John Dean's analysis of the administrations case for War. "What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony."
posted by thedailygrowl
on Jul 18, 2003 -
73 comments
Standing With Osama? "Some of the more bilious right-wing pundits... have taken to describing those who oppose the invasion as 'siding with Saddam.' But if such sleazy rhetoric is allowable, then maybe we should say that those like our President, who seem to have ignored Osama’s decrees, or like Powell, who are hawking a Saddam/Al Qaeda connection based on overblown evidence, are standing with Osama." Is this accusation fair? If so, is it productive? I doubt it, but I'm not certain. Rohan Gunaratna, the author of
"Inside Al Qaeda," warns that an invasion of Iraq would
undermine the international campaign against Al Qaeda and give terrorist groups a new lease on life. Oh well,
at least it's funny. [Via
Cursor.] [More inside.]
posted by homunculus
on Feb 19, 2003 -
21 comments
“President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein ... relied on a
slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.” Another article on the same subject says, “Rumsfeld’s recent remark that the United States has ‘bulletproof’ evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Hussein struck many in the intelligence community as an
exaggerated assessment of the available evidence.” One paper explains the differences this way, “The C.I.A. has to maintain its
credibility for objective estimates. The White House is mobilizing the public and preparing foreign nations for a potential American invasion of Iraq.”
posted by raaka
on Oct 12, 2002 -
44 comments
It appears that there is another twist in the Abu Nidal death as reports are claiming that Saddam Hussein had Abu killed because Nidal didn't want to train Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and strike the US. This does contradict the Iraqi claims that Abu killed himself for plotting to overthrow Saddam.
This is getting stranger and stranger. Is this just creative writing by Iraqi opposition? Won't these claims be used to justify claims that Saddam is harboring Terrorists? Will the US awkardly praise Abu for turning down Saddam's offer?
Who knows..
posted by RobbieFal
on Aug 24, 2002 -
15 comments
Does invading Iraq require more than declaring Saddam Hussein "evil"? The New York Times reports public opposition from people not easily labeled Brie-sucking scared-of-war libyerals -- people like Henry "Bombs Away" Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. Meanwhile, hawks argue that
not attacking after all Bush's rhetoric would "produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
[registration required]
posted by sacre_bleu
on Aug 15, 2002 -
62 comments
