« Yet more Jordanian public opinion | Main | Zawahiri's latest »

January 06, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c391553ef00d8345b7d5069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Department of Self Awareness Department:

» Cherry Picking from Political Animal
CHERRY PICKING ADVICE FROM THE MASTERS....The Pentagon is reluctant to release all the documents captured after the fall of Iraq. Why? Because they're afraid the press might cherry pick just a few of the documents and thus make some kind... [Read More]

» Your life from Majority Report Radio
An open book for $110. =============================================== Why you won't see documents our government now has from Iraq (via Abu Aardvark): ----- The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and misc... [Read More]

» Your life from Majority Report Radio
An open book for $110. =============================================== Why you won't see documents our government now has from Iraq (via Abu Aardvark): ----- The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and misc... [Read More]

» Your life from Majority Report Radio
An open book for $110. Why you won't see documents our government now has from Iraq (via Abu Aardvark): ----- The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always... [Read More]

Comments

Anon

DiRita actually said that the Times and Post would publish articles saying that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot? Seriously? I mean...really? That's...insane. Literally insane. (And, yes, I know what the word "literally" means and was using it literally.)

If the Pentagon thinks that the Times and the Post are actually pro-Saddam then maybe this stuff about spying on journalists is very plausible after all.

KCinDC

Yes, that "misunderstood patriot" crack was the sort of thing I expect from Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Coulter or various right-wing blogs, but it's still surprising to have it coming out of the mouth of the official spokesman for the Pentagon. Things are farther gone than I thought. If they actually believe that sort of thing at the Pentagon, then it would be not only natural but practically required for them to be interfering with, spying on, and suppressing journalists at every turn.

Robert McDougall

Er, wouldn't those documents be the property of the new, democratic, Shia Islamist / Kurdish separatist government of Iraq?

hank

> from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable
> items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan

We can guess what they're looking for -- because it was more important than securing munitions, or antiquities, or even public records, all of which were ignored after the invasion for long enough that they got cleaned out.

What could have been more important? Maybe finding his paperwork? Lack of evidence of transactions is not evidence of lack of transactions, but when you can't find the stuff, finding the paper trail is all that's left as possible proof.

Nada? Yeah, worth opening the docs to historians.
With the originals there, the translations will be open to review, and if there's anything, it'll be turned up eventually.

lukery

interestingly, Kristol only refers to "documents captured *after* the fall of the Saddam regime."

i'm interested in SAddam's 12,000 page 'Weapons Declaration' from before the invasion - the one with 8000 redacted pages. (i've filed an FOIA for it)

ali

Hayes lost all credibility when he regurgitated the Feith memo; a laughably slanted amateur reading of raw intelligence. Saddam's Iraq was way at the back in the queue of dubious regimes with terrorist links.

As no intelligence analyst who wants to retain the respect of his peers will support the idea that Saddam was a terrorist mastermind let alone behind 9-11 I doubt the Iraqi papers have much more to reveal than how paranoid Saddam was about Islamist radicals.

What they've got on Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt would make more interesting reading.

Rai

I think the main arguement touted by the Bush administration was of proliferation and the nexus of terrorists and state sponsors. Al Queda was only one of a hundred terror groups that wanted to bring harm to the US. So I wouldnt worry about strong connections with Al Queda but that Saddam taunted the UN Resolutions which called for him to stop playing host to international terrorists. I would be just as concerned if Saddam sponsored terrorism that only posed a regional threat. I for one feel for anyone that gets killed in a terrorist attack, not just an American. And who knows where those terrorists would have gone after they have recieved thier training. There are things one has to consider, not just jump to conclusions that this is another neo-con attempt to bolster the Saddam is Hitler image.
I feel many in here are simply shrugging this off and asking; so what? Well thats the typical respone I would assume to hear from people who want empirical proof of threat posed to the US. Saddam could have a thousand trained nihlists ready for action against Israel, yet it wouldnt phase a single on of you because it posed no threat to America. Since when has the left been so isolationist?

Rai

"i'm interested in SAddam's 12,000 page 'Weapons Declaration' from before the invasion - the one with 8000 redacted pages. (i've filed an FOIA for it)"

Hmm, I thought the decision to remove 8000 pgs. was approved of with the consent of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad
Analytics