Say Anything Blog

STOP THE PRESS! GET ME REWRITE!

Seems that Assrocket (and Say Anything) got punked…

UPDATE: Another document hints at a connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, but it’s hearsay from a Taliban official that may well have been groundless.

MORE: Several readers have written to point out that what I took to be a translation of the original document is actually just a print-out from the web site of the Federation of American Scientists. So the question is, what does the Arabic portion, which apparently hasn’t been translated, say? Presumably it comments on the FAS assessment. We’d like to hear from anyone who can translate the Arabic notes.

STILL MORE: Investors Business Daily made the same mistake I did. We should have a translation of the Arabic portion of the document posted later today (Friday).

After you are established and make a "name" for yourself, you become more careful.  Thanks, Rob.  The actual links given by posters were also helpful in finding the source documents.

So Saddam had a hand in 9/11?  There really were WMD?  Invading Iraq really should have caught bin Laden?

I have a hard time seeing how one meeting between two groups that didn’t like each other ten years ago constitutes a "functioning relationship."

This is just another distraction - there’s no evidence of a "functioning relationship" between Saddam and bin Laden in 2001.  There’s no evidence of WMD.  There’s no evidence invading Iraq supported the mission in Afghanistan (the opposite happened) or has made us safer.

So Saddam had a hand in 9/11?  There really were WMD?  Invading Iraq really should have caught bin Laden?

Uh, nobody is saying that.  The evidence suggests communication about a working relationship between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda.  We don’t know anything about Saddam and 9/11 and nobody is suggesting that at this point.

I have a hard time seeing how one meeting between two groups that didn’t like each other ten years ago constitutes a "functioning relationship."

All of the reporting on this subject says that Saddam and Osama were "seeking" an operational relationship 10 years ago.  Nobody is saying that anything came of it.  That remains to be seen.

This is just another distraction - there’s no evidence of a "functioning relationship" between Saddam and bin Laden in 2001.

Yet there is evidence to suggest an "operational" (I’m not sure where you’re getting "functional" from) relationship was sought five years before 9/11.  Seeing as how there are still hundreds of thousands documents yet to be translated and probably plenty of facts about this matter we aren’t aware of...isn’t it fair to at least keep an open mind?

I know your preconceptions and partisanship disallow you from doing any such thing, but you should think about doing it anyway.  No reasonable person on the right is drawing the conclusions you are attributing to us.  We see evidence and we want to see it pursued.

What is wrong with that?  Other than it gets in the way of your knee-jerk bashing of Bush over everything? 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mcair, would you mind providing us a link to whever you copy/pasted this from?  Because the way I’m reading it they aren’t talking about the same document.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Busted! I was reading Powerline and found it:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013438.php