First Declassified Iraq Documents Released

Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:13 PM EST

politics, us, iraq, saddam-hussein, documents, iraq-documents

Senate Rejects Iraq Withdrawal

BUSH BOOST: The Senate gives an election-year endorsement to President Bush's policy in Iraq by turning down two Democratic proposals for withdrawing troops.

OPTION ONE: By a vote of 86-13, senators overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would require all combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the beginning of July 2007.

OPTION TWO: By a vote of 60-39, mostly along party lines, the Senate turned down a nonbinding resolution for troop withdrawal without an accompanying timetable.

This article is over 14 days old and has been removed by requirement of the Associated Press.

24 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

John Solomon's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: United States , Saudi Arabia , Iraq , Afghanistan , Washington DC

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

3.9

1.2

{"commentId":62922,"authorDomain":"maaz"}

Maaz

lol. good one.

{"commentId":62922,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"maaz"}

1 vote

#1 - Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:21 PM EST

{"commentId":62932,"authorDomain":"SalemOregon"}

matt.salem

The link http://fmso.leavenworth.army.milproducts-docex.htm is not a valid link.

{"commentId":62932,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"SalemOregon"}

1 vote

#2 - Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:30 PM EST

{"commentId":62940,"authorDomain":"orlandosanz"}

OrlandoSanz

Try this one.

{"commentId":62940,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"orlandosanz"}

#3 - Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:37 PM EST

{"commentId":62944,"authorDomain":"orlandosanz"}

OrlandoSanz

sorry can't post links
it should something like this
.mil/products-docex.htm

{"commentId":62944,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"orlandosanz"}

#4 - Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:39 PM EST

{"commentId":62957,"authorDomain":"billybobjoe"}

billybobjoe

If you dig declassified documents you'll probably like The Memory Hole They fill out FOIA requests for all sorts of interesting stuff including the Future of Iraq and some interesting stuff about Iran in 1979.

{"commentId":62957,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"billybobjoe"}

1 vote

#5 - Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:59 PM EST

{"commentId":62958,"authorDomain":"tang"}

Calvin Tang

We'll look into the link, which was provided by the AP.

{"commentId":62958,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"tang"}

#6 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:00 AM EST

{"commentId":62959,"authorDomain":"aine"}

Aine MacDermotDeleted

{"commentId":62961,"authorDomain":"aine"}

Aine MacDermot

Darn, didn't see the slash at the end. This one should work...

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

{"commentId":62961,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"aine"}

3 votes

#8 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:03 AM EST

{"commentId":62985,"authorDomain":"gogocosmonaut"}

Nick Wood

good. people will finally see that Saddam sold the weapons to libya.

{"commentId":62985,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"gogocosmonaut"}

#9 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:38 AM EST

{"commentId":63008,"authorDomain":"maaz"}

Maaz

Nick Wood writes:

good. people will finally see that Saddam sold the weapons to libya.

A + B = AB(X)? X = Random point.

Justify your conclusion from this article.

{"commentId":63008,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"maaz"}

#10 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:30 AM EST

{"commentId":63012,"authorDomain":"aine"}

Aine MacDermot

I'm googling, Nick, but I don't see where you got that idea from. Saddam just admitted the other day that he didn't have any WMDs, which surprised his former henchmen. It was apparently a bluff.

I'm thinking that we're going to see the Chalabi-produced intelligence. You know, all that reliably fake stuff our nation depended upon in it's decision-making in the year or two before the invasion.

{"commentId":63012,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"aine"}

#11 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:33 AM EST

{"commentId":63025,"authorDomain":"pshaw"}

pshaw

So the White House wasn't sure if Saddam wasn't sure if some 3,000 Iraqi and Saudi people were sure if there were US troops in Afghanistan some time after 9/11.

I hope this leaves the American people more assured about how our government is operating.

{"commentId":63025,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"pshaw"}

2 votes

#12 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:46 AM EST

{"commentId":63030,"authorDomain":"jibberjabber"}

JibberJabber

Nick Wood writes:

good. people will finally see that Saddam sold the weapons to libya.

Yeh and maybe people will finally see that the US helped train Hussein and Bin Laden. Those are facts that don't seem to get all that much air time. The truth hardly ever seems to come out through the mainstream news channels.

{"commentId":63030,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"jibberjabber"}

3 votes

#13 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:52 AM EST

{"commentId":63048,"authorDomain":"WarrenLee"}

Warren Lee

I love this quote from House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

"Whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them, the most important thing is we discover the truth of what was happening in the country prior to the war,".

