PDA

View Full Version : Hussein docs discuss bin Laden, WMD's, Taliban



Roy Munson
03-17-2006, 04:17 PM
March 16, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.


"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"
Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:


That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)


"Election Campaign Laws in France"
Documents dated July-August 1999

Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called "Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed."

(Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)

"Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"
Document dated March 23, 1997

A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:


Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.).
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents. Removing files from computers.

The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents.

(Editor's Note: This document is consistent with the Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam Hussein's government towards the U.N. inspectors in the mid to late 90's. Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998.)


"Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"
Document dated August 2002

A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.


The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.


(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

DrMaddVibe
03-17-2006, 07:57 PM
So much for the Bush "lies"!

Nickdfresh
03-17-2006, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
So much for the Bush "lies"!


i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)


(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)


An 'informant' said pigs flew out of his ass at midnight too...

Yeah, the gov't released a few self-serving documents that mean nothing and cannot be independently verified.

http://www.johnbaselmans.com/Guest_Artists/Guest_Art13/Assets_Guest_Art13/JIMsquealer.gif
Baaaa sheep baaaa...

FORD
03-17-2006, 09:21 PM
http://www.vortrupp.de/humor/pics/bullshit.jpg

Warham
03-17-2006, 09:24 PM
The government has reams and reams of documents they've seized from Iraq. This is just a needle in the proverbial haystack as far as that goes. There will be more released as the years go by.

Cathedral
03-17-2006, 09:48 PM
LOL, man i tell ya...I just love how ignorance makes people so damn sure of something they know very little about.

Shit, Saddam could stand up in court and confess to everything and the liberals would discount it without a moments thought.
THAT'S the size of the boner they have for Bush.

Seriously, are you all so 100% sure that these documents don't vindicate Bush, just a little?

It takes us into another aspect of due process, like that whole "shadow of a doubt" thing, but still, don't let that stop the posse from racing to the lynching.

All i can say is that it does cast a shadow on all your accusations that Bush "lied" or "fabricated" the intel.
Hell, even some of Saddams own Generals believed he had WMD, but you discount that as well i'm reasonably sure.

But answer the question if you can do it honestly...are you absolutely 100% sure that these documents don't vindicate Bush, even a little bit?

Are YOU so perfect that you would have made a better judgement given what is coming out in these documents?

All i can say to you if you answer NO to both is that hindsight is always 20/20.

But know this, Justice is never found within a closed mind, and that's a fact my friends. you need to open it up a little, and bury the hatred that drives you, it's pure vindictive evil.

Warham
03-17-2006, 09:51 PM
No, to a liberal, any documents the government releases are 'fabricated', Cat.

:rolleyes:

FORD
03-18-2006, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral

Hell, even some of Saddams own Generals believed he had WMD, but you discount that as well i'm reasonably sure.

Saddam thought some of his generals were out to kill him, and that's always possible that they were. Therefore it would be in Saddam's own best interest not to let those generals know that the weapons were gone.

But answer the question if you can do it honestly...are you absolutely 100% sure that these documents don't vindicate Bush, even a little bit?

Are YOU so perfect that you would have made a better judgement given what is coming out in these documents?

Bush has been CAUGHT RED FUCKING HANDED in memos and tapes released by the British government admitting that the intelligence was faked and that they were proceeding with the invasion anyway. They KNEW when the Chimp took office that there was NOTHING there. PNAC spent the bulk of the 1990's planning this invasion and they didn't care whether there were valid reasons or not. LIKUD ISRAEL wanted him gone, and that's who owns the PNAC'ers.

All i can say to you if you answer NO to both is that hindsight is always 20/20.

But know this, Justice is never found within a closed mind, and that's a fact my friends. you need to open it up a little, and bury the hatred that drives you, it's pure vindictive evil.

I will hate these bastards for destroying my country until the day that they die. Then I'll take a giant shit on their graves and be done with it.

Cathedral
03-18-2006, 12:08 AM
Hmmmmm, Red Fucking Handed, and still not impeached?

Can I ask, How is this possible?

If there is proof, and there has to be to be caught red fucking handed, why is it impossible to impeach him?

Why aren't the Democrats forcing the issue and screaming to heaven for accountability?

It just doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't jive that the Democrats can do nothing with such an apparently strong case.

The mind is baffled, bro...It makes absolutely No Sense.

Warham
03-18-2006, 12:19 AM
Cat,

Instead of presenting their 'airtight' case, the Democrats in the Senate are hiding behind beverage carts and fat interns hoping not to be put on the spot.

FORD
03-18-2006, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
Hmmmmm, Red Fucking Handed, and still not impeached?

Can I ask, How is this possible?

If there is proof, and there has to be to be caught red fucking handed, why is it impossible to impeach him?

Why aren't the Democrats forcing the issue and screaming to heaven for accountability?

It just doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't jive that the Democrats can do nothing with such an apparently strong case.

The mind is baffled, bro...It makes absolutely No Sense.

The reason the Democrats can't do "anything" is simple.

The Republicans control every branch of government. That means they chair all the committees. That means a Republican would have to call for a formal investigation for one to even begin.

Congressman John Conyers (a true patriot if there ever was one in government) has held "hearings" on these issues, but they have no official status. In fact, they had to hold them in a makeshift conference room, and even then, the fucking fat pig Senselessbrenner harrassed them and cut their microphones, because he didn't like the fact that C-SPAN was filming this "informal" hearing.

Democrats need the majority in order to hold these bastards accountable. We ALL need checks and balances in this government.

Then of course, there's the media. They won't touch the Downing Street Minutes, but they'lll willfully aid the BCE in a forgery.

Sickening, isn't it?

Cathedral
03-18-2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Cat,

Instead of presenting their 'airtight' case, the Democrats in the Senate are hiding behind beverage carts and fat interns hoping not to be put on the spot.

If they actually fear impeachment i can understand that. if you remove Bush the rest of the administration remains, right?

But still, i'd rather be on record as doing the right thing as opposed to looking weak and doing nothing.

Of course that is just speculative at best.

If he's guilty, re-call his ass and force the election this year for a new President.
I'd be impressed with a candidate that can polarize the country in such a short time frame.
I think it's about time we had a Prez who was quick on their feet.

FORD
03-18-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral

If he's guilty, re-call his ass and force the election this year for a new President.


Unfortunately, recall isn't possible under the constitution. Otherwise it would have been done the day it became clear there were no WMD's in Iraq.

Cathedral
03-18-2006, 12:46 AM
Well, it seems that in the rush to draft a Constitution we left ourselves fucked if a bad seed gets in.

Well, in that case, maybe the Dems know what their doing in diving behind beverage carts and sprinting for the doors.

Nickdfresh
03-18-2006, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Warham
The government has reams and reams of documents they've seized from Iraq. This is just a needle in the proverbial haystack as far as that goes. There will be more released as the years go by.

Sure. They'll release all the ones where SADDAM hates that upstart BIN LADEN, and thinks he should be killed too?

Warham
03-19-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sure. They'll release all the ones where SADDAM hates that upstart BIN LADEN, and thinks he should be killed too?

Perhaps, if the documents exist, but it's been proven Saddam mingled with terrorists. Maybe not Al Qaeda, but he did none the less.

DrMaddVibe
03-19-2006, 06:53 PM
No, he did with Al Qaeda.

He built a whole "playground" for them to "train" on.

Nickdfresh
03-19-2006, 07:41 PM
Yeah right, and a magic pink pig flew out of his butt as the signal for 9/11.

And the al-Qaida were trained by mercenary woodland elves...

Funny, I thought the camps were in Afghanistan, with the James Bond vintage Dr. No-style, hollowed out mountain lair for Bin LADEN featuring a giant laser...

DrMaddVibe
03-20-2006, 06:41 AM
That's what YOU get for thinking!

Nickdfresh
03-20-2006, 07:06 AM
No. It's what you get when you believe whatever bullshit story given to you by Dr. Rummy...

DrMaddVibe
03-20-2006, 08:12 AM
Their "airplane" playground isn't something that Rumsfeld "made up".

BigBadBrian
03-20-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Their "airplane" playground isn't something that Rumsfeld "made up".

Indeed it is not. Read about it RIGHT HERE!!!!! (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34568)


:gulp:

Nickdfresh
03-20-2006, 11:37 AM
Wow! Another IRAQI steps forward to tell us just what we want to hear. GOOGLE "Curveball" with Iraq, and see what you get.

Nice cherry picking by the Admin though...

Nickdfresh
03-20-2006, 11:39 AM
I'll even do it for you.




Oh yeah, and beLIEve everything!

Published on Saturday, April 2, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
'Curveball' Debacle Reignites CIA Feud
The former agency chief and his top deputy deny reports that they were told a key source for Iraqi intelligence was deemed unreliable.
by Bob Drogin and Greg Miller


WASHINGTON — A bitter feud erupted Friday over claims by a presidential commission that top CIA officials apparently ignored warnings in late 2002 and early 2003 that an informant code-named "Curveball" — the chief source of prewar U.S. intelligence about Iraqi germ weapons — was unreliable.

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet and his chief deputy, John E. McLaughlin, furiously denied that they had been told not to trust Curveball, an Iraqi refugee in Germany who ultimately was proved a fraud.

But the CIA's former operations chief and one of his top lieutenants insisted in interviews that debates had raged inside the CIA about Curveball's credibility, even as then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell vouched for the defector's claims in a crucial address to the United Nations Security Council on the eve of war.

"The fact is there was yelling and screaming about this guy," said James L. Pavitt, deputy director of operations and head of the clandestine service until he retired last summer.

"My people were saying: 'We think he's a stinker,' " Pavitt said. But CIA bioweapons analysts, he said, "were saying: 'We still think he's worthwhile.' " Pavitt said he didn't convey his own doubts to Tenet because he didn't know until after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that Curveball was "of such import" in prewar CIA assessments provided to the president, Congress and the public.

"Later, I remember the guffaws by myself and others when we said, 'How could they have put this much emphasis on this guy? … He wasn't worth [anything] in our minds," Pavitt said.

Tyler Drumheller, former chief of the CIA European Division, said he and other senior officials in his office — the unit that oversees spying in Europe — had issued repeated warnings about Curveball's accounts.

"Everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening," said Drumheller, who retired in November after 25 years at the CIA. He said he never met personally with Tenet, but "did talk to McLaughlin and everybody else."

Drumheller scoffed at claims by Tenet and McLauglin that they were unaware of concerns about Curveball's credibility. He said he was disappointed that the two former CIA leaders would resort to a "bureaucratic defense" that they never got a formal memo expressing doubts about the defector.

"They can say whatever they want," Drumheller said. "They know what the truth is …. I did not lie." Drumheller said the CIA had "lots of documentation" to show suspicions about Curveball were disseminated widely within the agency. He said they included warnings to McLaughlin's office and to the Weapons Intelligence Non Proliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC, the group responsible for many of the flawed prewar assessments on Iraq.

"Believe me, there are literally inches and inches of documentation" including "dozens and dozens of e-mails and memos and things like that detailing meetings" where officials sharply questioned Curveball's credibility, Drumheller said.

The CIA's internal battles over Curveball were revealed Thursday in a scathing report by a presidential commission examining U.S. intelligence on Iraq and other key targets.

Drumheller and Pavitt, who each briefed the commission, added significant details in interviews Friday with the Los Angeles Times.

The CIA's assessment that Iraq had secret arsenals of deadly bioweapons, the report said, "was based largely on reporting from a single human source," Curveball, even though his reporting "came into question in late 2002." The failure to communicate serious concerns about him to Powell and other policy makers "represents a serious failure of management and leadership," the commission concluded.

The case began when Curveball, a chemical engineer from Baghdad, first showed up in a German refugee camp in 1998. By early 2000, he was working with Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, known as the BND, in exchange for an immigration card.

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, which handled Iraqi refugees in Germany, furnished the engineer with the Curveball code-name. He soon began providing technical drawings and detailed information indicating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein secretly had built lethal germ factories on trains and trucks.

But the DIA never sought to check his background or information. Instead, the commission found, the DIA saw itself as a conduit for German intelligence, and funneled nearly 100 Curveball reports to the CIA between January 2000 and September 2001.

Except for a brief meeting between Curveball and a DIA medical technician in May 2000, German authorities refused to let U.S. intelligence officials interview their source until March 2004, a year after the war began.

But warnings mounted from the start.

After the meeting in May 2000, the DIA medical technician questioned the validity of Curveball's information. Another warning came in April 2002, when a foreign spy service told the CIA it had "doubts about Curveball's reliability," the commission reported.

With skepticism rising about Curveball, Drumheller said he arranged a lunch meeting with a German counterpart at Pavitt's behest in late September or early October 2002 to ask for an American meeting with Curveball.

By then, Drumheller said, German intelligence officials were increasingly wary of Curveball. But he said they didn't want to acknowledge their doubts in public and risk embarrassment.

Drumheller said the German intelligence officer used the lunch to convey a stark warning: "Don't even ask to see him because he's a fabricator and he's crazy."

Drumheller said he passed that warning up to Pavitt's office. He said he also informed another senior official in the European division and sent a notice to WINPAC, where the chief bioweapons analyst was considered the Curveball expert.

In a separate interview, Pavitt said he didn't recall when he learned of the German warning. "A meeting took place without question," he said. "And I remember being told what he said. My recollection is I was told much, much later." He said commission investigators were unable to find a reference to it in his CIA calendar.

Pavitt rejected the notion that Drumheller should have issued a CIA-wide "burn notice" on Curveball's reports after the lunch, saying it would be inappropriate to unleash a sweeping condemnation after a single meeting with a foreign officer from an agency unwilling to stand behind its statements.

A week before Christmas 2002, McLaughlin's executive assistant held two meetings to discuss Curveball. One of Pavitt's aides told the group about Drumheller's meeting, and expressed other doubts. She also "made clear" that Pavitt's division "did not believe that Curveball's information should be relied upon."

The Curveball expert from WINPAC angrily argued back and apparently prevailed, the commission found. An official summary of the meeting later "played down" any doubts and said Curveball had been judged credible "after an exhaustive review."

Several weeks later, Drumheller discovered that his warning had been ignored when his executive officer brought him an advance copy of Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N.

Drumheller said he then arranged a meeting in McLaughlin's office and described what the German operative had told him over lunch several months earlier. After listening for 10 minutes, Drumheller said, McLaughlin responded by saying, "Oh my! I hope that's not true."

McLaughlin, who retired in January after 32 years at the CIA, said he did not recall the meeting and denied that Drumheller told him Curveball might be a fabricator.

"I have absolutely no recall of such a discussion. None," McLaughlin said in a statement Friday. "Such a meeting does not appear on my calendar, nor was this view transmitted to me in writing." He said he was "at a loss" to explain the conflicting accounts.

But another red flag appeared. On Jan. 27, 2003, the CIA's Berlin station warned in a message to headquarters that Curveball's information "cannot be verified."

Drumheller, meanwhile, said he never heard from McLaughlin or anyone else to confirm that Curveball's material had been deleted from Powell's speech. So when Tenet called him at home on another matter the night before Powell was to speak in New York, Drumheller said he raised the Curveball case.

"I gave him the phone number for the guy he wanted," Drumheller recalled. "Then it struck me, 'I better say something.' I said, 'You know, boss, there's problems with that case.' He says, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm exhausted. Don't worry about it.' "

In a seven-page statement, Tenet sharply challenged much of that account.

Tenet called it "stunning and deeply disturbing" that the German warning in 2002 to Drumheller, "if true, was never brought forward to me by anyone." He said he first heard doubts about Curveball after the war, and only learned of the German warning from the presidential commission last month.

A series of formal warnings should have been "immediately and formally disseminated" after the lunch to alert intelligence and policy officials about the concern, Tenet said.

"No such reports were disseminated, nor do I recall the issue being brought to my attention," he said.

Tenet also disputed Drumheller's account of their phone conversation the night before Powell's speech. Tenet said he has "absolutely no recollection" of the CIA official warning him about Curveball.

"It is simply wrong for anyone to intimate that I was at any point in time put on notice that Curveball was probably a fabricator," he said.

© Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

FORD
03-20-2006, 11:51 AM
Never trust "exiles" (whether they be from Iraq, Cuba, or where ever) to tell you what's going on in their home country.

If they gave a shit about their homeland, they wouldn't have left it, right? And in the case of the Miami Cubans and the Chalabi led Iraqi exiles, both groups are tools of the CIA.

Nickdfresh
03-20-2006, 11:55 AM
Chalabi was a "TOOL" alright, but more so of Rummy's Pentagon. Even the CIA thought he was a corrupt self-serving asshole...

This is what makes me wary of the whole Iran thing, a good deal of it comes from "exile groups," some of whom we once deemed terra-ists...

Warham
03-20-2006, 02:09 PM
OK, we'll just sit back and hope Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons in the next five to ten years. Let the UN handle it.

FORD
03-20-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
OK, we'll just sit back and hope Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons in the next five to ten years. Let the UN handle it.

I'm no defender of the wacko ayatollahs in Iran, but let's put this in proper perspective. If you were surrounded by India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel (all nuclear powers) and right next door to a colony (Iraq) of an imperialist superpower that your religion considers "The Great Satan" wouldn't you consider building nukes to defend yourself against any or all of the above?

The BCE and their military industrial complex started the worldwide nuclear arms race, and they were responsible for the most ridiculous escalation of it, in the 1980's. They have nobody to blame for nuclear proliferation but themselves.

So what's the solution?

Does everybody get to have nukes as a "deterrent"? That would seem to be the lesson of the US - Soviet "Cold War". Anyone who would dare to use a weapon knows that they will get the shit blown out of them as well.

Or should NOBODY be allowed to have these weapons? Disarm EVERY nuclear warhead on the planet. There's enough sattelites in the sky and spies on the ground to ensure they're all accounted for.

But it has to be one or the other. The hypocrisy of saying some countries are "entitled" to these weapons and others aren't is ridiculous.

I vote for disarmament myself. Not saying it will be an easy process, but it will be well worth the results.

Warham
03-20-2006, 02:58 PM
I don't think the Iranian leader really holds the same rational views as you do, FORD. Maybe they want to fire a nuclear warhead off to Israel in the hopes of starting WWIII. He's already gone on record as saying he wants to wipe them off the map. What better way than with nuclear weapons?

Israel isn't going to sit back and take that kind of shit from them and disarm their nukes. It just won't happen. The first sign of a nuke being launched from Iran, and that red button will be pushed in Israel faster than you can say 'nucular'.

Warham
03-20-2006, 03:00 PM
And let's be real here. The arms race started back in the late 30's, early 40's when the US feared the Evil Axis would be able to go atomic before they did.

DrMaddVibe
03-20-2006, 05:25 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Joe Lieberman on MSNBC's Hardball: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."


http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F


http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/TomMcInerney/TM022106.php (For those that can't read.)


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DSalman%2520Pak%26prssweb%3DSe arch%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3DFP-tab-web-t%26x%3Dwrt&w=500&h=506&imgurl=usread.com%2Fforeign_policy%2Fboeing_jet_sa lmanpakc.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fusread.com%2Fforeign_policy%2F03 2303.html&size=64.1kB&name=boeing_jet_salmanpakc.jpg&p=Salman+Pak&type=jpeg&no=18&tt=202&ei=UTF-8


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00209.htm


What were we talking about again?


Oh yeah, now I remember...too bad you DON'T!

Nickdfresh
03-20-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Joe Lieberman on MSNBC's Hardball: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this.

Really? He has huh? Is it more meetings in the Czech Republic that never happened? The "Weekly Standard" LOL...


There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11.

Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."

There's "extensive contact" between Western Intelligence agencies and members of the Islamicist groups too, so what? What was the nature of those "contacts?" There was no coordination that can be shown, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Why was OSAMA in Afghanistan if there was???

Who gives a fuck what Lieberman says?? Congratulations, he just verified everything I've been saying though. THERE IS NO TIE BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9/11 AND THER NEVER HAS BEEN! There was no evidence of contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, any more so than between the CIA and al-Qaida...

Say, why don't they mention how ATTA met with IRAQI intelligence in Prague *bullshit** *snicker**


]What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.

So a reporter knows what the gov't hasn't made public?? Again, they're selectively declassifying whatever builds up and justifies their bullshit, and are full of it in doing so...

BTW, why don't they declassify documents on SAUDI ties to Al-QAIDA? How about PAKI ties to Al-QAIDA and the TALIBAN, which they created??



http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F


http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/TomMcInerney/TM022106.php (For those that can't read.)


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DSalman%2520Pak%26prssweb%3DSe arch%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3DFP-tab-web-t%26x%3Dwrt&w=500&h=506&imgurl=usread.com%2Fforeign_policy%2Fboeing_jet_sa lmanpakc.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fusread.com%2Fforeign_policy%2F03 2303.html&size=64.1kB&name=boeing_jet_salmanpakc.jpg&p=Salman+Pak&type=jpeg&no=18&tt=202&ei=UTF-8


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00209.htm


What were we talking about again?


Oh yeah, now I remember...too bad you DON'T!

Blah blah blah, defector sings the song he thinks you want to hear...

Whatever! Again, why is money being funneled into Iraqi insurgents from our "allies?" Why are elements of the Pakistani Intelligence training Taliban guerrillas to make roadside bombs? Oh yeah, they're our friends.

Gee, I wonder what "ties" exist between SAUDI, PAKI, UAE, EGYPTIAN, and OMANI intelligence and our enemies? Will they declassify that too?

Warham
03-20-2006, 06:30 PM
Why are we still arguing about why we went into Iraq? That was three years ago. We're there now: let's worry about getting the job finished and bringing the troops home.

Nickdfresh
03-20-2006, 06:32 PM
ROFLMAO!!:D

From the PBS link:


introduction: posted nov. 8, 2001

In the 10 years since the Gulf War ended, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said that he has always considered himself at war with America. And during that time, the U.S. has always considered him a threat.

In "Gunning for Saddam," FRONTLINE investigates the intense debate within the Bush administration over what should be the next move in the war on terror. While America's military unleashes its might against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, powerful forces in Washington are pressing the president to attack a bigger target.

The events of Sept. 11 have re-energized Saddam's strongest opponents in Washington. The weekend following the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, George W. Bush met at Camp David with his top advisers. "There was a lively debate about Iraq policy," New York Times reporter Elaine Sciolino tells FRONTLINE. "Some people from the Pentagon were arguing that the war against terrorism should include Saddam Hussein. And Colin Powell was arguing, 'No, absolutely not. One step at a time.'"

In this report, FRONTLINE chronicles how a group of influential former government officials, convened as part of a Defense Department policy review board, has increased the pressure on the president to go after Saddam Hussein. Chaired by former Reagan adviser Richard Perle, one of the Republican Party's most prominent hawks, the board advocates a policy that would lay the groundwork for removing Saddam.

The litany of charges linking Iraq's leader to terrorism are largely unproven in their specifics, but to those committed to building a case against him, they are powerful in the aggregate. These charges include Iraqi ties to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- journalist Laurie Mylroie and others maintain that two Iraqi intelligence agents secretly masterminded the plot. The charges also include the attempt to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush in Kuwait, in 1993, and Saddam's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- a goal he has been pursuing for decades, according to Khidhir Hamza, the former head of Iraq's nuclear program.

FRONTLINE explores these allegations through interviews with Perle, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State James Baker, Iraqi UN Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and Richard Butler, former chairman of UNSCOM, the UN weapons inspection agency.

"Gunning for Saddam" also looks at Saddam Hussein's taste for revenge during his two decades as Iraq's leader, and at the failures of U.S. policy on Iraq since 1991, including the failure to support uprisings against Saddam in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.

In recent weeks, the case against Saddam seems to have accumulated fresh evidence. There are reports that Osama bin Laden met with a former head of Iraqi intelligence and Czech officials confirm that Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, met with an Iraqi agent in Prague in the spring of 2001 (read about the controversy which surfaced in the spring of 2002 over the alleged Prague meeting). And now two Iraqi military defectors -- one a captain in the Iraqi army and the other a lieutenant general who was a senior officer in the Iraqi intelligence service -- have come forward to tell FRONTLINE of a secret government camp (see a map of the camp drawn by the army captain) on the outskirts of Baghdad that trained radical Islamic terrorists from across the Middle East.

To date, President Bush has maintained that the war on terrorism will be a long one, with many phases. Right now, those who want first to eliminate the Taliban's hold on Afghanistan have the president's ear. Some experts say that may change. All sides agree that if Saddam is connected to the anthrax assaults on the United States, the president's hand will be forced, and war with Iraq will be inevitable.

Boy, that hasn't been discredited --much!

DrMaddVibe
03-25-2006, 03:06 PM
9/11 Commish Bob Kerrey: News Docs Show Saddam a Threat

A bombshell Iraqi intelligence document detailing a 1995 pact between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to conduct "joint operations" against the U.S. proves that Saddam Hussein "would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," former 9/11 Commission member, Bob Kerrey said Friday.

"This is a very significant set of facts," Kerrey told the New York Sun.

"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy [of the U.S.] and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," the Nebraska Democrat explained.

While Kerrey cautioned that the 1995 pact doesn't implicate Saddam directly in the 9/11 attacks, he contended: "It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

"Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States," Kerrey said, adding that the relationship between the Iraqi dictator and the al Qaida chief would become clearer as more materials from the former regime get translated and analyzed.

The newly released Iraqi intelligence document - first reported by the Weekly Standard last Sunday - details a February 19, 1995 meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Osama bin Laden, who is said to have requested Iraq's help with "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

At the time, the only foreign forces in Saudi Arabia were U.S. troops.

The document indicates that Saddam was thoroughly briefed on the bin Laden meeting and signed off on efforts to "invigorate" his government's relationship with the al Qaida chief.

Eight months after the meeting, in Nov. 1995, five U.S. military advisors were killed in an al Qaida attack against a Saudi national guard installation in Riyadh. Seven months after the Riyadh attack, al Qaida killed 19 U.S. airmen in the Khobar Towers barracks bombing.

Contrary to what the "joint operations" document seems to indicate, in 2004 the 9/11 Commission concluded that Saddam and bin Laden had no "collaborative, operational relationship."

FORD
03-25-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Warham
And let's be real here. The arms race started back in the late 30's, early 40's when the US feared the Evil Axis would be able to go atomic before they did.

And who was it that funded the "Evil Axis" again??

http://www.reformation.org/prescott-bush.jpg

Warham
03-25-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by FORD
And who was it that funded the "Evil Axis" again??

http://www.reformation.org/prescott-bush.jpg

Henry Ford?

DrMaddVibe
03-26-2006, 11:03 AM
Saddam planned to deploy 'camels of mass destruction'
By James Langton
(Filed: 26/03/2006)

Saddam Hussein planned to use "camels of mass destruction" as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces.

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon released copies in the original Arabic onto the internet in the hope that others would interpret them into English.

Handwritten on official paper, one of the reports appears to be a road map for the insurgency, with detailed instructions for training what it calls suicide bombers.

In the memo, they are described as "estishehadeyeen", Arabic for suicide martyrs, and would almost certainly have been foreign volunteers.

The memo details a training commission to be headed by senior officers, including a colonel from the "Directory of Political Orientation". Their job, says the report, was to "prepare a very intensive training course", "to raise the physical fitness and train in the use of Kalashnikovs and hand grenades".

It continues: "The largest section of the course will be specialised to focus on using the explosive material in the body, in motorcycle, in cars, and in camels". Camels will be "provided by the Directory of General Military Intelligence".

The memo also reveals the incredible bureaucracy that underpinned Saddam's Iraq. Rifles and hand grenades were to be provided by a Department of Armament and Equipping, explosives by the Directory of Military Engineering and "religious sermons that emphasise jihad'' by the Directory of Political Orientation and the Religious Scholars.

The papers have been translated by Arabic-speaking members of Free Republic, a conservative internet discussion forum that believes the documents will justify British and American claims that Saddam had made Iraq a haven for terrorists.

If the translation is correct, it suggests that many of the foreign fighters now attacking coalition forces and bombing Iraqi civilians were directly trained by the Saddam regime, although there are no known reports of camels being used in suicide attacks.



© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.