Saddam's WMD and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!

The Arabic original shows the Falcon emblem of the Iraq Intelligence Service. A translation is provided if you scroll down. I highlight the key wording but there is more:

The al-Quds liberation army division supplied us with information....as follows.

1. The Iraqi government will distribute the same leaflets that the American forces are distributing but it will contain anthrax.

2. Iraq imports uniforms resembling American forces uniforms for the purpose of killing Iraqi citizens....

Now this letter is from al-Quds, a Jihad organization that supports the Palestinians. Saddam was the patriarch and Iraq officers worked closely with them.

IZSP-2003-00000859 also talks about the al-Quds Basra division. This is a a letter from a paramilitary organization INSIDE Iraq and not from Palestinian territories. The al-Quds in Iraq are Palestinians who live in Iraq and also are involved in Palestinian activities. They fought for Saddam because Saddam supported them in Palestine. The officers were Iraqi.

The al-Quds are covering their own butts by telling the IIS what they have been ordered to do or even trying to get them to stop Saddam since the war is immanent. If Saddam wanted to kill Iraqis with anthrax to make it look like the U.S. did it, it would be wise for him to use Palestinians instead of Iraqis. Therefor, it makes sense that he ordered the al-Quds to do it.

Not directly on topic, but a perspective anyway:

Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Leaving the 20th century

*****************************AN EXCERPT***********************

As more information becomes available about the recent past it becomes necessary for revise the conventionally accepted picture of the War on Terror in the light of new revelations. One site that illustrates the forthcoming flood is the Pajamas Media Iraq files dedicated to covering newly released documents confiscated during OIF. More new documents have just been released and one can only guess what's in them. Some of the documents have already suggested that Saddam may have been in contact with Osama Bin Laden before September 11 to plot terror attacks against the US, though to what extent is yet unknown. A number of recent books have already made good contributions to recent history and more are in the works. Among them: George Packer's Assassin's Gate, Bing Wests's No True Glory and most recently Gordon and Trainor's Cobra II. Nobody is going to be completely happy with the new information. Saddam was not as innocent of WMD intentions as many Liberals retrospectively claimed him to be. He was more brutal than anyone could imagine him to be. Administrations supporters will be unhappy to learn that Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush probably made errors in judgement in the planning and execution of OIF. But Liberals will be saddened to discover that President Bush may not have been eager to invade Iraq at all, despite portrayals to the contrary by the press, deciding only after the intelligence community (which did not entirely cover itself with glory) convinced him that Saddam was an imminent threat. We learn that press exaggerations may have helped abort the first battle of Fallujah, probably to the detriment of the American cause. The recent histories will reignite the debate the role of Colin Powell; whether de-Baathization was a good move in retrospect and about a dozen other things. And about Donald Rumsfeld: the Jawa Report now thinks he should go. Suggestive stories are still pouring in. For example, it may be the case that Saudi Arabian and Pakistani engineers helped destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas. Saddam apparently funded the Abu Sayyaf.

Sebastian Junger (of the Perfect Storm) says Pakistan is still supporting the Taliban and may have helped Osama Bin Laden escape American capture. Details in April's Vanity Fair. Christopher Hitchens highlights the distortions that are closer at hand, pointing out Al Qaeda's almost Satanic and long-standing plan to set every ethnic group in Iraq against every other may succeed because of the US domestic preoccupation with the blame game. Aller gegen alle. And not just in Iraq.

Commentary

Photo: http://www.zombietime.com/global_day_of_action_march_18_2006/

It would have been surprising to discover a really simple narrative behind the events of the last four and half years. The public is only now beginning to catch a glimpse of the fantastic complexity that somehow lay beneath the placid exterior of the 1990s, an era that came to an end with everyone worrying about the millennium software bug but which failed to anticipate September 11. The emergence of bewildering detail is reassuring in this respect: the events since are not the simple contrivance of a few bureaucrats at the Mossad or the CIA. Real historical forces and not cheap conspiracies are at work, though perhaps not every politician has realized that yet.

************************************************

See link for comments.....

Is the document quoted on yahoo somehow related to the recent times article where they quote Saddam as telling his deputies, who had been counting on wmds, that there really were none, that none existed? That would be the same article that O'Reilly keeps quoting too. He constantly keeps repeating that 'even Saddam's deputies/lieutenants were shocked to find out there really were NO wmds.

(don't know if I can watch him ever again after he allowed even a split second of coverage for that code pinko last night)

Not sure.

But it is not good. Even with the links coming out about the ties between Saddam and AQ, the chant will be ... but there were no WMDs! Bush lied!

But it is not good. Even with the links coming out about the ties between Saddam and AQ, the chant will be ... but there were no WMDs! Bush lied!"

No, it isn't good and any opportunity the media has to re-interpret something, they will. Cnn and ABC already did a number on the docs revealed at the intelligence summit.

I've already had people reply to my posts (on other sites) regarding these documents quote the disclaimer back at me "The US 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." I get that thrown at me repeatedly!

But back to that document from the yahoo link. Doesn't it make since that at some point Saddam WOULD deny having wmds, he would tell his lieuteants/deputies that there none, not because he hadn't HAD them, but that they could not be used in the war because they had been moved? I keep wondering if there is something Saddam said to that effect that is being repeated by O'Reilly and the NYTimes and now Yahoo that is being misunderstood for an admission by Saddam that he had no wmds.

(sorry, hope that makes sense)

I just looked at ONE doc from the link you posted here, picking it arbitrarily -

ISGQ-2003-M0004444_TRANS This audio file contains a meeting between Saddam Hussein and the Revolutionary Command Council about the inspection operations which are to be conducted by the United Nations (UN).

Unfortunately, it can't be copy/pasted! but it is sure interesting - SAddam and cohorts discussing how to direct (MIS_direct) inspectors...

some excerpts:

"the targets...that we want them to deploy...we exhaust them so the real targets get lost...

Male 1: and also...this is the only time in their lifetime that they are coming...

Male 1: Your Excellency, we have decided to move everything...

Male 2 (Saddam)" We want to make them fail at the last minute, squeeze them to the end...."

That's just the first one I looked at at random! Lot's more in there. I think most of the media will be too lazy to print out and copy this stuff - however, we can - the pages are numbered, so they can be individually printed for most pertinent passages...then scanned and posted?

I have this link "desktopped"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.