I report, you decide...

[Yonivore]

Gateway Pundit assembles evidence of Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda ties and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/picture-proof-saddam-al-qaeda.html#links)


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050/620/320/document%20IZSP-2003-00003336.jpg (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060317/IZSP-2003-00003336.pdf)
Click on the image to see the .pdf file.

The Arabic original shows the Falcon emblem of the Iraq Intelligence Service. A translation is provided if you scroll down in the linked pdf document. I have highlighted the key wording but there is more:

March 11, 2003

The al-Quds liberation army division supplied us with information....as follows.

1. The Iraqi government will distribute the same leaflets that the American forces are distributing but it will contain anthrax.

2. Iraq imports uniforms resembling American forces uniforms for the purpose of killing Iraqi citizens....

3. Dig trenches around Baghdad...oil...burning...cause mayhem.
Unless we see a translation that is different I think we have this:

1) Proof that Saddam had small amounts of anthrax -- or a belief by his intelligence service that they possessed enough anthrax to use in this endeavor.

2) Proof that Saddam was willing and had planned to use non Iraqi terrorists to carry out a biological attack.

[Mr. Peabody]

Unless we see a translation that is different I think we have this:

1) Proof that Saddam had small amounts of anthrax -- or a belief by his intelligence service that they possessed enough anthrax to use in this endeavor.

2) Proof that Saddam was willing and had planned to use non Iraqi terrorists to carry out a biological attack.

Well, now I feel much better about this war.

[Yonivore]

Well, now I feel much better about this war.
Well, that's good.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Yes the Bush administration is crowing about this as we speak.

[101A]

As meaningless as such a revelation would actually be now; something like this, if it got steam could actually influence the elections this November; although nothing has changed about our current situation.

Hell, couple this with gas at or below 2 bucks, and the Republicans have time to gain seats. Such is the nature of the American electorate.

[ChumpDumper]

Couldn't we have just tortured this information out of Saddam?

[Yonivore]

Consider this is just one of over 1.9 million documents from the Ba'athist regime that have yet to be translated.

Of the more than 2 millions documents seized only about 100,000 have been translated.

I think there will be more such revelations -- probably of much more significance, in the future.

I do remain amazed at how some people, such as ChumpDumper, are so married to the articles of faith that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and that Saddam Hussein wouldn't work with terrorists. I wonder if anything would even allow them to think the opposite could be true.

[ChumpDumper]

He had WMDs -- once.

Never used them on the US.

Ever.

That's the truth.

I'm amazed that people such as Yonivore are so desperate to deny that simple fact, that it has become their main distraction from the fiasco that Iraq has become.

[Yonivore]

He had WMDs -- once.
According to this document, they were planning to use anthrax in 2003.


Never used them on the US.
And?


Ever.
So? He tried to shoot down enough of our planes in the preceding 12 years, alone, to justify our resumption of hostilities. Not to mention all the other provocations that have been mentioned ad naseum in this forum at various times over the past 3 years.


That's the truth.
And, now, he never will use them on the U.S. Will he?


I'm amazed that people such as Yonivore are so desperate to deny that simple fact, that it has become their main distraction from the fiasco that Iraq has become.
I don't deny the fact that he never used Weapons of Mass Destruction on the U.S. I also don't the deny the mounting set of facts that show he possessed them and continued to pursue them up to the end of his regime.

You're the one in denial.

[ChumpDumper]

According to this document, they were planning to use anthrax in 2003.What anthrax?
So? He tried to shoot down enough of our planes in the preceding 12 years, alone, to justify our resumption of hostilities. Not to mention all the other provocations that have been mentioned ad naseum in this forum at various times over the past 3 years.Then why are you stuck on stupid RE: WMDs? But thanks for pointing out that Saddam was under our thumbs already and we could bomb the shit out of him whenever we wanted to and just how weak Iraq was militarily.
And, now, he never will use them on the U.S. Will he?It means he never would have at all, since he didn't even use them to defend his own regime.
I don't deny the fact that he never used Weapons of Mass Destruction on the U.S. I also don't the deny the mounting set of facts that show he possessed them and continued to pursue them up to the end of his regime.

