ANAV said:I have heard of the thousands of documents that are currently be translated and analyzed. I hope the administration does release them soon. It will put to end the question as to whether pre-war claims were true or not.
I think terrorist training camps are just going to be the tip of the iceberg. Before people start to say it I will; "The article does not connect Iraq to specifically al-Queda or 9/11." But the documents may prove that Saddam did in fact support, harbor, and train Islamic terrorist.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml
G-Man said:Which pre-war claim is this??? The one about Saddam having WMD and Nuclear stockpiles and threatening the West??
On a seperate point you have headed the thread 'New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training' but you have not seen the documents nor have they been released to the public. How exactly can you form an opinion on this matter without having any of the facts whatsoever?? Obviously your opinion on this is already made up and to have a debate on the matter would be pointless. Maybe you should take off the Bush blinkers and try a bit of independent thinking to reach an opinion.
KCConservative said:The same you you take what is unknown and call the president a liar.
G-Man said:Which pre-war claim is this??? The one about Saddam having WMD and Nuclear stockpiles and threatening the West??
On a seperate point you have headed the thread 'New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training' but you have not seen the documents nor have they been released to the public. How exactly can you form an opinion on this matter without having any of the facts whatsoever?? Obviously your opinion on this is already made up and to have a debate on the matter would be pointless. Maybe you should take off the Bush blinkers and try a bit of independent thinking to reach an opinion.
G-Man said:Fair enough, I have heard all about the intelligence and what the President said and formed an opinion. You have also done likewise - albeit to a different conclusion. However, to make rash judgements/conclusions on documents upon which you have no knowledge (and haven't even been released yet) clearly demonstrates a desire to argue for one side - regrardless of any available info. This ,as I said, makes a debate on the issue pointless.
Stinger said:This is based on the reporting of Stephen Hayes in the newest edition of the Weekly Standard. This is not the first report of the documents which are being investigated and he reports that 11 government officials who are involved in the investigation have confirmed their existence and content.
Why at I fine amazing is the knee-jerk reactions here (and in another thread concerning this). The leftest do NOT want this to be true. And while the accept claims from blogs without any substance try to dismiss this out of hand. It will just kill you to learn that Saddam was in fact help terrorist groups won't it.
That's bull. Maybe in your partisan world but not mine. I would really like it if these turned out to be true, and maybe after that we can find these elusive WMD's. Perhaps then we wouldn't look like fools for invading a country based on misinformation while letting UBL slip through our fingers. I would honestly be dancing in the streets if that happened.The leftest do NOT want this to be true.
G-Man said:Knee-jerk reaction??? I have made no statement in relation to these documents and what evidence they provide. I only argued that to pass judgement whilst having no knowledge on the detail shows a great deal of ignorance and also a desire to argue for one side, regardless of the available info.
Whether I want this to be true or not is irrelevant, Mr Hayes has not released any of his evidence,
nor have these documents been made public, so again how can you form an opinion on these documents?
You may wish to take the word of the govt. officials but they also told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMD
(including nuclear weapons according to Cheney)
Stinger said:He gives details of what the documents contain and in previous reporting he gives even more detail of what we are uncovering. And these are not things we didn't know, just further confirmation. Show I think the ignorance is shown by those who are ignorant of the facts and haven't bothered to research it themselves.
It's not his he is reporting on what the government has according to his sources and actual listing of the document they are cataloging, certainly as much if not more evidence than that supporting such leftest favorites as the NSA accusations and the Plame case.
Well by reading the reporting of Mr. Hayes which he claims and has been confirmed by his editors is being confirmed by eleven sepreate government officals who are involved in the project. And that it confirms what we already knew.
We both take the word of government officials all the time and we judge it against the evidence. As for the WMD he did have stockpiles of WMD, according to Saddams own claims and the according to the the UN Inspectors. He even used them several times. We just don't know what he did with this left overs, but having stockpiles ready to go was the least of our worries, stockpiles can be disposed of and replenished quite easily.
Which is not true, and if you are going to take the mis-statement he made on Hardball, when after stating several times that Saddam was reconstiuting his nuclear PROGRAM, he in one single statement left out the word PROGRAM, and an urban myth has grown that he was claiming Saddam had a nuclear weapong, well that is bogus. Read the entire interview and then his subsequent statement that of course it was never the position of the Bush adminsitration that Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear weapon. You see in order to "reconstitute and nuclear weapon" he would have had to have had one then lost it or something, which of course he did not. And of course if we had believe he was on the verge of "reconstituting" a nuclear weapon we would not have waited 14 or gone to the UN, he would have been gone the next day. So don't even go there with that bogus claim.
Now here are some of the document titles that the investogators are looking at
• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement
• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam • Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:
• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
G-Man said:Stinger...I will research the facts when they are available...thats my point. You can believe Mr Hayes all you like (its a free world) but he has presented no evidence to back up his claims..
other than to say 'documents uncovered' and confirmed by 'eleven seperate govt officials' prove this. Who are they?
Where are the documents available? Mr Hayes either refuses or is unable to answer these questions.
Also, outlining the supposed document headings hardly constitutes as proof in my book.
Its a bit like me saying there's a top secret document at the whitehouse which outlines plans drawn up to invade Iraq as long ago as XXXX.
It confirms that we will overthrow Saddam, take over his oil industry and use the 'cover' of the War on Terror to legitimise it.
Eleven members of the administration of have seen it but you are not allowed because it is classified. You'll just have to take my word its all true.
And yes he did have WMD in the past..but that ain't what we were told.
Heck, the British even went as far as saying he could launch WMD against the West within 45 minutes notice.
