From ABC News:
Iraqi documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war and released by the Bush administration show Saddam Hussein’s regime was investigating “rumors” that 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis had traveled unofficially to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops.
The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released late Wednesday via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
Many were in Arabic with no English translation including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.
The Pentagon Web site described that document this way: “2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.”
However, one of the documents translated by The Associated Press, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated Aug. 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.
The letter said there were reports the two could be in Iraq and directed Iraqi security officials to be on the alert as a matter of “top priority.”
Attached were three responses in which agents said there was no evidence al-Zarqawi or the other man were in Iraq.
The release of the documents, expected to continue for months, is designed to allow lawmakers and the public to investigate what documents from Saddam’s regime said about such controversial issues as weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida in the period before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.
The Web site cautioned that the U.S. government “has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.”
Interesting times ahead. And a special thank you to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard for his relentless quest to have these documents released.
Already, we’re seeing a conflict in the interpretation of the documents—not so much in what they said, but in what was meant by what was said—and I expect this kind of thing to continue. But what I am certain will come out of all this is the horrific nature of the Hussein regime—and this could, in time, lead people to reexamine their opinions about the worthiness of the Iraq campaign (from the CiC’s perspective), and the potential of the threat created by an as yet undetermined level of alignment between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaida.
Why couldn’t they declassify this earlier? So many people have been persuaded into the left-wing lies of ‘no WMDs’, ‘the war is illegal’, ‘no connection to terrorism’, etc. that NO MATTER WHAT the documents have, people’s minds are not changed.
Approval of the War is now 40% or so. This is too late to change that.
The best way to piss off a leftist who claims America is hated across the world is to forward this article to them.
Jeff sez:
In time, the Church went in with the whole heliocentric model. Just not soon enough to make a damned bit of difference to Galileo. See also, Reagan, Ronald & Union, Soviet.
In another decade or so, I think this going to be remembered as “of course I supported the war – I was just trying to give constructive criticism”
Bleh…
BRD, there’s no doubt in my mind that this adventure will go down positively in history, I never had any.
Perhaps that’s because I think we’re already doing far better than I thought we’d be by this point in time. Yet, the MSM/Dems keep telling me we’re losing. I wonder, what time frame did they really have in mind for success?
I don’t believe any detractors have ever laid out what they’d classify as a successful sequence of events in any given period, mostly because it’s unknowable, yet somehow they know we’ve lost…
hayes should get the pulitzer.
I can’t believe that you guys are STILL trying to justify the war. That is too funny!
<li><ul>
There was no uranium from Niger!
There was no dual use alluminium centrifuge tubes for the processing of uranium!
There was no AQ connection in the areas outside the US controlled no-fly zones!
No ability to strike the west in 45min.
No mobile biology labs
No helicopters turned into chemical and/or biological weapons delivery systems.
In short, no WMD. Period.</ul></li>
And rather than spread US style democracy around the mid-east the US has created a Shiite Crescent from extending all the way from Western Afghanistan through to Iran, Iraq and Syria and Lebanon where it had only existed before in the vision of fundy Shiite leaders. Egypt voted democratically for a stronger Muslim Brotherhood (the crucible of Al Qaeda philosophy and it’s genesis). Iraqi’s voted in the Shiites and not a representative coalition of Kuruds, Sunnis and Shiites. The government is not even fully formed yet (and the want the US out). And Palestine voted for the anti-US, anti-Israeli PPKATGH (Political Party Formerly Known As Terrorist Group Hamas)despite the hammering the US had given them courtesy of America and the Apache Helicopter company.
The other reason given when the WMD excuse was revealed to be a phony sold to an easily frightened American public was that Saddam was a bad mand who did bad things … like feeding people to the paper-shredding machine in jail. Well it turns out that Americans are worse torturers.
So I am particulary impressed with your latest attempt to justify the invasion.
Even if you could persuasively do so, there is no way that you could pass it off as a success. It has been a complete mess since the day Bush told the world ‘mission accomplished’.
As I am fond of saying, Bush and his neo-con’s have done for the image of the US military machine, what Brokeback Mountain has done for the image of the US cowboy.
This theatrical post-rationalisation to find a link between Saddam and Osama is another indication of how much you love your high camp.
Get lost, you useless Aussie troll. But before you do, read this. Then you can go back to praying for a civil war in Iraq—and America’s humiliation. Because it’s what you need to do to make yourself feel morally and intellectually superior.
Some of us, though, have Iran and Syria to worry about now. Whereas you? Tend your sheep, for Chrissakes.
Sorry Jeff, but Wadard is right: there were no WMDs period.
The people of Halabja were killed by a bad flu bug that Akbar brought home from preschool and before you knew it everyone was coughing and sneezing and lying dead in the street.
“Many were in Arabic with no English translation including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.”
These are the close ties to Saddam that Cheney et al. were talking about (on various occasions), right?
Oh, and Mr. Goldstein:
“Get lost, you useless Aussie troll. But before you do, read this.”
(Nice way to address your readers, btw)
Please also consider this:
“ Remarks by the President on Iraq
October 7, 2002
[…] The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. […]
While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone—because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. […]
We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. […] We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. […]
Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. […]
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. […]
I hope this will not require military action, but it may. […] If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.[…]
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. […]
If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. [..]”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Can you count the lies?
Sure. I count 0 “lies.” You?
And you have no idea what Wadard’s history is on this site. But like a typically presumptuous liberal, you presume to take up for the “oppressed” and ignore the sneering tone of his post. You don’t like the way I address rude readers, go elsewhere. There is no lock on my door leading out.
Ya. you wonder what timeframe people are working on.
Ya. you wonder what timeframe people are working on.
Somewhat cryptic Actus. I asked, “I wonder, what time frame did they really have in mind for success?”
So, what is it? Hell you’ve got retrospect to work with and you’ll still not be able to credibly present a timeline, yet “you” continually decry the ongoing operations as a failure.
A failure compared to what?
Wadard, the thing that links the loony left, the loony right and Islmofacism is jew-hating.
All three groups hate it that Saddam isn’t paying $25,000 to the families of jew-killing suicide bombers any more, or harboring jew hating/killing terrorists like the Abu’s, or funding the production of big artillery pieces capable of dropping chemical weapons on Iraq.
Which group are you in?
Zero lies?
Boy, you’re beyond delusional.
But, to play along and to see if one can have an actual discussion here, here are a few points that were at least ‘misleading’:
“ We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. […] We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. ”
“US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq had provided “intentionally misleading” data, according to a declassified report.
Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden’s terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.”
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/11/06/afx2320490.html
“ Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. ”
“Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 10, 2003
[N]ew information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates—in public and behind the scenes—made allegations depicting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied: […]
o Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government’s assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible. […]
Bush said “a report came out of the . . . IAEA, that they [Iraqis] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”
There was no new IAEA report. […] A White House spokesman later acknowledged that Bush “was imprecise” on his source but stood by the crux of his charge. The spokesman said U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA, had given Bush his information.
That, too, was garbled at best. U.S. intelligence reports had only one scenario for an Iraqi bomb in six months to a year, premised on Iraq’s immediate acquisition of enough plutonium or enriched uranium from a foreign source.
“That is just about the same thing as saying that if Iraq gets a bomb, it will have a bomb,” said a U.S. intelligence analyst who covers the subject. “We had no evidence for it.” […]
Despite warnings from intelligence analysts, the uranium would return again and again, including the Jan. 28 State of the Union address and three other Bush administration statements that month. […]
A senior intelligence official said the White House preferred to avoid a National Intelligence Estimate, a formal review of competing evidence and judgments, because it knew “there were disagreements over details in almost every aspect of the administration’s case against Iraq.” The president’s advisers, the official said, did not want “a lot of footnotes and disclaimers.” ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer
“November 14, 2005
MANIPULATING INTELLIGENCE….Did the Bush administration mislead the country during the runup to the Iraq war? […] The case for manipulation is pretty strong. […[ For future reference, here’s a list of five key dissents about administration claims, all of which were circulated before the war but kept under wraps until after the war:
1. The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.
What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was “likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers.” Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.
2. The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball” was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball’s claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war.
What We Know Now: The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this […] This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link.
3. The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were “irrefutable evidence” of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA’s declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. […]
4. The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the “reporting was weak” and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were “completely implausible.” Link.[…]
5. The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.
What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn’t made public until July 2003. Link.[…]”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php
“Sunday, November 27, 2005 – 12:00 AM
U.S. whiffs on “Curveball”
The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction say the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the approach to the Iraq war.
Five senior officials from Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named “Curveball,” never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.
According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. […]
The White House, for example, ignored evidence that U.N. weapons inspectors disproved virtually all of Curveball’s accounts before the war. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq’s germ weapons as the invasion neared, even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed. […]
The BND supervisor said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball’s information as a justification for war. “We were shocked,” the German official said. “Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven … .” […]
British intelligence warned the CIA in 2001 that spy-satellite images taken four years earlier, when Curveball claimed to have been working at Djerf al Nadaf, conflicted with his descriptions. ”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002649127_curveball27.html
“ If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully”
“US ‘had no policy’ in place to rebuild Iraq
Published: October 30 2005 21:01
The US government had “no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines†in place for staffing the management of postwar Iraq, according to the top government watchdog overseeing the country’s reconstruction.
The lack of planning had plagued reconstruction since the US-led invasion, and been exacerbated by a “general lack of co-ordination†between US government agencies charged with the rebuilding of Iraq, said Stuart Bowen, the special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, in a report released on Sunday.”
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1005fd16-4984-11da-8686-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html
(Sorry, didn’t double-check all the links. If they’re dead, google the headlines. It’s all out there.)
And, no, I have no idea about Wadard’s history on this blog, and I don’t really care how you address your readers, I would like to see you back up your arguments with facts / sources, though.
Thanks.
Rather than gloating about how there were no WMDs and suggesting that Bush lied and those who still have hope for Iraq and are not willing to dismiss it as a mistake just yet are deluded, you might reflect on the original debate about the war.
In the days before the invasion, those opposed to the war cited that it was preemptive and thus unjust. Or they might have been opposed to the idea of the U.S. working unilaterally or simply opposed to the concept of war all together and cringed at the thought of violence. The bottom line is that those opposed to the war were not privy to any special intelligence, and since the consensus in intelligence community (globally, not just CIA) was that Iraq possessed WMDs, they had no reason to believe otherwise (except that it might have been more ideologically convenient).
On the other hand, the success of the war from the point of view of its proponents is not entirely contingent on the existence of WMDs, although the supposition that they existed formed the original impetus to invade. The principles that the invasion was predicated on (i.e. the legitimacy of preemptive war for the sake of national security or the idea that international support is not necessary for the legitimate exercise of power or the imperative of introducing classic liberal values into the Muslim world) still stand untouched by the intelligence failure. Feeling vindicated by the absence of WMDs is deceiving yourself and trying to gauge in its infancy the success of a process meant to be long term is an exercise in futility. Unless you consider the (undeserved) smugness you might feel looking back in retrospect a worthwhile pursuit.
How many years has it been and yet the Bush-haters still don’t kniow what the word “lie” means. Truly astonishing.
Yes, but don’t you see? It’s the mere appearance of a “lie” that matters to these people. Often times framed as open-ended questions. And from the Washington Monthly, no less.
You want me to back up my arguments with facts/ sources? Well, hit the freakin’ search button, honey. I don’t live to rehash old arguments in every new thread so that people like you don’t have to do any work.
But hell, if you don’t like my placing demands on you, just refer to the report that concluded the administration didn’t manipulate evidence. It’s fairly lengthy.
