Choosing Ignorance (NYT finally acknowledges the Saddam documents--if only to dismiss them)

Weekly Standard ^ | 03/28/2006 | Stephen F. Hayes

[Peach]

Ping aling

[68skylark]

The NY Times article on these documents is odd. The Times is living in a strange curiosity-free zone about whatever we can learn.

I guess they don't want any fresh news to get in the way of their ten-thousandth story about Abu Ghraib.

[petercooper]

Maybe they are "Fake, but accurate".

[capt. norm]

The news media is going into heavy denial.

[kjo]

Yeah. And Hitler and Stalin would never reach an accord either.

[The South Texan]

Remember this is coming from the Rag that turned a blind eye to such demons like Hitler and Stalin.

What's new with these winnie liberals?

[eyespysomething]

Thanks for the ping Peach!

Choosing Ignorance (NYT finally acknowledges the Saddam documents--if only to dismiss them)

Release/Translation of Classified PreWar Docs ping. If you want to be added or removed to the ping list, please Freepmail me.

Please add the keyword prewardocs to any articles pertaining to this subject.

Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

Also here

Documents from the Harmony Database

jveritas’s blog

[EQAndyBuzz]

"An internal Iraqi Intelligence memo that Bergen describes as "one of the most credible documents," and was first reported by the Times in 2004, suggests that a better question is: "Why did Saddam help al Qaeda?"

Because Saddam is a Sunni and Al Queada are mostly Sunni's. And they hate the Shiites.

[pissant]

The MSM is working with the democrats on how best to counterattack the legitimacy of the documents. The NY Times, of course, will lead the way.

But this time, the bastards will be soundly defeated in the public square. Spineless traitors.

[maine-iac7]

Maybe they are "Fake, but accurate".

a lot of that going around in demRAt world

[sgtbono2002]

The Times isnt happy these documents dont fit their agenda.

[68skylark]

Hitler and Stalin would never reach an accord either.

Yes, I agree with you -- such a pact is unthinkable.

And it's equally unthinkable that Stalin would become an ally of the US and the UK a few years later -- we know that could never happen because the ideological obstacles would be insurmountable.

[68skylark]

The Times isnt happy these documents dont fit their agenda.

Yeah, I think that's a safe assumption.

[stylin19a]

MSM really can't comment too much on these articles.

They have spent Pres. Bush's 2 terms poo-poo'ing the intelligence on Iraq as being whacked.

Yet, now, they have to take the the side of the intelligence that says there is nothing in these documents that change the intelligence.

[gov_bean_ counter]

It would be interesting to know the base assumptions the CIA Middle Eastern analysts start with when looking at data. I would be willing to bet they don't square with reality, which is why these docs threaten these intel folks at their very core.

[stylin19a]

you know what troubles me is, that ever since 911, the Feds have been decrying the lack of translators. It became even more a need when Iraq kicked up.

Where did they get all the translators needed to handle this humongous document\video dump ?

And there is an implication that all these bazillion documents have been looked at...does that even pass the laff test ?

[Daytyn71]

Just another day at the NY Slimes - don't let facts and journalistic integrity get in the way of their Anti-Bush Leftist Agenda.

[MizSterious]

You're kidding, right? They were released untranslated. We owe great thanks to individuals like jveritas for translating them.

[Madame Dufarge]

The NYT's sounding more and more like just another one of Saddam's defense lawyers.

Torturing logic and tap dancing like mad.