• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraqi Docs Beginning to Surface [merged]

Simon W. Moon said:
Are you talking about whether the info contained in the document is true?
Are you asking if the documents are what they are purported to be?
Are you asking about the quality of the transcription?
Are you talking about some implication(s) of what you're quoting?

While I'm sure you know what you're getting at, I don't.

But yes, I trust the FMSO's translations more than I do Tierney's.

“Are you talking about whether the info contained in the document is true?”

Yes, that would be nice to know.

“Are you asking if the documents are what they are purported to be?”

Yes, again that would be nice to know.

“Are you asking about the quality of the transcription?”

That might be important, but it looks like that would take a gross misinterpretation.

“Are you talking about some implication(s) of what you're quoting?”

I will draw my own conclusions on that, I just want to have some idea of whether the letter is accurate.
 
Tierney said:
Saddam Hussein
Terrorism is coming . . . with the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign [unintelligible] with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction . . . . . ..

Saddam Hussein
what is it that we . . . consider this technique . . and use people involved with smuggling. . there were stories on smuggling.

Unidentified Male
But sir, germ warfare –

Saddam Hussein
Before a little, in 89, . . they said in the future they would see a car [unintelligible] a nuclear explosion in, for example, Washington . . or germ, or chemical.

Tariq Aziz
Sir, germ, biological, we can arrange a house, we can arrange a truck, with –

Saddam Hussein
This is coming, this story is coming, but not from Iraq . .

Tariq Aziz
Sir, they can’t do it.
Saddam Hussein
It is coming from others.

Tariq Aziz
biological, this is simple to arrange. This is easy. With any biological [weapon], you can use a truck with germ . . and fill the water tank and kill [unintelligible]. And this not a country, it is not necessary to suspect a country, anyone can do it.

Tariq Aziz
Anyone can do it, an American, in a house near the White House. They would not have much reason, except the institutes. They have big institutes, like Hakim. [unintelligible] Hakim, and it is known that it was destroyed.

Tariq Aziz
They, if they can convince the others also, that this institute has the equipment, I don't think there would makayin [unintelligible]. There would be. [mumbling] Yes?

Unidentified Male
The reaction?

Tariq Aziz
Yes, care with all the shibabish. I mean, if actually, there is going to be destruction, I think our position is not going to be strong. The others are going to say that this is true, the five are not going to accept –
Saddam Hussein
Yes, that is like all, enough of [unintelligible].

Unidentified Male
[a speaker at a distance from the microphone raised concerns about such an attack]

Saddam Hussein
[unintelligible] I know that biological is the farthest thing away from there being a story. Wadiyan [friendly?], they ended it, their work and [unintelligible]

Unidentified Male
[Mostly unintelligible, but mentions a window and air conditioning].
USAFMSO said:
Male 2
Terrorism is coming to them, Americans before 2000 long time and I think the British too, it exist I think Hamid was recording with one of them, I told him in the future terrorism will be with weapons of mass destructions, so what’s going to prevent? Technology will advance and this is long time ago I mean on 1989, we shouldn’t be surprise to see to see a car bomb with nuclear explodes just like Washington, either Germ or Chemical.

Male 3
Sir, any Germ or biologist expert can make it at his home a bottle filled.

Male 2
So this is coming, it means this story is coming, but not from Iraq.

Male 3
No, Sir this they can’t do, especially Biological, biology is so simple in it’s composition, any biologist can make a bottle filled with Germs and throw it in water tank, and kill 100.000 person, so this is not a country, you can’t accuse a country, one person can do it. One American person can do it in a house, next to the White House; there is no real logic in it except if there is a large establishment, like Al-Hakam, in fact Al-Hakam is exposed for destruction, because if they can convince the others too that this establishment with what it
has of equipments, it doesn’t have Machines does it Abu ‘Ali?

Male 4
No, No, it has reactors.

Male 3
Yes, just walls and windows, so for fact they will demand to destroy it, then our position will be strong, because the others will say get rid of this one and…

Male 2
Just like we got rid of the others.

