9 Replies to “Timing of Soros-Backed Report [Dan Collins]”

1. Jeffersonian says:

   January 24, 2008 at 8:29 pm

   Saddam Hussein initially didn’t think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen.

   I can understand that. Those nice policemen surrounding my house seem to be heedful of the gun I keep shouting about, but the joke’s on them: I don’t have a gun. I hear this method works real well…until it doesn’t.

2. Dan Collins says:

   January 24, 2008 at 8:31 pm

   I just think it’s terrible that Saddam Hussein lied us into war.

3. McGehee says:

   January 24, 2008 at 8:47 pm

   “Saddam lied! He died!”

   Um, oops?

4. RDub says:

   January 24, 2008 at 10:00 pm

   My experience has been that people under 30 I’ve had the chance to talk to about this don’t seem to care that the ABC piece which has been linked pretty much everywhere is just a story about the study, not the study itself. And that the study itself is basically invalid until it’s released to the public or made available online so that people can see how carefully they’ve defined “lies and distortions”. And that George Soros (assuming it’s known who he is) pretty much made his preference for how the study should turn out known far before it was actually started, so it makes sense that it turned out this way as he funded the fucking thing. All it’s done at this is prove what they already “know” – e.g. Bush and anyone who can be even remotely tied to him are entirely full of shit.

   So! I’ve been drinking.

5. Darleen says:

   January 24, 2008 at 10:04 pm

   did you catch any of the comments on that thing? The verb-making of the word “genocide” and how “war-criminal Bush” has exceeded anything that Saddam had ever “might” have done?

   Dear God in Heaven, I hope these people don’t vote!

6. Pablo says:

   January 25, 2008 at 7:14 am

   Saddam Hussein initially didn’t think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen.

   So, what happens when and if common knowledge recognizes that Saddam did indeed have WMD? (PDF link) Aside from the ones we’ve found, that is.

   Of course, this started coming out two years ago but you’ll not find an MSM outlet even considering the possibility that our not finding them (except for the ones we did find) doesn’t mean that they weren’t there.

   You know all that lost “international standing” they’re always moaning about? What happens if/when it turns out that Bush was absolutely right?

7. Rob Crawford says:

   January 25, 2008 at 7:47 am

   He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. “Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” says Piro. “He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program.” This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

   Huh.

   And here we’ve been told over and over that all that was lies.

   Of course, this *is* coming from CBS, home of Dan Rather.

8. Gabriel Fry says:

   January 25, 2008 at 12:42 pm

   There is no shortage of people calling this report “Soros-backed,” but I haven’t seen any concrete connection detailed. I’m aware that Open Society provided grants for a few CPI projects, but I didn’t see any connection between everyone’s favorite Hungarian and this particular project. Given that Open Society funds everyone from the Lesbian Alliance to the Cato Institute, it wouldn’t surprise me, but given that Soros’ name is most often used as a code-word for “you don’t have to read this to know what it says,” I think it’s important to have a definite, verifiable connection. Are any of the random names on the CPI donor list actually Soros fronts?

9. Rob Crawford says:

   January 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm

   Gabe, setting aside the source of funding for the crank report:

   The parameters of the study were chosen to give the result they wanted. They studied only the people they wanted to target, ignoring others who made the same statements. They limited the time scope. They assumed that a statement later shown to be inaccurate was known to be inaccurate at the time it was made.

   The Soros connection is icing on the cake, much like his hands on the bogus Iraq casualty “estimate”.

Comments are closed.