Of course, it’s not as “impressive” as dropping a bunch of links in a comments section—the preferred rhetorical tactic of delusional lefties like you (incidentally, WE WINGNUTS THANK YOU GREATLY FOR DEIGNING TO RECAST “LIES” AS “MISLEADING”—but of course, misleading is, like lying, based in intent, and that, too, goes against the report’s findings.
Go peddle you wares elsewhere. You can’t be bothered to uncover my position, why should I waste my time w/ you? I mean, who are you, and why do you think I owe you an explanation?
As for my delusions, I’ll say this: I don’t get them from David Gregory, you can bet your ass on that.
Christ. No wonder all you people post under pseudonyms. You place absolutely nothing on the line. Fucking cowards, the lot of you.
Now, Jim in Chicago, I don’t know what a ‘lie’ constitutes in your book, but as I pointed out earlier:
“”US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq had provided “intentionally misleading†data, according to a declassified report.”
How this goes together with Bush’s statement
“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.”
remains a miracle to me. Forget ‘misleading’ – It’s a plain old lie! There, I said it!
Also, the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces cited by Jeff explicitly points out its
“…consisten[cy] with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
This point is moot now, as acknowledged by the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, and not least by the newly declassified docs published today:
“”Many were in Arabic with no English translation including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.”
Unless, of course, the fact that Al Qaeda sleeper cells might exist in the US today makes us complicit in the War on Terror, as well.
But to keep it short(er) and sweet this time, I’d just like to ask one question:
If Saddam Hussein was truly believed to have had connections to Al Qaeda / 9/11, how comes the president gave him a 48-hour advance notice to make his escape from Iraq before starting the Invasion? :
“All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Any takers?
What happened to ‘dead or alive’?
Oh, I forgot, that was the other guy, the one Bush is “truly […] not that concerned about.”
Anyhow, let’s forget about the run-up to the war for a second, I think that even you ‘staunch defenders’ must concede that the conduct and the planning for the aftermath was/is insufficient at least.
Over 2,500 Allied forces have paid for these lapses with their lives. (And that’s nothing I’m ‘gloating’ about, @zanksta!)
I just hope, Jeff, now that you are already worrying about ‘Iran and Syria’, the government has a better plan to deal with this, especially since Iran has – according to the CIA World Factbook – more than 15,000,000 males age 18-49, ‘fit for military service’.
And before you all go like ‘Let’s nuke ‘em back to the Stone Ages’, please be aware that this might get us in REAL troubles…
(PS: Just read your last post, Jeff. Thanks for the insults, I love you, too :oP You’re pissed b/c I use a pseudonym? Now who’s the delusional one? This is the ‘internets’, you still have my email, ‘honey’. Good thing you found at least one source in my post to pick on.
Sorry for interrupting your war-mongering circle-jerk. Keep it up!)
Maybe I hit a nerve? Why else would ol’ Jeff get so upset ?
Just one more thing:
“the report that concluded the administration didn’t manipulate evidence”
You mean the report conducted by the admin to find out whether it beefed up its own intel?
Yeah, right.
“You place absolutely nothing on the line. Fucking cowards, the lot of you. “
Hey Jeff-
As a GAY* republican/libertarian/not democrat guy, I appreciate your website and your opinion.
Thanks for a place that makes me laugh- daily, and where I can come for news.
Most days, I’m too busy to think about being GAY or conservative. I want to, but small things like making a living and itemizing small tools and business expenses for the IRS keep me from spending my days considering that maybe the GAY PORN OF COCK is what I should be concentrating on. Your thought?
* reparations?
How can Bush have lied about Saddam when the US Congress issued the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which was signed by President Clinton? Justsayin.
justsayin’ wrote:
Because you’re yet another troll trying the same old crap again and that gets very tiring/irritating? Oh wait, was that not quite the “nerve” you wanted to strike? Poor baby.
(Hint: just because you “hit a nerve” doesn’t mean you’re right. In fact, it might mean you’re just another asshat. HTH. HAND.)
justsayin’, wadard, and the rest —
The secret is now out: the WMD thing was a test.
You failed.
The test was designed to separate the liberals from the “Liberals”. You clearly fall squarely in the latter camp, worthy of the capital letter and scare quotes. You aren’t liberals. You’re Whigs—piously intoning BOM
FOGabout the need for people to be free and the vileness of dictators and tyrants, but absolutely unwilling to expend one mite of treasure (let alone one drop of blood, even if it isn’t your own) to actually accomplish that. The only real difference is that instead of being insufferably pompous in tailcoats, top-hats, and luxurious clubs, you’re insufferably pompous in scruffy jeans and pointless protest.Oh, and gratuitous linkfests in other people’s comment pages. Imagining that we haven’t seen all that stuff already means that you are retarded, not us.
Regards,
Ric
showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.
So would that mean they weren’t actively working with al-Qaeda, but rather had been “infiltrated” by al-Qaeda in the same way it’s believed al-Qaeda is trying to infiltrate the US?
Not that it matters all that much – I’ve been convinced, in no small part by arguments presented on this site, that the anti-war “gotcha”s about whether there were connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda completely miss the point – but I’m not sure how else to interpret that statement.
Also, Jeff, I see you taking a lot of shit from the anti-war people, and I’ve given you some myself, but you should know that your well-articulated arguments for the democracy promotion strategy can and do have an effect. It’s just sometimes hard to get past the mockery and absorb the substance.
I also hope that what will come from these documents is the heinous nature of Saddam’s dictatorship both for his domestic and foreign adventures.
But in the short run, that may not occur. Many will not read the documents—the MSM will continue to present their narrative and in the short term poison the arguments for invading Iraq.
My hope is that in the historic long term, the truth will be clear.
TW “justice”—Justice will prevail!
“The secret is now out: the WMD thing was a test.”
