Sharing Saddam's Secrets

Documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom are now being released on the web. These are primary sources. When they are all translated and analyzed, we will have a much better (at least more graphic) idea of Saddam’s terror. This is an open source investigation, in that bloggers and others will do much of the analysis.

I cannot read Arabic, but some have been translated. They talk about Saddam’s use of WMD. In one letter Kuwaiti prisoners are to be used as human shields to give the appearance of civilian casualties after a U.S. bombing. Note that this was 2003. Saddam said he had no prisoners after 1996.

Arabic readers can do better and I hope they get at it. This will keep historians busy for a while.

Posted by Jack at March 21, 2006 10:35 PM
Comments
Comment #135179

Jack
There is a site that is supposed to have the deposit of all these documents. I tried to access it but to no avail. Have you heard of it and if so could you access it?

The site is: FMSO.LEAVENWORTH.ARMY.MILPRODUCTS=DOCEX.HTM

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #135180

Tom

The site I linked IS that same site.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #135184

Aldous

It is open for analysis by you or anybody else. Draw your conclusions. If it is wrong, discredit it. The whole idea of putting it out on the web in this form is for people like you and me to go through it and assess it.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #135186

In one of the site’s documents, Saddam Hussein issues instructions for capturing Zarqawi. He wasn’t hiding him. He wasn’t supporting him. Saddam Hussein tried to have Zarqawi arrested.

Just another lie…

An interesting piece of information just came out. Remember how there was supposedly a terrorist training camp at Salmak Pak?

Turns out it was a fake story, a plant. We funded the Iraqi National Congress through the Rendon Group. The INC planted the story in the American press by training an Iraqi soldier to pretend to be an Iraqi general named Ghurairy.

“THE GHURAIRY TALE was one of 108 stories the INC placed in the American and British media between October 2001 and May 2002. We know this to be true because, in a particularly audacious boast, the INC submitted a list of these stories to Congress to convince lawmakers that it should continue to receive funding.”

So the next time you hear about Saddam Hussein training terrorists, remember, it’s just another lie.

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #135190

Phx8

Good. If we all check up on the primary sources, we can find more of the truth. But could you reference the document you are talking about? The link to Mother Jones (not a primary source) doesn’t work BTW, at least not on my computer. I just get an empty Mother Jones commentary page.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #135192

Aldous,
Good point. The release of these documents certainly offers someone out there an opportunity to be selective.

Argh! Seems like my links work about half the time.

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/heroes_in_error.html

“… But then people with far better arabic than me got their hands on the documents. juan cole described the document as something like an APB to capture zarqawi. abu ardvaark writes:
The reproduction (and handwriting) was bad enough that I couldn’t make it out very well. It did have photos - including one of Zarqawi. This document is being touted as evidence that al-Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002, but from what I can make out of the chicken-scratchings it looks more like Iraqi intelligence was trying to find out if Zarqawi was there (hence the mug shots), and not finding anything.”

http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2006/03/final-nail.html

As noted, Juan Cole also refers to this on his web site, www.juancole.com Scroll down to March 16.

Posted by: phx8 at March 22, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #135198

Phx8 and Aldous

I don’t suppose all documents will be released. I would guess some would be very embarassing for the French, Russians or Chinese, whose security council votes we may need.

In any case, the blogs can check and if they are bogus, they can tear it apart and show why it is bogus as they did with Dan Rather’s national guard stories. That is the advantage of open sources.

As any historians knows, going for the primary source is always best. Until now, we have had much more commentary and speculation.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #135207

From the site Jack linked:

“The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein.”

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #135226

Jack:

Its pretty interesting that Aldous has already discarded the information as irrelevant, before he even checked it out. Its this kind of closeminded thinking that polarizes the country.

If you give him a piece of information that he doesn’t like, he discards it without even a cursory investigation. Sure makes it easy to argue when you simply don’t accept the other person’s argument. Doesn’t even take thought.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 22, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #135229

To all you liberals remember this the Soviet Union got rid of all Saddam’s wmd’s before we attacked so we would look like fools to the world, I bet this information sheds some light on subject!

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 22, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #135231

AP

That is why they are trying to make this an open source investigation. You probably heard about the disagreement re whether to release. The contraversy is between open source, where lots of people can look at it, and experts doing all the analysis. The open source will produce more mistakes, but ultimately also produce a more complete and accurate picture.

It is a very interesting experiment. I don’t intend to look through all the douments, but I expect that somebody will and the more interesting facts will come out. The principle is the same as Wikipedia or a market.

Maybe we won’t find much good or useful, but I don’t see why we should reject it without checking it.

My belief is that when we learn more details about Saddam, we will understand better the need for the policy in Iraq or we will find that it was a mistake, or maybe a little of both. In any case, we will be able to make a more informed statement.

We all want to speak from as much an informed perspective as possible, right.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #135235

Jack,

You have got to know that the Bush Admin. would never release docs that make them look bad - even if they haven’t been translated yet and non-Arabic speaking people have no clue what they say…including those in power.
They know what they say and they are hiding something while trying to show they aren’t!!!
It’s just the way they are! Bush is lying about protecting us from terrorists! He made the whole thing up!

Posted by: bug at March 22, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #135236
To all you liberals remember this the Soviet Union got rid of all Saddam’s wmd’s before we attacked so we would look like fools to the world, I bet this information sheds some light on subject!

LOL! Looks like the docs really are shedding some light on the subject, michael:

Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they’d given up banned weapons. “We don’t have anything hidden!” the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

…the documents make clear Saddam’s regime had given up banned weapons…

…Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.

“We played by the rules of the game,” Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. “In 1991, our weapons were destroyed.”

Jack, I wasn’t poo-pooing the program. I just thought it was interesting that the military couldn’t verify whether or not the documents are authentic.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #135241

So, we need “open investigations” into what Bush has done wrong but “open investigations” that may be contrary to that belief are just another ploy by the administration to hide the truth?
Whatever happened to “we just want the people to know the truth” that the left has been shouting?
Whats wrong with getting all the facts before passing judgment?
Oh yeah, elections are coming up aren’t they.

From now until Nov 08, more information is going to be made available.
One side will be saying “see, we told you so.”
The other side will be saying “ignore it, its nothing but propaganda.”

Its all about votes. Anything and everything goes.
Except the truth.

Posted by: kctim at March 22, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #135243

Only a true liberal would believe an Iraqi president, or his prime minister! Let them all be read my liberal friend before it is said that they did not have wmd’s at all! What the heck is shells found in a bunker with mustard gas? It is wmd that’s all I know!!

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 22, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #135244

Bonacci, a true liberal like President Bush who believed Saddam Hussein when he said he did have WMD? Funny, I thought Bush was neither liberal nor conservative but a party of one, the Bush Party. Seems Republicans in Congress don’t want to own him, and Democrats sure don’t. But, OK, like President Bush if you insist.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 22, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #135248

Jack
Thanks
I read over your post quite hastily and missed the links.

To all
One place to find info on WMD’s is Israeli intel.
If anybody knows anything about the Middle East it is the Israeli’s. And for the cherry pickers, you can even do that. For instance Al-Qaeda had sent teams of agents into China for the express purpose of attacking United States assets. I am speaking off the top of my head and will supply source at a later time.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #135252

1) Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s because he truly thought it likely that they would be found.

2) Saddam Hussein could have proved to the world that he didn’t have WMD’s anymore, but he chose not to. Why? Maybe to deter Iran. Maybe to discourage coups from his own generals, whom the documents show to be under the illusion that Iraq had some type of WMD to throw at invaders.

3) Did or did not Iraq harbor or tacitly encourage any al Qaeda prior to 9/11? I regard this as unprovable either way. All my “Cook Doctrine” requires is that our government SUSPECTS that a regime has not done everything it could have done to warn the USA of a pending major terrorist attack. If a regime, which normally does not allow its people freedom to spontaneously demonstrate about anything, should
allow appreciable numbers of its citizens to dance in the streets, burn American flags and effigies, and generally celebrate some tragedy in America such as 9/11, I regard that as more than enough reason for invasion.

4) The argument that Bush has stirred up a hornet’s nest and aggravated the swarm by attacking the wrong nests strikes me as the worst type of smarty-pants second guessing.
If anyone is “bogged down” in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the terrorists. They flock to those places and they die. Very rarely anymore do they even get a chance to kill an American. Usually they blow themselves up to take out some moderate Moslem who just wants to go to work. The moderate Moslems are noticing this and unidentified bodies are turning up in big piles as a consequence.

5) The American people may not notice or ever (in our lifetimes) come to appreciate it, but Bush’s response to 9/11 has been phenomenally
successful. He found battlegrounds where we could draw radical Islamists in and grab them by the throats, while leaving moderate Moslems in a situation where they can at least flirt with the concept of democracy and secure economic development.

