 |
CACIQUE'S RECOMENDED READING LIST
|
Posted on 05/02/2006 11:01:28 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
In the conventional wisdom, it is now believed that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded three years ago, nor did he have ties to terrorism. If a massive collection of recently-declassified Iraqi government documents provides truthful insight into Saddam’s regime, this conventional wisdom is completely wrong, and war was justified.
The task of translating the vast trove of documents – millions of pages of Arabic text – has largely fallen into private hands. Several of the documents point to ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, as well as terrorist ambitions by Iraq not connected to Al Qaeda. According to ABC News, one document describes a Saddam-approved meeting between Osama Bin Laden and a representative of Hussein’s government on February 19, 1995.
In the meeting, the two discussed "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. While no agreement to launch attacks was made at the first meeting, the two parties were supportive of a terrorist partnership.
Also, in a November 22, 1999 document addressed to the intelligence director, the Iraqi “senior chemist” notes that the budget for the year 2000 included a plan to train “Arab fedayeen,” code for foreign terrorist fighters. A 2003 memo just prior to war discusses a recommendation to use Saddam-financed foreign fighters as suicide bombers. In an April 4, 2003 wartime document, Saddam orders that these foreign fighters be treated the same as real Iraqi fighters in terms of pay, so at least some of the recommendation to support foreign terrorists was approved by Saddam’s government. In terms of Saddam’s ties to terrorist attacks outside Iraq, a March 2001 document contains a military general’s order to find “volunteer[s] for suicide action to liberate Palestine and strike American interests.”
This document proves Iraq had terrorist ambitions against the United States long before the war. It supports the claim of Russian President Putin that Iraq was planning a terrorist attack against America prior to the 2003 conflict.
What about weapons of mass destruction? Though fewer documents have been translated describing WMD programs, some have been translated and support the idea Saddam had active WMD programs (effectiveness unknown) until the war. Nuclear-wise, a 2002 Baath Party document highlights a meeting that year between Iraqi nuclear scientists and Saddam Hussein himself and mentions his Atomic Energy program, a euphemism for nuclear weapons program. Also, several other memos from 2001 and 2002 describe another nuclear project, the building of a nuclear reactor based on the destroyed TAMUZ reactor. The project was stopped right before United Nations weapons inspectors arrived.
Another document describes the destruction of documents related to Saddam’s nuclear program. The 2002 document records the destruction of the primary archives of the Atomic Energy Commission just prior to UN weapons inspectors coming to Iraq. Another memo describes the relocation of sensitive WMD documents from the Iraqi National Monitoring Agency in 2002. The memo refers to “special equipment,” which was one word the Iraqi government used to refer to chemical weapons in previous documents.
The other word used to describe chemical weapons was “special ammunition,” and the term appears in a March 2003 memo detailing the movement of weapons from a depot in Najaf to one in Baghdad. The type of shells mentioned in the memo, 122 mm, 130 mm, and 155 mm, have been used in the past by Iraq for chemical weapons. The “special ammunition” designation only makes sense as well if the shells (which are nothing special as conventional weapons) have a special type of contained explosive, and that most likely was chemical weapons. The same document states the weapons were to be transferred to a suspected chemical weapons site, Al-Musayyib.
The evidence for Saddam’s terrorist ties and WMD programs is much stronger with the release and translation of these documents. Conventional wisdom about Iraq may yet turn out to be incorrect.
The released documents are available online at: fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
You may view translations at: www.freerepublic.com/~jveritas
Due to space constraints, I was not able to really cite thoroughly each document, but only mention it in passing in order to at least give readers some basic idea of where to look for what I was referencing. However, they are all available at jveritas' home page right here on FR.
ping to the piece I wrote regarding your translations
ping
good job
Good article. FR and jveritas will be getting some hits from it.
Slowly but surely the truth comes out. Thanks!
|
CACIQUE'S RECOMENDED READING LIST
|
Saddam Memos Called 'Old News' by Major Media
Top secret memos captured by U.S. troops during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but declassified and released only in the last month, reveal both a linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda for the purpose of launching attacks against the common enemy--the United States--and the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
This stunning revelation has been ignored by the major U.S. media outlets because it is considered "old news."
"Look, these documents were captured three years ago," said Bob Weaver, Middle East editor for CBS News. "In our business, three-day old news is passé. Three years is ancient history. Our viewers need to be presented with fresh, up-to-the-minute news, not this old crap."
Weaver admitted that he couldn't reconcile his perspective with the network's efforts to dig out President Bush's 1968 National Guard service records during the 2004 election campaign. "I admit it seems contrary to our demand for news freshness, but domestic politics are not part of my beat," said Weaver. "I'm sure Rather had good reasons for delving into that issue. We've just got to take that on faith."
While less vocal about their stance, other major media outlets are also ignoring the memos.
read more at...
http://www.azconservative.org/Column_Archives.htm
"I wrote this column for my college newspaper. I hope it helps shed some more light on the Iraqi documents coming out at present. "
====
Great!
Bump.
I seen absolutely ZERO!!! mention of these truly astounding revelations in any of the Big Media outlets. Even Fox News has not exactly trumpeted these Bush-vindicating releases. In fact many Big Media outlets like Chris Matthews still treat pariahs like Joe Wilson as truth-tellers. It's like living in a Bizarro World...thanks to the American media.
If someone gave that lying skunk Weaver a lie-detector test, I'll bet the needle would break the machine it would be oscillating so wildly. That's just a bald-faced lie he told. Of course libs care about "old" news...if it shines a bad light on conservatives. The fact is these revelations exculpate Bush, and slime like Weaver know that...but they can't admit it. It means they were wrong about Bush and the war. Admitting they were wrong would destroy the illusion they have of themselves. So admitting the truth is something libs can never do. It would kill the leftist dream.
liberals are the most religious people I know.
Good luck putting this in a school paper. Please tell us what the religious libs vandalize.
Great column! Thank you. Every bit of truth that gets told is a miracle.
So predictable. 'Old news, nothing but crap. Rather had good reasons for what he did'. Goebbels would be proud.
GOOD job rw!
Be sure to send a copy to Chris Matthews:)
Excellent job. Thank you very much for getting the truth out on these very important documents.
bump
conventional wisdom?
If this comes from the Left, I would hardly call it 'wisdom'!
Never had a doubt.
I wrote this column for my college newspaper
I'll (along with others here) be interested in the feed back you get. Please let us know.
Thank you for putting effort into this. You're on the front lines, my friend.
Well deserved Bump!
Great work, thanks
Nothing would be coming out without his translations. I just tried to summarize a lot of what the documents show for a college audience that usually can't stand too much detail.
But, I think I did it well enough most who really want the truth will be intrigued enough to look at the actual documents.
Exactly. ABC only mentioned it once on their website...that is the only mention I could find of these in the MSM.
I put that mention in my piece since I wanted people reading who might be skeptical to see it has at least been mentioned by the MSM. But, it is ridiculous how this is being ignored.
The school is fairly conservative, so I shouldn't have that problem.
I did have somebody come up to me and ask where the proof the translations are correct is at, but I informed him my first document translation came straight from ABC News, and it fit with what jveritas was putting out as well.
lol..good point
Iraq docs show U.S. right on war
Release/Translation of Classified PreWar Docs ping. If you want to be added or removed to the ping list, please Freepmail me.
Please add the keyword prewardocs to any articles pertaining to this subject.
Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents
you only pinged me there. :)
I'm afraid you'll never make it in the media world....you've done way too much research to be considered for a position! (sarcasm)
Thank you! BTTT
LOL! Thanks again, eyespy! You're awesome....with our without the sign. ;)
I was about to suggest that someone send this to Chrissy Matthews at MSNBC, but that would be absurd since he and that network know full well their lies regarding 'no WMDs in Iraq' are just that, LIES. MSNBC has proven repeatedly that they don't give a damn what the truth is so long As they can get away with manipulating the voters of this country to support the treacherous/treasonous democrap party. And make no mistake, the CEOs of that network are the reason Matthews can continue with his lies and treachery.
You mean the folks at General Electric?
Good work! The more exposure to jveritas' translations the better!
Thanks!
The Venona Files blew the left out of the water (though they're still in denial about its contents).
Your book will do the same thing.
And I'm definitely on the "absolutely will buy" list.
One for me and a couple for my old die-hard Democrat friends.
No, I mean the direct managers of the network.
Does anyone know what steps, if any, the US Govt. took to authenticate these documents?
How do we know they aren't disinformation disseminated by the US Govt. itself?
Excellent question. These documents are now in the public domain for any agency or news organization to investigate. So far, no one (cough, cough MSM) has been able to prove them false.
Thanks.
I'm not sure how a news agency would prove an internal Iraqi document false, but I would like to see the US Govt stand up and say, "They're real", then provide the evidence that supports the assertion.
When these documents were released, the disclaimer at the top of the web page said that the US Govt. had neither authenticated the documents, nor did they validate the information the documents contained.
So, absent this authentication or validation, I would personally suspect anything released by the federal government and am surprised to see everyone rally around unsubstantiated claims promugulated by the government itself.
Look at the effect of this document dump. That will tell you all you need to know about it.
Well, the U.S. Government has clearly stated that these documents were captured in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. They (the U.S. Government) are standing firmly on their word about the origins of these documents.
So that is significant.
--- When these documents were released, the disclaimer at the top of the web page said that the US Govt. had neither authenticated the documents, nor did they validate the information the documents contained. ---
And that disclaimer is simply that -- a disclaimer. They are saying that they have not gone through them beyond what they call a "scrub."
Well, the U.S. Government has clearly stated that these documents were captured in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. They (the U.S. Government) are standing firmly on their word about the origins of these documents.
So that is significant.
--- When these documents were released, the disclaimer at the top of the web page said that the US Govt. had neither authenticated the documents, nor did they validate the information the documents contained. ---
And that disclaimer is simply that -- a disclaimer. They are saying that they have not gone through them beyond what they call a "scrub."
I am not sure that I am understanding you? Effect?
Aha! You've struck a nerve! Immediately they attack the source rather than confront the logic/conclusion/new info! Good work!
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.
