Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq docs show U.S. right on war
Sterling Stir ^ | 4/27/06 | Roy Waggoner

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


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqdocs; iraqdocuments; iraqiintelligence; jveritas; prewardocs; prewarintelligence; saddam; terrorist; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last
I wrote this column for my college newspaper. I hope it helps shed some more light on the Iraqi documents coming out at present. One point I really want to emphasize is that even if Saddam's regime did not actually carry out the recommendation to train suicide bombers with Iraqi cash, Saddam did at least PAY them equal to regular military units, showing he did support the terrorists, the very insurgents we are now fighting.

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.

1 posted on 05/02/2006 11:01:31 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jveritas

ping to the piece I wrote regarding your translations


2 posted on 05/02/2006 11:02:20 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

ping


3 posted on 05/02/2006 11:04:38 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

good job


4 posted on 05/02/2006 11:09:18 PM PDT by woofie (Go after "Small Oil" first ,then build up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Good article. FR and jveritas will be getting some hits from it.


5 posted on 05/02/2006 11:17:21 PM PDT by jazusamo (-- Married a WAC in '65 and I'm still reenlisting. :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Slowly but surely the truth comes out. Thanks!


6 posted on 05/02/2006 11:17:32 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
BTT


CACIQUE'S RECOMENDED READING LIST


7 posted on 05/02/2006 11:17:56 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

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


8 posted on 05/02/2006 11:29:49 PM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

"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!


9 posted on 05/02/2006 11:31:50 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Bump.


10 posted on 05/02/2006 11:35:03 PM PDT by T. Buzzard Trueblood ("left unchecked, Saddam Hussein...will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Great job, RW. JVeritas has done some excellent work, too! How does the truth get out to the masses who believe in ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc... when the TRUTH is anathema to this Not Yet Extinct Media? The word IS getting out, but has anyone heard it from any of the NYEM? They really do remind me of Baghdad Bob!
11 posted on 05/02/2006 11:57:36 PM PDT by Just Lori (To everything, there is a season.........Ecclesiastes, 3:1-8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

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.


12 posted on 05/03/2006 1:11:24 AM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens

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.


13 posted on 05/03/2006 1:16:46 AM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
"We've just got to take that on faith."

liberals are the most religious people I know.

14 posted on 05/03/2006 1:42:13 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* “I love you guys”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Good luck putting this in a school paper. Please tell us what the religious libs vandalize.


15 posted on 05/03/2006 1:47:05 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* “I love you guys”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Great column! Thank you. Every bit of truth that gets told is a miracle.


16 posted on 05/03/2006 4:26:57 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens

So predictable. 'Old news, nothing but crap. Rather had good reasons for what he did'. Goebbels would be proud.


17 posted on 05/03/2006 4:30:05 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

GOOD job rw!

Be sure to send a copy to Chris Matthews:)


18 posted on 05/03/2006 4:32:51 AM PDT by SE Mom (God Bless those who serve..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Excellent job. Thank you very much for getting the truth out on these very important documents.


19 posted on 05/03/2006 5:25:37 AM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

bump


20 posted on 05/03/2006 5:27:59 AM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings............Modesty hides my thighs in her wings......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

conventional wisdom?

If this comes from the Left, I would hardly call it 'wisdom'!


21 posted on 05/03/2006 5:30:12 AM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Never had a doubt.


22 posted on 05/03/2006 5:40:06 AM PDT by IrishMike (Dry Powder is a plus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

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.


23 posted on 05/03/2006 5:55:48 AM PDT by Valin (Purple Fingers Rule!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Thank you for putting effort into this. You're on the front lines, my friend.


24 posted on 05/03/2006 6:37:33 AM PDT by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Well deserved Bump!


25 posted on 05/03/2006 6:40:34 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Great work, thanks


26 posted on 05/03/2006 7:59:40 AM PDT by RayRobisonblog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spanaway Lori

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.


27 posted on 05/03/2006 8:48:12 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: driftless

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.


28 posted on 05/03/2006 8:49:44 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

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.


29 posted on 05/03/2006 8:56:34 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

lol..good point


30 posted on 05/03/2006 8:57:00 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

31 posted on 05/03/2006 9:08:36 AM PDT by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
A great article by fellow FReeper rwfromkansas!!


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 Get The Truth Out

Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

Documents from the Harmony Database

jveritas’s blog

Ray Robison’s blog

An Interview With a Citizen Translator and American Hero

32 posted on 05/03/2006 9:12:57 AM PDT by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

you only pinged me there. :)


33 posted on 05/03/2006 10:01:41 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; jveritas; Chena; Valin; M. Thatcher; DocRock; Calpernia; Madame Dufarge; Txsleuth; ...
D'uh! Here's muh sign!

Folks, ping to Post #32

34 posted on 05/03/2006 10:08:00 AM PDT by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"I wrote this column for my college newspaper."

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)

35 posted on 05/03/2006 10:11:58 AM PDT by oust the louse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Thank you! BTTT


36 posted on 05/03/2006 10:12:48 AM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
D'uh! Here's muh sign!

LOL! Thanks again, eyespy! You're awesome....with our without the sign. ;)

37 posted on 05/03/2006 10:14:51 AM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

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.


38 posted on 05/03/2006 10:22:03 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You mean the folks at General Electric?


39 posted on 05/03/2006 11:25:20 AM PDT by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Good work! The more exposure to jveritas' translations the better!

Thanks!


40 posted on 05/03/2006 11:35:49 AM PDT by Shelayne (Antique Media--losing value everyday...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething; jveritas; RayRobisonblog
The book project is a great idea.

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.

41 posted on 05/03/2006 12:23:07 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

No, I mean the direct managers of the network.


42 posted on 05/03/2006 12:34:08 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
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.

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?

43 posted on 05/03/2006 12:42:46 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- 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.

44 posted on 05/03/2006 12:46:57 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: avacado
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.

45 posted on 05/03/2006 1:43:00 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Are you really 'surprised'?

Look at the effect of this document dump. That will tell you all you need to know about it.

46 posted on 05/03/2006 1:57:05 PM PDT by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- 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.

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."

47 posted on 05/03/2006 2:03:15 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- 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.

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."

48 posted on 05/03/2006 2:04:09 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
--- Look at the effect of this document dump. That will tell you all you need to know about it.---

I am not sure that I am understanding you? Effect?

49 posted on 05/03/2006 2:05:41 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I did have somebody come up to me and ask where the proof the translations are correct is at,

Aha! You've struck a nerve! Immediately they attack the source rather than confront the logic/conclusion/new info! Good work!

50 posted on 05/03/2006 2:12:02 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson