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 1-5051-79 last
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]

To: MHGinTN
"chrissy"

I was watching that fool the other day (for as much as I could stand...which was only a few minutes), and he had that creep Drumheller an ex-CIA rat on. Matthews actually had the gall to mention what a great truth-teller Joe Wilson was. I wanted to throw a brick at the tv and shout at Matthews "you can't still believe that Wilson wasn't a lying scoundrel can you Matthews?" It's totally unreal, when even many libs have concluded that Wilson is a lying scoundrel, Matthews continues to treat him as an American hero. I guess Matthews skull is so thick (and his hatred of Bush is so great), reality can't penetrate it.

61 posted on 05/03/2006 4:22:40 PM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: oust the louse

There is always magazine writing if necessary. :)


62 posted on 05/03/2006 4:51:57 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Did you support the war?


63 posted on 05/03/2006 4:57:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Great article!


64 posted on 05/03/2006 7:56:03 PM PDT by FlashBack (www.teamamericapac.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
"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.

"Again, absent any authentication or validation, these documents are nothing more than so much disinformation" If we do not know the "true origins" of these documents, how do you KNOW they are disinformation? You are arguing that we can not trust the US Government, but then also argue that we can not trust the documents because the US Government has not authenticated, translated and verified them. So do we trust the US Government or not?

65 posted on 05/03/2006 9:57:50 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
If we do not know the "true origins" of these documents, how do you KNOW they are disinformation? You are arguing that we can not trust the US Government, but then also argue that we can not trust the documents because the US Government has not authenticated, translated and verified them. So do we trust the US Government or not?

Well, let's see. George W. Bush has been known to lie to the American people before.

The GAO knocked as propaganda the video news releases that Bush's HHS put out to sway public opinion in favor of his prescription drug benefit.

George W. Bush paid numerous columnists to publish stories favorable to the administration.

It's been reported that the US military is paying Iraqi journalists to publish stories favorable to the US Govt.

So, I just have to ask you a question:

How do you know they aren't disinformation?

Who said, "Trust, but verify"?

What's been verified about the content of the documents or their origin (creation, not recovery)?

If the government doesn't stand behind these documents, why should I? More importantly, why do you?

66 posted on 05/04/2006 7:51:11 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Did you support the war?

Which one?

The war on poverty?

The war on drugs?

The war on illiteracy?

The war on terrorism?

You can't be talking about the nation-building taking place in Iraq because Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and the end to major hostilities. So, if you believe the administration, then all that's happenning in Iraq is a mop-up operation and not a war, right?

67 posted on 05/04/2006 7:58:39 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: avacado
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.

No, the origin refers to the creator, not the place of recovery.

Whether they are factual remains to be seen.

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.

Well, let's see.

This administartion has been caught disseminating propaganda in the form of video news releases designed to sway public opinion in favor of their prescription drug benefit.

This administration has been caught paying US journalists for favorable coverage.

This administration has been caught paying Iraqi journalists for favorable coverage of the war.

The administration is lying about the immigration problem and wants to grant amnesty/citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders.

So, the question is, why do you trust the administration wihtout first verifying what they say?

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?

No, they don't. The only thing the US Govt. stands behind is the place of their recovery. We know where they were found, but who put them there and when? Can you answer that question?

How does anyone verify the authenticity of any document? How does anyone confirm as factual the contents of any document?

How about some physical evidence that corroborates what is written?

How about some eyewitness testimony? (and I'm not talking about a lapdog with a vested interest, a la Chalabi, either)

As I said, the real question is why you believe these documents absent any supporting evidence and I suspect I know the answer already --because you support the President, no matter what.

68 posted on 05/04/2006 8:16:11 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
I tell'ya what buddy! I have your solution. Don't read the documents. Your problem solved!
69 posted on 05/04/2006 8:23:35 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: avacado
I tell'ya what buddy! I have your solution. Don't read the documents. Your problem solved!

No, burying one's head in the sand sounds more like something you'd do.

Meanwhile, I'll keep my eyes open and continue questioning everything this administration says and does.

70 posted on 05/04/2006 8:52:36 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Bookmark


71 posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:37 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (Free Republic - The pulse of conservative politics, without lame stream media filtration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Look... I told you, don't read the documents if you do not want to. You are the one who has chosen to bury your head into the sand by not reading them, therefore, your comments have little value -- more like whining to me.

You have a nice day.




72 posted on 05/04/2006 10:24:57 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Look... I told you, don't read the documents if you do not want to. You are the one who has chosen to bury your head into the sand by not reading them, therefore, your comments have little value -- more like whining to me

"Trust, but verify."
--Ronald Reagan

73 posted on 05/04/2006 11:20:06 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker; Admin Moderator

you are a liberal, as clearly indicated by your Karen Ryan quip.

Perhaps it is time for the Zot.


74 posted on 05/04/2006 2:55:34 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
you are a liberal, as clearly indicated by your Karen Ryan quip.

Ah, yes. Karen Ryan. The intrepid 'reporter' who works for HHS-TV.

Only a Bush lick-spittle would want to ZOT me for telling the truth about Bush's lies.

B-302710, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, May 19, 2004:

Conclusion

Although the VNR materials were labeled so that the television news stations could identify CMS as the source of the materials, part of the VNR materials--the story packages and lead-in anchor scripts--were targeted not only to the television news stations but also to the television viewing audience. Neither the story packages nor scripts identified HHS or CMS as the source to the targeted television audience, and the content of the news reports was attributed to individuals purporting to be reporters, but actually hired by an HHS subcontractor. For these reasons, the use of appropriated funds for production and distribution of the story packages and suggested scripts violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition of the Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). Moreover, because CMS had no appropriation available to produce and distribute materials in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. CMS must report the Antideficiency Act violation to the Congress and the President. 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

75 posted on 05/04/2006 3:43:53 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- Only a Bush lick-spittle would want to ZOT me for telling the truth about Bush's lies.

B-302710, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, May 19, 2004: ---

Do me a favor. In that link you provided, show me the "Bush lie?"

76 posted on 05/04/2006 3:57:08 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Great article guy.

Ummm, are you going to need bodyguards after writing this?

I guess it depends on what College you attend.

77 posted on 05/04/2006 4:50:46 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

I will be fine. If I was at KU, maybe I would need bodyguards.


78 posted on 05/04/2006 6:00:38 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

"Well, let's see. George W. Bush has been known to lie to the American people before.

The GAO knocked as propaganda the video news releases that Bush's HHS put out to sway public opinion in favor of his prescription drug benefit.

George W. Bush paid numerous columnists to publish stories favorable to the administration.

It's been reported that the US military is paying Iraqi journalists to publish stories favorable to the US Govt.

So, I just have to ask you a question:

How do you know they aren't disinformation?

Who said, "Trust, but verify"?

What's been verified about the content of the documents or their origin (creation, not recovery)?

If the government doesn't stand behind these documents, why should I? More importantly, why do you?"

Again, you are saying that must not trust the government, then you say we have to mistrust the documents because the government does not stand behind them. It is clear that you would not trust anything that comes out of the government. If they don't verify them, the documents must be fake, and if they do verify them the documents must be fake.

I can also tell that you believe and exaggerate everything that you read that is against the government.


79 posted on 05/04/2006 6:31:45 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 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