http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

I was listening to some talk radio this morning and this story was the topic of disscussion. I found it interesting but who knows could be a bunch bull..who knows.

I doubt many of the naysay crew will give this document credence. It would deflate their most ardent claim of us going in without just cause.

I'd like to see how this plays out. Give the names of the officials and let us see the documents.

Fandros

I can't imagine, if this were true, that the Bush crew wouldn't be quoting this everytime they spoke.

Absolutely correct Fandros...none whatsover considering the single source. Any news on this from other sources...say one that isn't so obviously slanted?

I doubt many of the naysay crew will give this document credence. It would deflate their most ardent claim of us going in without just cause.

In your haste to throw out an insult, did you verify whether or not this was known/documented before the invasion?

Should we raid a Michigan Militia training compound next?

(It's not intented to be flamebait, honestly...)

Errr Mir you dumbass, I wasn't insulting anyone. Infact finish quoting me before you flipping froth and hit reply okay? I said let us see the papers and give names. I want hard evidence myself...

Although for me the brand me new trucks hidden in the sand pits that were bleach cleaned and could've been used to produce WND was enough for me.

Or week 3 where they found training camps near the Iran boarder...that was enough for me...

Both buried poste haste by media moguls abroad......

So , in answer Mir, it's more than single source for me and more than left/right.

I guess in your haste you constantly lump me into a group with other folks that won't follow you blindly into the night....

git

If you read my post I'm questioning as well. I want more proof and more info, so much it'll choke ostrichs like yourself.

Fandros

It is being carried by other sources. I'll provide the links it took me 4 entire minutes to pull up.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/kouri/2006/01/iraqi-intelligence-documents-saddams.html

or

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4119

or

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012754.php

or

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4671

I don't know any of these papers really. Just pulled them off of google. Personally if this does swing the way it appears it'll swing then game over.

Only 2.5% of total papers captured have been translated and released. Muh guess is Bush and Co are awaiting the final dagger before giving up the info we all want. Better be hard proof imho...

Fandros

The best part of the article is how the best intelligence find on "Teh Terrorists" has been largely ignored after being combed for WMD, while we're spending millions setting up datamining operation targeted on our own population.


"We had boxloads of Iraqi Intelligence records--their names, their jobs, all sorts of detailed information," says the former military intelligence officer. "In an insurgency, wouldn't that have been helpful?"

It is being carried by other sources.
All the links quote the Weekly Standard bit. I don't know about the others, but Powerline and Mensnewsdaily are both very conservative outfits.

Aye, I know it's all linking one source. But it is being covered by more than one single source. That was my point after all.

Fandros

If it is true, I would not be suprised. What has amazed me is how people can say that Saddam had no reason to deal with terrorist organizations when he is the one that paid the families of suicide bombers. Why is it so unbelievable that he would help train these people?


And I can totally see why the mainstream media is staying away from this. As I have stated before, I believe there is a agenda to take down the current administration, and this would not help the cause one bit.

If it is true, I would not be suprised. What has amazed me is how people can say that Saddam had no reason to deal with terrorist organizations when he is the one that paid the families of suicide bombers. Why is it so unbelievable that he would help train these people?
Paying Palestinians to attack Israel was a PR move, not an ideological one. Saddam's public face was that of a devoted Muslim, but his secular leanings were always well known beyond the ranks of his foot soldiers. His tribal affiliations in Iraq, and the fact that his position as dictator allowed the minority Sunnis to retain rule, prevented his lack of religion from significantly endangering his post among his own people. The Kurds and Shiites were, of course, kept under thumb.

But allowing fringe religious elements into his state introduces a difficult to control variable. An increase in religious attitudes in the populace could only destabilize Hussein's authority. Eyeing this article, the better question -- prompted in party by Hayes himself -- is Why hasn't the administration released these materials?. If all these documents, videotapes, disks and such originated in Iraq, then it's no compromise of intelligence to release at least part of the information, enough to make the case. Given how public opinion has soured on Iraq, it belies belief that the administration would hold back such compelling evidence for Reason 652B for going to war.

I suspect the administration has better things to do than rehashing for the millionth time last year's political debates for absolutely nothing new gained from it.

If the previous 652 reasons for being there weren't enough, this wouldn't be either. So you're kidding yourself if you think this would "bring over" more people. Everyone has already made up their mind whether they agree we should have gone in or not.

....and Bush has already given his reasons. Those reasons have proven to be wrong, unfortunately.

If these camps existed (and there's doubt here, as Thormir pointed out) this wasn't known before we invaded. Pointing to something and saying "oh, wait, yeah, THAT'S why we invaded" would just make things worse.

Well, for those of us who can spell critical thinking, it's always nice to have Reason #1 that isn't an outright lie, gross exageration, deliberate misrepresentation, propter-hoc fallacy, or juvenile tautology.

Actually Akipt, I bet the Republican Party has little else to do right now than get above 43% in the approval ratings. Beyond that, see what Malse said.

This I found kinda interesting: http://pollingreport.com/2006.htm#FullTrend

Planet Kelraz's latest poll results show...

The page cannot be displayed.

Stop looking at internet porn and clean off all that spyware, the site perfectly exists :)

It shows that Bush's piss poor approval rating is likely to effect the 2006 elections, as well.

You'll excuse me if I fail to give polls much credence given the last exit polls.

Don't work yourself into a tizzy over numbers set up to reflect opinions.

Fandros

'It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years'

- Is it just me, or does this document only confirm the nay-saying argument?
You guys are shit wrong even when you're trying to be right. It's fucking embarassing.

Thor,


One mistake you are making with your arguement is that the Terrorists leaders are religious zealots. Do you really think that they are true muslims and really care if Saddam is religious or not? They could give 2 shits as long as he supports them and provides money and training area.

These terrorists USE religion as a catalyst to recruit nieve individuals, and USE it to give those said individuals the false promise of sainthood for strapping a bomb on and taking out the infidels. But the true power behind these individuals have an agenda that does not relate to religion.. much like Saddam. They want power and want to use any resource available to meet those needs, which just happens to be the muslim religion.

Also, you assumed that when I suggested the Saddam paid suicide bombers, that it was religious. It was not, since I was referring to the fact that he was..... A TERRORIST SUPPORTER!!!! Saddam and sons were definately NOT religious individuals. He saw Israel as a threat, and friend to the US, and he supported the Palestinian terrorists for that reason. Also it should be noted that the money he paid them with was from the Oil for Food program...

Halo put the Guiness down and explain that last post wouldcha?

You are the one person I'd love to debate with in a pub. Would be interesting to hear you in your full fettle.

Fandros

It's really not that complicated... The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

/shrug

One mistake you are making with your arguement is that the Terrorists leaders are religious zealots. Do you really think that they are true muslims and really care if Saddam is religious or not? They could give 2 shits as long as he supports them and provides money and training area.
So these religious zealouts aren't religious?

I'm not going to venture into whether they are "true" Muslims or not. They can cite chapter (or sura) and verse to say why they are; others cite their own passages to say differently. But you're also inverting the thrust of my argument, which is that Saddam was unlikely to allow such unpredictable variables into the mix.
He saw Israel as a threat, and friend to the US, and he supported the Palestinian terrorists for that reason.
Not really. Rather, he knew that Middle Eastern countries had supported the first gulf war and that, because of his secularism, were less likely to rally around the flag of Muslim unity should he come under fire again. By supporting attacks against Israel, Saddam hoped to earn the overt support of extremist factions and the implicit support of anti-Israeli factions in Middle Eastern governments.

And none of this explains why the Bush admin would keep all this supposed evidence so tightly under wraps when release of such would be a bombshell and boost dismal poll numbers.

It's kinda like is Pat Robertson really a Christian or did he lose his way somewhere along the line as he gained power?

It's kinda like is Pat Robertson really a Christian or did he lose his way somewhere along the line as he gained power?


