Replies

Call me crazy but this CNN article makes no sense at all. Apparently CNN gets hold of a CIA report of a claim that originated in 2002 with a captured AQ operative. Key here is 2002. CNN goes on to report that DIA doubted the sources credibility in 2002 (well gee, why would they do that. We all know that muslims are sworn to uphold and tell the truth at all times. The Koran says so). Again, 2002. The Rat senator Levin, claims the administration used faulty intelligence as prerequisite for the Iraq invasion in March 2003. On this particular piece of intelligence, in hind sight, Levin has a point but how was the administration to know that? The source didn't recant until 2004 according to this CNN article! Then it get's even weirder. CNN writes "In February 2003, al-Libi, a senior military trainer for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, claimed the terrorist network "sent operatives to Iraq" to acquire weapons. So this source reports this intelligence in February 2003. His claim was reported in a CIA paper seven months later entitled, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism." Now they are saying the AQ source reported this claim in February 2003. 2003? What happened to 2002? But even better, if the source claimed this piece of intelligence in February of 2003 and the CIA paper titled "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" came out seven months later to make that September 2003, then just how could the administration have used this intelligence for justification to invade Iraq in March 2003? In the next paragraph, CNN writes: "The January 2003 updated version of the report added a key point: "That the detainee was not in a position to know if any training had taken place." What???? How can a report released seven months after Feb 2003 have a January 2003 updated version? Either I am confused or I really need sleep. This article just makes no sense to me.

No, you don't need sleep because you are exactly right.

What you need though is schooling in the liberal MSM zoo.

MSM gets away with a whole lot of misleading reporting and bad leaks because most Americans don't care to dig deeper than the headline.

I am in the business of writing press releases for a company, and the internal joke is that re-write the first few sentences each time.

The sentance "In February 2003, al-Libi, a senior military trainer for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, claimed the terrorist network "sent operatives to Iraq" to acquire weapons. His claim was reported in a CIA paper seven months later entitled, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism.""

Should read 'in February 2002...' Now it makes sense.

How can a report released seven months after Feb 2003 have a January 2003 updated version? Either I am confused or I really need sleep. This article just makes no sense to me.

That's because you are not a left-wing nut-job liberal. It's the mere fact that he racanted (under what duress, I can't say) that confirms what they all held privately: It was all a setup.

Despite the fact that everyone on earth was sure Iraq had WMD's all these liberals were convinced that Hussain was innocent. They just didn't tell us that. Now it turns out from the recantation of one source they were proven right.

We should have listened to their thoughts instead of their words when they were all privately thinking that Hussain would not have WMD's because it would be a violation of UN sanctions.

Clearer now?