You're the one in denial.Bullshit. You're the one who claims he was THE imminent threat to the US -- moreso than Al Qaeda, since you supported diverting most of our forces away from his pursuit for some nice nation-building in Iraq.

[Nbadan]

What anthrax?

The anthrax that was mailed to Democratic Congressmen and News Reporters that no-one ever got around to investigating, of course. The whole thing just sort of faded away.

[Yonivore]

What anthrax?
How would I know? You act as though this stuff was catalogued, stored, and clearly marked for discovery.


Then why are you stuck on stupid RE: WMDs? But thanks for pointing out that Saddam was under our thumbs already and we could bomb the shit out of him whenever we wanted to and just how weak Iraq was militarily.
Why are so intent on discounting the possibility and, in light of the ever increasing mound of evidence, the likelihood that Saddam Husseing was -- in addition to all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years -- in the business of pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction?


It means he never would have at all, since he didn't even use them to defend his own regime.
You don't know the mind of Saddam Hussein -- and neither do I. I do, however, suspect -- in light of all the revelations about Russia, France, and the U.N. vis-a-vis the Oil For Food Scandal and other business dealings -- that he probably had some assurances that the U.S. could be held at bay and that he was completely taken by surprise by our invasion. I also believe the initial bombing of Baghdad, while it didn't kill him, did prevent him from commanding and controlling his troops. And, if we know nothing else about his regime, his military commanders didn't sneeze without his approval.


Bullshit. You're the one who claims he was THE imminent threat to the US -- moreso than Al Qaeda, since you supported diverting most of our forces away from his pursuit for some nice nation-building in Iraq.
I've never said that. And, in the words of General Tommy Franks:


"Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan."
Any reason to doubt Tommy Franks? Not for me.

[Nbadan]

:lmao

If there was ever a guy who failed to 'get Usama' it wasn't Clinton, it is Tommy Franks.

[valluco]

:sleep
Yoni, you bore me.

[Yonivore]

:sleep
Yoni, you bore me.
So, don't read my posts.

[ChumpDumper]

How would I know? You act as though this stuff was catalogued, stored, and clearly marked for discovery.If it was ready to use on the US, why wouldn't it be?
Why are so intent on discounting the possibility and, in light of the ever increasing mound of evidence, the likelihood that Saddam Husseing was -- in addition to all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years -- in the business of pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction?Because he never used WMDs on the US or its forces. I fully acknowledge all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years, but i will never pretend he was a bigger threat to the US than Iran or North Korea, precisely because he was already under our thumb and all we had to do was decide how hard to press down at any given time. We don't even enjoy this advantage in Iraq now.
You don't know the mind of Saddam Hussein -- and neither do I.I know he never used WMDs on the US when he had two chances to do so in defense of his own regime. When would be a better time to use them?
I do, however, suspect -- in light of all the revelations about Russia, France, and the U.N. vis-a-vis the Oil For Food Scandal and other business dealings -- that he probably had some assurances that the U.S. could be held at bay and that he was completely taken by surprise by our invasion.But not so much that he wasn't able to ship all of the WMDs to Syria, right? You really need to make up your mind about this.
Any reason to doubt Tommy Franks?Yes. Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Mission accomplished, indeed.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

If there was ever a guy who failed to 'get Usama' it wasn't Clinton, it is Tommy Franks.
And, even if that were true, it changes the credibility of his statement how?

[Nbadan]

even if that were true

:rolleyes

You must have missed Tora-bora.

[ChumpDumper]

We obviously completely secured Afghanistan. There is absolutely no Taliban presence there at all.

[Yonivore]

If it was ready to use on the US, why wouldn't it be?
Why would you ask me that question?


Because he never used WMDs on the US or its forces. I fully acknowledge all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years, but i will never pretend he was a bigger threat to the US than Iran or North Korea, precisely because he was already under our thumb and all we had to do was decide how hard to press down at any given time. We don't even enjoy this advantage in Iraq now.
I think there were other dynamics, other than the direct threat posed by Saddam Hussein, in play.