6) The radical Islamists in Iran and Syria recognize the basic truth of statement (5) and are recklessly preparing to launch themselves in the big, last-ditch, counter-offensive against America and maybe everything Western. I predict a WMD will be used, fairly soon, and probably against a relatively easy target, like Paris or a Dutch city.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at March 22, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #135253

From American Pundit’s link:
*****
A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from U.N. teams, and to remove “any forbidden equipment.”
*****
and…
*****
…the directive may have been aimed at securing stray pieces of equipment, and preserving some secrets from Iraq’s 1980s work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Saddam’s inner circle entertained notions of reviving the programs someday, the newly released documents show. “The factories will remain in our brains,” one unidentified participant told Saddam at a meeting, apparently in the early 1990s.”
*****

Interesting that the chronological order of the discussions is mixed up in the article.
Put in correct order, in the early 1990’s, there were plans to revive the programs in the future and they still had the plans and research data from their work in the 80’s.
Then, in 1997, Iraqi intelligence insturcted “agencies” to hide “confidential files” and “forbidden equipment”.

If there were no WMDs and no revived programs, what was the purpose of these un-named “agencies”, why was the Iraqi intelligence concerned with thier secrecy, what “forbidden equipment” did they possess and why did they have it (apparently, knowingly in violation of UN resolutions).

Obviously, the article has a hard spin in favor of Saddam. Am I supposed to ignore the contridictions in the article or honor the journalist for attempting to presenting “all sides”, even though there was no attempt to acknowledge or highlight the discrepancies?

Since there is no air time on major networks regarding these documents, I suspect there can not be much good news in them for the left. I’m sure they had access to them long before they were made public. Don’t try to tell me that they are “investigating the validity” of the documents…they made it quite obvious that they are not concerned with accuracy. They are still holding Rather and his crew in high regard (maybe even considering them martyr’s??). Heads rolled to put forth the appearance of accdountability, but nothing has changed.

Posted by: Rich at March 22, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #135257

Remer, Bush is quite republican and so are both the senate and house and it won’t change this November I can assure you of that! You must change or your party must change! I would vote democrat if they had someone worth a crap! Not to be a republican whiner at all but I vote for the thoughts and rights of true Americans thats the bottom line! Your party keeps bitching about Bush but I have seen no constructive ideas by the democats! My God he’s going out and you still have nothing to offer. What good is your party anyways? We get enough liberal views from the 3 top liberal media’s! May you one day see the light!

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 22, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #135264

3) Did or did not Iraq harbor or tacitly encourage any al Qaeda prior to 9/11? I regard this as unprovable either way.

Like the rest of your post this one is just you and Bush. When it’s the Democrats, Republicans, and the rest of the world versus you and Bush - that makes you a Bushie. At this point to say that Iraq was harboring al Queda is a purposeful lie and I don’t think you’re going to get a lot of other Bushies even jumping in to support you. As for the war being a big success, well, I don’t think Fox news is even reporting that.

Anyway, am I supposed to be surprised that Sadaam was a bad guy? Was that ever in doubt? Do these documents show where the WMDs were? Do they show why Iraq was an imminent threat? Do they show a link to al Queda? Fox news would be all over any of those things.

You guys own the congress, the senate, the press, its your administration, everything was your call. It’s just that the Neocon philosophy was a dangerous, out of touch, subversive party faction of incompetents and miscreants. Republicans are going to want your heads I would look out.

Anyway - as long as things are being released, where are the Abu Ghraib pictures? This is the land of the free and the brave, of free press. I want to see those pictures. They can’t be that bad. Rumsfeld wasn’t even fired. Let’s see them already. Let’s see how the Neocons wage war on behalf of Christians.

Posted by: Max at March 22, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #135265

How can anyone actually KNOW what the documents say if no one can read them?

It sounds like as of now, we are still in the same position we were before they were de-classified.

Find someone who can read them and then discuss them. As of now it is a waste of time to use them as vendication or not.

Posted by: Linda H. at March 22, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #135266

Max
You could be right about success in Iraq. You must define what you mean by success. Otherwise, enlighten yourself and learn what is going on in Iraq. It is patently absurd to say success is not being attained in Iraq. The infrastructure in Iraq is greatly improved referenced to before the invasion. People are participating in government action and selection in a free manner. They certainly did not have that under SH. So I am looking for a definition of success from you if you have one.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #135269

Max, you don’t know what your talking about for one thing is the liberals own the press! Another thing is we’ll see who wins the houses in November won’t we!! Yes Iraq did harbor what’s his name that Saddam had shot by his security police? So I rest my case glad it’s being fought over there and not here! Peace

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 22, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #135271

Michael A. Bonacci writes: “To all you liberals remember this the Soviet Union got rid of all Saddam’s wmd’s before we attacked so we would look like fools to the world, I bet this information sheds some light on subject!”