So I guess the possibility that he didn't have any in the first place ain't on the agenda.

{"commentId":63048,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"WarrenLee"}

2 votes

#14 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:32 AM EST

{"commentId":63105,"authorDomain":"daweb"}

DAWeb

So I guess the possibility that he didn't have any in the first place ain't on the agenda.

When you use the weapons against your own people, it is pretty much agreed that you have them. What he did with them after that is the real question.

{"commentId":63105,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"daweb"}

1 vote

#15 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:37 AM EST

{"commentId":63123,"authorDomain":"stevennoble"}

Steven Noble

Yeh and maybe people will finally see that the US helped train Hussein and Bin Laden. Those are facts that don't seem to get all that much air time. The truth hardly ever seems to come out through the mainstream news channels.

I'm sorry but this just isn't news anymore. I saw this over and over again on CNN a couple years ago; particularly in the Bin Laden "people in the news."
This story didn't stay in the news because it really doesn't have legs: there is no underlying story of interest.
If it were news I have to ask what is the underlying message behind that fact that the mainstream news organizations want to hide? Is it that the American government knew the consequences of supporting Bin Laden and figured these consequences would help American companies win war contracts? Or maybe, just maybe, we should take the simplest answer: which is that America has an incredibly bad track record when it comes to choosing allies of convenience, because they are chosen almost solely on their convenience.

{"commentId":63123,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"stevennoble"}

1 vote

#16 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:47 AM EST

{"commentId":63296,"authorDomain":"jibberjabber"}

JibberJabber

Steven Noble writes:

I'm sorry but this just isn't news anymore. I saw this over and over again on CNN a couple years ago; particularly in the Bin Laden "people in the news."

I suppose it's not current news no but history is always news to me. There is so many pieces of facts and knowledge that get lost in history either intentionally or unintentionally there's almost always something new to discover every day. This makes me wonder what the exact definition of news is. I think that is another discussion. This type of information becomes important to me because the course of action of many people can be dictated by the past.

Steven Noble writes:

This story didn't stay in the news because it really doesn't have legs: there is no underlying story of interest.
If it were news I have to ask what is the underlying message behind that fact that the mainstream news organizations want to hide? Is it that the American government knew the consequences of supporting Bin Laden and figured these consequences would help American companies win war contracts? Or maybe, just maybe, we should take the simplest answer: which is that America has an incredibly bad track record when it comes to choosing allies of convenience, because they are chosen almost solely on their convenience.

I see your point Steve but this is really the problem for me with news stations (i.e. CNN, FOX news). I don't care if a story has legs or not. I care if it is an important piece of learning about the current state of affairs. Of course that is a subjective characterization of news often up to the individual. I am not saying the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein we're trained by the US is the whole story however it definitely seems to be an interesting piece. Many questions can be answered by looking at the past not the present or the future.

{"commentId":63296,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"jibberjabber"}

2 votes

#17 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:13 AM EST

{"commentId":63693,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}

Brian White

Or maybe, just maybe, we should take the simplest answer: which is that America has an incredibly bad track record when it comes to choosing allies of convenience, because they are chosen almost solely on their convenience.

Exactly. I'm pretty much an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. There's nobody left to fight out there to justify our military size and strength. Let's just leave all the other countries alone militarily. I'm tired of having all our mistakes come back to haunt us. We should get out of Iraq, only have enough men in Afghanistan to track down bin Laden, let Israel fight its own battles, stop aiding oppressive South American governments in exchange for cooperation on eradicating coca, and maybe people would stop hating us.

{"commentId":63693,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}

1 vote

#18 - Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:51 PM EST

{"commentId":64299,"authorDomain":"maaz"}

Maaz

We should get out of Iraq

Its too late for that, you cant just walk away now. As easy as it may seem, suffer if you have to, but you cant just leave because people arent liking the U.S. Aww Boohoo.

{"commentId":64299,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"maaz"}

1 vote

#19 - Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:10 AM EST

{"commentId":64697,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}

Brian White

Maaz, why not? It's costing us too much money for the army to be in Iraq.

It's another Vietnam, we left that war too remember?

{"commentId":64697,"threadId":"31041","contentId":"135248","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}

1 vote

#20 - Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:25 PM EST

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"31041","isPrivate":false}

Backyard

First Declassified Iraq Documents Released

Senate Rejects Iraq Withdrawal

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: