Et Tu, Washington Times?

gschwartz and emjayinc suffer from what my wife often accuses me of: being so open minded your brains fall out.

We don’t yet have definitive evidence on the issue of "little green men," but that shouldn’t lead us to waste more time searching for clues to the answer.

As Spencer has pointed out, 3,996 American soldiers have died as a direct result of Bush and Cheney and their enablers waiving the bloody flag of al-Qaeda. Too many credulous Americans — like gschwartz and emjayinc — still believe there must be a fire there because Bush and Cheney are still blowing smoke (witness Bush’s 5th anniversary speech and Chaney’s interview last week). It’s no longer a matter of being usefully agnostic, it’s become profoundly immoral to keep hope alive for that connection.

And Spencer, my profound thanks for your dogged reporting on the big-name pundits who continue to lie about their mistakes — you’ve joined Paul Krugman in my personal pantheon of truth-tellers.

What seemed evident from the early 1990′s was that a nexus between radical Islam and radical states, especially states with access to NBC types of weapons, was a growing threat and a point of leverage for radical regimes. Saddam certainly made it look like he had both NBC capability and links to radical Islam. I prefer the agnosticism of Mr. Schwartz to the manipulations of the left and right ideologues on this question. I can completely accept the rationale of those who preferred to wait a while back in 2003, although I felt that waiting would, because of US domestic politics, mean Saddam would have a free hand until, at least, 2005, if not until maybe 2008. That seemed too great a risk to accept, and still does. But, whatever the thinking and actions in 2003, I hope they give way to what is needed to work in the reality we face, not the ones we might have faced back then. Thanks for stepping up, Mr. Schwartz.

I agree with you, and with the article’s author, as to the essential content of the report. However, people who believe otherwise are not necessarily being deceptive. We may not have any evidence of contact beyond this "toe-touching" because the parties involved were sufficiently secretive to evade our intelligence operations – we just don’t know. So the right trumpets the flimsy bits of evidence it finds, claiming they are proof of the connection, while the left interprets the lack of damning evidence as proof of no connection. Both sides are overstating their case, and the public remains ill-informed.

That’s a tremendously strained reading. The report cites documents written in the early 1990s, primarily, that show Saddam’s intelligence services toe-touching for contacts with terrorist organizations. Not one of them was al-Qaeda. In one case, something called the Army of Mohammed in the Gulf, the Mukhabarat explored sending feelers to an al-Qaeda franchisee. Not once does the report cite what <em>happened</em> to those feelers — that is, what they resulted in. Middle Eastern intelligence organizations contact terrorist groups all the time. It doesn’t mean they sponsor them. And it certainly doesn’t mean Saddam even "indirectly" supported al-Qaeda.

I disagreed with the war in 2003 and I still disagree with it now, but even though no "smoking gun" was found <i>directly</i> linking Saddam to al Qaeda, the report clearly states that Saddam was "willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s longterm
vision." (p. 34) This, along with similar statements throughout the report seem to indicate that, Saddam <i>did</i> in fact support al Qaeda, albeit indirectly.

It’s about time <i>someone</i> started telling the <i>whole</i> truth.

I disagreed with the war in 2003 and I still disagree with it now, but even though no "smoking gun" was found directly linking Saddam to al Qaeda, the report clearly states that Saddam was "willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision." (p. 34) This, along with similar statements throughout the report seem to indicate that, Saddam did in fact support al Qaeda, albeit indirectly.

It's about time someone started telling the whole truth.

That's a tremendously strained reading. The report cites documents written in the early 1990s, primarily, that show Saddam's intelligence services toe-touching for contacts with terrorist organizations. Not one of them was al-Qaeda. In one case, something called the Army of Mohammed in the Gulf, the Mukhabarat explored sending feelers to an al-Qaeda franchisee. Not once does the report cite what happened to those feelers — that is, what they resulted in. Middle Eastern intelligence organizations contact terrorist groups all the time. It doesn't mean they sponsor them. And it certainly doesn't mean Saddam even "indirectly" supported al-Qaeda.

I agree with you, and with the article's author, as to the essential content of the report. However, people who believe otherwise are not necessarily being deceptive. We may not have any evidence of contact beyond this "toe-touching" because the parties involved were sufficiently secretive to evade our intelligence operations – we just don't know. So the right trumpets the flimsy bits of evidence it finds, claiming they are proof of the connection, while the left interprets the lack of damning evidence as proof of no connection. Both sides are overstating their case, and the public remains ill-informed.

What seemed evident from the early 1990's was that a nexus between radical Islam and radical states, especially states with access to NBC types of weapons, was a growing threat and a point of leverage for radical regimes. Saddam certainly made it look like he had both NBC capability and links to radical Islam. I prefer the agnosticism of Mr. Schwartz to the manipulations of the left and right ideologues on this question. I can completely accept the rationale of those who preferred to wait a while back in 2003, although I felt that waiting would, because of US domestic politics, mean Saddam would have a free hand until, at least, 2005, if not until maybe 2008. That seemed too great a risk to accept, and still does. But, whatever the thinking and actions in 2003, I hope they give way to what is needed to work in the reality we face, not the ones we might have faced back then. Thanks for stepping up, Mr. Schwartz.

gschwartz and emjayinc suffer from what my wife often accuses me of: being so open minded your brains fall out.

We don't yet have definitive evidence on the issue of "little green men," but that shouldn't lead us to waste more time searching for clues to the answer.

As Spencer has pointed out, 3,996 American soldiers have died as a direct result of Bush and Cheney and their enablers waiving the bloody flag of al-Qaeda. Too many credulous Americans — like gschwartz and emjayinc — still believe there must be a fire there because Bush and Cheney are still blowing smoke (witness Bush's 5th anniversary speech and Chaney's interview last week). It's no longer a matter of being usefully agnostic, it's become profoundly immoral to keep hope alive for that connection.

And Spencer, my profound thanks for your dogged reporting on the big-name pundits who continue to lie about their mistakes — you've joined Paul Krugman in my personal pantheon of truth-tellers.