Well, I’ve never seen any factual basis for this, but it is true that we look like fools to the world for attacking a country on the basis of WMDs when they had none. But, I guess if the Soviet Union got rid of them prior to 1991 when they ceased to exist, we probably should have looked at out intel a little more closely rather than ignoring or manipulating it don’t you think?

Posted by: Boomer at March 22, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #135276
It is patently absurd to say success is not being attained in Iraq. The infrastructure in Iraq is greatly improved referenced to before the invasion. People are participating in government action and selection in a free manner.

The country is in the throes of civil war and many Iraqis go without basic necessities. You must have just arrived from the Bushiverse.

Posted by: Max at March 22, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #135278

Defining success in Iraq? An interesting question, and the struggle for the definition comes from the fact that the reason for attacking them was because of the urgent threat to the USA from Saddam’s stockpiles of WMDs. Since that little fairy tale didn’t pan out, we’re all left seeking the answer as to what success might mean. As Americans it’s difficult for us to accept we didn’t succeed, such as finding the missiles headed to San Diego, so we just have to change the rules of the game until we win.

Hence the changing mission objectives from the -‘it was always about freedom, they are free, it’s a success (nevermind the civil was part),’ or ‘promoting democracy, they had elections, it’s a success,’ or ‘we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11, it’s a success,’ or ‘we’re fighting them there not here, a success’ or ‘we’re rebuilding the country, a success.’ Pick one or make up your own.

I believe the real success is played out something like this around the Bush dinner table:

W (proudly, smirking): “Daddy, remember when Saddam threatened you? He’s in jail and I bombed his country and killed thousands of his innocent people. Hehehe.”

HW Bush: “Thanks son. I knew sooner or later you’d be a success.”

Babrara Bush lovingly rubs W’s shoulder. Jeb mopes at the kids table.

Posted by: Boomer at March 22, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #135279

Boomer, Soviet Union or Russia you know what I mean Mr technical, oh I forgot you didn’t mention the Al Qaeda guy who SH shot! Russia did get rid of the wmd’s and you and other democats know it that’s the only thing you can complain or bring up about this war and the presidency! Russia knew you would bitch about it and they are smarter than you think! Anyways what is a artillery shell that has mustard gas in it? WMD doesn’t matter if its one or more he had them and that is proof right there!

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 22, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #135287

Hey Michael,

Drat! Those Russkie commies tricked those Libs again!

Wouldn’t this be a better story if you said that Clinton went down to Iraq and helped the commies bury the weapons himself, the location of which is only documented on a secret treasure map stashed in Hillary’s undergarments? Of course some of the weapons are stashed in the secret Democratic moon base, the same one where the Libs spirited away Bin Laden.

Posted by: Max at March 22, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #135291

Yeah you laugh now but I bet you won’t when they take our rights away! Oh Max you are sadly misguided! What about that artillery shell? You democats! Besides what are libs doing on a conservative website? Oh yes it’s called freedom, thats what it is!

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 22, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #135294

Michael
Please forgive Max. He probably is not old enough to know life in the USA; only in the United Socialist States of America.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #135299

Very interesting comments.
I worked for Intel and Security Command and before that ASA and CEEIA for 25 years. I am now retired.
In answer to your questions why would they release all of these tens of thousands documents? The answer is they are of no value to the war effort. Analysts and linguist are limited in number and wasting them on these captured papers is a waste of time. They have little value if any especially when truck loads of new data arrive daily..
Just as when we were gathering data in the 70`s and 80`s from the Communist there came a time when the data just didn`t matter any more. Things had moved on and we needed now to know different answers to different questions.
They have decided to let the Bloggers and Historians do it rather than just throwing it away or wasting resourses on it.
The Bush Adminstration has already acknowleged that WMD were not there and mistakes were made. If you look at them honestly with out prejudices you guys maybe able to reveal mysteries long unsettled or shed new light. Like the fact that Kuwaiti prisoners were still in Sadams hands when he said they were not.

