Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report

  1. #1

    Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report

    Sad.

    [QUOTE][B]Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report[/B]
    By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
    Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 email |

    WASHINGTON The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.

    Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters if they asked for it. The report won't be posted on the Internet.

    The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

    [B]In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

    But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.[/B]

    The study comes at a difficult time for the Bush administration. The fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is approaching on March 19, and Bush is attempting to hold support for a continued large U.S. troop presence there following a report from his on-the-ground commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, in early April.

    Navy Capt. Dennis Moynihan, a spokesman for the Norfolk, Va.-based Joint Forces Command, said, "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."

    Moynihan declined further comment.

    Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Joint Forces Command.

    An executive summary of the study says that Saddam's regime had interaction with terrorist groups, including Palestinian terror organizations and some pan-Islamic groups.

    But "the predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," says the summary, posted online by ABC News.

    That confirms what many experts on Saddam's Iraq have long argued: that his security services were dedicated mainly to fighting threats to his rule.

    The summary says that Saddam's secular regime increased cooperation with and attempts to manipulate Islamic fundamentalists after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, despite being leery of the Islamists. Iraqi leaders "concluded that in some cases, the benefits of associations outweighed the risks," it says.

    (Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this report.)

    [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30172.html[/url][/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=cr726;2431404]Sad.[/QUOTE]

    shhhh.....we are not supposed to bring this up! Its old and boring, more talk of middle names and pastors :zzz::zzz:

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2431412]shhhh.....we are not supposed to bring this up! Its old and boring, more talk of middle names and pastors :zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    Yeah because a pentagon report on Iraq is far more important than who we elect to lead the free world for the next four years.

    What a dumbass.....

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2431417]Yeah because a pentagon report on Iraq is far more important than who we elect to lead the free world for the next four years.

    What a dumbass.....[/QUOTE]

    and focusing on lapel pins and middle names will help us determine who to elect?

    who is the dumbass :zzz::zzz::zzz:
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-13-2008 at 10:01 PM.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    For what its worth, the headline is misleading.

    The release of the report was not cancelled. Just a change in the method of distribution.

    None-the-less, I am sure the report is less than a pretty picture. It will be available on the internet in no time I am sure.

  6. #6
    You are right about the headline, I used the original one in thread title. McClatchy usually does a pretty good job.



    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant;2431428]For what its worth, the headline is misleading.

    The release of the report was not cancelled. Just a change in the method of distribution.

    None-the-less, I am sure the report is less than a pretty picture. It will be available on the internet in no time I am sure.[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    Iraq is less important, you got it.

    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2431417]Yeah because a pentagon report on Iraq is far more important than who we elect to lead the free world for the next four years.

    What a dumbass.....[/QUOTE]

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2431421]and focusing on lapel pins and middle names will help us determine who to elect?

    who is the dumbass :zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    It all factors in yes. Like his motive for not wearing an American flag on his lapel, along with his refusal to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem or God Bless America or what ever the song was that prompted the other candidates to place their hands over their hearts.

    If that's not enough, maybe his hate filled pastor who he sat in the pews and listened to for 20 years might be a factor too. Or maybe his wife. You know the b*tch that was never proud of her country in her adult life until jug ears ran for the Dim nomination. To think this slag could be the next First Lady err.... excuse me the next Blame America First Lady makes the skin crawl.

    So yes... these are all factors along with a plethora of others to consider when we elect the next President of the United States.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2431452]It all factors in yes. Like his motive for not wearing an American flag on his lapel, along with his refusal to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem or God Bless America or what ever the song was that prompted the other candidates to place their hands over their hearts.[/QUOTE]

    It wasn't the national anthem, and you're not required to put your hand over your heart during God Bless America. But you keep making up scenarios that don't exist. It's what you people do.

    They're only "factors" to mental midgets like yourself, who desperately need to demonize anyone not lilly white and obedient.

  10. #10
    You mean to tell me there are no direct links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?


    Holy Sh!t Batman. I always thought Saddam and Bin Laden were brothers.


    Thanks for this Earth-shattering news.


    :zzz:

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2431452]It all factors in yes. Like his motive for not wearing an American flag on his lapel, along with his refusal to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem or God Bless America or what ever the song was that prompted the other candidates to place their hands over their hearts.

    If that's not enough, maybe his hate filled pastor who he sat in the pews and listened to for 20 years might be a factor too. Or maybe his wife. You know the b*tch that was never proud of her country in her adult life until jug ears ran for the Dim nomination. To think this slag could be the next First Lady err.... excuse me the next Blame America First Lady makes the skin crawl.