As I said, all this turned out to be crap and we should be slightly more cautious about blindly believing our political masters without proof in the future.
Stinger said:G-man it's not necessary to repost my entire post in your reply, just the particulars you are responding to.
He's certainly given as much if not more than Risen for his reporting. He has cited his sources, in this case unnamed as for instance the Plame case, and given particular of the documents that are being investigated. So yes so far his is provide facts, confirmed to his editors by eleven different government officals certainly a higher standard than say the NYT, and evidence listings of the documents.QUOTE]
He cites unnamed sources as proof? Surely a contradiction because no-one can ask them if this is true or not - no-body even knows who they are!!
He gives particulars of documents being investigated but does not present them for our perusal...and you regard this as proof?? He does not give us 'facts', he gives us his opinion on these 'supposed documents'..but refuses to let us see the documents and form our own opinion.
I'll perhaps return you to the original post and link -
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml
And the following exertion :-
"IF TRUE, the documents represent a bombshell finding that shatters the claims of Iraq war critics who have maintained for three years that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Islamic terrorism."
Note please the first two words.
That is exactly my point - IF TRUE. Even the article itself recognises that the statement/views expressed by Mr Hayes have not as yet been backed up by any proof.
Going back to my original point - when he releases the evidence I'll have a read and then form an opinion.
Your constant arguement that he has proved these allegations (without providing his document evidence or naming his sources) is dumbfounding. If he went to court and tried to use this as evidence he would be laughed out. When he comes up with the good we'll talk again.
As regards the 45 minute claim - check out
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf.
This is the OFFICIAL British govt. assessment of Iraqi arms - presented to MP's before they voted on whether to use force against Iraq.
Pls read point 6 on page 8 - detailed below :-
6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
● continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
● military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;
This is direct from the horses mouth and backed up by document evidence - unlike Mr Hayes.
I suppose you still argue the Brits never said he could use WMD within 45 mins??
He cites unnamed sources as proof? Surely a contradiction because no-one can ask them if this is true or not - no-body even knows who they are!!
He gives particulars of documents being investigated but does not present them for our perusal...and you regard this as proof??
He does not give us 'facts', he gives us his opinion on these 'supposed documents'..but refuses to let us see the documents and form our own opinion.
I'll perhaps return you to the original post and link -
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml
And the following exertion :-
"IF TRUE, the documents represent a bombshell finding that shatters the claims of Iraq war critics who have maintained for three years that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Islamic terrorism."
Going back to my original point - when he releases the evidence I'll have a read and then form an opinion.
Your constant arguement that he has proved these allegations (without providing his document evidence or naming his sources) is dumbfounding.
If he went to court and tried to use this as evidence he would be laughed out. When he comes up with the good we'll talk again.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdfThis is the OFFICIAL British govt. assessment of Iraqi arms - presented to MP's before they voted on whether to use force against Iraq.
Pls read point 6 on page 8 - detailed below :-
6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
● continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
● military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;
This is direct from the horses mouth and backed up by document evidence - unlike Mr Hayes.
Stinger said:So you think he's made it all u[.
Where I have used the word "proved"?
And I posted similar, do I need to repost the list of the titles of the documents that are being investigated, from Mr. Hayes and in fact the British claim has not been debunked, it doesn't take long to lob a chemical shell at someone
G-Man said:1) I don't like to make any claims on his report but until he provides evidence supporting his views then we cannot regard it as fact. Something he has, as yet, not done.
2) I'm glad to see we are in agreement that Mr Hayes has not 'proved' the allegations in his report and have nothing to add.
3) As you rightly pointed out this thread is in relation to Mr Hayes report..I suggest opening another thread should you wish to debate other points...but you can't lob chemical shells at anyone without chemicals.
Billo_Really said:Saddam Hussein was, at one time, our ally. He was doing nothing in Iraq that he wasn't doing 20 years ago when we knew all about him. And in this day and age of satellite technology, to think that anything could go on on this level that we would not know about is ludicrous.
One thing to note, terrorism is on the increase, not decrease. This is a direct result of our involvement in that region.
Now that's strange.Originally Posted by akyron
Ive never heard him referred to as a US ally before.
Allies are usually a two way street. What was Saddam supposed to do for the US? He was selling oil internationally but that served global interests more than anything.Billo_Really said:Now that's strange.
Billo_Really said:Saddam Hussein was, at one time, our ally.
One thing to note, terrorism is on the increase, not decrease. This is a direct result of our involvement in that region.
Isn't it an interesting coincidence that just before sanctions were to be lifted against Iraq enabling them to sell oil on the open market, of which there was no way they would sell any to the US after all of this, we attack!Originally Posted by akyron
Allies are usually a two way street. What was Saddam supposed to do for the US? He was selling oil internationally but that served global interests more than anything.
Hoot said:Now...Saddam supporting terrorism against the U.S.? That's another story, isn't it? Saddam feared retaliation from the U.S. and it's never been established that he supported terrorism against our nation.
As far as any documents...blah blah blah...it's also been fairly well established that Saddam had false documents and gave false intel to those within his own circle, knowing that some might defect, and upon interrogation, would pass any truth test that Iraq had WMD, and swear to such, because they had seen the "documents."
Ohh...scary! Just another ploy by Saddam to make himself look like one bad dude and someone his neighbors should not mess with.
Any documents transcibed from Iraq need to be taken with a grain of salt, and should NEVER be taken at face value.
Billo_Really said:Isn't it an interesting coincidence that just before sanctions were to be lifted against Iraq enabling them to sell oil on the open market, of which there was no way they would sell any to the US after all of this, we attack!
Billo_Really said:Now that's strange.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?