Replies

Yes, indeed, they are at work already trying to dilute the flow of all this damaging evidence.....see this:

Hi UK Guardian/Lemonde readers- here's what you missed

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

The al-Quds document.

Recently, New York Times reporter Scott Shane interviewed me for an article concerning the release of Saddam Regime documents to the public. The article entitled Iraq Documents Are Put on Web, and Search Is On gave several generic quotes of intelligence officials stating that the new documents would reveal nothing. I can only assume that Scott Shane missed Condi Rice on the news commenting on the newly released documents that showed the Russian ambassador gave U.S. troop strength and our maneuver plans to Iraq. So “nothing new” is demonstrated to be incorrect.

As well he focused on a headline to one of my articles describing what I call the al-Quds document, IZSP-2003-00003336. In the article, I claimed that this document demonstrated that Saddam had planned to give anthrax to al-Quds, Palestinians living in Iraq and fighting for Saddam, and that they were to use it against Iraqis to implicate the U.S. in a WMD attack.

Scott did not provide any expert testimony specific to this document, or even one point of my analysis but dismissed it out of hand based no doubt on his vast experience working with documents captured in Iraq.
He says:

But the anthrax document that intrigued Mr. Robison, the Alabama blogger, does not seem to prove much. It is a message from the Quds Army, a regional militia created by Mr. Hussein, to Iraqi military intelligence that passes on reports picked up by troops, possibly from the radio, since the information is labeled "open source" and "impaired broadcast." No anthrax was found in Iraq by American search teams.

First let me point out, Scott could not get one expert to dispute my finding so he substitutes his own conclusions. Aren’t journalists supposed to report and not make judgments in the articles? But more than that, he couches his own conclusion among the generic statements of intelligence officials to give the reader the impression that the conclusion is from an expert, not his own (conceding of course that he must be an expert since he quoted himself in the article).

Now far be it from me to challenge his obvious expertise in the field when I can only bring the expertise of 13 year army experience as an officer in the field artillery and signal corps, Gulf War and Kosovo operations and the year I spent working with the Iraq Survey Group analyzing and processing these documents, but I will try.
This is the al-Quds document translation that was posted by FMSO:

Secret

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

See link for more.....