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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: MHGinTN
"chrissy"

I was watching that fool the other day (for as much as I could stand...which was only a few minutes), and he had that creep Drumheller an ex-CIA rat on. Matthews actually had the gall to mention what a great truth-teller Joe Wilson was. I wanted to throw a brick at the tv and shout at Matthews "you can't still believe that Wilson wasn't a lying scoundrel can you Matthews?" It's totally unreal, when even many libs have concluded that Wilson is a lying scoundrel, Matthews continues to treat him as an American hero. I guess Matthews skull is so thick (and his hatred of Bush is so great), reality can't penetrate it.

61 posted on 05/03/2006 4:22:40 PM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: oust the louse

There is always magazine writing if necessary. :)


62 posted on 05/03/2006 4:51:57 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Did you support the war?


63 posted on 05/03/2006 4:57:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Great article!


64 posted on 05/03/2006 7:56:03 PM PDT by FlashBack (www.teamamericapac.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
"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."

"Ahem. We still don't know the true 'origin' of these documents.

"Again, absent any authentication or validation, these documents are nothing more than so much disinformation" If we do not know the "true origins" of these documents, how do you KNOW they are disinformation? You are arguing that we can not trust the US Government, but then also argue that we can not trust the documents because the US Government has not authenticated, translated and verified them. So do we trust the US Government or not?

65 posted on 05/03/2006 9:57:50 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
If we do not know the "true origins" of these documents, how do you KNOW they are disinformation? You are arguing that we can not trust the US Government, but then also argue that we can not trust the documents because the US Government has not authenticated, translated and verified them. So do we trust the US Government or not?

Well, let's see. George W. Bush has been known to lie to the American people before.

The GAO knocked as propaganda the video news releases that Bush's HHS put out to sway public opinion in favor of his prescription drug benefit.

George W. Bush paid numerous columnists to publish stories favorable to the administration.

It's been reported that the US military is paying Iraqi journalists to publish stories favorable to the US Govt.

So, I just have to ask you a question:

How do you know they aren't disinformation?

Who said, "Trust, but verify"?

What's been verified about the content of the documents or their origin (creation, not recovery)?

If the government doesn't stand behind these documents, why should I? More importantly, why do you?

66 posted on 05/04/2006 7:51:11 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Did you support the war?

Which one?

The war on poverty?

The war on drugs?

The war on illiteracy?

The war on terrorism?

You can't be talking about the nation-building taking place in Iraq because Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and the end to major hostilities. So, if you believe the administration, then all that's happenning in Iraq is a mop-up operation and not a war, right?

67 posted on 05/04/2006 7:58:39 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: avacado
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.

No, the origin refers to the creator, not the place of recovery.

Whether they are factual remains to be seen.

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.

Well, let's see.

This administartion has been caught disseminating propaganda in the form of video news releases designed to sway public opinion in favor of their prescription drug benefit.

This administration has been caught paying US journalists for favorable coverage.

This administration has been caught paying Iraqi journalists for favorable coverage of the war.

The administration is lying about the immigration problem and wants to grant amnesty/citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders.

So, the question is, why do you trust the administration wihtout first verifying what they say?

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?

No, they don't. The only thing the US Govt. stands behind is the place of their recovery. We know where they were found, but who put them there and when? Can you answer that question?

How does anyone verify the authenticity of any document? How does anyone confirm as factual the contents of any document?

How about some physical evidence that corroborates what is written?

How about some eyewitness testimony? (and I'm not talking about a lapdog with a vested interest, a la Chalabi, either)

As I said, the real question is why you believe these documents absent any supporting evidence and I suspect I know the answer already --because you support the President, no matter what.

68 posted on 05/04/2006 8:16:11 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
I tell'ya what buddy! I have your solution. Don't read the documents. Your problem solved!
69 posted on 05/04/2006 8:23:35 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: avacado
I tell'ya what buddy! I have your solution. Don't read the documents. Your problem solved!

No, burying one's head in the sand sounds more like something you'd do.

Meanwhile, I'll keep my eyes open and continue questioning everything this administration says and does.

70 posted on 05/04/2006 8:52:36 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Bookmark


71 posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:37 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (Free Republic - The pulse of conservative politics, without lame stream media filtration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Look... I told you, don't read the documents if you do not want to. You are the one who has chosen to bury your head into the sand by not reading them, therefore, your comments have little value -- more like whining to me.

You have a nice day.




72 posted on 05/04/2006 10:24:57 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Look... I told you, don't read the documents if you do not want to. You are the one who has chosen to bury your head into the sand by not reading them, therefore, your comments have little value -- more like whining to me

"Trust, but verify."
--Ronald Reagan

73 posted on 05/04/2006 11:20:06 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker; Admin Moderator

you are a liberal, as clearly indicated by your Karen Ryan quip.

Perhaps it is time for the Zot.


74 posted on 05/04/2006 2:55:34 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
you are a liberal, as clearly indicated by your Karen Ryan quip.

Ah, yes. Karen Ryan. The intrepid 'reporter' who works for HHS-TV.

Only a Bush lick-spittle would want to ZOT me for telling the truth about Bush's lies.

B-302710, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, May 19, 2004:

Conclusion

Although the VNR materials were labeled so that the television news stations could identify CMS as the source of the materials, part of the VNR materials--the story packages and lead-in anchor scripts--were targeted not only to the television news stations but also to the television viewing audience. Neither the story packages nor scripts identified HHS or CMS as the source to the targeted television audience, and the content of the news reports was attributed to individuals purporting to be reporters, but actually hired by an HHS subcontractor. For these reasons, the use of appropriated funds for production and distribution of the story packages and suggested scripts violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition of the Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). Moreover, because CMS had no appropriation available to produce and distribute materials in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. CMS must report the Antideficiency Act violation to the Congress and the President. 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

75 posted on 05/04/2006 3:43:53 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
--- Only a Bush lick-spittle would want to ZOT me for telling the truth about Bush's lies.

B-302710, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, May 19, 2004: ---

Do me a favor. In that link you provided, show me the "Bush lie?"

76 posted on 05/04/2006 3:57:08 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Great article guy.

Ummm, are you going to need bodyguards after writing this?

I guess it depends on what College you attend.

77 posted on 05/04/2006 4:50:46 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

I will be fine. If I was at KU, maybe I would need bodyguards.


78 posted on 05/04/2006 6:00:38 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

"Well, let's see. George W. Bush has been known to lie to the American people before.

The GAO knocked as propaganda the video news releases that Bush's HHS put out to sway public opinion in favor of his prescription drug benefit.

George W. Bush paid numerous columnists to publish stories favorable to the administration.

It's been reported that the US military is paying Iraqi journalists to publish stories favorable to the US Govt.

So, I just have to ask you a question:

How do you know they aren't disinformation?

Who said, "Trust, but verify"?

What's been verified about the content of the documents or their origin (creation, not recovery)?

If the government doesn't stand behind these documents, why should I? More importantly, why do you?"

Again, you are saying that must not trust the government, then you say we have to mistrust the documents because the government does not stand behind them. It is clear that you would not trust anything that comes out of the government. If they don't verify them, the documents must be fake, and if they do verify them the documents must be fake.

I can also tell that you believe and exaggerate everything that you read that is against the government.


79 posted on 05/04/2006 6:31:45 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 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