Ah, polls and pollsters. Love’em, hate’em.

In another poll released today…

57% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave “substantial support” to al-Qaeda before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

45% of Americans have the impression that “clear evidence” was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
38% believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 22 percent believe he had a major program for developing them.
There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true.

The number of those who believed the year-old war would result in greater peace and stability in the Middle East has dropped from 56 percent in a Gallup poll in May 2003 to 40 percent in the new poll.

link

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 25, 2004 09:59 AM

Regarding the Saadam + AQ issue and the missing WMD issue, the Anti-Bush crowd seems quite confused as to why so many Americans believe that Saddam DID have a working “relationship of convenience” with AQ and that the WMD are MISSING as opposed to nonexistant.

Let me clear this up.

It’s called COMMON SENSE.

It’s true that we could not prove, in an American Court of Law, that Saddam and AQ had any kind of relationship.
The govt has also had many problems proving that the Mafia is involved in trucking, carting, gambling, prostitution, etc., which is why they invented RICO.

To believe that Saddam and AQ had no relationship is like believing that O.J. is innocent.

The Anti-Bush crowd WANTS to believe that Saddam had no WMD or connection to AQ. Not because it’s logical, but because it’s the opposite of what they see Bush as saying.

I’m not going to re-hash the massive amounts of circumstantial evidence in support of the existance of a Saddam/AQ link, or the existance of WMD. It’s silly to do so because those who WANT to disbelieve, WILL disbelieve. In fact, when the WMD’s are eventually found…
They have to be SOMEWHERE folks…
When they are eventually found, the Anti-Bush crowd will either denounce it as a plant, or if they are found before November, as an election year ploy. Or both.

Don’t believe me…?

They have already been floating the tinfoil-hat theory that we already HAVE Bin Laden in custody, and will bring him out in October. That way, just in case we actually DO catch him before the election, they are in a position to claim that it’s another evil plot by the nazi in the whitehouse.

Anyway, the point is this:

The majority of Americans base their opinions on this issue on common sense, not what either side tries to tell them.

Posted by: eric at April 25, 2004 10:56 AM

Worse yet, 48 % think the economy is getting worse.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/daily.htm

and about 35% think we are in recession. No link, but it is Rasmussen.

At least we had Ansar al Islam to link AQ with SH. These people are walking on clouds.

Posted by: jones at April 25, 2004 11:00 AM

eric, we cross posted.

Posted by: jones at April 25, 2004 11:01 AM

“45% of Americans have the impression that “clear evidence” was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
38% believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 22 percent believe he had a major program for developing them.
There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true.”

There is also no known evidence to date that these statements are false.

Posted by: Tim Gannon at April 25, 2004 01:37 PM

Looks good. Bush is competetive in Democratic states, Kerry is behind in Republican states. Bush can concentrate his efforts.

OT:
I constantly hear Reagan won 49 states in ‘88. Question: Which state didn’t vote for him?

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at April 25, 2004 01:47 PM

Minnesota, Mondale’s home state, and DC.

Posted by: jones at April 25, 2004 01:50 PM

// It’s true that we could not prove, in an American Court of Law, that Saddam and AQ had any kind of relationship.//

Remember John O’Neill? The FBI talked about his work at the 9/11 Commission Hearings. Richard Clarke talks about him in his book. O’Neill knew more about OBL than any other counter-terrorism chief. He had retired from the FBI and had gone to work at the WTC about 2 weeks before 9/11.

The Man Who Knew – Frontline/PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/

I would say O’Neill has a lot of credibility perhaps even after his death. His Estate has filed this law suit. And I doubt this suit had anything to do with money, just as I believe this suit has more to do with the good name and work of O’Neill and his heirs desire to make known the evidence connecting Saddam and OBL. We will see if that is the case when the John O’Neill’s Estate goes to court. I’m very interested is following this case.

John O’Neill Estate Sues Iraq for 9/11 Attacks
http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00137.html

And for those who insist that Saddam hated OBL because he was a Islamic radical and Saddam was secular:

SADDAM WAS ‘FOND OF’ BIN LADEN

Baghdad, Iraq Press, March 24, 2004 – The ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein highly admired Osama Bin Laden.

