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
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!
Ahem. We still don't know the true 'origin' of these documents. That they were transported out of Iraq in no way proves they are authentic or the information they contain, valid.
The federal government still stands behind their claims that the people (women and children) they killed in Waco were trying to illegally manufacture machine guns. But when the time came for someone to test their claims by submitting the machine guns to a third, private party (Failure Analysis, Inc.) for testing to determine whether they were modified before or after the fire, the feds pulled out and did not allow any access to the physical evidence. To this day, no one has been able to test the US Govt's assertions in that case.
And that disclaimer is simply that -- a disclaimer. They are saying that they have not gone through them beyond what they call a "scrub."
Again, absent any authentication or validation, these documents are nothing more than so much disinformation and should be treated as such until they are authenticated and the information they contain validated.
Things we know about Iraq aren't necessarily documented. And things that are documented we don't necessarily know.
I know it is telling a lot of people here exactly what they want to hear.
Game. Set. Match.
Slow down. You are now throwing out a straw man argument. As I stated, the US Government does stand behind its word that the documents were captured in Iraq.
That, in your words, is authentication of origin.
--- The federal government still stands behind their claims that the people (women and children) they killed in Waco were trying to illegally manufacture machine guns.....---
Straw man argument. We can also not believe we went to the moon. But the fact stands that the US Government does indeed stand on its word of authentication of origin.
--- Again, absent any authentication or validation, these documents are nothing more than so much disinformation and should be treated as such until they are authenticated and the information they contain validated.---
Interesting... you just claimed to not believe the Government and now you want them to authentic the documents?
Let's try this from a different angle. What type of authentication would satisfy you? This is a serious question.
Good work. Keep at it!
No, they don't. You're assuming that because they say they 'captured' them, then this means that they are authentic Iraqi documents that contains valid information.
...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.
Reading further down the page, we see:
The documents contained on this site were captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom and represent a dramatic departure from previous document release efforts which have historically taken place decades after the cessation of hostilities. Viewers are urged to carefully read the disclaimer above (emphisis: mine).
IOW, take what you see there with a healthy heaping of salt.
Straw man argument. We can also not believe we went to the moon. But the fact stands that the US Government does indeed stand on its word of authentication of origin.
Except that I've got the congressional record which supports my assertion and you've only got the kook patrol supporting yours (moon claim).
Again, that the documents were transported out of Iraq in no way proves that they're authentic or that the information they contain is valid and factual.
Interesting... you just claimed to not believe the Government and now you want them to authentic the documents?
No, I want them to provide the physical evidence which supports their assertions that these are authentic Iraqi documents and that the information they contain is valid and factual. Obviously, you take them at their word and will believe anything they say.
Let's try this from a different angle. What type of authentication would satisfy you? This is a serious question.
Perhaps if the US Govt. changed it's stance and said that it stands behind the documents as authentic, official Iraqi government docuements and that the information they contain are valid and factual, then I would at least look at them.
If the US Govt doesn't stand behind them, why should I?
No, they don't. You're assuming that because they say they 'captured' them, then this means that they are authentic Iraqi documents that contains valid information.
I said EXACLTY what I said: the US Government stands by their word that the documents were captured in Iraq. That is authentication of origin.
That's a fact.
Let's try this from a different angle. What type of authentication would satisfy you? This is a serious question.
Perhaps if the US Govt. changed it's stance and said that it stands behind the documents as authentic, official Iraqi government docuements and that the information they contain are valid and factual, then I would at least look at them.
Perhaps??? Perhaps??? So you are saying that that would not necessarily convince you. So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with no real point.
Once again...The US Government stands behind its word that the origin of the documents is Iraq. And you have NOT answered my question. How would you like the Government to authenticate the documents to your liking?
If you can answer that simple question then we can continue this, otherwise, you are just circling your own tail.
What we do know is that the documents were captured in Iraq. The US Government stands by that.
You know once these docs were unleashed, I thought at the very least Big Media would broadcast them but try, of course, to spin them to their advantage like this skunk Weaver is doing. But in reality, their silence about the matter speaks volumes.
Against the tremendous amount of knowledge we had about Hussein's previous terrorist activities before the release of these docs, Big Lib Media decided to go with the "he was never tied to terrorism" scheme which JVeritas had revealed as a huge Big Media lie. They won't broadcast the news about the docs, but their silence is deafening. They know they've lost, and their best bet is to try to shut out all this good news for Bush. But eventually it will come out, and I just hope it's not too late for Bush and Republicans later this year.
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.