Male 4
Sir in Al-Hakam they measured everything, all Air-conditioning, and its soil, and the surrounded area, and its labs, and it ended on 1992 Biology ended.

Male 2
We know that Biology is far from becoming a story, and then when they finished their job.


Some differences. Perhaps they are gross differences.


 
The newly released documents are not a 'big deal' simply because the Democrats and liberals do not wish them to be a 'big deal, do not wish the American people to focus on them, because they prove that Bush is correct. If attention and credibility is given to this new evidence, not only will it prove that Bush was tright but it will also paint a VERY NEGATIVE historical picture of the Democratic Party who spent an extremely large amount of time and money fighting their own President, the troops, and this nation! The Democratic Party/Liberals have done nothing but try to villify the President and our troops in public, thereby helping the enemy by attacking this country's reslove and our troops' morale!

One of the knocks about the current Democratic Party is that it has become Party-1st, choosig to do what is best for the Party instead of the nation. We now have documents that show Hussein was hiding WMD from the U.N. as late as 2001, if not later, that they were teaching their Generals and base commanders how to answer U.N. questions, stall inspectors until WMD was moved off the bases/locations where the U.N. inspectors were waiting to inspect. We have audio tapes just prior to the war where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria.

What AMERICAN would NOT want this evidence to be true? What American would not want the news to get out to the workld that our Intelligence was NOT wrong, thereby clearing up our name around the world a little? Making us more credible in regards to other world threats like Iran? Who would not want to clear our President's name?

Well, that question is easy to answer. All you have to do is ask who has the most to lose if the truth really comes out and is given lots of attention.
The DEMOCRATS! I'm not talking about NORMAL Democrats....I'm talking about the radical, Ubre liberal, Party-1st Bush-hating Democrats. the guys who have attacked the President with so much venom, who have called our troops nazis and Terrorists! The guys who would rather see this country fall on its face just so they can say 'I TOLD YOU SO'!

It is mind-boggling! We have evidence showing Bush was right. We have ecidence showing Hussein/Iraq was in contact with Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda had even come to Iraq.....and there are 'americans' who are fighting to ensure such evidence never gets any credibility because they would rather attack and discredit our President, discredit this country, and attack our troops for their own political gain rather than the truth come out! :shock: That's pretty sad!
 
A very interesting find:

Monday, March 20, 2006 12:18 a.m. EST
OBL Sought 'Joint Operations' with Saddam (newsmax)

An Iraqi intelligence document released last week indicates that Osama bin Laden sought to conduct "joint operations" with Saddam Hussein's regime six years before the 9/11 attacks - and was given the green light by the Iraqi dictator.

The document, detailed in the March 27 issue of the Weekly Standard, describes a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence that was personally approved by "the Honorable Presidency" - an apparent reference to Saddam.

"We discussed with [bin Laden] his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda [who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality] and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz [Saudi Arabia]."

The document goes on to note that "the Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995."
------------

Read the rest: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/20/02025.shtml?s=ic
 
easyt65 said:
The newly released documents are not a 'big deal' simply because the Democrats and liberals do not wish them to be a 'big deal, do not wish the American people to focus on them, because they prove that Bush is correct.
Wow. You think "the Democrats and liberals" are really powerful folks to get their wishes granted like that. If they weren't so powerful as to be able to make their wishes reality, we might have to conclude that the relative lack of signifcance assigned to the docs was somehow related to the documents themselves. But, as long as we can posit "the Democrats and liberals" as the puppet masters controlling the American public's "focus," this examination of the documents themselves is meaningless.