The leader of the terrorist group al-Qaeda was declared “the man of the year” in 2002 in Iraq on direct orders from Saddam Hussein, the country’s most influential newspaper has revealed.

Azzaman daily said Saddam Hussein wanted “exploit and garner support” of Bin Laden’s loyalists, according to an official document it obtained recently.

The document is a letter Saddam Hussein had sent to his then Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf asking him to declare Bin Laden the man of the year.

In the letter, Saddam orders Sahaf to tell state-run dailies and those owned by his elder son Uday to publish articles extolling Bin Laden and canvass Iraqis opinions about him.

Bin Laden and his terror group publicly attacked Saddam Hussein’s secular regime.

But despite Bin Laden’s negative views of the regime, Saddam Hussein’s letter openly calls on Sahaf and his information ministry to heap praise on al-Qaeda leader.

The document is dated December 29, 2002, three months before the start of the US-led war that resulted in the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Posted by: TexasGal at April 25, 2004 02:08 PM

eric,

It’s very easy for me to tune out Bush’s critics since they constantly contradict themselves. A few months earlier, they were roasting Bush for leading us into war with shoddy intelligence, for connecting the dots and making inferences about Saddam’s WMD programs. Then in March, the same people who criticized Bush for not having iron-clad intelligence excoriate Bush for not extrapolating the intelligence about Bin Laden’s targeting of America into stopping 9/11.

They lament that Bush didn’t tackle terrorism as aggressively as Bill Clinton did (they say this with a straight face), but became apoplectic when Bush adopted tough anti-terrorist measures AFTER 9/11!

It’s frustrating to see people who like Bush but who don’t follow the news closely to hear them start parroting stuff this guy Michael Moore (who they’ve never heard of) said about Bush.

They have no principled vision about how to tackle terrorism and ensure national security. The best they can do is select candidates with military backgrounds and hope that’s enough to convince voters they’re serious about national security. Then once elected, they can put national security on the back burner and get back to the real mission of government: cheaper prescription drugs for senior citizens.

Posted by: Moonbat_One at April 25, 2004 03:47 PM

Maybe the pollsters don’t give enough credit to the memory and mind of the American voter.

Anyone old enough to vote, is also old enough to remember Iraqi CW attacks on Iran, and to remember Halabja. So, there is no real doubt that Iraq had WMD. Saddam used them, and that’s that.

Voters are also old enough to remember Saddam’s words and actions regarding the Palestinians, especially terrorists and bombings. So there is no real doubt about Saddam’s role in the War on Terror. Spin and mockery of the President won’t fool that many people.

So, here we are in an election, where a Senator who seems remarkably the same as the fact-spinning media, is running against President Bush.

While Bush has his issues and there are questions to answer, as long as the media and that certain Senator insist on a duplicitous mein and and hostility against certain aspects of Reality, the President will continue to enjoy public support in many parts of the country.

Posted by: GDubya at April 25, 2004 04:34 PM

I’ve heard conflicting things about the ‘93 WTC attack and the millennium attempt as well.

Could we have a run-down of things we think we found that perhaps didn’t pan out WMD wise? There’s a fair chunk of ‘proscribed technologies’ that appear to be ‘proven’, but a nice succinct list would do wonders.

One in particular I’m interested in was 2000+ 55 gallon drums full of ‘pesticide’. Dual use, ok, fine…. so why is it burried? Does this count for nothing?

Posted by: Al at April 25, 2004 04:58 PM

The report of a meeting between Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 ringleaders, and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague has never been repudiated by the Czech government. There have been various stories floating around that the the Czechs later backtracked, but these apparently are not true. The FBI says it believes that Atta was in the U.S. at the time, but one wonders, since the FBI wasn’t tracking any of the 19 hijackers. What is undisputed is that Atta made a quick one day trip from Bonn to Prague in 2000, before flying on to Newark. So why did Atta have to go to Prague to get to Newark? There aren’t any planes flying out of Germany to New York?

Posted by: popd at April 25, 2004 06:50 PM

For the unbelievers

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/#ContinueArticle

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/283

Posted by: marymcl at April 25, 2004 08:42 PM

“57% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave “substantial support” to al-Qaeda before the war with
Iraq,….”

