The UN, US and Iraq IV

Oh, yeah ... it was that "lots of folks" thing that got all this goin' wasn't it? Haven't really hunted down any links on that. Here's one, and another... its an active topic in the conservative blogosphere; I've gotten quite a few emails. While its purely anecdotal, clients and business associates discussing it have expressed sentiment similar to mine, but then none of them are real liberal either.

Care to trot out independently verifiable data, peer-reviewed studies appearing in accredited journals, academic books or other scholarly, non-partisan publications, sworn testimony or other legal documents, multiple independently sourced corroborative news articles, exclusive of opinion or commentary, or any of that sort of real evidence stuff, or is your comment, which contains, but does not support, at least four individual assertions of condition, performance, or state of being merely a statement of personal opinion lacking external validation?

Don't hold your breath, but there is a small chance we might see a real commitment on behalf of Bush to drive the Road Map to peace forward. That would bring a smile to Tony's face, and the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world, and America and Bush might regain some respect. What's the chance of Bush doing the honourable thing.?..well he's your President, you tell me.

Now, PDiddie, if I embarrass myself, I embarrass myself. That's fine ... I can live with that. I would think, but apparently incorrectly, that The Left would be embarrassed by the all-too-commonly-evidenced-here tactic of denigrating the author of a post as opposed to engaging the matter on the issues. But then, I can live with being in error, too.

Of the current Dems, I guess I see either Lieberman or Gephardt as least objectionable.

The center of their power? WTF does this mean? Before the US invasion their were no terrorist attacks in Iraq on any Americans. The "terrorists" he speaks of were located in other countries.

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Pentagon Debunks Reports on Osama-Saddam Ties
Some Outlets Run With 'Weekly Standard' Story

By Seth Porges

NEW YORK -- Several newspapers and other media outlets had egg on their face Monday after reporting or endorsing a Weekly Standard story revealing new evidence of an "operational relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Several outlets, including the New York Post, The Washington Times and FOX News, ran with the story. There was just one problem: On Saturday, the Pentagon issued a press release stating that "news reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq ... are inaccurate."

Despite this, the New York Post on Monday titled its editorial on the subject: "Bush Was Right."

In the current Nov. 24 issue of the conservative journal The Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes writes that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein "had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda."

The magazine's revelations allegedly came from a "top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard." The Pentagon press release, however, states that the classified sections of the document contained "raw reports" and "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida and it drew no conclusions."

The Nov. 17 New York Post editorial made no mention of the Pentagon refuting the charge as "inaccurate."

Also on Monday, The Washington Times carried an editorial on the issue, using The Weekly Standard article as evidence. At the end of the editorial, the Times mentions the Pentagon release, but urges "readers to examine the Weekly Standard article and decide for themselves."

On Nov. 16, The Washington Post's Walter Pincus reported that the CIA has found "no evidence that Hussein sought to arm terrorists."

The New York Post editorial opens:

"As blood flowed freely again this weekend in the War on Terror, this time in Turkey as well as Iraq, a new report in The Weekly Standard suggests that events there may not be unrelated.

"In fact, the report by Stephen Hayes -- based on a top-secret government memo -- documents an even more profound linkage: between none other than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

"According to Hayes, the memo, provides enormous evidence that the Bush team was right all along about Saddam's terrorist ties -- despite charges to the contrary by the president's foes, particularly Democrats ..."

Gel, I believe you ascribe to me something I have not said. You may infer what you wish, of course, but I was going more to the point Kara addressed above in her reply to pistoff. In both tone and word choice, some here employ indecorous, and unbecoming, behavior as matter of general practice. I find that cheapens any argument, however otherwise valid, the practioners, left or right, of that style may present.

He's temporarily out of their control. And Bush is nominally the President. And Blair, to whom he owes a great deal, can be very persuasive.

LW, Sometimes it's a fake pate of hair.

While bringing a smile to Tony's face and that of the rest of Europe on this issue may be desirable, it is neither particularly important or even merited in view of the larger circumstances.