On Saddam's Orders The Iraqi tyrant didn't "just" aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack. (Via National Review)

Nice job. You find an article that vaguely tries to demonstrate an unsupported supposition by stringing unconnected quotes and data together, and then you summarize that article by stating its desired conclusion as a new confirmed fact. Well done.

Brian you keep talking and all I hear is blah blah blah.

Want it done better, get your own blog and have at it.

Meanwhile, the trip that Democrats McDermott and Bonior took to Iraq in advance of the Iraq operation turns out to have been paid for by Saddam Hussein. And the local CAIR official who set it up is indicted.

There was a third democrat, last name Thompson who was also on the trip. Their excuse at the moment is that the trip was approved by the State Dept and it was for the 'children'.

Brian,
I've read the report. Have you or just blindly accepted media "reports" of the "summary?"

Brian said:

You find an article that vaguely tries to demonstrate an unsupported supposition by stringing unconnected quotes and data together, and then you summarize that article by stating its desired conclusion as a new confirmed fact.

It's not about "the article", Brian. The article is merely a summary of the author's take on the 94 pg report.

If you don't want to sound like a complete bozo with your sound byte comments, you may want to read the report yourself. You will probably not like what you read, since it will conflict deeply with what you truly desire to believe.

But that's the breaks. Truth hurts sometimes. You've been media indoctrinated to fit a political agenda for years now. And it's hard to be pleased when historic documents prove you've been duped.

No other media reports. I just read the NR article Melissa linked to and determined that it does not warrant the summary she gave it. No other media influence, just reading comprehension.

It's not about "the article", Brian. The article is merely a summary of the author's take on the 94 pg report.

But Melissa based her summary on the article, not the report itself. If the NR author can't even make the case for what he wants to believe by cherry-picking from the report, then I doubt the report itself makes that case any easier.

If you don't want to sound like a complete bozo with your sound byte comments, you may want to read the report yourself. You will probably not like what you read, since it will conflict deeply with what you truly desire to believe.

If the NR article is accurate, then the report probably fits pretty well with what I already believe. It's the failed attempt of the NR article to misrepresent those findings, and then Melissa's false declaration that it was successful, to which I refer.

Brian, had you read the article in the link you would know that the summary you're crediting me with isn't even my summary. It belongs to the article's author.

Also, Brian, #5 above happens to be the author of the article at National Review.

That tiny little "pop" you heard was the sound of Brian's head exploding.