What if ...
What if "the Democrats and liberals" weren't powerful enough to control the minds of the American public? Then what kinds of answers would we be forced to seek re the relatively small impact of these transcripts and documents?
easyt65 said:
If attention and credibility is given to this new evidence, not only will it prove that Bush was tright but it will also paint a VERY NEGATIVE historical picture of the Democratic Party who spent an extremely large amount of time and money fighting their own President, the troops, and this nation! The Democratic Party/Liberals have done nothing but try to villify the President and our troops in public, thereby helping the enemy by attacking this country's reslove and our troops' morale!
Lol! Of course, of course they did. ;)
easyt65 said:
We have audio tapes just prior to the war where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria.
AFAICT, this is just as untrue today as it was the last time you said it. Please provide the information you saw that led you to the conclusion that there were "tapes ... where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria."
easyt65 said:
We have ecidence showing Hussein/Iraq was in contact with Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda had even come to Iraq.....and there are 'americans' who are fighting to ensure such evidence never gets any credibility ...
This evidence doesn't need credibility. It's already widely believed.
What's not believed is the faulty inferrence that you're making. aQ folks visiting Iraq does not equal an operational or collaborative relationship between Hussein and aQ.
So it's not the info that needs credibility, it's your unsupported conlusion that the evidence constitutes an operational or collaborative relationship between Hussein and aQ that lacks credibility.
 
:doh Great! You just made yourself a target from the Left and Dems on the board. Giving credibilityto such 'pieces of fiction'?! Tsk, tsk!:roll:
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Wow. You think "the Democrats and liberals" are really powerful folks to get their wishes granted like that.

What if ...
What if "the Democrats and liberals" weren't powerful enough to control the minds of the American public?

AFAICT, this is just as untrue today as it was the last time you said it. Please provide the information you saw that led you to the conclusion that there were "tapes ... where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria."

So it's not the info that needs credibility, it's your unsupported conlusion that the evidence constitutes an operational or collaborative relationship between Hussein and aQ that lacks credibility.


1st, why isn't the information/news that Bush was right, based on these docs, getting hardly anyair play? He!!, CNN is running a story about Momar Khadaffi saying Hussein is the legit Leader of Iraq instead of shouti8ng from the roof tops that Bush was right! Khadaffi - the terrorist tyrand/dictator! Who the hel! listens to this guy anymore, and why does a terrorist dictator standing up for another = greater news than us finally having the proof that Hussein lied, that he had WMDs, and that he had contacted/been contacted by Al Qaeda? So, yeah, the media can and has been acting like the Democrats own Al Jazeera by posting almost every negative story about Iraq and hiding any of the stories about anything good going on over there!

Also, the fact that you are claiming that my statement about Hussein/Iraq being in contact with Al Qaeda is as toothless as the 1st time you declared, based on your own opinion, that it was a lie. I have posted links to that statement. Go back and look them up again - I can't keep posting the same links over and over everytime you wait until they fall a few pages back, call them a lie, and demand I post them again. Other people have posted links and parts of stories/articles to show the same....

Instead of posting your opinion alone, try throwing in a link or two of your own every now and then to try to give your opinion some credibility!
 
easyt65 said:
:shock: NAH - gotta be BS, a lie, GOP :spin: ! EVERYONE, according to the Libs, knows that there was no connection bewteen Al Qaeda and Hussein! It's all a LIE, right Moon?! :roll: Besides, he PROMISED he wasn't talking to Al Qaeda! If you can't take the word of a dictator who rapes, tortures, and murders his own people, who can you trust?! :cool:

This is one more desperate attempt for the right to cleanse their guilty consciences for the deaths of 2,300 + soldiers, 17,000 wounded, and up to 100,000 dead civilians.

Now the Busheviks are bypassing the media altogether and dumping their misinformation directly to the rightwing blogosphere. The hope here is that the neo-blogosphere will make enough noise for the corporate media to report on the story without scrupulously checking the facts.

Let's take a closer look.

This document has been around since 1997 and notorious lying liar Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard, Michael Barone and John Hinderacker are behind this current round of misinformation and distortion. Hayes still claims that the now debunked Nigerian Yellowcake / Saddam link is true even thought the IAEA has said the claims are "unfounded."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5453706

Investors Business Daily falsely claimed that this doc was aquired after the invasion:

The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.

In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.

Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.

As we've reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam's regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn't be detected. And he had plans to make more.

Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam's terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam's spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316

The English portion of the document that Investors Business Daily is quoting, isn't from Hussein's archives at all it's from the Federation of American Scientists. That's just sloppy journalism, if not downright deceitful.

John Negroponte is on record stating that these documents do not contain valuable intelligence:

For months, Negroponte has argued privately that while the documents may be of historical interest, they are not particularly valuable as intelligence product. A statement by his office in response to the recordings aired by ABC said, "Analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/945usqnx.asp?pg=2

Neo-bloggers Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, Lorie Byrd, and Cold Fury are now using this as "proof" that we liberals are wrong.

Sorry easy65, you've been punked by your masters.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
This evidence doesn't need credibility. It's already widely believed.

That about sums up your argument right there. Can you say "truthiness"?
 
Hey Hip, speaking of the last gasp effort to deny Hussein had met with Al Qaeda?! Despite having a death-grip on denial about the documents coming out to show otherwise, try reading some of this:

Hussein’s Link to Bin Ladden/Al Qaeda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Let go of the hate, brutha, put down the Lib Kool-aid, and try reading once with an open mind!
 
Last edited:
easyt65 said:
1st, why isn't the information/news that Bush was right, based on these docs, getting hardly anyair play?
Perhaps if you were to show how these docs show "Bush was right" then we could debate this point. However, until we get around to showing that these docs show "Bush was right," the obvious answer is that they don't show this. So, we should debate this first.

All that said, I'd like to go on record as disbelieving that the Democrats and liberals are powerful enough to manage the public agenda.
easyt65 said:
the Democrats own Al Jazeera
Lol! Another humorous meme.
easyt65 said:
by posting almost every negative story about Iraq and hiding any of the stories about anything good going on over there!
Just liek here. The other day these guys rebuilt some roads, renovated some schools and a fireman got a kitten out of a tree. But none of that made the evening news. That damn evil MSM. It's a conspiracy to make us think that everything's going poorly here in my city. Has to be that powerful folks are out to cover up the truth. It couldn't possibly market forces having an impact on a business. I mean everyone'd rather hear about the repaving of the on ramp than the school shooting and city council scandal. The MSM are trying to keep this good news bottled up.

easyt65 said:
Also, the fact that you are claiming that my statement about Hussein/Iraq being in contact with Al Qaeda is as toothless as the 1st time you declared, based on your own opinion, that it was a lie.
I said the the existence of a tape where Hussein said he moved his WMD to Syria was untrue.
I said it was true that aQ and the Baathis did have contacts over the years.
As to the "toothiness" of allegations you're trying to precariously perch on too small of a foundation:


Reposted from this thread CIA: Iraq & aQ, “no operational or collaborative relationship existed”
For the folks who still have their doubts about the lack of a meaningful and significant relationship between Saddam and aQ: the CIA says that despite purposely aggressive, exhaustive and repetitive searches no operational or collaborative relationship existed between Saddam and al-Qa'ida.

I know this won't be enough for some folks. For you folks, I ask, "What would it take to convince you?"

Intelligence and analysis on Iraq: Issues for the Intelligence
Community (html)
(scanned pdf)p11
In the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed.
The report says that this was the IC assessment and is still their position despite purposely aggressive, exhaustive and repetitive searches for such a relationship.
All of Team Bush's cacophonous din to the contrary was made in spite of the Best Information Available at the Time.​
easyt65 said:
I have posted links to that statement. Go back and look them up again - I can't keep posting the same links over and over everytime you wait until they fall a few pages back, call them a lie, and demand I post them again.
I'm not sure what statement you think I want a link to. I've only asked for link re the tapes where Hussein said he shipped his WMD to Syria.

easyt65 said:
Instead of posting your opinion alone, try throwing in a link or two of your own every now and then to try to give your opinion some credibility!
I'm more than happy to provide you with citations. All you have to do is ask. Which items would you like to have a citation for?
 
easyt65 said:
Hey Hip, speaking of the last gasp effort to deny Hussein had met with Al Qaeda?! Despite having a death-grip on denial about the documents coming out to show otherwise, try reading some of this:

Hussein’s Link to Bin Ladden/Al Qaeda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Let go of the hate, brutha, put down the Lib Kool-aid, and try reading once with an open mind!
It's well known that aQ and the Baathis tried for a deacde or so to reach some agreements, but were unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable situ re operational and collaborative efforts.

This is not in dispute. It's interesting that you think it is.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's well known that aQ and the Baathis tried for a deacde or so to reach some agreements, but were unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable situ re operational and collaborative efforts.

This is not in dispute. It's interesting that you think it is.

I have lost count on how many times Libs have challenged me saying Iraq and AQ have not been in contact. The latest tapes/memos that have been translated show AQ operatives were in Iraq before we went in and how Hussein was aware how we would react should the U.. find out about their presence.
 
I feel quite certain that there had been ongoing military contingency planning continuously since way before Gulf War I in regards to the ME in general, and following Gulf War I, concerning Iraq specifically. Certainly, as Iraq moved closer to reality, those plans were moved more and more into the immediate operational sphere, but it would be quite strange indeed had not planning for various contingencies in Iraq (as well as other parts of the ME) been continuously updated - and continues to this day.

For the most part, it appears that others in this thread have said what I'd have said re: these documents, but you raise a few interesting side points:

1) Well, again on the face of it, this doesn't appear to be contingency planning. I imagine that it would be pretty unusual for a sitting administration to argue (and lose to) an industry regarding a contingency plan.

2) Of course, it had been our goal for a long time to remove Saddam (which in itself raises some questions of legitimacy, but we'll leave those aside for the moment). But when we actually did it, did we do it because we thought he was a murdering bastard, or because we wanted his oil and expanded operational capacity in the Middle East?

What would have been bad would have been not considering how to deal with a commodity that is the principal means of support for the entire country of Iraq.

The two are hardly similar in terms of moral weight. It's one thing to fail to put together a complete plan and be left with some administrative challenges after the fact even though the purpose for the original fight was legitimate. It's another thing entirely to covet what another country has, and make elaborate plans to take it from them via invasion.

What would have been bad would have been to not consider and plan for the handling of such an important commodity to the US and the entire world. Over the months and years following Gulf War I, as the Iraqi violations of UN sanctions and dissembling with regard to the WMD inspectors continued, how could any party to the imbroglio not consider how to best handle such an important part of a country's economic life (both theirs and ours) in the event of war?

You're trying to make it seem as if we were making plans for the oil on a "what if" basis. Again, why would plans made on that basis inspire an argument and, apparently, a political battle, between Big Oil and the Neocons? why would it do so, coincidentally, within a couple weeks of the Bush administrations' taking power? And does it square with the other evidence we have of the Neocons' plans to wage war in Iraq?

That indeed is a good question. A partial answer may lie in the fact that your cite, being circa 2003 and essentially identical to previous CIA conclusions, is considered by many to be 'old news', while to those anxiously awaiting these documents, the docs are 'new news' and offer the enticing possiblity of validation of one (at least one and maybe more) of their principal thesis (that the CIA and the opponents of the war were wrong - there was an 'operational and collaborative' relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam). Wishin' and hopin' and lack of pragmatism hasn't thus far made it so, but maybe some new docs will.

Well, as I said, if new documentation surfaces that supports an operational relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I'll change my tune. The point of citing the 2003 article was to show that we knew then there had been contact. These documents as released by the Pentagon seem to show that there had been a meeting, and that (maybe) Saddam had identified an Al-Qaeda cell in his country--a claim which might equally be made of us. So I don't see that anything new has been added to the discussion. What is new are the documents that show invasion and business plans for an invasion as early as February 2001. This really isn't new either; the news sources I pay attention to were reporting this and other pretty damning items by November 2001, but this is the first time a major news agency has carried the story.

Whether these docs will contain enough new fodder to satiate remains to be seen. My guess is that both sides will be at least somewhat disappointed: new insights and details but not enough new 'old' info to vindicate, validate or dominate the principal arguments of either.

This will be seen. What I think we do know at this point is that we went to war for false cause and that our actual reasons for being there have to do with energy. This was spelled out for us as early as 1996 by Zbigniev Brezinski (i.e. that we'd need to go to war in Southwest Asia early this century), and we've been moving towards it ever since.
 
easyt65 said:
I have lost count on how many times Libs have challenged me saying Iraq and AQ have not been in contact.
Well, you have my sympathy. As these folks are neither you nor me, we can move on past this particular point as we both know that aQ and Iraq have had "contact".
However, are you sure about what these other folks were saying? Did you adequately distinguish "did not have contact" from "did not have a collaborative / operational realtionship"?

easyt65 said:
The latest tapes/memos that have been translated show AQ operatives were in Iraq before we went in and how Hussein was aware how we would react should the U.. find out about their presence.
If you would please be so kind, it would further the debate if you would quote the language from the texts to which you are referring and provide a link to the individual document. It would make your point more powerful if you were to do so.

Until then allow me to point out in broad terms that having aQ operatives in a country is not sufficient to count as evidence of cooperation between aQ and that country's govt. If it were, then the US's knowledge of the presence of AQ operatives in the US would mean that the US was in league w/ aQ. Obviously, this is a silly conclusion to reach based solely on te fact that the govt knew there were aQ operastives in country. I suspect that you could be drawing, the same silly conclusion.

What, (if anything) in particular in the in the documents can you specifically point to as support for the idea that Hussein and aQ were in cahoots w/ some sort of an operational / collaborative relationship?
It would make your point more powerful if you were to quote the language from the texts to which you are referring and provide a link to the individual document.

Btw, have you found a link to where you received the info re the tape where Hussein said he moved his WMD to Syria? I'm very eager to hear about this tape. I would appreciate it if you would help find out where you found out about it. Because, even though I've listened to Tierney and have read through the transcripts at the FMSO site, I've yet to run across a reference to this particular tape anywhere outside of your posts.
You've piqued my curiosity. So, if you're feel up to it and if you're capable of doing so, please provide that link as well.
Thanks in advance.
 
DivineComedy said:
Am I missing something here Simon W. Moon? Can I trust this “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime from your link:

“Presidential Office/ Special Office
The Secretary:
Re / Kuwaiti POW’s
Regarding the execution of Mr. President, Commander Saddam Hussein’s (God protect
him) orders, according to the decision of the Revolutionary Command Council on Friday,
March 4, 2003.
Transfer all Kuwaiti POW’s / a total of 448 captured Kuwaitis who are located at the Al-
Nida Al-Agher Prison and the Intelligence / General Center and Kazema Prison in Al-
Kazema, to make them human shields at all locations that are expected to be attacked by
the American aggressors. Put them in communication locations and essential ministries,
radio and television, Military Industrial Commissions, and all other locations expected to
be attacked by the criminal Anglo-American aggressors.
Transporting them should be in coordination with:
Intelligence Services Directorate
Republican Guard Chief of Staff
Under direct supervision of the Special Security Organization / Organization Security
[Signature]
Qusai Saddam Hussein
Supervisor
of the Republican Guard Secretariat
March 14, 2003”
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/CMPC-2003-012666-Translation.pdf


“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,”

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F67B4E35-E25B-4306-B68D-E99A58070ACC.htm

Waiting...
 
Simon W. Moon said:
for... what exactly?

Can I trust that “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime?
 
DivineComedy said:
Can I trust that “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime?
If the missing verb is 'has,' then I would guess that the answer is yes. It would seem that internal memos would constitute evidence.
Y?
 
ashurbanipal said:
This will be seen. What I think we do know at this point is that we went to war for false cause and that our actual reasons for being there have to do with energy.

The whole 'War for Oil' mantra is BS and has been proved to be so from Day 1. The oil from Iraq is being pumped into Turkey and then sold on the World market. The funds, not being stolen by the U.N., is being given to the Iraqi goverment to run the country. The United states has not been getting 1 barrel of Iraqi oil, making it a point not to buy any so as not appear in the slightest way that this war was about oil. He!!, for all we have done, we SHOULD be getting free barrels of oil...but we aren't.

What we know is NOT that we went to war based on false pretences - that is another mantra that has been drilled into our heads. We have had evidence for wuite a while that the media is ignoring/keeping quiet. Brit Special Forces have reported the nuclear material leaving Iraq to Iran days before we went in. The UN Nuclear commission has confirmed the Brits turned over serial numbers collected from the material and that the iranians will not allow them to inspect the material to check the serial numbers. We have had several Iraqi Generals come forward about WMD Hussein had and sent to Syria. We have had Hussein's nuclear scientist come forward to say Hussein wanted nukes, had shut down the process but could start it back up in weeks once the Americans went away. Now we have tapes and documents translated to show Irag was hiding evidence from UN Inspectors and more. In light of ALL of THIS, to say we KNOW we went to war based on lies is ignorance and stubborn partisanship!

You can see the 4+0, the 1+3, and the 2+2 in font of you and keep demanding that it all doesn't equal up to 4 yet all you want. I have no problem waiting a while longer for more proof to come out; however, that addiditional info will be given just as little media attention as it is contrary to their agenda. If we have to wait for the Democrats/Liberal Bush-haters to finally conclude for all of us that Hussein had WMD and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were talking, we might just as soon be waiting for HE!L to freeze over! No matter how much evidence comes out, ain't NEVER going to happen!
 
easyt65 said:
Brit Special Forces have reported the nuclear material leaving Iraq to Iran days before we went in. The UN Nuclear commission has confirmed the Brits turned over serial numbers collected from the material and that the iranians will not allow them to inspect the material to check the serial numbers.
If you are able, would you please provide a cite for this assertion?
And, again, I ask, what exactly constitutes "nuclear material" in this instance? There's quite a wide range of items that couls potentially be described as such. Are we talking about enriched uranium or high school physics textbooks?

easyt65 said:
We have had several Iraqi Generals come forward about WMD Hussein had and sent to Syria.
Several? I"m only aware of one. Would you please enlighten me and allow me to learn more about this by providing me with a link to more info about the several generals?

easyt65 said:
If we have to wait for the Democrats/Liberal Bush-haters to finally conclude for all of us that Hussein had WMD and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were talking...
As I noted earlier, it's widely accepted (your unfortunate experiences w/ unnamed individuals notwithstanding) that Iraq and Al Qaeda were talking. What's not widley accepted is what you seem to be trying to imply - that aQ and Hussein had an operational/collaborative relationship.

Do you have anything that counters the US Intelligence Community's pre-war and current assessment that Hussein and aQ did not have an operational/collaborative relationship? [If you do, you should contact the CIA right away and let them know.]
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Did you adequately distinguish "did not have contact" from "did not have a collaborative / operational realtionship"?
Why was "contact" good enough for the "Bush lied" crowd before the war and not good enough now? Why is there a sudden caveat called "Operational relationship"? Why was there no need to distinguish this before?
 
KCConservative said:
Why was "contact" good enough for the "Bush lied" crowd before the war and not good enough now? Why is there a sudden caveat called "Operational relationship"? Why was there no need to distinguish this before?
I have no idea about anyone else's criteria re "good enough." So, I'm not sure what to tell you. Perhaps you could ask someone who has changed their position.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I have no idea about anyone else's criteria re "good enough." So, I'm not sure what to tell you. Perhaps you could ask someone who has changed their position.
Good idea. Do you have the number for Sen. John Kerry?
 
KCConservative said:
Good idea. Do you have the number for Sen. John Kerry?

and nearly every other prominent liberal democrat on the planet.
 
Back
Top Bottom