Posted by: Steve Stafford at March 22, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #135300

Deer Michael,

Thanks for yer support on this little war thing I got us into. I agree with you that librals shouldn’t be allowed on a conservtive site. They screw up too many of our stories with all those facts they use. Maybe I’ll wire tap a few of them to see what they are up to. I can do that you know cuz I’m Prezdent. Cheney told me so.

But please stick to the talkin’ points when discussing the reazuns for the war in the fewture. See, the hole Russia (or Soviet Union, it’s all the same no need to be technical) thing was just made up so we lose credbility when we go there.

The Saddam linked to 9/11 didn’t work out either - the 9/11 Commission blew a big hole in that theory.

The WMDs thing was, no pun intended, blown out of the water, when the CIA weapons inspections team reported that Saddam ain’t got none about a year ago.

That Niger (hehehe, I can’t believe they’d name a country that) uranium story didn’t pan out either so don’t use that one anymore. We had the Libster try to give that one a go and he got in a bunch of trouble I here.

We’re gonna go with promotin’ democrasy and freein’ there people. See, if you jus’ disregard that we killed ‘bout 40,000 of ‘em give or take and the ongoing bloodshed, lack of infrastructure, no governmental stability and the civil war I think this might fly. If I tell people enuff times that it’s going well there, it just might work. Hey, I didn’t have a single accomplishment for four years and I got re-lected.

Anyhow, thanks for yer support.

Sincerely,

Prezdent Bush

p.s. I’d like to hear more about the WMDs in Hillary’s undergarments. She’s a woman you know!

Posted by: Boomer at March 22, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #135306

a cheap laugh is like cheap wine it makes you feel good for a short while and then it wears off and….! …JAY….

Posted by: JAY at March 22, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #135310

Um…good wine wears off too.

Posted by: Boomer at March 22, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #135312

Boomer,

BRILLIANT!

Posted by: Vic at March 22, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #135313

Micheal L. Cook,

If a regime, which normally does not allow its people freedom to spontaneously demonstrate about anything, should
allow appreciable numbers of its citizens to dance in the streets, burn American flags and effigies, and generally celebrate some tragedy in America such as 9/11, I regard that as more than enough reason for invasion.

Hmmmm…so according to you, every country that allows people to be anti-American and celebrate 9/11 should be invaded; okay, first we issue a draft, then invade every country in Asia, Africa, South America, and some in Europe. Also some parts of Antartica, those dam penguins!

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #135315

Three quick points:
1. OK, OK, OK, Bush haters- I get it, but enough already and try to be a little more rational.
2. I would rather see embarrassing pictures from Abu Ghraib due to Americans then a beheading due to terrorists.
3. When a leader of a country makes the statement “Death to America”, you better believe they mean it and will do everything in their power to see that through. Would you rather be proactive or reactive?

Posted by: michaelb at March 22, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #135316

Oh yea, btw flag burning is our right, according to the first amendment, so says the Supreme Court anyway.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #135317

“Michael
Please forgive Max. He probably is not old enough to know life in the USA; only in the United Socialist States of America.”


It is funny that Tom H and Michael don’t realize that those “Reds” are funding our war. It is bad enough that our debt ceiling has risen to 9 trillion dollars but knowing that a ton of it goes to Red China makes it even worse.

Do you realize that the only thing we pay more per year than debt we owe to other countries is Social Security and Medicare?

I thought Republicans were supposed to be “Conservative?” It only took you guys 4 years to spend all the money Clinton saved.

Posted by: Vic at March 22, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #135319

Green

You have the right to burn a flag. I suppose you also have the right to fart in a crowded elevator. Some things are just bad manners.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #135322

Jack,

You have the right to burn a flag. I suppose you also have the right to fart in a crowded elevator. Some things are just bad manners.

I never said I support burning American flags, but I don’t think “bad manners” are a good reason to invade a country.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #135324

Michaelb,

“Would you rather be proactive or reactive?”

This isn’t the game “Risk.” It is real life. Real people die and real taxpayers have to pay for these decisions. We should be continuing our work in Afganistan and beginning to put a thumb down on Iran yet we can’t afford to do either because our troops and our money have gone to a country that says bad things about us.

Brillant move! Allow our real threats (N.Korea, Iran) to thrive and continue to make nukes, but spend all our resources on somebody calling us names.

Posted by: Vic at March 22, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #135328

Michaelb,

OK, OK, OK, Bush haters- I get it, but enough already and try to be a little more rational.

Ok, ok, ok, Bush supporters-I don’t get it, but enough already and try to be a lot more rational.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #135329

“Do you realize that the only thing we pay more per year than debt we owe to other countries is Social Security and Medicare?”