Whether you want to admit it or not, al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan into Iraq since before our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. There is plenty of evidence Saddam Hussein was trying desperately to shake off sanctions so he could rebuild his weapons assets and, there are Iraq officials that have testified that he had the materials and capabilities to field some chemical weapons on very short notice -- as little as weeks.

I also believe Iraq is a more strategic location than is North Korea and there are fewer attendant diplomatic issues (CHINA) than there would be if we were to invade North Korea. Invading Iraq has changed the dynamic in the Middle East. Terrorists are funneling into the place to die by the hundreds.


I know he never used WMDs on the US when he had two chances to do so in defense of his own regime. When would be a better time to use them?
Maybe he believed his regime would survive an invasion. He survived the first encounter with the U.S. without resorting to WMD's. Maybe he believe he could bargain his way out again -- and, by the time he realized this President wasn't in a bargaining mood, the opportunity to use them had passed.

I'm sure he considered that if he did use WMD's on U.S. Troops, we would have decimated his country from the air because, if you can't send in the infantry due to them being sitting ducks for WMD's you obliterate the target.


But not so much that he wasn't able to ship all of the WMDs to Syria, right? You really need to make up your mind about this.Yes. Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Mission accomplished, indeed.
I think we'll wait until all the facts are in. I don't have enough of the facts, nor do you, to know where the WMD's went. There is evidence that some did go to Syria.

And, that would be in line with the thinking that he believed he was going to survive the invasion or that an invasion would be prevented by his UN allies Russia, Germany, and France -- not to mention Kofi Annan -- and, so maybe it'd be prudent to hide or get rid of any that he did have.

Just what were those hundreds of trucks hauling out of that known weapons site a month before the invasion? Aren't you curious?

[Yonivore]

We obviously completely secured Afghanistan. There is absolutely no Taliban presence there at all.
Well, there are 500 (or so) fewer this week than last week.

[Yonivore]

:rolleyes

You must have missed Tora-bora.
Okay, that's one occasion. Only about 10 more to go before he passes Billy Boy.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would you ask me that question?Why wouldn't I? If reams of documents prove the antrax exist and orders to use them written, why would they not be available and clearly marked?
I think there were other dynamics, other than the direct threat posed by Saddam Hussein, in play.It's very convenient for you to downplay the WMD issue when the well runs dry, isn't it?
Whether you want to admit it or not, al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan into Iraq since before our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. There is plenty of evidence Saddam Hussein was trying desperately to shake off sanctions so he could rebuild his weapons assets and, there are Iraq officials that have testified that he had the materials and capabilities to field some chemical weapons on very short notice -- as little as weeks.So where are they?
I also believe Iraq is a more strategic location than is North Korea and there are fewer attendant diplomatic issues (CHINA) than there would be if we were to invade North Korea. Invading Iraq has changed the dynamic in the Middle East. Terrorists are funneling into the place to die by the hundreds.And to live. And to recruit more terrorists. And to kill more Americans. Who is going to be there longer?
Maybe he believed his regime would survive an invasion. He survived the first encounter with the U.S. without resorting to WMD's. Maybe he believe he could bargain his way out again -- and, by the time he realized this President wasn't in a bargaining mood, the opportunity to use them had passed.

I'm sure he considered that if he did use WMD's on U.S. Troops, we would have decimated his country from the air because, if you can't send in the infantry due to them being sitting ducks for WMD's you obliterate the target.So you DO know the mind of Saddam. Bravo.
I think we'll wait until all the facts are in. I don't have enough of the facts, nor do you, to know where the WMD's went. There is evidence that some did go to Syria.So, if that's true we are less safe now. I agree.
Just what were those hundreds of trucks hauling out of that known weapons site a month before the invasion? Aren't you curious?We weren't curious enough to stop them were we? Aren't you curious about that?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, there are 500 (or so) fewer this week than last week.Yes, and fewer Americans too. I'm sure you're happy about that. It's great that we finished the nation-building in Afghanistan before jumping into Iraq. Mission accomplished.

[Yonivore]

Yes, and fewer Americans too. I'm sure you're happy about that. It's great that we finished the nation-building in Afghanistan before jumping into Iraq. Mission accomplished.
You're an idiot. I'm sorry, that's the only thing to conclude.

[ChumpDumper]

I concluded you were an idiot a long time ago, and I was never sorry about it.

[Yonivore]

I concluded you were an idiot a long time ago, and I was never sorry about it.
So, we've been in this circle a hundred times in this forum. Why bother?

Unfortunately, Kori's seen fit to make you a moderator who can't be put on ignore. Let's see how I do at just ignoring you.

[ChumpDumper]

Aw, Yoni's taking his ball and going home.

Keep posting the documents about WMDs that definitely did exist unless they didn't and were ready to deploy at a moments notice but weren't because Saddam completely surprised but still managed to get out of Iraq in huge truck caravans because they weren't clearly marked and Saddam couldn't talk to his commanders in the field.

[Yonivore]

Aw, Yoni's taking his ball and going home.

Keep posting the documents about WMDs that definitely did exist unless they didn't and were ready to deploy at a moments notice but weren't because Saddam completely surprised but still managed to get out of Iraq in huge truck caravans because they weren't clearly marked and Saddam couldn't talk to his commanders in the field.
Okay, one last post to Chumpy.

No, I'm not taking my ball and going home. I'm just through arguing with you. I don't suffer idiots for long and I've suffered you much too long. And, if I'm such an idiot, why would you want to do any different?

Have a nice life.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Another failed message board oath.
No, I'm not taking my ball and going home. I'm just through arguing with you. I don't suffer idiots for long and I've suffered you much too long. And, if I'm such an idiot, why would you want to do any different?It's fun. I "suffer" idiots all the time.

[Yonivore]

The latest article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/690coaxy.asp) from Thomas Joscelyn. An interesting read about the latest Senate Intelligence Committee's report.

Two things he points out:

(1) It seems that we have more evidence that Tyler Drumheller's (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml), a 26-year veteran of the CIA, story was not accurate. Drumheller told 60 Minutes and a number of other media outlets earlier this year that (via the French, it later turned out) the CIA had recruited Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, as a top spy inside Saddam's regime. Drumheller insisted that Sabri told the CIA that Saddam didn't have any WMD programs of any kind.

According to an account from the Washington Post earlier this year and evidence cited in the newly released Senate Intelligence Report, that story was not accurate. Sabri actually told the his debriefers that Iraq did have WMD programs.

(2) I found it interesting that the Democrats wanted to include Sabri's testimony, but only as far as it supposedly denied any connection between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. They didn't want to include his prewar testimony about WMD's. Why? Well, the former would have cut against the Bush administration, while the latter would have worked in the Bush administration's favor.

That's cherry-picking defined.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, the Democrats acted like politicians.

Stunning.

Include both his pre and postwar testimony. It'll show how fucked up the intel was.

[Nbadan]

Reads to me that the reason Sabri was hardly mentioned with relation to Saddam's WMDs was because he was playing the U.S...


For a short time before the 2003 invasion, the CIA maintained French-sponsored, third-party contact with Sabri. In exchange for $100,000, Sabri offered the agency important details on some of Saddam's alleged weapons programs and assurances on the discontinuance of others. Sabri told the CIA that Saddam had stockpiled certain chemical weapons, specifically "poison gas." Newly declassified reports indicate that Saddam had if fact possessed those same weapons of mass destruction. In the lead-up to the invasion, the CIA pressured Sabri to defect to the United States, but Sabri declined. Communication between Sabri and the agency ceased thereafter.

the US military did not include Sabri in the " deck of cards" featuring the most-wanted Iraqi suspects.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure folks would say lots of things for $100,000.

[Nbadan]

I'm sure folks would say lots of things for $100,000.

That kinda money goes a long way in the M.E.. I'm sure Sabri would claim Saddam killed JonBonet for that kinda cash.

[01Snake]

That kinda money goes a long way in the M.E.. I'm sure Sabri would claim Saddam killed JonBonet for that kinda cash.

How far would $25M go?

[ChumpDumper]

Shit, Yoni would say Saddam had no WMDs and vote for Hilary if someone gave him $100,000.

[Ocotillo]

Why is Yoni wasting time in Round Rock. He should try to get a job in the Cheney administration, Cheney loves this kind of intelligence.

[scott]

Gateway Pundit assembles evidence of Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda ties and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/picture-proof-saddam-al-qaeda.html#links)


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050/620/320/document%20IZSP-2003-00003336.jpg (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060317/IZSP-2003-00003336.pdf)
Click on the image to see the .pdf file.

The Arabic original shows the Falcon emblem of the Iraq Intelligence Service. A translation is provided if you scroll down in the linked pdf document. I have highlighted the key wording but there is more:

Unless we see a translation that is different I think we have this:

1) Proof that Saddam had small amounts of anthrax -- or a belief by his intelligence service that they possessed enough anthrax to use in this endeavor.

2) Proof that Saddam was willing and had planned to use non Iraqi terrorists to carry out a biological attack.

I highlight, you decide.

[clambake]

What are you bitching about Yoni? You got your Saddam, he's in court.

Iraq is a clusterfuck, our men and women are still dying. Isn't that what you wanted?

[Yonivore]

I highlight, you decide.
How much anthrax is needed to cause mass casaulties?

[Ocotillo]

Does anthrax make mushroom clouds?

[Yonivore]

Does anthrax make mushroom clouds?
Does ebola?

[Ocotillo]

Does anthrax make mushroom clouds?

Most people bought into the Saddam has WMD since he had them back in the 80s when he gassed the Iranians and again later when he gassed the Kurds. BushCo didn't think that would be enough to sell the American public on the Saddam threat hence the Saddam is developing nukes stories began to be trotted out. Dr. Rice had the famous "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" statement.

And by the way, whatever happened to the Anthrax mail guy? That particular terrorist kinda disappeared.

[ChumpDumper]

But the $100,000 star informant said the bioweapons program was crap.
"The only program not described as fully active was the biological weapons program which [Sabri] described as 'amateur,' and not constituting a real weapons program."You really can't make your mind up about anything, can you?

[smeagol]

Saddam had no WMDs and had no links to AQ.

Iran has more WMDs (or is seriously trying to build them) and has more links to terrorists.

I still don't know why the US went into Iraq (aside from toppling a dictator thug).

[Yonivore]

Saddam had no WMDs and had no links to AQ.

Iran has more WMDs (or is seriously trying to build them) and has more links to terrorists.

I still don't know why the US went into Iraq (aside from toppling a dictator thug).
Tell me, smeagol; from all we know about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, could a reasonable person presume he was murdered?

[ChumpDumper]

So regime change and nation-building on a hunch is the best we can do?

[Ya Vez]

we went into iraq because they got tired of all the bitching from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building... like taking care of all the dictators in south america, africa and asia... it was good nation building as long as we were taking out evil military dictatorships that basically killed off leftist... yeah I remember that good old days when leftist here wanted the US to take care of these regimes.... my how the times have changed....

[boutons_]

"we went into iraq because they got tired of all the bitching from the left"

just fucking amazing bullshit.

Yes, times have changed.

In earlier decades, Islamic terrorism wasn't the threat, to USA and its allies (do we still have any of those? do we even care? ), than it is today, so non-terrorist bad guys like Sunni/Baathist Saddam, (who just happened to be militarily opposed/counter-weight to Shiite terrorist Iran (ie, effectively Saddam on OUR side)) will have to get in line behind fighting the terrorists as the US priority.

[ChumpDumper]

we went into iraq because they got tired of all the bitching from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.:lmao
I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.Can you produce a quote where he said he got tired of the left's bitching that there wasn't enough nation building?

Of course not.

[Nbadan]

we went into iraq because they got tired of all the bitching from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.

NeoCons are former leftist, hense the need for foreign intervention.

[smeagol]

Tell me, smeagol; from all we know about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, could a reasonable person presume he was murdered?
Yes, but the analogy is far, and I mean really far, from perfect.

Look Yoni, if there were WMDs in Iraq, Amercian soldiers would have found them by now. No matter how much you spin, facts are facts.

And the argument there was a strong the link between Saddam and AQ is as blurry as they come.

America made a mistake going to war against Saddam. The fact they have spent billions of dollars in this worthless war is mind boggling.

[Yonivore]

Yes, but the analogy is far, and I mean really far, from perfect.

Look Yoni, if there were WMDs in Iraq, Amercian soldiers would have found them by now. No matter how much you spin, facts are facts.
Why? Why would they have found them by now? Do you realize how big Iraq is and how easily concealable are the components of such weapons?


And the argument there was a strong the link between Saddam and AQ is as blurry as they come.
And, coming more and more into focus with every translated document.


America made a mistake going to war against Saddam. The fact they have spent billions of dollars in this worthless war is mind boggling.
This is your opinion. Granted, it is shared by many but equally not by others. I think there was ample justification for the invasion of Iraq. That you don't see that is, in my mind, boggling as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? Why would they have found them by now? Do you realize how big Iraq is and how easily concealable are the components of such weapons?Because they were completely at the ready and we surprised Saddam according to your conflicting scenarios.
And, coming more and more into focus with every translated document.The funny part is, you have complete faith in the knowledge of Saddam's underlings when it is obvious that your star witness lied either before or after the invasion so he could get $100,000. Is it possible in your world that these documents you wave in our faces that a desperate Bush administration won't even pimp were made by folks who really didn't know what the status of the WMD programs actually was? Absolutely.
This is your opinion. Granted, it is shared by many but equally not by others. I think there was ample justification for the invasion of Iraq. That you don't see that is, in my mind, boggling as well.Given the real threats that the US faces today, the illusory threat that we made ourselves believe Iraq posed to us could go down in history as the biggest foreign policy blunder ever commited by this country.

[Ya Vez]

we went into iraq because they got tired of all the bitching from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.

In the 1990s, liberal foreign-policy wonks in and out of the Clinton administration had pretty much one serious foreign-policy idea: nation-building. Many conservatives, for reasons good and bad, objected to the idea. America didn’t need to fix Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti and other imploding nations—that’s foreign policy as social work, conservatives said. In the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush opposed nation-building while Al Gore supported it. Gore was right and Bush was wrong, though neither quite appreciated why. Liberal enthusiasm for nation-building—which should really be called “state building”—was largely based in do-gooderism. Conservative opposition was largely grounded in national security. “Superpowers don’t do windows,” remarked John Hillen, a conservative foreign-policy realist and currently a State Department official.

Much has been made of President Bush’s “hypocrisy” for now embracing a policy he once opposed. Less criticism has been directed at liberal Democrats who championed nation-building when it wasn’t in our national interest but denounce it now that it is. John Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction legislation symbolized a bizarre flip-flop, not just on Kerry’s part but on the part of the Democratic party in general. If all the rhetoric about the “root causes” of terrorism—poverty, disease, political instability, hopelessness, etc.—are to be taken seriously, then the morally compelling position on Iraq (and Afghanistan) should be to spend whatever it takes to get Iraq and other crucial failed states up and running on the path to normalcy and decency. That is, in effect, what many liberals are saying about Sudan.

[ChumpDumper]

Credit the Weekly Standard when you rip them off.

[Ya Vez]

nope it's NRO.... pretty much like the left posting NYT and Nation editorials.....

[ChumpDumper]

They post links, doofus.

[Ya Vez]

doofus.. I posted a thread called "who lost the world" read it for yourself....

[ChumpDumper]

I read this one. Link it.

[Ya Vez]

http://article.nationalreview.com/q=NjkyZjY1ODE0YTM3NmY5ZGM4MjA1YTVkMzI0M2EwZWQ=

[Ya Vez]

better try this link...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkyZjY1ODE0YTM3NmY5ZGM4MjA1YTVkMzI0M2EwZWQ=

[clambake]

You and the President say it was nessesary to invade Iraq.

Based on the facts, I say it wasn't.

The one thing we all have in common is... this mission has failed.

Is it better to have failed at something that isn't nessesary, or better to have failed at something that is?