A test? OMG, you guys are way crazier than I thought.
BTW, what’s wrong with the links? I’m not even blog-whoring (or whatever you wanna call it), just trying to back up my quotes / sources from a) mainly the White House b) other – reputable – media outlets. (Wondering what you’d say had I quoted a lefty website).
One more thing, I’m not ‘THE Left’ nor ‘THE Liberals’, just one dude with an opinion. If you can’t stand that, tough shit.
(And I’m not a ‘whig’, Ric – come on, twelcome to the 21st Century. But you might want to read up on the WHIG, the ‘White House Iraq Group’
I repeat my question from last night:
If Saddam Hussein was truly believed to have had connections to Al Qaeda / 9/11, how comes the president gave him a 48-hour advance notice to make his escape from Iraq before starting the Invasion?
For humanitarian reasons?
Here’s another link for you:
http://www.goarmy.com/
justsayin’
It is amazing how much time and energy is spent by some trying to show that the cause for the war in Iraq was not justified, considering that particular ship has sailed and no amount of words is going to bring it back. Imagine if that energy was redirected to something more useful, like trying to formulate a plan for the future or, say, masturbating.
Wadard, you’ve flung a lot of shit in this thread. Jeff’s right, virtually all of what you’ve said particularly in that “count the lies” post is patently wrong (I won’t say all—the Administration has made mistakes in its public statements on the war, intel and other areas and I won’t defend those).
But a few items for you to deal with, if you don’t mind terribly:
* Who is Hikmat Shakir?
* Who is Abdul Rahman Yassin?
* We’ve found WMD in Iraq. There was a binary mix-in-flight Sarin munition found rigged as an IED, for example. When the contents mixed it produced fresh Sarin. It was of a previously undeclared type. Do you believe it was the only one?
* Bill Clinton noted that “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.” That Iraq still had WMD—not just capabilities—was the consensus in Washington for a decade. I know, I live here. See also Kagan’s piece on who believed what.
TW: Care to face facts yourself?
Wadard, my apologies for the misattribution of the post (though yours is equally appalling). Justsayin’s welcome to respond to my questions as well.
Gary, there’s hope. The “Henny-Penny” tabloid media does not write our history for us.
History has to reconcile a period’s narrative with its larger historic contexts, while the NYT’s Manhattan Myth Machine doesn’t.
And Defense Guy, No Shit! We’d have wrapped up Iraq and be in Isfahan right now if America’s Kennedys, Clintons, Reids and Daschles had put their shoulders to the wheel, instead of playing political “football” with our nation’s foreign policy.
I expect the “No WMD’s – Bush Lied” meme to die very slowly, though. There are too many reputations tied to its propagation. Perhaps the ‘06 Congressional elections will cull a few of these, and hasten, too, a reduction in the adolescent, partisan trolling that passes for political dialogue these days.
-Steve
Bush: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
The Brits stand by that intelligence, BTW. I seem to recall the Butler Report said it was “well-founded.”
Those are some interesting qualifiers you apply there. I guess facilitating meetings of the hijackers in Kuala Lumpur is outside the no-fly zones, but does it not count because it happened in another country? I’m confused.
Note also that we were working with UN numbers on Iraq’s material balances of WMD and WMD-related materials.
I just happen to think it’s eminently reasonable to have believed that (1) Iraq retained WMD stockpiles, (2) 9-11 showed that international terrorist organizations (including but not limited to AQ) were willing to attempt attacks on a catastrophic scale, and (3) in that light countries like Iraq (under its leadership at the time) presented an unacceptable risk.
And as to your question about the head-start, I presume Hussein and his sons wouldn’t have been allowed to take WMD with them. So separating the regime from the country would be enough. If no one has responded until now, it’s probably because the question seemed so obtuse.
It’s like a fox hunt. A “sporting chance” if you will. And, it’s more fun to watch the fucker run away in terror.
Yeah … justsayin’ – the President sure did lie. I even found another article, this time from CNN with all sorts of lies in them about Saddam and his supposed WMD program. I’ve excerpted it and highlighted the multitude of lies.
Here’s another instance of the Administration lying about Saddam, WMD and Al Qaeda. This is Item 4 on the background info on Al Qaeda from the Justice Department indictment of Osama Bin Laden:
Can you believe all the lies these guys told?
It appears the left in this country is totally and completely invested in our failure in Iraq. All for the absolute hatred of ONE man. It is appalling. The bastards.
The Bush-hating nutball leftists have told more lies in their obsessed sputtering of one day than the Bush administration has in its entire existance.
The repetition is always that wrong interpretations or estimates are “lies”. This shows that the fundamental dishonesty of the Left continues.
What is interesting about justsayin’s well researched rants is the language used in the “What we know now” sections. Every one contains language like “the CIA believed..” or “other estimates exist…”. In none of the examples provided by justsayin’ are any of the Bush administrations claims refuted, not once. They are merely brought into question.
Take yellowcake in Niger. Richard Clarke’s report was clear that Iraq attempted to set up a secret trade mission with Iraq. Brit intelligence confirmed the purpose of that mission was to buy yellowcake. Since Niger exports include goats and chickpeas (I think) and uraniam, why would Iraq need a secret trade mission unless it was for an illegal material? Clarke said one government official denied Iraq ever made an official offer to buy yellowcake, so the entire Bush claim is therefore false. Justsayin’ follows this ridiculous line of logic in his rant above. Bottom line is that Iraq wanted secret meetings and the Brits know why. The CIA (who in this case is beyond reproach to justsayin) has doubts so …….Bush lied. Sorry, but there is no way to get to that conclusion.
Justsayin’ brings up the tubing and the Drones and questions (not conclusions!!) raised by the CIA and some military personnel. Justsayin leaves out the fact that Iraq’s possession of the Drones and attempt to make the missiles (nuclear or biological or not) was in fact a violation of the U.N. resolutions and are in fact justifications for invasion under the U.N. mandate. But again, the fact that anyone questioned the intelligence means that…..Bush lied?
