Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

    So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.

    • The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

      The fact that they may have been busy destroying

      • You know, when I read a news story about Iraq on Arab News [arabnews.com], I am painfully aware that they have their own agenda and will see things from a different viewpoint. I think this is an important thing to remember, particularly when I notice (and I have on more than one occassion) that their coverage of an event is often radically different from US coverage.

        If one accepts that to be a reasonable point of view, then it's also fair to point out that a news site such as News Max [newsmax.com] (linked to by you) which does not

        • CBS News impartial! Give me a break. Read former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg's book Bias about the extreme liberal bias at CBS.

          Hey, maybe you should become a journalist, the way you spin the facts and selectively quote. First, you impune Woolsey as being a former CIA Director (under Clinton, BTW, so that should help to eliminate Republican slant). Then you take that one quote out of the article and spin it to make it seem like Woolsey only supports my point tangentially or weakly.

          You said that we could not establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I pointed out that we already have and you ignored Woolsey when he clearly stated:


          At the very least, Saddam Hussein is guilty of aiding and abetting the activities of al-Qaeda, Woolsey contended.

          He also offered evidence suggesting that Baghdad had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

          A July 21, 2001, article in an Egyptian newspaper, headlined "America, an Obsession with Osama bin Laden," indicated that Baghdad knew what was coming less than months later, the former U.S. intelligence chief told the court. The report, written by an Iraqi, predicted bin Laden would target both New York City and the Pentagon.

          Woolsey noted a line in the story warning that bin Laden would "strike America on the arm that is already hurting," explaining that the phrase was likely a reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

          No Iraqi journalist would write such a report without his government's knowledge and approval, Woolsey testified.

          There's no doubt that Iraq had a nuclear program. There's also no doubt that Saddam still had regional aims, having never given up his claim to Kuwait (as he was required to do as part of the Gulf War I armistice, BTW). The only way he could have possibly supported his regional aims was to remove the US and Britain from the picture.

          Saddam had every reason to develop nuclear weapons and give them to Al Qaeda in order to strike crippling blows on America. I think what we did in Iraq goes a long way toward preventing that threat.

          Your cynicism about how we used the "really bad man" argument against Saddam is disgusting. By the UN's own figures, around 10,000 people every MONTH died from systematic starvation and medical deprivation of the Iraqi people, while Saddam used the Food for Oil money to build more elaborate palaces and mobile weapon labs.

          I think we've put an end to that horror, as well. Or, don't you care, at all for the Iraqi people?

          • jordan, I try write carefully, so please read it carefully and do not accuse me of saying things that I did not say. I'm a pretty easy going person and I don't mind at all if you disagree with me. I do mind if you misrepresent what I say. I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial. Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt that it was relevant to whether or not he is privy to current information. Howev

              • I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial.

              Oh, come on, if you weren't presenting CBS as impartial in contradistinction to Arab News, what were you doing? I thought the use of 'allegedly' was just an attempt at irony. It seems that there is support for this as you imply below that CBS could only be expected to have a conservative slant due to their ownership.

              • Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt th