Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq docs show U.S. right on war
Sterling Stir ^ | 4/27/06 | Roy Waggoner

Posted on 05/02/2006 11:01:28 PM PDT by rwfromkansas

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: eyespysomething; jveritas; RayRobisonblog
The book project is a great idea.

The Venona Files blew the left out of the water (though they're still in denial about its contents).

Your book will do the same thing.

And I'm definitely on the "absolutely will buy" list.

One for me and a couple for my old die-hard Democrat friends.

41 posted on 05/03/2006 12:23:07 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

No, I mean the direct managers of the network.


42 posted on 05/03/2006 12:34:08 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
If a massive collection of recently-declassified Iraqi government documents provides truthful insight into Saddam’s regime, this conventional wisdom is completely wrong, and war was justified.

Does anyone know what steps, if any, the US Govt. took to authenticate these documents?

How do we know they aren't disinformation disseminated by the US Govt. itself?

43 posted on 05/03/2006 12:42:46 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- How do we know they aren't disinformation disseminated by the US Govt. itself? ---

Excellent question. These documents are now in the public domain for any agency or news organization to investigate. So far, no one (cough, cough MSM) has been able to prove them false.

44 posted on 05/03/2006 12:46:57 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Excellent question. These documents are now in the public domain for any agency or news organization to investigate. So far, no one (cough, cough MSM) has been able to prove them false.

Thanks.

I'm not sure how a news agency would prove an internal Iraqi document false, but I would like to see the US Govt stand up and say, "They're real", then provide the evidence that supports the assertion.

When these documents were released, the disclaimer at the top of the web page said that the US Govt. had neither authenticated the documents, nor did they validate the information the documents contained.

So, absent this authentication or validation, I would personally suspect anything released by the federal government and am surprised to see everyone rally around unsubstantiated claims promugulated by the government itself.

45 posted on 05/03/2006 1:43:00 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Are you really 'surprised'?

Look at the effect of this document dump. That will tell you all you need to know about it.

46 posted on 05/03/2006 1:57:05 PM PDT by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- I'm not sure how a news agency would prove an internal Iraqi document false, but I would like to see the US Govt stand up and say, "They're real", then provide the evidence that supports the assertion.

Well, the U.S. Government has clearly stated that these documents were captured in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. They (the U.S. Government) are standing firmly on their word about the origins of these documents.

So that is significant.

--- When these documents were released, the disclaimer at the top of the web page said that the US Govt. had neither authenticated the documents, nor did they validate the information the documents contained. ---

And that disclaimer is simply that -- a disclaimer. They are saying that they have not gone through them beyond what they call a "scrub."

47 posted on 05/03/2006 2:03:15 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- I'm not sure how a news agency would prove an internal Iraqi document false, but I would like to see the US Govt stand up and say, "They're real", then provide the evidence that supports the assertion.

Well, the U.S. Government has clearly stated that these documents were captured in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. They (the U.S. Government) are standing firmly on their word about the origins of these documents.

So that is significant.

--- When these documents were released, the disclaimer at the top of the web page said that the US Govt. had neither authenticated the documents, nor did they validate the information the documents contained. ---

And that disclaimer is simply that -- a disclaimer. They are saying that they have not gone through them beyond what they call a "scrub."

48 posted on 05/03/2006 2:04:09 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
--- Look at the effect of this document dump. That will tell you all you need to know about it.---

I am not sure that I am understanding you? Effect?

49 posted on 05/03/2006 2:05:41 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I did have somebody come up to me and ask where the proof the translations are correct is at,

Aha! You've struck a nerve! Immediately they attack the source rather than confront the logic/conclusion/new info! Good work!

50 posted on 05/03/2006 2:12:02 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Well, the U.S. Government has clearly stated that these documents were captured in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. They (the U.S. Government) are standing firmly on their word about the origins of these documents.

Ahem. We still don't know the true 'origin' of these documents. That they were transported out of Iraq in no way proves they are authentic or the information they contain, valid.

The federal government still stands behind their claims that the people (women and children) they killed in Waco were trying to illegally manufacture machine guns. But when the time came for someone to test their claims by submitting the machine guns to a third, private party (Failure Analysis, Inc.) for testing to determine whether they were modified before or after the fire, the feds pulled out and did not allow any access to the physical evidence. To this day, no one has been able to test the US Govt's assertions in that case.

And that disclaimer is simply that -- a disclaimer. They are saying that they have not gone through them beyond what they call a "scrub."

Again, absent any authentication or validation, these documents are nothing more than so much disinformation and should be treated as such until they are authenticated and the information they contain validated.

51 posted on 05/03/2006 2:14:22 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Sure. Look at how they are embraced, and by whom. Look at how they are ignored, and by whom. Look at what they purportedly say, and ask yourself why we have pieces of paper that purport to prove things we can't prove with credible testimony or other physical evidence.

Things we know about Iraq aren't necessarily documented. And things that are documented we don't necessarily know.

52 posted on 05/03/2006 2:21:16 PM PDT by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Look at the effect of this document dump. That will tell you all you need to know about it.

I know it is telling a lot of people here exactly what they want to hear.

53 posted on 05/03/2006 2:21:53 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Game. Set. Match.


54 posted on 05/03/2006 2:23:51 PM PDT by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- Ahem. We still don't know the true 'origin' of these documents. That they were transported out of Iraq in no way proves they are authentic or the information they contain, valid.---

Slow down. You are now throwing out a straw man argument. As I stated, the US Government does stand behind its word that the documents were captured in Iraq.

That, in your words, is authentication of origin.

--- The federal government still stands behind their claims that the people (women and children) they killed in Waco were trying to illegally manufacture machine guns.....---

Straw man argument. We can also not believe we went to the moon. But the fact stands that the US Government does indeed stand on its word of authentication of origin.

--- Again, absent any authentication or validation, these documents are nothing more than so much disinformation and should be treated as such until they are authenticated and the information they contain validated.---

Interesting... you just claimed to not believe the Government and now you want them to authentic the documents?

Let's try this from a different angle. What type of authentication would satisfy you? This is a serious question.

55 posted on 05/03/2006 2:25:55 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Good work. Keep at it!


56 posted on 05/03/2006 2:30:20 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
What is new is the actual content of the documents. For people who splash "news" of the Gospel of Judas across the world, they seem reluctant to look at evidence that goes against the conventional wisdom. "Don't bother me with the facts. I have my mind all made up?"
57 posted on 05/03/2006 2:39:04 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Slow down. You are now throwing out a straw man argument. As I stated, the US Government does stand behind its word that the documents were captured in Iraq.

No, they don't. You're assuming that because they say they 'captured' them, then this means that they are authentic Iraqi documents that contains valid information.

...The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.

Reading further down the page, we see:

The documents contained on this site were captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom and represent a dramatic departure from previous document release efforts which have historically taken place decades after the cessation of hostilities. Viewers are urged to carefully read the disclaimer above (emphisis: mine).

IOW, take what you see there with a healthy heaping of salt.

Straw man argument. We can also not believe we went to the moon. But the fact stands that the US Government does indeed stand on its word of authentication of origin.

Except that I've got the congressional record which supports my assertion and you've only got the kook patrol supporting yours (moon claim).

Again, that the documents were transported out of Iraq in no way proves that they're authentic or that the information they contain is valid and factual.

Interesting... you just claimed to not believe the Government and now you want them to authentic the documents?

No, I want them to provide the physical evidence which supports their assertions that these are authentic Iraqi documents and that the information they contain is valid and factual. Obviously, you take them at their word and will believe anything they say.

Let's try this from a different angle. What type of authentication would satisfy you? This is a serious question.

Perhaps if the US Govt. changed it's stance and said that it stands behind the documents as authentic, official Iraqi government docuements and that the information they contain are valid and factual, then I would at least look at them.

If the US Govt doesn't stand behind them, why should I?

58 posted on 05/03/2006 3:18:16 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Slow down. You are now throwing out a straw man argument. As I stated, the US Government does stand behind its word that the documents were captured in Iraq.

No, they don't. You're assuming that because they say they 'captured' them, then this means that they are authentic Iraqi documents that contains valid information.

I said EXACLTY what I said: the US Government stands by their word that the documents were captured in Iraq. That is authentication of origin.

That's a fact.

Let's try this from a different angle. What type of authentication would satisfy you? This is a serious question.

Perhaps if the US Govt. changed it's stance and said that it stands behind the documents as authentic, official Iraqi government docuements and that the information they contain are valid and factual, then I would at least look at them.

Perhaps??? Perhaps??? So you are saying that that would not necessarily convince you. So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with no real point.

Once again...The US Government stands behind its word that the origin of the documents is Iraq. And you have NOT answered my question. How would you like the Government to authenticate the documents to your liking?

If you can answer that simple question then we can continue this, otherwise, you are just circling your own tail.

What we do know is that the documents were captured in Iraq. The US Government stands by that.

59 posted on 05/03/2006 3:51:47 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"ABC...website"

You know once these docs were unleashed, I thought at the very least Big Media would broadcast them but try, of course, to spin them to their advantage like this skunk Weaver is doing. But in reality, their silence about the matter speaks volumes.

Against the tremendous amount of knowledge we had about Hussein's previous terrorist activities before the release of these docs, Big Lib Media decided to go with the "he was never tied to terrorism" scheme which JVeritas had revealed as a huge Big Media lie. They won't broadcast the news about the docs, but their silence is deafening. They know they've lost, and their best bet is to try to shut out all this good news for Bush. But eventually it will come out, and I just hope it's not too late for Bush and Republicans later this year.

60 posted on 05/03/2006 4:12:02 PM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson