New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NeoV
for the last fricken time...

THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN OSAMA BID LADEN AND IRAQ/SADDAM - NONE, NADA, ZIP

ANY EVIDENCE EVER PRESENTED TO OR GATHERED BY OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAS BEEN DEEMED INCONSEQUENTIAL BY OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENGIES AS WELL AS THOSE OF EVERY MAJOR ALLY.

Stop the friggen madness already - there was no link! Move along, find something else to latch onto as a pathetic effort to justify this train wreck we call "operation freedom".

New Gallup poll just came out showing 39% of Americans STILL think Saddam was personally behind 9/11.


IDIOTS!

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NeoV
for the last fricken time...

THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN OSAMA BID LADEN AND IRAQ/SADDAM - NONE, NADA, ZIP

ANY EVIDENCE EVER PRESENTED TO OR GATHERED BY OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAS BEEN DEEMED INCONSEQUENTIAL BY OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENGIES AS WELL AS THOSE OF EVERY MAJOR ALLY.

Stop the friggen madness already - there was no link! Move along, find something else to latch onto as a pathetic effort to justify this train wreck we call "operation freedom".

New Gallup poll just came out showing 39% of Americans STILL think Saddam was personally behind 9/11.


IDIOTS!

That's pretty close to Bush's approval ratings, otherwise known as his base...

 

[judasmachine]

how convienent.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Hmm...I seem to have missed the part about liberal economic propaganda as well as me agreeing with all 9/11 conspiracies and I definitely never said the reason we went into Iraq was for oil (at least not 100%).

You are a walking economic propaganda machine...

Why? Because I post articles from various sources showing what lies beneath the numbers being published? You always take everything at face value? 😕

And I've seen you state many times the reason we went into Iraq was to provide profit for Halliburton and other defense contractors, which is a line many liberals use. You must've picked it up somewhere...

You forget I was *for* the war on Iraq in the beginning. It wasn't until the fall of 2003 I began doing some research on my own and digging into the PNAC and their stranglehold on US foreign policy. If you'd do the same, you'd see that invading Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs. It was all about establishing a US presence smack-dab in the middle of the Middle East. Also, it was to allow US companies access to Iraqi natural resources (oil being the biggie) and consumers in a way not available before. It was also supposed to secure and stabilize the region so the supply of oil wouldn't be interrupted and to keep the oil markets from going haywire after some supposed terrorist attack.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's what was under the veil of WMDs and "spreading democracy".

Russian intel had evidence leading up to the war that clearly stated Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US and her interests. Selective memory syndrome, common with the sheep on both sides of the political aisle.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060317/ap_...;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

In the U.S. government translation of the transcript, which apparently covered a conversation transcribed by the Iraqis, an official identified as "Comrade Husayn" talks to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other officials about when it would be best to lie to weapons inspectors and U.N. Security Council members and when to be open.

He shows particular concern that outsiders will learn about the importation of material, including some from the U.S., apparently for chemical weapons.

"They have a bigger problem with the chemical program than the biological program," he says. "We have not told them that we used it on Iran, nor have we told them abut the size or kind of chemical weapons that we produced, and we have not told them the truth about the imported material."

He went on to say, "We imported a quantity from America and we imported a quantity from Europe. However, we did not come forth with the quantities."

On the overall question of weapons of mass destruction, he said: "I must say that it is in our best interest not to uncover it, not only in fear of exposing the technology that we have or that we possess or to hide it for future agendas."

The precise date of the conversation was not clear, but clues suggest it came at the end of Rolf Ekeus' leadership of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, which he headed from 1991 to 1997.



The documents show debates among Iraq's senior leadership about U.N. sanctions, inspections and resolutions ? and how to handle the country's economic and military security. They come in an era when U.S. officials now believe that Saddam's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction was diminishing, under pressure from international sanctions.

Although the Bush administration used the weapons programs as the main justification for the 2003 invasion, U.S. arms inspectors ultimately found no concrete evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991.

Yet the Iraqis apparently were far from forthcoming about their actions. Another conversation with Saddam from the mid-1990s indicates that officials knew they had problems with the weapons inspectors.

"On the nuclear file, sir, we are saying we disclosed everything? No, we have uncleared problems in the nuclear field, and I believe that they (the inspectors) know some of them," said a man identified as al-Sahhaf, possibly a reference to the former Iraqi diplomat and Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. "Some teams work, and no one knows some of them."

He then apologized for speaking so clearly. "Everything is over. But, did they know? No, sir, they did not know, not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists and not all the places."

He tells Saddam that missing materials and equipment ? for biological and nuclear weapons ? would be a problem in dealing with the U.N. as it crafted resolutions against Iraq. "Really, sir, we must be frank so that the resolution will be straightforward," al-Sahaf said.

 

[Todd33]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/134552/862

The new documents, released today by the Bush administration, are maybe, but maybe not, real Iraqi government documents that we found in Iraq. The Bush administration can't vouch for the documents' authenticity or the accuracy of the translations from Arabic, but they're releasing them anyway in the hopes that - get this - right-wing blogs can help them prove their case that Saddam had WMD and ties to Al Qaeda.

Yes, it's come to that. Bush is now relying on Michelle Malkin's keen intelligence skills to prove the case for war in Iraq.

I think that's exactly the plan. The documents released so far are mostly junk. But it's carefully selected junk. And the righties are all too eager to "discover" the wondrous things in them that will justify their support of the war. Glenn Reynolds says "It's funny that these documents are getting so little attention from the press." Not funny at all; part of the plan. The last thing the Bushies want is for news reporters, who are sometimes slightly less gullible than your average rightie blogger, to start scrutinizing this stuff closely. (See also this AMERICAblog post for more.)

By dumping a truckload of phony "intelligence," the Bushies figure they can keep what's left of the "base" in line.

Some interesting analysis. I guess the anti- Dan Rather crowd on the right are not always so consistent on verifying documents.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Todd33
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/134552/862

The new documents, released today by the Bush administration, are maybe, but maybe not, real Iraqi government documents that we found in Iraq. The Bush administration can't vouch for the documents' authenticity or the accuracy of the translations from Arabic, but they're releasing them anyway in the hopes that - get this - right-wing blogs can help them prove their case that Saddam had WMD and ties to Al Qaeda.

Yes, it's come to that. Bush is now relying on Michelle Malkin's keen intelligence skills to prove the case for war in Iraq.

I think that's exactly the plan. The documents released so far are mostly junk. But it's carefully selected junk. And the righties are all too eager to "discover" the wondrous things in them that will justify their support of the war. Glenn Reynolds says "It's funny that these documents are getting so little attention from the press." Not funny at all; part of the plan. The last thing the Bushies want is for news reporters, who are sometimes slightly less gullible than your average rightie blogger, to start scrutinizing this stuff closely. (See also this AMERICAblog post for more.)

By dumping a truckload of phony "intelligence," the Bushies figure they can keep what's left of the "base" in line.

Some interesting analysis. I guess the anti- Dan Rather crowd on the right are not always so consistent on verifying documents.

It won't stop the desperate lunatic fringe from still trying to use this to justify the invasion THREE YEARS AFTER the invasion.

Just look at Alistar above. Spin spin spin.


And to think I used to be on that side.


*shudder*

 

[arsbanned]

This is crap. It's all lies.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Now, just how long has this administration been sitting on these documents (which actually seem to show Saddam was concerned about bin Laden as much as the US)? They wouldn't be pulling these documents out now for, oh, political reasons, would they?

Conjur, are you willing to entertain the notion that evidence does exist that suggests some of the claims made by the Bush Administration regarding Saddam Hussein...also understanding perhaps that even in the face of that evidence, it was still not enough to frame Iraq as an imminent threat to the national security of the United States, nor does it justify Bush's execution and handling of the war in Iraq.

I think we can all reasonably recognize that Saddam Hussein was certainly a threat, but not the appropriate target for our response to the more dangerous Al Quaida threat.

I have always maintained that Saddam was certainly a viable and perhaps valid target, but not for the justifications given by the Bush Administration, and not with the sense of urgency given our more significant fight against Al Quaida.

I have always maintained that Saddam was a tyrant. There's no denying that. And, if UN sanctions and such weren't in place and the no-fly zones and whatever else was restricting him were not in place that he probably would have worked to reconstitute some WMD programs.

BUT, Saddam was never allied with any terrorist organization, much less any that had designs on attacking America. Saddam was a narcissist. Saddam was all about him. He wanted to be a big fish in the Middle Eastern pond.

He was no more a threat to the US in any fashion than is Chavez.

Look to what Powell and Rice said themselves in early 2001: Saddam was not a threat and he was contained.




What changed? HMMM??




PNAC.

Well stated.

 

[jlmadyson]

"Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting ? on November 13, 1995 ? terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

Added info from ABC, per the original link.

 

[conjur]

Um, ok. And?