Like I said about actus yesterday, justsayin’ is the worst kind of theocrat. Their faith maintains that everything the U.S. does is evil and inspired by imperialistic and awful motives. Their position is the only one morally acceptable because they start with the premise of the evilness of Bush and most of America. That is why in the face of mounting evidence of the success of the war, the support of the Iraqi people, and new documents justifying the initial decision they must make pesonal attacks and question the motives of supporters of U.S. involvment in Iraq. Truly frightening.
Hey, but at least justsayin’ tries to back up his points with good research and links rather than starting with conclusions like actus. I’m just sayin’ no one reading them could honestly reach the same conclusions. I guess its time for me to link up with some other mouth breathers and beat up some homosexuals.
That and any subsequent discoveries will be explained as a set of mutually unrelated flukes; certainly not indicative of a coordinated WMD program.
Just a prediction.
I have no idea. I really do wonder what the timeframe for success is. Whenever this topic is raised, usually we get told that benchmarks are articifical and unamerican.
I’d accept time scales that are the same number of years that deficits are calculated over. For instance, the $1.3 trillion tax cut.
From the “Adios, Credibility” Series:
Pro-Wall folks: (pointing to a brick wall) This is a brick wall.
The Left: (pointing to a hole in the wall where a brick is missing) Look! Look! See?!? THIS isn’t a brick wall! SEE?!? There is no wall! The wall never existed!! You’re a FUCKIN’ FASCIST LIAR!!!
Well, so how’s that reach-around from Saddam, lefties?
I just don’t think the old chap is going to take you the whole way, boys; psychopathic tyrants tend to do that…dissappoint that is.
TW: Bad boys…because the Left never gets enough of the guys that batter them.
@Eno:
Thanks for acknowledging that I use sources for my argumentation. Seems like other one-sentence-posters here can’t appreciate this.
But then, it’s YOU who jumps to conclusions:
“justsayin’ is the worst kind of theocrat. Their faith maintains that everything the U.S. does is evil and inspired by imperialistic and awful motives. Their position is the only one morally acceptable because they start with the premise of the evilness of Bush and most of America. ”
Yadda, yadda.
I DO hold upright my opinion that the US has to maintain ‘moral higher ground’ and not play along the terrist’s rules, though.
“That is why in the face of mounting evidence of the success of the war, the support of the Iraqi people, and new documents justifying the initial decision they must make pesonal attacks and question the motives of supporters of U.S. involvment in Iraq.”
‘Mounting evidence of the success’? I wish it were so.
‘New documents justifying the initial decision’? The original post refutes the claim that SH had ‘close ties’ to AQ, but rather that he suspected AQ cells to be in Iraq.
“In none of the examples provided by justsayin’ are any of the Bush administrations claims refuted, not once.”
Read again, slowly:
“…US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002…”
”By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government’s assertion.”
“What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, […]”
“…concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable…”
“…the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the “reporting was weak”…”
“British intelligence warned the CIA in 2001 that spy-satellite images taken four years earlier […] conflicted with his descriptions.”
Despite better info, Bush peddled his apocalyptic threat of a mushroom cloud.
You wouldn’t recognize proof / evidence that your ‘dear leader’ misled you if it bit you in the A$$.
*Whenever this topic is raised, usually we get told that benchmarks are articifical and unamerican. *
There is no timeframe. The job is over when Iraqis have a working democracy and can stand on their own two feet, which includes protecting themselves from enemies domestic and abroad. Bush has articulated this on numerous occasions. Because our success in Iraq is based on the success of the Iraqis (which is should be), it is impossible to give you or anyone else a “time table” that I believe you would find to be acceptable.
The more reliable reports from Iraq (basically, anything not from the msm) Ive read indicate that the Iraqis are making progress in taking over the security of their country but it has been slower then expected. I firmly believe the Iraqis will step up to the plate but it may not be on your timetable or mine. Personally, I think we’ll have a significant troop presence in Iraq for the next five years, at minimum, unless the donks pull off a victory in 2008 (then, I think the troops will be brought home and Iraq will descend into chaos).
Its not an event, its a process.
For some reason, as I read through the comments here, I kept hearing circus music playing in the background. WTF is up with that?
I’ve got a feeling that this story is going to be HUGE, and last for YEARS. Fascist regimes are funny things with their meticulous record keeping. It wasn’t really until SS records were found that the world realized the concentration camps weren’t just work camps where Jews were starved and treated like shit but rather fully intended and realized Jew Extermination Factories.
Prior to the war, the only real Iraqi ties to Al Queda touted by the Administration were Zarqawi (whom Powell spent about ten minutes on in his speech to the UNSC) and a planner of the first World Trade Center bombing known to be in Baghdad. The rest, of which there was little (later posted to the CIA’s website), was uncorraborated and thus not cited by the administration. After all, this was a pre-emptive war, vociferously opposed by the left at the time but now apparently forgotten by them.
Since the war however there has been streams of new information indicating ties completely unsuspected before the war and therefore certainly not claimed as justification prior to invasion. If the preliminary findings from these documents are any indication, history will not only regard the war as justified, but also as an instance where America and the west truly dodged a bullet.
The left has morphed into the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages.
If you disagree, you aren’t wrong, you’re evil.
To them, Bush isn’t a leader who watched 9/11 and decided that he wouldn’t allow that to happen again.
He is an evil man who possibly knew about 9/11 but wanted it to happen so he could start a war to steal oil and make his friends in the military-industrial complex more money. Oh, and he’s Hitler.
And he lied. Nevermind that everybody in the world, including Chirac, Annan, Putin, Bill Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, Al Gore, etc. were saying the same things from 1997-2003. Bush Lied. Bush is Hitler.
Oh, and Haliburton.
The clowns bring their own.
Sadly, no.
(emphasis added).
justsayin’, Wadard, feel like responding to my questions?
TW: basis
Well that one must have gotten by me, so I’ll concede the fact but not necessarily the point, which is that there was a paucity of of Iraqi links to Al Queda before the war known or cited by the Adminstration before the war. Two of the sentences in the one paragraph from the piece you link is the only mention of any link other than Zarqawi.
And I’m also willing to grant something that you don’t bring up, which is that the bar for the Administration was pretty low on this point, given that in an argument for pre-emptive war they only needed to demostrate that cooperation between Iraq and Al Queda was possible in the future.
yours/
peter.
I just have a minute:
“* Who is Hikmat Shakir? ”
The reason that Bush now claims Malaysia to be an ‘emerging target’ for his pre-emptive war policy?
Other than that, seems like nobody really knows: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/259gqzrw.asp
* Who is Abdul Rahman Yassin?
Involved in the ‘93 WTC bombings, he was clearly an ‘imminent threat’ and if you squint really hard, he looks like a mushroom cloud.
“* We’ve found WMD in Iraq. ”
Apparently leftovers from the first Gulf War.
“[A] senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.
He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm
(Uhhh, quoting the BBC, shouldnt’ve done that, right?)
Clearly not an imminent threat to the US, d’ya think?
“* Bill Clinton noted that “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.†”
Time-travelling again. The UN and IAEA were allowed back into Iraq and doing their job when PNAC-Bush pressured them to leave b/c ‘time was running out’. Looks like he was in quite a hurry to start a war.
OK, gotta go. One more:
@ Peter Jackson
</i>”[…] for pre-emptive war they only needed to demostrate that cooperation between Iraq and Al Queda was possible in the future.”</i>
War planning using a crystal ball. interesting.
Happy St. Patrick’s, y’all,
justsayin’
That’s the problem I have with people like you: you were willing to risk New York, or Los Angeles, or Washington, or Bostonâ€â€all for the sake of preserving Saddam’s sovereignty. With patriots like you, we don’t really need enemies, do we?
Justsayin, you still haven’t addressed my point that EVERY thing you cited was a question raised by another agency, not a refutation of evidence or proof of manipulation. Some of those questions proved correct, others were just dead wrong and (careful now, this will hurt) Bush was absolutley right.
I love your admission that AQ was “only” operating a few cells in Iraq. Since Iraq was a dictatorship and everyone who was in the country was there with the knowledge of the government, this would be the definition of “close ties.” No one ever said that Iraq had any operational controls with AQ. You keep touting that point like it is evidence of anything. I’m pretty stoopid, but as a public defender for the last 20 years I know a little about analyzing evidence.
The comment that said you guys have morphed into the Church of the middle ages was right. Burn the president (and his supporters) at the stake, regardless of the evidence.
So predictable. Are you suggesting that because someone said the airport Shakir might be the fedayeen Shakir, and this isn’t true, that the rest of the Shakir story (how he got his job, what he did there, who he met, what he had on him on the occasion of his two arrests) falls apart? It’s a convenient mode of argument, I’ll admit, but not terribly convincing.
But let me ask you—are you even interested in finding out?
Still fairly lethal leftovers, I’m afraid. And worrying about the vintage is a bit of goalpost-moving. If such a munition had been turned over to terrorist proxies, a drill press and two jerrycans still would get you a liter or so of fresh Sarin. And had such a thing happened, I can imagine the line of people disputing the provenance of the poison—yourself perhaps among them.
Clinton said this in the summer of 2003, after the conclusion of the inspections (which were hopelessly compromised by the Hussein regime) and the initiation of hostilities. Not sure what your point is. My point is about who believed what, and whether the Bushies had a good faith basis for thinking what they thought. Not giving a regime like Hussein’s the benefit of the doubt seems like a sound policy, even knowing what we know now.
Yes. that’s what was being preserved.
The authenticity of the documents, of course, is beyond serious doubt. It’s not as if the administration would salt the release with forgeries composed to support Bush’s lies and delusions.
Oh, I get it. Now, it’s Bushco FORGED the documents. Kinda like Dan Rather. Such projection….
tristero perfectly encapsulates the reaction from the left these days, whatever disagrees with their holy beliefs is a lie.
These documents will do absolutely nothing to change anybody’s mind. To the left, they’re not facts, they’re ‘facts’ and they have different ones. The media will occasionally talk about them but with a bunch “these have not been authenticated” caveats to lessen their impact.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: you know otherwise, right? You know all about what Saddam and Al Queda would have done for the next ten years, and Uday and Qasay for the thirty years after that.
Ignorance isn’t bliss, but apparently ignorance of one’s ingorance is.
I know that what we were all concerned about was preserving his sovereignty.
@ Eno:
“No one ever said that Iraq had any operational controls with AQ.”
“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
How would you call this? Oh right, he didn’t use the term ‘operational controls’.
Keep spinning.
DrSteve, I did my ‘homework’, now I ask you:
* Who is Mahar Arar?
* Who is Khaled al-Masri?
An Re: my question: If Saddam Hussein was truly believed to have had connections to Al Qaeda / 9/11, how comes the president gave him a 48-hour advance notice to make his escape from Iraq before starting the Invasion?
You wrote:
“… I presume Hussein and his sons wouldn’t have been allowed to take WMD with them. So separating the regime from the country would be enough.”
I don’t think my Q was that ‘obtuse’ at all. If Saddam was really believed to be involved in the killing of 3,000 people, why would he’d been given the chance to pilfer a couple millions (if not any WMDs) and make his escape to Syria or Saudi Arabia or whatnot? Weak answer.
But then there’s natesnake:
“It’s like a fox hunt. A “sporting chance†if you will. And, it’s more fun to watch the fucker run away in terror.”
Now if THIS isn’t obtuse, I don’t know what is. A fox hunt? A ‘sporting chance’? Right, like we’ve been playing hide’n’seek with OBL for the last 4 years…
*shakingheadindisbelief*,
justsayin’
justsayin’ … I see you’ve avoided my post like the plague … {sigh}
Says a lot (about you), doesn’t it?
One at a time, bro’.
From your source:
“3. AQ has functioned both on ist own and through some of the terorist organizations that have operated under its umbrella, including […] the al Jihad group based in Egypt, […] Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and a number of jihad groups in other countries, including Egypt, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Kenya, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Bangladeh, Kashmir and Azerbaijan.”
Nonetheless, Egypt is still one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, and Bush’s relation to Saudi Arabia, for example, is, well, ‘well known’, to say the least.
Why do you think was Iraq singled out as ‘imminent threat’ when there are at least a dozen other countries that gave ‘aid to the enemy’?
That’s a non-sequitur.
Al Qaeda coming to an agreement with the government of a nation is not the equivalent of Al Qaeda operating within a nation’s borders.
After all, 9/11 showed that Al Qaeda was operating within American borders. Does that prove in your mind that America had come to an agreement with Al Qaeda?
Now, if the passage had said;
… then your question would actually have a point.
By the way, was that indictment submitted to the Southern District Court of New York by the Bush Administration[?] in 1998?
Read my post 3/17 3:12:
“This point is moot now, nless, of course, the fact that Al Qaeda sleeper cells might exist in the US today makes us complicit in the War on Terror, as well.”
However, the initial post:
“”Many were in Arabic with no English translation including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.â€Â
… obviously does not support Bush’s statement that “… Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.â€Â
But I keep repeating myself.
I don’t know the reasons behind rush to war.
Maybe it was because Bush reportedly wanted to kick some ass after 9/11.
Maybe it has something to do with the notes Stephen Cambone took from Rumsfeld on 9/11:
“Go massive … Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
Maybe it HAS something to do with the PNAC agenda and the Downing Street Memos?
Who knows? I’m not an oracle and can’t look behind the scenes. Still, I try to keep myself informed and – although I’m partial / biased in some ways (but who isn’t?) – make an effort to hear the ‘other side’ out instead of just spitting vitriol.
However, the fact that most of you guys on here claim that everything is just fine and the war was certainly justified, and that you don’t seem to be able to admit that the way HOW the war was conducted so far, and that the planning for the aftermath was piss-poor to non-existent, speaks volumes to me…
Today we ‘celebrate’ the 3rd anniversary of the invasion, and other than over 2,500 dead coalition troops (plus about 17,000 wounded) and about $350 billion spend so far, we haven’t really gotten anywhere.
Even reputable conservative sources start to concede that now, e.g. Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Iraq (and signer of the PNAC letter to Clinton), who admitted that we have opened a Pandora’s Box by invading Iraq.
‘But there hasn’t been an attack on American soil since 9/11!’, I hear somebody say.
Very comforting for the people in Madrid, London, et al.
And don’t forget, there was an 8-year interval btw. the first WTC bombing in ‘93 and 9/11, so don’t feel TOO safe yet. (Especially after witnessing the total dysfunctionality of FEMA / DHS.)
Anyways, it looks like we just have to agree to disagree here, I just wish that some of you guys would at least try to jump over your shadows occasionally and at least allow some (clearly justified) criticism.
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism†– Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for reading.
justsayin’
Oh justsayin’ …
The problem is that we’ve seen all the arguments you’ve spouted forth again and again. What we’ve noticed is that you’re very selective in what you choose as your sources and tend to beg the question and respond with dumb non-sequiturs.
You and other Leftists seem to forget or not know at all that all NIEs contain dissenting views and what is given as the definitive “slam dunk” view of the Intelligence community is arrived at by consensus.
What we do know now is that Jay Rockefeller and Carl Levin have been very adept at declassifying carefully selected bits and pieces of dissenting Intelligence reports that have been proven by hindsight to be correct and having the Press hype on it as if this was a view shared by anything more than 20% of the Intelligence analysts working on Iraq.
What about all the other Intelligence analyses that say the opposite? Based on Intelligence gathered since before the first Gulf War? Or do you believe that Tenet was simply talking out his ass, despite knowing that he would soon be proven wrong?
What makes it even more frustrating dealing with people like you is that you simply choose to ignore everything said about Iraq by and during the previous administration.
I took the trouble to show you the indictment of Osama Bin Laden prepared by the Clinton Administration in 1998 that asserted that American Intelligence believed that Al Qaeda had come to an agreement with the government of Iraq vis-a-vis the West. Did the Clinton Administration lie?
You responded by trying to blur the difference between coming to an understanding with a nation’s government and operating within a nation’s borders.
So, altogether, what you’ve done here is throw in some links, seriously out-of-context excerpts and then pretend that you’ve shut down our counter-arguments like a child by blocking your ears and going “LALALALALALA …”
It’s unfortunate … but I guess that’s how it goes.
Good luck to you.
Yeah right, you are ‘taking the trouble’ to prove your point, I just ‘throw in some links’ and ‘spout’ arguments.
Screw you and your holier-than-thou attitude, then.
This war started in 2003, not in ‘98. The UN was allowed back into Iraq and doing their work when they had to leave because of Bush’s pressure to bomb the place.
“Did the Clinton Administration lie?”
And if, two wrongs don’t make a right.
At least, more than 2,500 Coalition troops didn’t die under his watch.
“First Declassified Iraq Documents Released
WASHINGTON, Mar. 16, 2006
(AP) Iraqi documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war and released by the Bush administration show Saddam Hussein’s regime was investigating “rumors” that 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis had traveled unofficially to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops.
The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released late Wednesday via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. […]”
That’s the part of the story Jeff posted so far. Interestingly enough, he (intentionally?) omitted the following paragraphs:
“However, one of the documents translated by The Associated Press, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated Aug. 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.
The letter said there were reports the two could be in Iraq and directed Iraqi security officials to be on the alert as a matter of “top priority.”
Attached were three responses in which agents said there was no evidence al-Zarqawi or the other man were in Iraq. […]”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/16/ap/politics/mainD8GCNOC83.shtml
Care for a follow-up post, Jeff? Or do you rather NOT admit that the released documents weaken your position even more?
justsayin’
In the Name of God the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate.
The Saudi Opposition and Achieving the Relation and Contact With Them
(Translation of part of Page 4)
2. The Comission of Reform and Advise
Lead by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden who belongs to a wealthy Saudi family with her roots go back to Hadramoot and connected strongly with the ruling family in Saudia, and he is one of the leaders of the Arab Afghan who volunteered for Jihad in Afghanistan, and after the expulsion of the Soviets he moved to stay in Sudan in the year 1992 after the arrival of the Islamists to power in Sudan.
And because of his stands against the Saudi Royal family because of the foreign presence inside it, the Saudi authorities made a decision to withdraw his Saudi citizenship, and we moved toward The Comission from our side and through the following:
Translation of page 5
A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim Al Sanoosi to the country and his meeting with Mr. Uday Saddam Hussein on 13/12/1994 and with the presence of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus he indicated that the opposition person Osama Bin Laden who is staying in Sudan and who was cautious and fears that he will be accused by his opponents that he became an agent for Iraq, is ready to meet with him in Sudan (The results of the meeting were written to the Honorable Presidency according to our letter 872 on 17/12/1994).
B. The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden by the Apparatus according to letter 128 on 11/1/1995 (attachment 6) and the meting with him was completed by Mr. M.A ex-4th Directory in Sudan and with the presence of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim AL Sanoosi on 19/2/1995 and a discussion occurred about his organization, and he requested the broadcasting of Sheikh Sleiman AL Awada (who has influence in Saudia and outside since he is a known and influential religious personality) and dedicate a program for them through the station directed inside the country and make joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz ( the Honorable Presidency has been notified with the details of the meeting according to our letter 370 in 4/3/1995 attachment 7).
Translation of page 6
C. The approval of Mr. President the Leader God protect him was granted to dedicate and program for them through the station directed and we leave to develop the relation and cooperation between the two sides what open in front of it in discussion and agreement through other cooperation doors. The Sudanese side was informed about the approval of the Honorable Presidency above through the representative of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus our ambassador in Khartoom.
D. Due to the latest conditions in Sudan and accusing her harboring of supporting and harboring terrorism it was agreed with the opposition person the Saudi Osama Bin Laden to leave Sudan to another place where he left Khartoom in the month of July 1996 and the information indicate that he is Afghanistan at the present moment. There is stil relation with him through the Sudanese side and we work in the present moment to activate this relation with him through a new channel in light of the current place where he stays.
In the Name of God the Merciful
Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Apparatus
To the respectful Mr. M.A.M
Subject: Information
Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:
1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.
2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.
3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.
Please view… Yours… With regards
Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission
Signature:………….
In the Name of God the most Merciful and the most Compassionate
Top Secret
Recommendation on how to use the Arab Feedaeyeens (Suicide Martyrs)
1. Supervision for training and usage
Formation of a devoted commission headed by Lieutenant General Hamza Alwan Zaher from the Directory of Military Engineering and the membership of Staff General Azawi Saleh Hassan from the Directory of Planning and the and Colonel Dr. Abdel Rahim Abdel Saheb Ali from the Directory of Political Orientation and that the commission will be related to Mr. assistant of Chairman of Army Training Staff.
2. The Training Course
The commission will prepare a very intensive training course for a period of week where it will be focused to raise the physical fitness and train on how use the automatic rifle Kalashnikoff and hand grenades and the largest section of the course will be specialized to focus of using the explosive material in the body, in motorcycle, in cars, and in camels.
3. Instructors
They must be dedicated from the Special Forces Command, from the Directory of Military Engineering and from the First Military School those that appear in them competence and capability.
(1-3) Top Secret
Translation of page 21 in the pdf document:
Top Secret
4. Requirement of duty
A. The Explosives
All the explosives and its attachments will be provided by the Directory of Military Engineering.
B . The Cars
All the cars and motorcycles that will be used in fulfilling the duties will be provided by the Department of Armament and Equipping.
C. The Camels
Will be provided by the Directory of General Military Intelligence.
D. Light Weapons
The Kalashnikoff rifles and the hand grenades will be provided by the Department of Armament and Equipping.
5. Usage
The Directory of General Military Intelligence will take the responsibility to provide the dictations and supervise the execution of duties and that this will occur after that the end of extensive training period.
(2-3) Top Secret
Translation of page 22 in the pdf document.
Top secret
6. General issues
A. The representative of the Directory of Political Orientation and the Religious Scholars from among the volunteers to give religious sermons that emphasis on Jihad for the Arab volunteers outside the hours dedicated for training.
B. Provide the Badwen clothing and other equipments (Travel homes,…) by the directory of general military intelligence.
Signature….. 28/2
(3-3) Top secret.
March 11, 2003
The Al-Quds liberation army division supplied us with information (open source)(imparied broadcast) as follows:
1. The Iraqi Government will distribute the same leaflets that the American forces are distributing bit it will contain anthrax.
2. Iraq imports uniforms resembling American forces for the purpose of killing Iraq citizens because the American forces killed the innocent sons of the Iraqi people.
3. Dig trenches around the city of Baghdad and set up oil barrels and derivatives for the purpose of burning and causing mayhem the city of Baghdad as Iraq did in Kuwait.
4. Diplomats are leaving Iraq and Russia says it has already taken out its representatives from inside Iraq.
5. There is a rumor that some of the children of ministers and high ranking commerce people left Iraq for Russia.
________________________