[mozrock]

Is the document quoted on yahoo somehow related to the recent times article where they quote Saddam as telling his deputies, who had been counting on wmds, that there really were none, that none existed? That would be the same article that O'Reilly keeps quoting too. He constantly keeps repeating that 'even Saddam's deputies/lieutenants were shocked to find out there really were NO wmds.

(don't know if I can watch him ever again after he allowed even a split second of coverage for that code pinko last night)

Not sure.

But it is not good. Even with the links coming out about the ties between Saddam and AQ, the chant will be ... but there were no WMDs! Bush lied!

[Kimberly GG]

But it is not good. Even with the links coming out about the ties between Saddam and AQ, the chant will be ... but there were no WMDs! Bush lied!"

No, it isn't good and any opportunity the media has to re-interpret something, they will. Cnn and ABC already did a number on the docs revealed at the intelligence summit.

I've already had people reply to my posts (on other sites) regarding these documents quote the disclaimer back at me "The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available." I get that thrown at me repeatedly!

But back to that document from the yahoo link. Doesn't it make since that at some point Saddam WOULD deny having wmds, he would tell his lieuteants/deputies that there none, not because he hadn't HAD them, but that they could not be used in the war because they had been moved? I keep wondering if there is something Saddam said to that effect that is being repeated by O'Reilly and the NYTimes and now Yahoo that is being misunderstood for an admission by Saddam that he had no wmds.

(sorry, hope that makes sense)