Skip to comments.
More Damning Documents On Saddam ~<b>Origins Of War:</b>~~ Why won't Washington get the word out?
Investors Business Daily ^
| 4/7/2006
| staff
Posted on 04/08/2006 12:51:48 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-129 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This March, 2001 Iraqi memo and Mohammed Atta's reputed trip to Prague in April, 2001, keep bouncing around in my head. If it can be demonstrated that Saddam's regime had advanced knowledge of 9/11, and was in favor of it, game over.
To: popdonnelly
Remember all the fires when we went into Baghdad.....chances are slim we find anything...
To: CheyennePress
83
posted on
04/08/2006 3:04:53 PM PDT
by
icwhatudo
(The rino borg...is resistance futile?)
To: Straight Vermonter
"We will know much more about Ba'athist Iraq a year from now than we do today."
Trued words where never spoken. We have to have confidence enough media sources of various type will start getting the word out. Often some of us can forget, the L/MSM via. the boob tube are not the only sources open to the public. All formes of journals, weeklys such as we see here reach vast audiences.
As Dog commented earlier on, just this one source is going to reach a lot of business people across the political spectrum. Everyone wants a real story and by God they are not going to find a much better one then starting to cash in on these Harmony revelations.
Of course we should not get smug. Really. But feel a bit blessed we have for a few years had the opportunities here at FR and associated blog sites to capture many of the long known things that now will Lord willing become summarized by the willing within the world of journalism.
The POTUS shall be vindicated, and then released from the L/MSM grip. It is only a matter of time. But like you say. ASAP would surely be a welcome way to see the process start rolling.
84
posted on
04/08/2006 3:09:22 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"AMEN....and We have to support and protect our ....amateur ....Resources.....Big Smile there...."
Hey. I'm humble. So be it. The end result, we seek, will come to past.
85
posted on
04/08/2006 3:10:51 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: eyespysomething
86
posted on
04/08/2006 3:27:27 PM PDT
by
Chena
(I'm not young enough to know everything.)
To: CheyennePress
No, it is more than that, you have to be brain dead to not understand what Saddam was up to before 9-11.
To: Straight Vermonter
"Why did we have to wait for you to come along and translate these where the heck are the guys at CIA, DIA and NSA?"
They're busy covering up their incompetence. (They told us Saddam wasn't involved with terrorism after the attempt on Bush '41 and bin Laden would never ally himself with Saddam (whom he considered an infidel).
It's better for a disinterested party to do the translation.
88
posted on
04/08/2006 3:58:49 PM PDT
by
RAldrich
To: jrooney
89
posted on
04/08/2006 4:56:12 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
90
posted on
04/08/2006 4:57:23 PM PDT
by
GEC
To: Western Phil
"It's better that the "amateurs" are doing it. The government agencies would hit the documents."
I've got agree. I mean, in the end, this keeps everyone honest. The originals are all there for everyone to see, not some translation. I think this was a brilliant way to do it once we realize the benefit of this method of 'openness,' and it should help any doubting Iraqis, who can read them, too.
It may well be that the White House knows its enemies at State and CIA could bury the tasty stuff if they could. I also like the scenario that some of the more choice ones may be waiting in the wings for 'deployment.' Now we just need to make sure the 'rats have to be forced to answer their baseless charges.
91
posted on
04/08/2006 4:57:38 PM PDT
by
Amalie
(FREEDOM had NEVER been another word for nothing left to lose...)
To: eyespysomething
92
posted on
04/08/2006 4:57:49 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: Marine_Uncle
For all we know. GWB may have an agreement with Putsie to go easy on the Russian support of Saddam, with a handshake Russia will come around on our side to support very strong sanctions against Iran. Bush probably now questions the motives of Russia. Many within Russia itself think that the apartment bombings in Moscow that occurred in September 1999 where actually carried out by Russian agents. Putin used these bombings as justification to order an Anti-Terrorist operation that started October 1st 1999. Putin was Prime Minister then. Six months later Putin was elected President in a 'wave of patriotic fever'. Notice that Putin did not warn the US about the 9/11 attacks. He only warned the US about terrorist attacks after 9/11. There were articles in Russian media prior to 9/11 talking about coming terrorist attacks on the US. Why didn't Putin warn the US about those prior to 9/11 ?
Perhaps he only warned the US post 9/11 because he wanted Bush to partiticpate in the War on Terror. Then Putin was free to do whatever he wanted in Chechnya. The problem Russia has right now is that if they were so concerned about actual Islamic terrorism, why have they invested so much into Islamic Iran ?
Bush had to respond against Islamic terror, which was a real threat that has been around for decades. The 9/11 attack forced our entrance into the 'Long War' similar to the Pearl Harbor attack forced our entrance into WWII. Afghanistan followed and the Russians went bloody in Chechnya. Then when the US actually invades Iraq, the Russians pull the WMD out and have their disinfo agents in the US start the NO WMD hype. Then they told their 'partner' in the War on Terror, Bush, to not release any intell info concerning Iraq because it could hurt the War on Terror. That is how we theoretically got to where we are now. There are still numerous assets in the US government structure that are protecting Russia and China. Some unfortunately still think they are doing the right thing.
To: justa-hairyape
Well I could hardly argue against anything you wrote because I hold the same view based on much of what you wrote.
But as you well understand, often things at the top are done for reasons we sometimes do not fanthom in full.
That is why I offered a scenario where the US now bargains with how much protestation will come forth against Russian in all their rotten dirty no good actions of the past, in exchange for them going with us on the Iranian deal.
That is all I was attempting to propose. It is remotely possible I am not full of it, on this one. Then again, ha ha, I have been known to be totally wrong before.
One thing I have maintained for a long time. And that is I don't trust Putin one bit. He and his comrades are always plotting what is best only for them, and the hell with the rest of the world.
And one cannot expect much more from them. The world is a big trading market. How well one plays their bidding, sometimes gets the best price on a given item.
94
posted on
04/08/2006 7:09:40 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; saganite
:eyespysomething has a ping list for the translations that jveritas has been doing."I think saganite meant that when you have ALL THREE TRANSLATIONS of the same document, the one by jveritas and the two independant ones you are contracting to have done, be sure that you contact eyespysomething to ping us to those.
95
posted on
04/08/2006 7:24:22 PM PDT
by
Spunky
("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
To: Marine_Uncle
I see your point. So perhaps in this case us 'amateurs' are the stick. This forces the Russian's to the table. Having them help the US government with regards to Iran would be the 'carrot'. Very possible. One 'complication' however is the Anthrax. Whoever supplied the anthrax must pay a real price.
To: jrooney
They need to try and bury this or their entire reputation will be tarnished forever.
I agree. Welcome to FreeRepublic.
97
posted on
04/08/2006 7:34:15 PM PDT
by
SittinYonder
(That's how I saw it, and see it still.)
To: jveritas; eyespysomething
If any translation will be different in substance form what I translated then that translation will be wrong and I will issue a challenge to the translator to explain his translation.
Be careful jveritas ... I hear the New York Times is considering hiring Baghdad Bob to do their translations!
There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
98
posted on
04/08/2006 7:42:34 PM PDT
by
SittinYonder
(That's how I saw it, and see it still.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
99
posted on
04/08/2006 7:49:32 PM PDT
by
petercooper
(Cemeteries & the ignorant - comprising 2 of the largest Democrat voting blocs for the past 75 years.)
To: jrooney; jveritas
"The left and democrat party leaders showed their hand way too early. They spoke way too fast and were way too loose with their words."But what puzzles me is President Bush also spoke and said he had to finally admit there were no WMD in Iraq (or something like that). I just don't understand why he felt he had to publicly come out and say that. I think it would have been better if he had just kept his mouth shut, because if one of these documents proves that they were there, it will be hard for him to say, "See I told you so."
100
posted on
04/08/2006 8:00:06 PM PDT
by
Spunky
("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-129 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson