You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
NYT: Saddam playing role in Iraq attacks?
2003-11-02
From MSNBC... EFL and Fair Use
In its favorite canard, the New Yellow York Times plays its Aces & Eights hand, yet again. It’s tripe, but you don’t get a reasoned response to the assertion until most lazy readers have tuned out — say 3 or 4 sentences paragraphs into the article. So, as they say, read the whole thing...
Saddam Hussein may be playing a key role in coordinating and directing attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, The New York Times reported Friday, quoting senior U.S. officials.
Who? How senior? Conveniently, the rumor mongers don’t say. Wotta surprise.
The unnamed officials cited intelligence reports showing
really? If there is proof, let’s see it
that Saddam was acting as a catalyst or a leader in the armed resistance, probably from somewhere near his hometown, Tikrit. The Bush administration has said Saddam was on the run and insignificant, it noted, adding that the latest intelligence lent urgency to the hunt for the former dictator.
Urgency is a good word. Urgent! My coffee’s cold! It’s an office quagmire!
The officials cited by the Times acknowledged that the reports of Saddam’s playing a leadership role could not be corroborated, and one official quoted in the story said intelligence reports offered conflicting views.
Tap, tap... nothing.
The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the report. But a U.S. official told NBC News on condition of anonymity that the report “overstates what’s known.”
"F**king Duh!"
...More...
Way down, long after the BS, it gets good - touching on the mimics of Al-Q techniques and the obvious flypaper effect. I still say this is the appropriate killing ground for the jihadis... much better than in Chevy Chase or Baltimore Harbor. Let’s not lose sight of that fact.

Directly reading the NYT is a sporting proposition where one must weigh and balance everything speculated reported against the known. It’s a lot of work... and apparently well beyond the capacity of their regular readership. Thank the Grid for the Internet in general, and Rantburg in particular. Thx, Fred. Time to hit the tip jar again!

Good reporting from the Times. Good, solid data. We now know for certain that Sammy might be leading the attacks, that he might not be, or that he might be somewhat involved. Glad that's cleared up.
Posted by:.com

#3  When you adopt every possible point of view in your analysis, you can always claim that you were right.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-11-2 11:35:52 AM  

#2  Why I'm appalled (shock-ed!) - are you implying that they want to have it both ways, when convenient? How, uh, um, insightful! (snicker) Good call! ;->
Posted by: .com   2003-11-2 10:31:34 AM  

#1  Hmmm... it appears that these intelligence reports regarding Saddam were written by the "Tom Clancy" division of the intelligence services (all-knowing, all-seeing, all-doing) -- as opposed to the "Can't Find Their A** With Both Hands" division that the Times says "misled" us about the Iraqi WMD.
Posted by: snellenr   2003-11-2 10:01:37 AM  

00:00