Better download it if you want to read it, before it's pulled and retroactively classified.

Ok. Now somebody does something about it?

Did not Bush sign something when he swore Iraq was linked to 911 or Al Quada or whoever/whatever?

My god, what is it going to take?
How much and how often will people overlook the endless and growing list of lies, crimes and ...splutter splutter splutter....

Can hardly wait for the Saudi-Al Qaeda Report.

Or the Bush/Cheney-Al Qaeda Report.

Or the War Crime Tribunal Report on PNAC signatories.

"Iraq-Al Qaeda Report"

Nice diversion.

"Report on a PRESIDENTIAL FANTASY."

Oh, and also, besides oil, we needed a new permanent military base in the Mideast to replace our Saudi base. Y'know, the one we established in the the first Gulf War because then Defense Secretary Cheney told the gullible Saudis that there were 250,000 Iraqi troops at their border, when in fact there were zero. So, it wasn't just about oil profits.

I'm curious as to the various posters' experience on the ground in Iraq... I spent a year there recently (in uniform) - perhaps we could trade a few insights from our actual experience in the war?

All this shit's in the past.

Aren't you listening to your dear leader?

The DUMBEST American was the American who voted for Bush the second time around.

Point made... noting that none of the 'look how nasty I can be' responses have piped up with their personal EXPERIENCE so far - just smart alec responses... And by-the-by the military is an all volunteer organization - many of us have chosen to try to make a difference wherever we can rather than sit at home and just throw stones. Yep - "the Marines went to war and America went shopping."

Sorry I don't have as massive a vocabulary biff - I'll just have to keep it polite. Perhaps you would have put more faith in his decision to deploy us while he was being, shall we say, entertained beneath a desk - apparently that was okay... noting that those troops have not yet come home (what happened to that 1 year tour????) - oops, I forgot - that was YOUR hero...

But I can tell you from my own experience that there are people who want to destroy us - know doubt. There is also no doubt in my mind, based on what I experienced there, that it is coming... then the cry will be that Bush didn't do enough to protect us... he's in a no-win situation.

As far as all the crap the media reports from their 'embedded position' - they neglect to tell you the number of troops that have been wounded/killed protecting their stupid reporting - like 'what's it like to be out here at a checkpoint on Memorial Day?' What the H do you THINK it's like dipstick????? It's a war and we don't get holidays or weekends off!!!! Then BOOM - a car bomb and soldiers are dead (not to mention part of the TV crew) so that a reporter could get the answer to that question that everyone HAD to know... how many stories have you seen about the good things that are happening and about the Iraqis who ARE trying to stand up and make a change? Not much - we're MUCH more interested in Client-9's nonsense -- that's what gets headlines and continual updates... some bimbo's social webpage!

This hereby marks the climax of the Era of Fact-Rejection. How long are we going to just sit here and tolerate the unending instances where our elected officials completely reject reality and fact, and just state whatever unfounded claim they believe will further their own personal cause?

My question is, okay, we want to do something about it, so who do we target? The media for not working hard enough to hold officials accountable for the numerous times they contradict themselves and equivocate? Congress for rolling over and accepting it? The officials themselves, all the while knowing that this is a potentially useless endeavor because their campaigns are merely a bottomless cesspool of self-servitude?

Or do we start a new dialog altogether? Start a new system using an "all hands on deck" approach?
http://progressivefuture.org

By way of comparison, this is what was discussed publicly in 2006.

There are reasons to question the motives of the US in "suppressing" this document. The US could have an objective of disclosing information not about 1990-era events, but in supporting decisions before the 2003 invasion.

The problem with the US analysis of the Iraqi reports/memos, is we hear nothing about other views of those documents. Iraq appears to have intended for the US to intercept these communications.

Let's consider an example: Extract 34, page 65 of 94 pages; or report page 45.

The US intelligence asks the question: Were there documents about Iraqi capabilities. The 19 April 1990 document does not talk about capabilities, but an assertion:

"If America interferes we will strike"

and

"We can send people to Washington"

The US's question is about the Iraqi capabilities; while the memo does not get specific in how they would physically move the needed material. One view of this memo is that the message is benign, bluster, and designed to have been intercepted.

However, take the other view, that Saddam "was" going to do something:

- Why would he disclose this in communication systems he knew, or should have known were going t o be intercepted? One answer: He intended for the bluster to be believed. However, a real plan to attack DC would not, arguably, have been revealed. If the plan were real, we'd have more details. Those are not provided or do not exist.

- As with the false WMD data, is it not possible Saddam and others sent this information about "what the US would face" to dissuade the US from invading after Iraqs invasin of Kuwait? Yes.

Put the above aside. The US did invade Kuwait to drive out Iraq. Yet, we have no public information about what the Iraqis did do; or that, after the US invaded Kuwait that the Iraqis carried out anything within this 19 April 1990 memo. Perhaps they did, but this report does not address the claims.

If the Iraqis had a "capability" to do this in the wake of a US invasion of Kuwait, then the US should within this report pointed to specific things which proved the "capability" was real, and not bluster. All the US intelligence has done in this report is re-transmit bluster of Iraqis, and point to this as a "capability". That is not a real threat.

We need to hear the other views about this memo. Going back to the original question, and in light of the above commentary about apparent Iraqi bluster and no evidence of Iraqi attacks in DC after the US invasion of Kuwait, we might repose the question, and arrive at a different answer:

Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities against the United States?

New answer: No. Saddam had no "capability" to deploy any terrorism against the United States. The Memoranda was not a bonafide threat, had no physical evidence attached to that assertion, and does not represent Saddam had the real intention to attack Washington DC. Moreover, in light of there being no evidence after 1990 that the Iraqis did attack Washington DC with any terrorist-like event, nor was there any evidence of any explosive material organized by anyone connected with Saddam, the memo is judged to be bluster, unconnected with any real intent, and shows evidence Saddam had no capability.

Further, as evidenced by the false WMD data, and no evidence that there were any persons arrested for organizing any Iraq-related attacks on DC, the entire communication on this subject at Extract 34 is judged to be a defensive measure to dissuade US military actions. The memo says more about Iraq's limited options in defending Iraq against a US attack from Kuwait, than about a bonafide threat fro Iraq to the US.

If this note were real, and the capability and will both existed, the Iraqis would not have talked about it, but done it. The note does not support the assertion that Saddam had a real intent, capability, or objective of attacking the US. The memo was designed to be intercepted, and bluster as were the WMD-related documents. This conclusion is supported because the US only provided one example, Extract 34. If there were other memoranda linked with actual evidence of planned Iraqi attacks on DC after the US invaded Kuwait, we might reach a different conclusion.