Some smoking gun documents at Gateway Pundit.

Who cares that the IIS actually met with bin Ladin? Doesn't prove the IIS met with bin Ladin or anything.

A meeting isn't a link, you know.

Thanks to CJ.

And more from the report itself, page 45:

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting

(1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats,

(2)the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and

(3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

Look, ma, no links!

Posted by: Ace at 07:40 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Awesome.

Yes, I know, for once, JackM. already posted this.

I'm reposting because 1) JackM. teased it gently instead of really pushing it out there and 2) I wanted to write that headline.

Hm. A Chicago machine politician is schooled in the Bad Old Ways of blatant, not-even-disguised-a-little-bit directy-into-your-pocket kickbacks and payoffs... who would have thunk it.

Apparently not our very jaded and very suspicious media, which is only interested in juicy stories and would never, ever go into the tank for someone just because they share his rabidly leftwing politics.

Amen, Brother: Confederate Yankee on Barack Obama's 20 year tutelage under a bigoted, hateful, anti-American hate preacher.

With some commentary -- as some of you suggested would be useful -- on the fact that he took his children to this church, to learn hate from the master.

Posted by: Ace at 07:15 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Thereby opening a House Seat that Republicans stand a chance of picking up.

Cramer's seat has long been a thorn in the side of GOP'ers. The area he represents (essentially Northern Alabama along the Tennessee border) is viewed by many as a GOP-seat in waiting. Demographically, it contains one of the lowest percentages of minority voters in Alabama, and it has strong ties to both NASA and the military due to the programs that are based in the districts largest population center, Huntsville.

But, after a scare in 1994 (an election Cramer won by 2,000 votes), Cramer moved to the right to solidify his creds as a "Blue Dog Democrat." For example, I believe he even earned the NRA's endorsement in his post-94 races. He really hasn't faced a serious challenge since then.

Further, his announcement has caught both parties off-guard. It was completely unexpected. In fact, some Democrats felt that Cramer would make a good challenger to either Richard Shelby or Jeff Sessions should he decide to enter the race. So entrenched was Cramer, that there is no immediate "heir apparent" to his seat.

Interestingly, Cramer will remain a superdelegate this year. To date he is not pledged to either Clinton or Obama. Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, it will be interesting to see who he selects. It will also be fun to see if any conspiracy theories emerge about this being a factor in his surprise decision to quit.

If John McCain does have coat-tails as the nominee, this is the kind of district that will be an early indicator on election night. Many of the self-identified Democrats in this district are of the "Reagan Democrat" variety. If Maverick can't pull these Democrats into his column, November could be very ugly indeed.

This report has been brought to you by Jack M. Barone. Now back to the AoSHQ Decision Desk where Ace is getting awfully chummy with Shep Smith.

Posted by: Jack M. at 07:02 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Yes, he had them.

For instance, how about their support for The Army of Muhammad, a known al-Qaeda subsidiary operating in Bahrain? On pages 34-35 of the report, we find communications between their Bahrain agent and IIS headquarters confirming Army of MohammadÂ’s loyalty to Osama bin Laden. What is the response from Baghdad?

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. Â…

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.”

AoM had ambitious plans — including attacks on American interests. On page 35, the Iraqis list their aims as attacking Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world, attacking American embassies, disrupting American oil supplies and tankers, and attacking the American military bases in the Middle East. The Iraqi support for AoM may not be an operational link, but it’s certainly a financial link that goes right to Osama bin Laden. The Iraqis certainly understood that much, and hoped to keep it quiet.

Liberal partisans leaked the "no direct operational tie" claim which the MSM, predictably, reported as if that represented the entirety of the report.

Now what the full report makes it clear that Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) supported and coordinated not just with terrorists, but with Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, think they'll rush to correct their mistake?

Posted by: Ace at 05:38 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

From 9 to 12 am ET. This station finder will tell you where you can tune in.

I'll be calling in myself. No, I'm not scheduled to. Not a guest.

I just really want to win those Supertramp tickets the station's giving away.

Clarification: I see that that joke can run two different ways.

But to clarify, I'm not calling in. It was just a joke.

Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Ace at 08:35 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Read the whole bloody thing. Here's just a taste:

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations?" (See the entire abstract below.)

I had meant to post on this earlier. I am tired of the Clintonian claims about "no direct operational connection," which sounds an awful lot like "no sexual relations." Well, what does "sexual relations" mean? And what does "direct, operational link" mean? The very language itself screams there was in fact a link by denying only a specific, and quite unifying link and, by implication, allowing for links short of the "direct, operational" variety.

Okay, that kind of link didn't exist -- Al Qaeda and Saddam maintained separate command and control and did not in fact unify their separate terrorist organizations. Did they help each other achieve their joint goals, on the other hand?

The answer appears to be "yes," as it has always appeared.

And yet the media continues blaring "no direct operational link" without pausing to note that gee, there sure are some indirect, non-"operational" links.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 08:32 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

...with even Senator Obama voting against it.

Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado made Democrats put their votes where their likely nomineeÂ’s rhetoric is.

Allard sponsored an amendment to the budget that included everyone of the $1.4 trillion in new spending — $1,400,000,000,000 — $1.4 million million — over five years that Obama has proposed on the campaign trail.

And that even excluded 77 of Obama's budget-busting new spending programs.

Change.

Hmm... lying to voters with empty promises one has no ability, nor even an intention, to deliver...

Sounds like change to me.

Thanks to Larwyn.

Posted by: Ace at 07:06 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

March 14th -- the return payment for Valentine's Day.

Thanks to, well, take a guess.

Posted by: Ace at 06:18 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Barking Moonbat Warning System, which also has this very funny forged illegal immigrant ID.

Thanks to Jen.

Posted by: Ace at 03:50 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Ugh:

The final Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, will get the two-film treatment, simply named Part I and Part II. The two will be released six months apart; the first in November 2010 and then in May 2011. The franchise's producer David Heyman said J.K. Rowling's finale, published last year, is so packed with important details that "unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book."

Milking the final installment for all its worth? You bet. And this will make for a bad movie, or, rather a bad pair of movies.

The other books were jam-packed with incident and nonsense (about 50/50) and they were able to reduce them down to 2:20 running times or so. The last book -- I'm hazy on this, but this is what I remember -- has an enormous amount of padding, a lot more than the sixth book. For three hundred pages it's basically the same sentence over and over: "Then they sat in the woods some more, and missed Hogwarts, and also that Old Gay Dude they used to hang out with, and Harry wondered about his wand, and his future, and the prophecy, and that asshole who supposed is not to be named but is named at least once ever two pages, and Hermione said something supportive and/or bratty and then something bad about Ron, whom she hated."

Some happens in the beginning, some happens through the long middle act, and of course then quite a bit happens in the last 100 pages or so. I don't really care about this movie all that much, but the films have always been on the edge of tedious, and padding this movie out long enough to make two complete movies is going to make it very, very tedious indeed.

Why even bother seeing Part I? Harry breaks his wand and his stupid owl dies. That's all you need to know.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.