The whole religion has lost its way.

The Christian religion has somehow gone from the followers of Christ to a religion that conveniently uses whatever is available to further their agenda. They seem to more and more ignore the teachings of Christ and place emphasis on some very warped and twisted interpretations by these fundamentalist ministers.


"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth"

"See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seeks to do good to one another and to all"

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

It's kinda like is Pat Robertson really a Christian or did he lose his way somewhere along the line as he gained power?
Very much like that. A common refrain when speaking of religious atrocities is, "Well they weren't real Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/whatever." But both sides have their interpretations of scripture, and the gods aren't talking, so it's a weak and irrelevant assertion in most cases.

EDIT: Rover quotes Beautitudes, which somehow no one is pushing for court houses and government buildings. Always the Ten Commandments instead. Odd, that.

The whole religion has lost its way.

The Christian religion has somehow gone from the followers of Christ to a religion that conveniently uses whatever is available to further their agenda. They seem to more and more ignore the teachings of Christ and place emphasis on some very warped and twisted interpretations by these fundamentalist ministers.


"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth"

"See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seeks to do good to one another and to all"

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

Whoa whoa whoa Rover ease up there. You just threw out a huge generalization about the entire Christian religion.

If I were you I'd target the Christian Politicians and not our entire flock eh? I cringe everytime they speak and invoke god when they seek to govern us as well. But that doesn't mean I myself follow the politicians tennents.

Fandros

The Christian religion has somehow gone from the followers of Christ to a religion that conveniently uses whatever is available to further their agenda.

I hate to generalize, but I think you're associating a problem with a very vocal few who have a political agenda with the Christian masses. In my experience (admittedly, as a Christian) it's simply not true.

Whoa whoa whoa Rover ease up there. You just threw out a huge generalization about the entire Christian religion.

If I were you I'd target the Christian Politicians and not our entire flock eh? I cringe everytime they speak and invoke god when they seek to govern us as well. But that doesn't mean I myself follow the politicians tennents.

Fandros

The quotes I posted are quotes of Jesus, which I think that a majority of modern Christians have strayed from. It is not just the politicians that seem to forget these ways but also seems that many Pastors, Priests and others in church hierarchy have forgotten or choose to ignore.

As an example, my daughter attends a youth group at a local church. When hurricane Katrina struck the person who ran the youth group was preaching to the kids about the hurricane and the problems in Louisiana and Mississippi. He had stated to the kids that the people in that area were to blame for the problems of the hurricane as they were most likely being punished for some misdeeds and that any blame on George Bush for the response of the government was wrong and basically a sin, as Bush was so obviously a man of God.

So, I phoned the Pastor of the church to ask him about this, his response was: It could very well be that this was a punishmet from God on this area, but, he stated; We don't know how God thinks.

So I agreed with him that we don't know how God thinks and I asked him if he considered the possibility that perhaps this disaster was a test from God to see how Christians like himself responded with compassion. At this point the line fell silent and he basically ended the conversation.

So in summary, I was born and raised a Christian (I no longer practice or specifically follow any religion) and it has recently, over the past 10 or 12 years seemed odd to me how the religion that exists based on Christ has somehow forgotten his most basic teachings.

Oddly enough,

I remember waaaaaay back /cough to my Freshman year of high school going through world history.

The section on religeons of the world layed out the basic tenets of each faith. Budhism, Islam, Christianity, the Various Polytheistic faiths of early greeks, romans, etc. But anyways when it got to Christianity, it used the Beattitudes as the 'foundation' for it. Which is kinda what I figured was appropriate.

Though, Pat Robertson does not represent you average 'Christian' (quotes because with so many denominations it's hard to lump us all into one colletive group.)

Funny too that Israel told him to get fucked over the comments he made.

If anybody needs some smiting, it's him I think

All religions were founded by men.

All religious books were written by men.

If you want an interesting look at religion, read Heinlein's "Stranger In A Strange Land". A great book on it's own as science fiction, but if read looking at religious significance takes on a different aspect. I recommend it highly.

Mohammed (sp) was a cult figure, being a master tactician and renowned general; not a very difficult step to return from an absence with the claim of having been visited by God's messenger and having the new "rules" of how God wants his followers to behave, said rules seeming to favor the desires of any egocentric individual at the most base level; man is supreme, woman is to be subjugated, man can take multiple wives, woman can be put to death for an assortment of reasons, anyone who does not follow this religion is to be considered an enemy, and on and on.

We now have fundamentalists of the Moslem faith, the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, etc., who interpret the teachings of their religious leaders to justify their behaviors and desires, which leads to war and discrimination.
Or, in Pat Robertson's case, it leads to public ridicule, which at least does not cost lives.

We now have fundamentalists of the Moslem faith, the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, etc., who interpret the teachings of their religious leaders to justify their behaviors and desires, which leads to war and discrimination.


Yes Robertson needs to shut it. And your pastor needed to study the book of James... but I think you've got a 'glass half empty' point of view. Christianity and the Jewish faiths have created towering achievements to human freedoms and accomplishments (Western Civ and Israel), whereas Muslims have been left to rot and ruin in their own cesspools of hatred and shame... until the evil and imperialistic Christian Bush comes and liberates them that is.

Yes Robertson needs to shut it. And your pastor needed to study the book of James... but I think you've got a 'glass half empty' point of view. Christianity and the Jewish faiths have created towering achievements to human freedoms and accomplishments (Western Civ and Israel), whereas Muslims have been left to rot and ruin in their own cesspools of hatred and shame... until the evil and imperialistic Christian Bush comes and liberates them that is.


My my, you must have skipped a large portion of your history classes, if you are unaware of the various Moslem empires and dynastys. And, much as I hate to burst your bubble, Israel was created by the United Nations, which is made up of many religious bodies.

Christianity and the Jewish faiths have created towering achievements to human freedoms and accomplishments (Western Civ and Israel), whereas Muslims have been left to rot and ruin in their own cesspools of hatred and shame... until the evil and imperialistic Christian Bush comes and liberates them that is.

During the Dark Ages, Islam was the jewel of civilization outside the Orient, demonstrating tolerance for other "people of the Book" from the streets of Jerusalem to the taifas of Spain. Islamic scholars preserved and advanced the works of the Greeks in medicine, optics, and philosophy; and produced all manner of artistic works. During this time, the Christian kingdoms of Europe rotted in their own cultural cesspools.

Only after the rise of fundamentalism throughout the Middle East and North Africa did Islam decline in grandeur, while Europe gradually entered the Renaissance.

Ultimately, we've done pretty well for ourselves, but we have our own fundamentalist brigade interested in tossing science out the window and establishing their theocratic beliefs as law.

As far as people go, the Ottomans were probably the most open-minded about religion. There wasn't really a single one they persecuted, even securing, as much as was possible, the pilgrim routes for Christians. Of course, that's a bit of historical generalisation, but in context, they were - as was the muslim world, relatively tolerant. This was pretty much soley due to the Arabs merging with native cultures and religions, more than exterminating them and living in their stead, unlike the Spanish Reconqusita of later years.This anti-western, anti-christian hysteria has only really been an element since colonial years. And definately more prominent as a product of the modern age.

'Christianity and the Jewish faiths have created towering achievements to human freedoms and accomplishments (Western Civ and Israel), whereas Muslims have been left to rot and ruin in their own cesspools of hatred and shame'

- Uh, hardly. For about 850 years, the Muslim world was probably the most productive, advanced, and enlightened area of the world. The Christian cities of the West, with the exception of Venice, could never really hold a torch to the Muslim cities or emirates. It's shown quite well in the Christian decline of Constantinople and its subsequent rise under the Ottomans. Paris or London could not compare with Islamic Damascus or Tripoli. Even the ailing Alexandria out-did the crumbling Rome. Whether traders, writers, soldiers, rulers or patrons of the arts, the Moslem was usually a step above his Western contemporary until the late 15th, early 16th century.
If it's cesspools you're looking for in history, you're more likely to find them in the West than the East.

We now have fundamentalists of the Moslem faith, the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, etc., who interpret the teachings of their religious leaders to justify their behaviors and desires, which leads to war and discrimination.

Before lecturing me on history, there's a reason I underlined the now in his quote.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth"

"See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seeks to do good to one another and to all"

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

Feel free to disregard this as it comes from only One source (the Bible?)

Feel free to disregard this as it comes from only One source (the Bible?)

I dunno, it all seems like pretty good advice no matter where it comes from.

Aye Rovah, even if your athiest there are good messages in the Bible.

Fandros

Before lecturing me on history, there's a reason I underlined the now in his quote.

And so, you prove what many have been saying for so long......you take a piece of a sentence or paragraph and see nothing else, and use that for whatever your purpose may be.

Was there something false in my saying we now have these fundamentalists?
Was there some requirement that I also address the fundamentalists of the past?
Since we are talking pretty much about current events and religions' affect/impact on them, saying "we now have" seems appropriate, but please correct me if I am contextually inaccurate.

I wonder if you saw any of the other paragraphs I wrote in that post, or if that word NOW so captured your attention you missed the message?

/shrug

Did you wake up in bed with Shep this morning Bylimet? Get your head out of the cess pool of muck and mire you've managed to stick yourself in and have a good day.

Just so I'm clear, is "cesspool" the new word-on-the-street?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007809
Saddam's Documents
What they tell us could save American lives today.

Friday, January 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

It is almost an article of religious faith among opponents of the Iraq War that Iraq became a terrorist destination only after the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein. But what if that's false, and documents from Saddam's own regime show that his government trained thousands of Islamic terrorists at camps inside Iraq before the war?

Sounds like news to us, and that's exactly what is reported this week by Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard magazine. Yet the rest of the press has ignored the story, and for that matter the Bush Administration has also been dumb. The explanation for the latter may be that Mr. Hayes also scores the Administration for failing to do more to translate and analyze the trove of documents it's collected from the Saddam era.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

Mr. Hayes reports that, from 1999 through 2002, "elite Iraqi military units" trained roughly 8,000 terrorists at three different camps--in Samarra and Ramadi in the Sunni Triangle, as well as at Salman Pak, where American forces in 2003 found the fuselage of an aircraft that might have been used for training. Many of the trainees were drawn from North African terror groups with close ties to al Qaeda, including Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Mr. Hayes writes that he had no fewer than 11 corroborating sources, and yesterday he told us he'd added several more since publication.

All of this is of more than historical interest, since Americans are still dying in Iraq at the hands of an enemy it behooves us to understand. If Saddam did train terrorists in Iraq before the war, then many of them must still be fighting there and the current "insurgency" can hardly be called a popular uprising rooted in Sunni nationalism. Instead, it is a revanchist operation led by Saddam's apparat and those they trained to use terror to achieve their political goals.

This means in turn that much of the Sunni population might be willing to participate in Free Iraq's politics but is intimidated from doing so by these Saddamists. The recent spurt of suicide bombings, aimed at Iraqi civilians and police trainees, looks like an attempt to revive such intimidation after the successful election. These Saddamists can't be coaxed into surrender by political blandishments because their goal isn't to share power but is to dominate Iraq once again. Or if they do play in the political process, it will only be in the Sinn Fein sense of doing so as cover for their real terror strategy.

In any case, it is passing strange that the Bush Administration has been so uninterested in translating, and assessing, the information in the two million documents, audio and videotapes and computer hard drives it has collected in Iraq. Mr. Hayes reports that only 50,000 of these "exploitable items" have been examined so far, and those by a skeleton crew with few resources. Does anyone think, had there been a Nazi insurgency after Hitler fell, that the U.S. wouldn't have scoured everything found in Berlin? Why the dereliction this time?

A benign explanation is that the first Bush priority was searching Saddam's files for WMD, not terror ties. But the WMD work has been done since the Duelfer report was substantially wrapped up well over a year ago. The current threat to U.S. soldiers in Iraq is from terror attacks, not WMD. Anything the U.S. can discover about whether and how Saddam and his coterie planned a guerrilla war before the invasion could be invaluable in defeating this enemy.

In his new memoir about his year in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer reports that in July of 2003 he was told about a captured document from Saddam's intelligence service (dated January 2003) outlining a "strategy of organized resistance" if the regime fell. About the same time, pamphlets began circulating in Baghdad describing the "Party of Return," with vows to kill Iraqis who worked with the Coalition. We also know that documents discovered with Saddam in his rabbit hole in late 2003 included a claim that the insurgents would know they had won when a U.S. Presidential candidate called for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. These are signs of a disciplined political party, not some broad Algerian-like nationalism.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

A less benign explanation for the Bush Administration's lethargy is that its officials don't want to challenge the prewar CIA orthodoxy that the "secular" Saddam would never cavort with "religious" al Qaeda. They've seen what happened to others--"Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith, John Bolton--who dared to question CIA analyses. Mr. Hayes reports that the Pentagon intelligence chief, Stephen Cambone, has been a particular obstacle to energetic document inspection.

But if we've learned nothing else about U.S. intelligence in the last four years, it is that its "consensus" views are often wrong. The 9/11 Commission has confirmed extensive communication between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda over the years, including sanctuary for the current insurgent leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We have also learned that in the years leading up to his ouster Saddam had implemented a "faith campaign" to use fundamentalist Islam as a tool of internal control. Especially if U.S. troops are going to remain to help the new Iraq government defeat the terrorists, we should want to know everything we can about them. And the American people should know too. For three years now, opponents of the war in Congress and the bureaucracy have cherry-picked intelligence details and leaked them to influence public opinion. The Bush Administration until recently has been remarkably reluctant to fight back. Telling truths about Saddam that are revealed by his own documents is part of that fight.

Again, it doesn't matter. We've already invaded.

But hell, maybe this is Bush's plan for the invasion of Iran. Invade on bogus reasons, then make up new ones 3 years later.

So another reference to the Hayes article's claims of a smoking gun that for some reason Bush refuses to unholster? Bring out the evidence please.

I think I found the reason why the Bush boys dont need to harp on this issue. A good article can be found here (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml) some great reading.

Thats absolutely disgusting that they'd wish another attack in order to get ahead politically. And sadly, not surprising.

While I'm definately no republican, I am going to have to defend them here. Stating that a terrorist attack would help them in the election isn't directly wishing for one, or hoping for one. And truthfully, yeah it would probably help Bush and Co.'s cause in the 06 election. Also, taking this from a slanted site and running with it is no better than a Conservative taking something from an equally slanted site and running with it too. I must admit though, the hypocricy in these threads are very entertaining. But but but you can't believe that, it's from a spin site, but here believe what I post that's from an equally biased site because it's from the other side of the argument. Hilarious.

Yes and I have insider information that John Kerry is planning a coup and taking the whitehouse hostage by hiding high yield explosives in his hair. All is detailed in this secret memo I have recieved from the Demoratic Party.

*cough* Bullshit *cough*

I'm sorry but I'm gonna need to see a copy of this memo.

I said it was good reading. The truthfulness of it is debatable. However its not like this hasn't been thought of before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).



Or you can read the PNAC Memorandum (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) (PDF File)


Or look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm) (which we know now to have been contrived by the powers that be)


I mean its not only talked about before but has been done before, these guys in Washington are pretty arrogant, so why couldnt it be done now?

Anything from Capitol Blue, like the Weekly Standard or Washington Times, benefits considerably from independent support. It's not exactly a middle-of-the-road publication.

Anything from Capitol Blue, like the Weekly Standard or Washington Times, benefits considerably from independent support. It's not exactly a middle-of-the-road publication.

Well yeah...thats a given. How about this site (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/)...passes the muster with me.