Hence the reference to us being a socialist democracy and no longer a Constitutional Republic.

“Of course some of the weapons are stashed in the secret Democratic moon base, the same one where the Libs spirited away Bin Laden”

Is that also where they keep all this “proof” they have about Bush lying and the evil Christian empire trying to take over the world?

“I want to see those pictures. They can’t be that bad. Rumsfeld wasn’t even fired. Let’s see them already. Let’s see how the Neocons wage war on behalf of Christians”

OK. But lets also see all the Waco pictures and info. They can’t be that bad either, Reno wasn’t even fired. Let’s see them already too. Let’s see how the liberals wage war against Christians and murder them.

Your game is too easy. If your going to spout BS, at least know that your side is just as guilty.

Posted by: kctim at March 22, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #135331

“Brillant move! Allow our real threats (N.Korea, Iran) to thrive and continue to make nukes, but spend all our resources on somebody calling us names”

Hmmmm. North Korea and Iran say they don’t want nuke tech for military purposes.
So why not believe them and look the other way like you say we should of done with Saddam?

Posted by: kctim at March 22, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #135334

Vic,
Great idea- take my words out of context and make your own assumptions about my intent. Again, see point #1- try to be rational.
About our “real threats”- didn’t we think that Iraq was a “real threat”? Maybe we should make the “real threat” decision making to Vic. And before you add foriegn policy decisions to your list, ensure that you can spell the name of the country AFGHANISTAN first. Let’s hope we don’t start having difficulties with Chad.

Posted by: Michaelb at March 22, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #135347

Michaelb,
Thank you for spell checking me. I know it is a tremedously important thing to do on a forum site.

Did you not say this?

“3. When a leader of a country makes the statement “Death to America”, you better believe they mean it and will do everything in their power to see that through. Would you rather be proactive or reactive?”

Yes, maybe I should run our forgein policy. Here is a list of some things I would have done that your trusted President failed to do…

1. When I read a memo that says “Bin Laden to attack America” I do something about it. I DO NOT go on vacation.

2. When a man orders our country to be attacked, I GET HIM! I do not corner him in caves then go fight a war that has nothing to do with him. I do not let him continue to make tapes!

3. I would keep our allies.

4. I would make my own decisions, and not let my Vice President run the country for me.

5. I would fire people who have been proven to be incompetent. NOT GIVE THEM METALS (Mr. Bremer)!

6. And finally, I would be honest with those who I serve. I would not say or allow my cabinet to say: There are WMD’s when there are not. I would not say we could fund a war with oil that we cannot even maintain. I would not allow my Sec. of Defense to say that a war will only last 5 days to 5 months and I would not allow young men and women to die for nation building in a country that most people here can’t even find on a map.

Am I missing anything?

Posted by: Vic at March 22, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #135349

Vic
You asked the question “Am I missing anything”?
IMO common sense and rationale. So you got your answer.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #135356

michael bonacci,

shells found in a bunker with mustard gas
Those were shown to be leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war from the 1980’s. I guess Faux News didn’t report that.

michaelb,

Would you rather be proactive or reactive?
If you think we should attack first and ask questions later, I guess you agree with the tactics of Osama bin Laden, who did exactly that.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 22, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #135360

From Tomh: “Vic
You asked the question “Am I missing anything”?
IMO common sense and rationale. So you got your answer.”

There you have it Vic. Going after the guy that intel told us was going to attack America, not vacationing when told this, not alienating out allies and not goinginto a fabricated war simply are not common sense.

How else could you win an election in 2004 if you didn’t have fear? What could W do? Run on his record?

Posted by: Boomer at March 22, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #135394
Let’s see them already too. Let’s see how the liberals wage war against Christians and murder them.

Christians like David Koresh and his twelve year old brides? Anyway, I don’t remember Clinton releasing a statement saying that WACO was pursposeful, and I think you’ve got to be way paranoid to believe that. Bush’s policy of torture is just what he believes and does no question about it.

Posted by: Max at March 22, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #135407

max thats right! clinton did not discriminate hell he would kill any americans women. 12 year old brides and kids hell he did not care just pump that place full of gas and light a match! yee haa! … JAY…..

Posted by: JAY at March 23, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #135408

boomer, yea bush had a gun to everyones head to vote i think the real fear was the other ass john long face munchausen kerry and the ketchup queen teresa inherited the money heinz.