    So yes... these are all factors along with a plethora of others to consider when we elect the next President of the United States.[/QUOTE]

    What is wrong with him showing patriotism in a different way? Why must he conform like the sheeple and follow in line? And what does wearing an American Flag lapel prove anyway? Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have each worn the lapel pin yet they have betrayed the country.

    The God pless America issue was cooked up by the fascist wing of the Republican party. It is one of the dumbest fake stories since the swift boat fairy tale. I guess I should not be surprised that you bought it hook, line and sinker.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2431542]What is wrong with him showing patriotism in a different way? Why must he conform like the sheeple and follow in line? And what does wearing an American Flag lapel prove anyway? Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have each worn the lapel pin yet they have betrayed the country.

    The God pless America issue was cooked up by the fascist wing of the Republican party. It is one of the dumbest fake stories since the swift boat fairy tale. I guess I should not be surprised that you bought it hook, line and sinker.[/QUOTE]



    I don't think you have to wear an American flag on your lapel. I also don't think you have to make a political statement with your avatar in a football forum, or have all your political beliefs plastered all over your 1974 Volvo station wagon -- but that's just me.

  13. #13
    I know a couple of posters in here that would argue with you about this all day and night.

    Oh, Flushing where are you?

    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2431541]You mean to tell me there are no direct links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?


    Holy Sh!t Batman. I always thought Saddam and Bin Laden were brothers.


    Thanks for this Earth-shattering news.


    :zzz:[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2431421]and focusing on lapel pins and middle names will help us determine who to elect?

    who is the dumbass :zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    Given Obama's almost complete lack of experience or record, what else CAN we judge him on? It's not like he has any form of substantial resume to stand on, if he wasn't a brilliant public speaker who liked the word "change", he'd still be in local politics.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,195
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2431452]It all factors in yes. Like his motive for not wearing an American flag on his lapel, along with his refusal to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem or God Bless America or what ever the song was that prompted the other candidates to place their hands over their hearts.

    If that's not enough, maybe his hate filled pastor who he sat in the pews and listened to for 20 years might be a factor too. Or maybe his wife. You know the b*tch that was never proud of her country in her adult life until jug ears ran for the Dim nomination. To think this slag could be the next First Lady err.... excuse me the next Blame America First Lady makes the skin crawl.

    So yes... these are all factors along with a plethora of others to consider when we elect the next President of the United States.[/QUOTE]

    Yes...because the last guy you a**holes picked who passed all that idiotic litmus test sh*t of yours has turned out to be a real f**king keeper.

    Nice job, morons...

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2431528][b]It wasn't the national anthem, and you're not required to put your hand over your heart during God Bless America.[/b] But you keep making up scenarios that don't exist. It's what you people do.

    They're only "factors" to mental midgets like yourself, who desperately need to demonize anyone not lilly white and obedient.[/QUOTE]

    I believe I insinuated I wasn't sure the song but whatever the song was, it prompted the other candidates to place their hands over their hearts.

    As for your accusations of racism, stick them up your azz. I'm an equal opportunity demonizer.:D If you think I'm going to treat Hussein with kid gloves simply because he's black think again. I put him on the same level as the other Dims.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2431542]What is wrong with him showing patriotism in a different way? [/QUOTE]

    In what way? I've yet to see it in any form.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2431541]You mean to tell me there are no direct links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?


    Holy Sh!t Batman. I always thought Saddam and Bin Laden were brothers.


    Thanks for this Earth-shattering news.


    :zzz:[/QUOTE]


    You'd be surprised at how many of the sheeple in the USA think that Iraq attacked the WTC...The administration has constantly conflated the War in Iraq and the 911 horror over the pat 5/6 years to justify the debacle and now the chickens are coming home to roost

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2431787]Given Obama's almost complete lack of experience or record, what else CAN we judge him on? It's not like he has any form of substantial resume to stand on, if he wasn't a brilliant public speaker who liked the word "change", he'd still be in local politics.[/QUOTE]

    Warfish let's get real.

    President is a cheerleader position. It's not about what this person has done or will do it's about the staff, the cabinet and perception. Experience only gets ya so far, look at Cheney. No one's more experienced than Cheney, why don't the GOP run him for Prez? his approval rating is in the teens and he's from all account an angry bastard. President isn't about who is the most qualified or best for the job, it's about dumb reasons like who people want to hang out and have a beer with (Bush) or who women think is handsome (Clinton). It's not about policy or platform, and it certainly isn't about experience.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us