Monday, 20 March 2006 - 5:41 AM CST

"...newly-declassified documents we captured in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddamite Iraq."

Wrong. They are not recently declassified. They were not recently captured. These documents have been on the internet (Federation of American Scientists) since 1997 and are still there. Their freight at that time was to say how out of date our intelligence was. We were pre-occupied with WMD and the Mukhabarat knew of course that they were gone.

Hayes, Malkin, et al. have been used to spread this goofy stuff probably knowing they would fall for it without checking into it as any decent journalist would. That's why it won't be on the evening news anytime soon. Juan Cole here.

Also, at dKos.

If you are interested in recently-captured documents, we do have some now that show Saddam had put out an APB for Zarqawi and was trying to capture him because he was a danger to the regime. So much for the Saddam-Al Qaeda conspiracy. Still think he was providing medical care for Zarqawi? We have all been used by the White House, amigo. All of us.

Monday, 20 March 2006 - 6:58 AM CST

The Abu Sayyaf documents here were not the ones I referred to. Sorry. But my point is that what is being pushed out through the rightwing blogs now is raw intelligence of the very sort that the Office of Special Plans used to drive us into Iraq. The links with Abu Sayyaf which these documents (so far) suggest are at best tenuous and changeable. But even granting that they were receiving money for arms from Iraq, why mount an invasion of Iraq instead of the Philippines?

Monday, 20 March 2006 - 4:07 PM CST

I'm sorry, but if you believe these are legitimate documents, then I have some ocean front property to sell you. They might as well say they found photos of Saddam and Osama having gay sex. It might get some reaction from Bush's ignorant followers, but anyone who pays attention to this stuff already smells the bullshit. More "in lieu of WMD's" evidence that Saddam was a threat. Rumsfeld and Cheney have done more damage to peace in the world than Saddam and Osama ever could have.

Monday, 20 March 2006 - 6:42 PM CST

Rider:

[...]why mount an invasion of Iraq instead of the Philippines?

Because Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Because it was in violation of 17 some-odd UN resolutions. Because the Saddamites were using the Oil for Food program to bribe degenerate allies and to prop up their regime. Because of many other reasons, too.

None of these reasons will change in the fullness of time. They will only become more firmly proven in the public mind.

So why resist the rationale?

Monday, 20 March 2006 - 6:47 PM CST

Arkady:

I'm sorry, but if you believe these are legitimate documents[...]

Is that how it's going to go? They're just forgeries? Hmmm. Read that eight-page fax referenced in the Hayes article. The one from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila. I don't know how many memos like that are actually faxed halfway across the world, but it sure as hell explains a few things.

Maybe it's fiction. I dunno. But there's a lot of it.

Look for the authenticating touch.

Monday, 20 March 2006 - 7:47 PM CST

I have no reason to think they are forgeries, although there could be some in the pile. At the same time, I doubt there are going to be any big surprises. Negroponte's deputy press secretary said as much when they were all released. Arabic specialists in the intelligence community have already gone over all of them. The language of this particular fax is broad enough to drive a truck through. If anything, it seems to demonstrate that Iraq was NOT funding Abu Sayyaf's terrorist activites, that they had backed off, and that perhaps some other country had been funding the group. I don't doubt that there were contacts. But again it seems to me we are left with no ongoing collaborative relationship. It's raw. It's the kind of stuff that has to be checked out and corroborated. Apparently, nothing checked out. Besides it's all post hoc.