They’re right.

“45% of Americans have the impression that “clear evidence” was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama
bin Laden’s terrorist network.”

They’re right.

“38% believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 22 percent believe he had a major
program for developing them.”

Right again.

“There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true.”

All you do here is confess your own ignorance. Fortunately, the rst of America has done it’s own research and formed their own opinions. Too bad they don’t jive with your wishes, eh? Better luck next time.

Posted by: jeffers at April 25, 2004 10:10 PM

Jeffers,
I hardly think I’m confessing ignorance by quoting an article from a prominent newspaper.

There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true.

That wasn’t my statement. It was in the article.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 26, 2004 12:14 PM

If memory serves the media played up the Iraq/Al Queda connection in the days after 9/11 almost until they realized that Iraq might actually be a target, then they changed their tune. I remember one of the first article was a well written peace in the Guardian talking about the Salman Pak training facility South of Baghdad, the one with the Jet fuselage used for training terrorists.

I have often wondered why the US military didn’t send an embedded reporter along with the units that secured the Salman Pak area. Would have made some nice footage having a reporter walking down the aisle of that plane, and showing the various dorms used to house foreign students.

Posted by: ruprecht at April 26, 2004 12:31 PM

Whew! We’ve come a long way from Maryland pollsters to Salam Pak.

If my memory serves, the Salam Pak evidence was based on the word of a couple defectors (we now know defectors aren’t terribly reliable sources of intelligence information). CIA interviewers dismissed their assertions.

I’d bet my last dollar if the Salam Pak evidence had proven to be true, Bush & Co. would be running it up every right-wing flagpole they could find.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvisprelsy2k at April 26, 2004 01:31 PM

Well, and a few shots from a KH-11 or two.

Maybe, Elvis, not everybody plays the way ya’ll do, looking for political play first.

Maybe some consider the ramifications of releasing something, especially when “Sources and Methods” get into the mix.

Posted by: GDubya at April 26, 2004 02:16 PM

Gdubya,

Maybe some consider the ramifications of releasing something, especially when “Sources and Methods” get into the mix.

Are you talking about Bush & Co.?
What about the “outing” of the CIA agent to the conservative columnist Novak? I guess that was her penalty for exposing the truth (the falsified Niger deal). No thoughtful consideration of ramifications, just pure politics, baby!

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 26, 2004 03:04 PM

My Mom used to say Play with fire and you’re gonna get burned.

It seems to me that the “outed” CIA staffer’s hubby played with fire and did indeed get burned.

Poor boy.

And what was false about the Niger deal?

Posted by: skip at April 26, 2004 04:19 PM

Well, Elvis didn’t like it, apparently.

And I have heard that the hubby had a great deal to do with all the publicity around his wife. After all these months, no link to the White House has surfaced. But the rumors will doubtless continue for at least another seven months or so.

Posted by: GDubya at April 26, 2004 04:24 PM

Skip, Gdub:
Regarding Niger dealings…it’s old news…here ya go…

Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were “obvious” fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration’s case against Iraq.

“I’m sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them,” former CIA official Ray Close said.

link

Regarding the outing:
The investigation continues:

WASHINGTON, April 2 (UPI) — The investigation into last year’s leak of a CIA agent’s name is expanding further into the Bush administration, the New York Times reported Friday.

The inquiry is also set to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case.

It is officials working in Cheney’s office who reportedly are the likeliest White House aides to be indicted for leaking, for political purposes, the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 26, 2004 05:15 PM

Ahhhh.

So, if the New York Times reports ‘if’ and ‘maybe’, that’s as good as proof to you?

As for Niger, I seem to recall that the discredited report was not the one that British Intelligence made its assessment upon.

So, as before, it all comes down to whom you believe. And we all have danced that dance already?

[looks around furtively for John Cleese, half convinced this is now a ‘Monty Python’ skit]

Posted by: GDubya at April 26, 2004 06:08 PM

ep2K, 2 things. First if it’s the NYTimes, you have to prove that it isn’t fiction. ala Blair, Glass and a host of others. Then you have to prove that it was someone in the wjite house that told Novak. Novak was the one who actually made it public. So he should get to see the inside of a jail cell. It is not beyond the relm of possibility that it was a demonrat left over from the Clinton WH. Such as CYA Clark. Wasn’t he one of Wilson’s buddies? So the whole thing could be a set up. Strap down your tin foil and think about that for a while.

