Don't ask for respect when what you're doing is just plain contemptible, Oscar.

I'll just quote myself here: I can't imagine what it must be like to go through life assuming bad faith on the part of everyone with whom one disagrees. It would make me miserable, but some folks seem to find it energizing.

You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. Does this mean that I don't respect your opinion, or that I find you contemptible? Perhaps this will surprise you: no.

I do wish the courtesy was returned, though.

OJr, I feel for you, honestly. It's a frightening commentary on the degree to which reading comprehension has degraded in this country. Adam, Nads, Oops, it's easy to summarize this, so let me help:

The DoD memo says:

- it isn't accurate to say, based on the Feith memo, that the DoD has concluded that Saddam and al Qaeda are working together. (Now, I just re-skimmed the Hayes article, and it doesn't look to me like he claims that -- the "case closed" conclusion is his own.)

- the information reported is real intelligence, either in the form of raw intelligence (reports from primary sources) or "products" (a term of art that means about the same thing as a historian's "secondary sources".)

- that list is a list of these known items, which aren't new (they had been reported to Congress before) and doesn't include analysis or conclusions.

- we don't like it when Top Secret info is leaked.

That's it. No repudiation of the contents of the memo, and (interestingly) no argument with Hayes' conclusions -- they're just saying that it's inaccurate to say those are DoD's conclusions. But Hayes doesn't appear to say that. However, other news sources (eg, WorldNetDaily does appear to say that. In other words, the DoD news release doesn't even dispute what Hayes says -- just some other news sources.

Mark Twain said the difference between the right word and almost the right word was the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug". This is also true of the difference between accurate and inaccurate reading.

Charlie:

Thank you for your comment and the concise summary of the DoD press release.

I struggle to understand how Adam/Nads/Oops can read the same thing and find support for their conclusion that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were either in error or dishonest about collaboration. Of course, it would help if those commenters would answer the questions that I posed to them.

Hi Oscar, good show. Reading these comments, I spit up coffee in laughter. You handled it well though.

I ran these comments through a program and they say that Adam in MA, Nads and Oops are the same guy. The stylists, semantics, and word use are very close. If it isn't, then these guys are mental clones of each other (same brainwashing academy I guess).

By the way, Adam in MA (or manyoso) as he also admittedly goes by) have been active all weekend everywhere running the same half cheeked operation. He has used exactly the same arguments. Everyone else has either blown him off or degenerated into a "I know you are, what am I".
That seems to be the only type of arument he makes.

He does gloss over several facts about the Iraq-US cooperation. The US opened up diplomatic contact with him after he took power and promptly dropped him after he started killing everyone in site. They opened up diplomatic contacts again during the Iran-Iraq war. What was given at that time was limited to satellite photoimagery and some commercial contracts.

The nuclear resources, equipments, and personel were from France. Jacques Chirac himself established the deal in 1974. The Iraqi would have had a nuclear bomb in the early eighties if the Israelis had not bombed the Ossirak reactor (which was a weapons reactor).

The chem and bio weaspons came courtesy of the germans. In this case, the german government had a "I see nuthingk, I hear nuthink". Most of these guys are or have been prosecuted by now. The germans can take credit for the kurds massacre with chemical weapons.

I believe we are seeing the collapse of a strongly held belief. You can take a horse to water but ....

Joe:

Thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad someone found this entertaining.

It is interesting, to me at least, that Adam/Oops/Nads's IP addresses trace to different states: Massachusetts, Virginia (well, AOL) and California (including UCLA), respectively. That said, their arguments, such as they were, were awfully similar, not to mention repetitive.

With regard to Adam in MA posting everywhere, I admit that I commented on at least a few of the same posts in an apparently vain attempt to affect "a strongly held belief."

Your account of Iraq-US cooperation sounds very much like what I recall reading in the 1980s and since. Do you know of an objective source that I can cite in the future? (Not to say that I'll hesitate to cite your comment.)

Anyway, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

Do give books - religious or otherwise - for Christmas. They're never fattening, seldom sinful, and permanently personal.

483 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow