|
FWIW, these are the same exact claims that were made a year ago by picking through intelligence and finding the most favorable stories. The only thing "new" is that its being re-submitted in a modified report to the Senate intelligence committee for further analysis.
If this were remotely a revelation or smoking gun, why is it not appearing anywhere other than the Weekly Standard? Even FOX News' story of it is basically a feed of the WN article, and now it's off their front page en leiu of the ever-popular "gay marriage" scare.
It must be that huge conspiracy of the "liberal" media to suppress juicy war-justifying tidbits after cheering the war and all the coverage it affords for 2 years. All well and good, so where's the White House press conference to announce "case closed"?
The answer is, there's nothing new here to report. But keep thinking the whole thing was a righteous invasion to uncover the long conspiracy between Saddam, Osama, and hollywood liberals to nuke America. Of course, we'd have to find those nukes at some point to keep this myth alive.
BTW, for those who think Saddam and Osama are really in cahoots, aren't you remotely bothered by the fact neither has actually been found or brought to justice? Or do you get your daily reassurance from knowing we're over there pouring endless money and troop support into Iraqis who had NOTHING to do with 9/11, boxcutters, Saudi immigrants, or Afghanistan?
And since I know 5ever will be on this the minute I reply (hi!), let's repeat the usual disclaimers: I was in support of the Afghanistan war in 2001, I would be in support of a massive troop project to scour the Pakistan/Afghan countryside for AQ and Bin Laden, and I'd have no problem with knowing about new efforts, Presidential acts, and bureaus to shore up US customs, powerplant and resevoir troop guards domestically, etc.
All of these would be logical "Taking Action" moves that remotely relate back to 9/11, both in bringing its perpetrators to justice and preventing a future disaster. Iraq for me still doesn't, and the link at the top of this thread doesn't change anything for me or most Americans with a firm opinion pro/con the war -- if it had any potential to, it would be top headline news EVERYWHERE by now.
Pull all the "how are you so sure there's no link" and "you're just selectively picking your own soundbites that favor your viewpoint" twists on me you want, but you've admitted in the past you thought there'd be more "evidence" at this point in the game if this war was really about WMDs and an Iraq-AQ connection. Now the Administration is already talking about pulling out, so again I ask you: do you really think we're going to find more "evidence" to support the high-level average American viewpoint on why we went in there -- leaving out our usual and well-hashed-out arguments about PNAC, how this should have been done in 1992 and 1998, Clinton and Democratic Senators endorsement of the war, the "resolutions" of the "useless" UN, and -- least of all? --the honest goals of the "War on Terrorism"?
|