Posted by: ableiter at April 26, 2004 06:34 PM

I can proove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein had many connections to the Al Queda terrorist network. I can prove this in any court of law.

Salman Pak, Yassin Harbored as Bargaining Chip for a decade and then offered up at last minute prior to the recent war, e.t.c. e.t.c.

I got piles of evidence. I can dig up even more evidence…. There’s plenty out there.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 26, 2004 06:53 PM

EP2k,

It is quite amusing how satellite photos supporting the Salaam Pax assertion sway you less than hyperbole that Bush & Co “outed” a CIA operative. Funny how the only people pressuring Novak to fess up was Bush and Co.

As for Al Queda and Saddam, I seem to recall seeing photos of conveys from Baghdad followed to Ansar al Islam strongholds in NE Iraq. This is the same Ansar al Islam that claimed responsibility for the suicide bombings in the Kurdish north. You can draw obvious conclusions that Saddam was paying a sub-chapter of Al Queda to harass at least one of his enemies. And I’m sure Al Queda was nice and constrained those payments to only be used for operations against Northern Iraq and didn’t use those monies for say, operations in N. America.

Never mind the new allegations that some of the UN oil-for-food payments went to paymaster organizations for Al Queda. We’ll probably never know for sure since no independent investigation of the the UN will ever take place. What does a non-profit world organization really have to hide?

Posted by: jet at April 26, 2004 09:12 PM

Just shows you how Dumb the people are..LOL Walk down the street and realize that 60% of the people you see are Fools and you could sell them swamp land in Iraq.

Better go buy an SUV. Gas prices will be droping come Oct… Won’t make up for the Gouging But 60% will Think So.

Posted by: VF at April 27, 2004 04:17 AM

Common Sense wouldn’t make you attack a country that is 3..3 countries in One, that is falling apart and you Don’t know the language or customes and Think it will be a Cake Walk and 20Bil$ income /yr Max will Run the country and pay off 200Bil$ in debt while you Look for Yellow Cake YOU invented and are in bed with Radical Fundamentalists when They are secular and Kill muslim leaders. That Sure is a Great senario for Going to WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Down to 70 HumV’s from 400. Lost 4 yesterday so guess it is 66 Or Less now and not that many Fireball Bradlies. Tank treads are on back order since they Don’t last long runing on highways. Someone is making a Killing aside from all the Dead Bodies.

Glad I Don’t have That kind of COMMON Sense. I feel like Einstein compared to the Kids in the House and the 60%.

Posted by: VF at April 27, 2004 04:30 AM

VF
FYI
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-25-humvee-orders_x.htm

Apparently about 15000 or is that 14670 Humvees left in Iraq. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: AngloAmerican at April 27, 2004 06:30 AM

Gdub,
Regarding the outing:
The NYT says the investigation is expanding further into the white house. How is this incorrect?

That last paragraph in my quote is from the Washington Times (implicating Cheney’s group). WT isn’t known for its left-leaning coverage. How do explain that?

Regarding Niger docs…
You say:

As for Niger, I seem to recall that the discredited report was not the one that British Intelligence made its assessment upon.

Have a source? Preferably from the NYT :)

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Bush said.

U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.

The other source was the Interagency report. (That’s the only source I could track down, if you have another source please provide it.) Page 90 of the report has the State Department intelligence office indicating they doubted the attempted Niger uranium purchases.

So after the report was discredited as a fake, Bush & co. try say they have other sources, which other U.S. officials admit don’t hold water.

Jet,
Powell used many satellite images in his presentation to the U.N. Were any of them correct?

Jeff
Sure post your sources.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 27, 2004 10:30 AM

Can we stop calling that Bimbo a “CIA operative”?

She was an ANALYST.

Not that analysts should be outed either, but this wasn’t “Jane Bond” here…

This was a woman whose job was, essentially, to write book reports about the news.

Posted by: eric at April 27, 2004 10:50 AM

To follow up on the other Niger sources….

…CIA officials recently stated that “U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents which are now known to be fraudulent.” The CIA provided this other information to the IAEA along with the forged documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence, the IAEA stated: “we have found to date no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”

ok, ep2k
link to waxman’s site (annotated links at the bottom)

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 27, 2004 10:53 AM

Eric,
Regardless of her stature, the disclosure was illegal.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 27, 2004 10:55 AM

So, Elvis, they never found Jimmy Hoffa either, and we’re pretty sure about what happened to him.

Your rumors and suppositions are amusing. Do please keep telling us what stories and theories you have unearthed. It’s so Enquirer-esque.

Posted by: GDubya at April 27, 2004 01:15 PM

Gdub,
Despite your sarcasm, the Niger link was forged and the secondary evidence is currently considered a non-starter.

News reports indicate someone in the White House “outed” a U.S. operative, an illegal (and treasonous?) act, for, based on what is known at the moment, purely political reasons.

The sources I’ve cited are mainstream: NYT, WT, IAEA.
Please feel free to post your own sources.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 27, 2004 03:55 PM

Elvis, all you’ve done is point to sources which say “might”, “could”, “maybe”. Or as your last post claims, “Indicate”.

You demand proof when someone makes a claim, well so do I. Your innuendo remains speculation and rumor, and I will treat it as such.

Of course, with the polls showing what they do, I’m not surprised the Left will cling to whatever looks like a life raft…

Posted by: GDubya at April 27, 2004 05:41 PM

Elvis -

That ruffling sensation in your hair was my POINT going over your head at .5C and accelerating.

Posted by: eric at April 27, 2004 08:00 PM

The lefties problem is that they think there is only one country in Africa. The Brits recently de-classified an intelligence document that was NOT the one that was a forgery. There were two African nations (and this is what Bush referred to in the SOTU) and they were South Africa and, damn, I don’t remember the other, but it wasn’t Niger.

Also the Timmerman article re WMD found in Iraq…click my name for the link.

Posted by: Syl at April 27, 2004 11:36 PM

Gdub,
I’m not demanding proof, please don’t distort.
Nor have I presented “proof”, merely (mainstream) reports of the topics at hand. What sources do you rely on? Clairvoyant knowledge?

Syl,
Tenet does make a mention about two other “african nations” in his apology about letting Bush mention the supposed africa/uranium deal. About a year ago, the Brits said they never mentioned Niger specifically and only implied the inclusion of other african nations. I can’t find anything recent on it though. Post a source, if you can.

Your link leads to a blank page. Here’s the correct link. I didn’t see any mention of the supposed Africa connection within the article.

ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 28, 2004 12:27 PM

Your dodge didn’t quite work, Elvis.

You made claims, but didn’t back them up. So, I don’t believe you. Get mad, cry, go tell your mommy, do whatever you want, but you aren’t selling your side very well.

Now, as for my opinion. It’s my opinion. When I say a thing is fact, then you can ask for proof, but when I say something in the course of a discussion, then you can say what you want, but the bottom line here, is this thread is about why Bush is doing so well. Even if you were right and I wrong, that doesn’t explain why Bush is doing so well. Of course, if I’m right and you’re wrong, then that fits. But I can certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to consider that possibility.

In light of WMD, by the way, what was in that warehouse which exploded Monday? Or that Al Qaeda cache seized on its way to Jordan? Ahhh, it doesn’t help your side, so I expect you will continue to ignore it.

Posted by: GDubya at April 28, 2004 12:41 PM

Gdub,
Not dodging anything. I made an argument based on common news reports. You said I demanding proof which I wasn’t.

My point (from my first post) is that polls are polls.
I countered the topic’s poll with another poll report (released the on same day, I believe) showing how Americans are (still) misinformed about the intelligence leading up to the invasion.
I think this sums up the article nicely:

A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave “substantial support” to al-Qaeda before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

CIA Director George Tenet last month rejected assertions by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had cooperated with al-Qaeda.

Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll found.

Regarding WMD: I’m not ignoring any new WMD revelations. I’ll be the first to admit this story is far from over. The validity of specific pre-invasion intelligence (Powell’s presentation) seems fairly complete, that is unless you have some sources you’d like to post :)

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 28, 2004 01:02 PM

Permit me my doubts, Elvis.

You made statements attacking the SOTU, and for support, your sources only brought up a document no one says was used for the SOTU. That makes your allegation unsupported;

You made statements implying that there were no WMD in Iraq. Now, like Kerry, you deny what you said earlier. Another unsupported allegation;

You have tried to tie the Bush White House to claims that a CIA agent was ‘outed’ for political motives, but your best sources use words like “indicate” and “possible”. Once again, on close examination, the allegations prove to be unsupported by any substantive evidence.

The debate is enjoyable, but making claims without support is much different than telling someone what you believe or think reasonable. In this thread, the starting fact is that Bush doing well in the polls. You are speaking reasonably to say you don’t count polls as accurate, but your claims to fact, especially when you claim them to be supported by your sources, simply fall flat here..

Posted by: GDubya at April 28, 2004 02:29 PM

Gdub,

Regarding the state of the union’s Iraq and African uranium assertions:
What Bush presented was faulty. Niger was forged and the secondary intelligence held no water.

…officials have said it (Niger) was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

source: Washington Post

Regarding Iraq and WMD:
The article I quoted said: “there was a lack evidence” (regarding Iraq’s possession of WMD) and “There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true.” I also pointed this out to Jeffers further up. If you have evidence that Iraq has WMD, you should send it to the Philly Enquirer.

Regarding the outing:
My opinion (for the motives of the outing) is based on Washington Times’ reporting (see the paragraph I quoted further up).

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 28, 2004 04:17 PM

Gee, Elvis, now you’re just repeating yourself.

What, it gets more credible the second or third time?

LOL.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 09:15 AM

Elvis - what you don’t seem to realize is that statements such as

“But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts”

and

“But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said “

do not constitute proof. It’s like the last scene in “Raiders of the lost Ark” when the gov’t agents tell Harrison Ford that the matter is being taken care of by top men. “Who?” says the professor. “Top… men,” respond the agents. Then, you cut to the scene where the case is being carted into a vast warehouse to be buried and forgotten.

No, I’m sorry but, phrases like “a knowledgable U.S. official” and “intelligence analysts” just don’t cut the mustard, especially from tendentious sources such as the NYT and the WaPo.

Posted by: Reid at April 29, 2004 04:17 PM

Reid,
To belabor the “proof” thing some more…
Again, I’m not saying the sources I cite are proof, just mainstream journalism supporting my point of view. If I was citing the Weekly Standard, Limbaugh, Mother Jones, New Republic or some other overtly biased source (I had to look up “tendentious”), I’d say you have a point.

Regarding un-named sources Sadly this is common practice in all current journalism, I wish things were more open, but understand the need for confidentiality. This doesn’t mean those sources can’t be trusted. Wasn’t “Deep throat” an un-named source?

Ironically, you conclude the Post, Times, NYT are left-biased without providing any “proof” to support the conclusion.

Speaking of left-biased ironies: The WP was a strong editorial advocate for the Iraq invasion, hardly a left-wing stance.

OK, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 30, 2004 11:32 AM

Deep Throat, in many minds, was Woodward and Bernstein’s concoction; a trick used toopen the mouths of sources, by leading them to believe someone else had already told them.

“Unnamed sources”, by definition, cannot and should not be trusted.

Posted by: GDubya at April 30, 2004 01:33 PM

Gdub,
Regarding deep-throat:

“It would be absurd for it (deep-throat) to be a composite.”

—Bob Woodward

But I suppose Woodward is a liar too. Not to be trusted.

As an aside, the only subject this discussion hasn’t touched on is Hitler’s suicide. :)

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 30, 2004 03:27 PM

OK: How do we know Hitler committed suicide?

There, now we’ve run the gamut.

And no, I never trusted Woodward. You do recall, by the way, that Woodward was a Navy officer, and had close contact with Al “I’m in Charge” Haig, when he was Nixon’s slightly dictatorial Chief of Staff?

Posted by: GDubya at May 1, 2004 09:46 AM