To conceal our intentions.
Oh that's rich! To conceal our intentions?!? You must not have been paying attention over the past year. Bush Jr. has had a woody for Saddam ever since he got into office, everyone knows it.
Now they are leaking BS reports of collaboration between Atta and Saddam as justification. And they don't leak to the washington post or nytime who might actyually investigate and gather background. No, they leak so some third-world italian rag and the leaker is not a top-level official but several levels down on the totem pole. That way they have some plausible deniablity if anyone comes up with proof that Atta was never in Iraq.
I agree with all here that this is a tried and true tractic, but I disagree with anyone who finds this report credible. It is fun to watch, but only because most of you suckers that think you are so politically sophisticated just eat this up. Some here obviously have a clue, but most clearly don't.
That reads as if you were masturbating when you wrote it instead of thinking (or spelling). A release of pure conjecture, apparently motivated by a pent-up load of bitterness toward Bush and his supporters.
Of course we must not have anything on Saddam, and Bush is just exercising his "woody". There's no point in acting as if "there's no plan on his desk" and he's undecided, that couldn't possibly further our objectives. And there couldn't possibly be another explanation for not releasing this to your preferred source, "the washington post or nytime". After all, they're the first place Bush goes when he wants something released. Thank you for your input.
Tell us, oh omniscient clamboat, into which category you fall?
Now they are leaking BS reports of collaboration between Atta and Saddam as justification. And they don't leak to the washington post or nytime who might actyually [sic] investigate and gather background..