Posted by: JAY at March 23, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #135410

kctim,

Hmmmm. North Korea and Iran say they don’t want nuke tech for military purposes.
So why not believe them and look the other way like you say we should of done with Saddam?

It’s funny because Saddam repeatedly denied any allegations of possesing weapons of mass destruction and guess what, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Meanwhile, North Korea has never denied allegations of possesing WMDs and Iran is one of the most democratic gov’ts in the Middle East. Democracy is such a great thing, GO HAMAS!!!

Posted by: greenstuff at March 23, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #135411

“Only a true liberal would believe an Iraqi president, or his prime minister”!

It’s not so difficult if the other choice is conservative GWB!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 23, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #135412

“1. OK, OK, OK, Bush haters- I get it, but enough already and try to be a little more rational”.

And this from one who probably supported the impeachment of Clinton using a lie about a blowjob to justify it!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 23, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #135425
I guess if the Soviet Union got rid of them prior to 1991 when they ceased to exist,

Um, huh?

You realize that there were WMD in Iraq at least in 1998, when Clinton bombed several select sites, right? Or, are you just that moronic that you think that Iraq got rid of their WMD in 1991 like you stated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 23, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #135439

ElliottBay, he still had wmd’s doesn’t matter if it was from the Iran/Iraq war! He still had them that’s the bottomline! Funny how you can say he didn’t when he did! It’s either yes he had them or no he did not nothing in between! That’s called truth which I am afraid there are many out there with none! Conservatives or Liberals! Anyways I agree with you Rhinehold that was a good one I have to admit! Expat_Indonesia well just go ahead and believe those liars if you want and we’ll just eventually take them out of the picture. Not by any liberal standards but by conservative ones!

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 23, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #135448

“and I think you’ve got to be way paranoid to believe that”

But believing Bush is “torturing” EVERY prisoner of war for pleasure and also listening to EVERY Americans phone conversation is not being paranoid?

“Anyway, I don’t remember Clinton releasing a statement saying that WACO was pursposeful”

Forgive me, but I am getting old. Just when did Bush release a statement saying he intentionally used bad intel to invade Iraq? Or that the present situation in Iraq was purposeful?

“It’s funny because Saddam repeatedly denied any allegations of possesing weapons of mass destruction and guess what, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”

Its also funny that Iran repeatedly denies any allegations of creating WMD’s out of nuke tech.
If you were, and still are, so willing to believe a hostile dictator like saddam h. over your own president, then why not take the Iranian leaders words over that of your own country’s also?

“And this from one who probably supported the impeachment of Clinton using a lie about a blowjob to justify it!”

And this from one who wants to believe it was about a bj.
One who would rather excuse or defend the illegal money from china, the unjustified war in Kosovo, the murder of Americans, rights violations etc…
If your going to play the game, at least use the same rules.
Anything else is nothing but partisan whining.

Posted by: kctim at March 23, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #135453

Rhinehold:

Or, are you just that moronic that you think that Iraq got rid of their WMD in 1991 like you stated?

Actually, if you had really read what he had written, he was rather intelligently pointing out that the soviet union would have had to get rid of Iraq’s WMDs for them (as michael c bonacci claims they did to make the US look bad) prior to 1991 when the soviet union ceased to exist. Michael has since claimed he meant Russia, but considering he doesn’t know the difference between the Soviet Union and modern Russia, it seems rather unlikely that he is knowledgeable enough to comment on the country’s present actions.

Posted by: Jarandhel at March 23, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #135473

Jarandhel,

Now who’s being Mr. Technical?

Anyhow, thanks for the backup.

Posted by: Boomer at March 23, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #135500

For all those still on the “Bush Lied!” bandwagon, is the book by Georges Sada (the #2 General in the Iraqi Air Force during Saddam’s reign) supposed to be trumped up as well? The “Daily Show” audience was awash in silence listening to his very trustworthy interview with John Stewart.


And I love when extremist liberals show their true colors:

“Only a true liberal would believe an Iraqi president, or his prime minister”!

It’s not so difficult if the other choice is conservative GWB!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 23, 2006 12:59 AM

There ya have it! GWB apparently remains as the Beezlebub of the Left. Although I have to hand it to ExPat, you always hear people complain about the USA as if it were the worst country in the world and ya wonder why they just don’t leave. ExPat apparently did. Hat’s off to you sir!

Posted by: Brian S. at March 23, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #135514

Brian S. couldn’t of said it better! Thanks

Posted by: michael c bonacci at March 23, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #135581

kctim,

You are bending over backwards to defend Bush.

But believing Bush is “torturing” EVERY prisoner of war for pleasure and also listening to EVERY Americans phone conversation is not being paranoid?

Who said he’s torturing every prisoner? I’m just asserting that the president tortures captives as a matter of official war policy. A policy unique to his administration and never used by this country before in a time of war, making it unAmerican.

Forgive me, but I am getting old. Just when did Bush release a statement saying he intentionally used bad intel to invade Iraq? Or that the present situation in Iraq was purposeful?

The Downing street memo says the future intelligence will be fixed around the decision to go to war, and Tony Blair has suggested it’s an authentic document. Bush has never denied it either.

Again, it’s really surprising at the end of six years to hear Bushies sum up his performance by saying at least Bush is no worse than Clinton. I mean, I would have thought that would have been your worst insult.

Posted by: Max at March 23, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #135608

I DO THINK THESE RECORDS COULD INDEED SHED SOME LIGHT ON MATTERS ABOUT SADOM AND BILL HEMMER AT FOX HAS BEEN SHOWING BOTH SIDES IN IRAQ THIS WEEK ON FOX THATS A CHANGE AND HOW DOES POETIC JUSTICE SOUND ABOUT FRANCES PROBLEMS AND THERE CONSTANT ABUSE OF MUSLUMS BEING BROUGHT TO LIGHT HOW ABOUT THOSE FIGHTERS FRENCH MADE BURIED IN THE IRAQ SANDS AND YOU BET RUSSIA HELP GET THOSE WMDS OUTA SITE AS DID CHINA AND WHOM SAYS NO TO ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THESE ITEMS TILL WAR IS THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS THEN THEY SCREAM BLOODY MURDER AND HERE IS A LITTLE NOTE ON THE GREAT RESQUE THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH REQUED THOSE ANTI WAR FOLKS IN IRAQ NONE AMERICANS THEY STILL SAID WE ARE DOGS BUT FAIL TO MENTION THE 1 AMERICAN THAT WAS WITH THEM THAT WAS FOUND DEAD OUR GUYS SAVE 3 ANTIWAR WORKERS NO THANX TO YOU AMERCAN AND BRITISH MURDERS YET THE AMERICAN WAS THE DEAD 1 ID THROWM BACK LIKE THE CULLS THEY ARE SEND THE CROOKS AT THE UN PACKIN AND CUT OF ANY AMERICAN FUNDING AND STICK WITH NATO. IM ALL FOR PUTN THE DOCUMENTS OUT ON WEB AND TV NEWS

Posted by: F A STEPHENS SR at March 24, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #135636
prior to 1991 when the soviet union ceased to exist

Ah, pronoun trouble.

My bad, carry on.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 24, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #135645

Max
The policy may be unique, but torture to gather information is not. Not even for the US.
You personally disagree with torture being used to gather terrorist information and it is unAmerican to you. Some believe otherwise.

The DS memo has NOT been proven to be factual and opinions, hopes and “suggestions,” do not make it so.
I cannot prove if it is or not, but if you can, please share it with those who can do something about it.

“I would have thought that would have been your worst insult”

MY worst insult? Maybe, if I didn’t think there was no difference between the two.

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #135692

michael c bonacci,

ElliottBay, he still had wmd’s doesn’t matter if it was from the Iran/Iraq war! He still had them that’s the bottomline! Funny how you can say he didn’t when he did! It’s either yes he had them or no he did not nothing in between!

I laugh at your message, hahahahaha. Although it is true that Saddam might have had WMDs at one time, they were all gone after the Israel Airforce bombed Iraq’s nuclear power plants in 1981.
Also, in the First Gulf War in 1991, Iraq used no weapons of mass destruction on the Coalition forces.
Anyway, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, even the president and his administration don’t deny this claim, because there are no WMDs in Iraq. Also if you say that there was mustard gas in Iraq; thats just some lie made up by neocons.
If there are any traces of mustard gas in Iraq, it is from the Iran/Iraq war, trust me, I got this info from FoxNews, your favorite new media.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 24, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #135696

Greenstuff
Whats the possibility that we “discover” WMD’s in Iraq before Nov 08?
Or that another terrorist attack occurs before Nov 06?
In your opinion of course.

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #135707

KCTIM sorry i know you were addressing green hopefully he will respond. on the other blog some of the other folks are saying that powell had fabricated intelligence. quote it was worse than a old b movie!. powell never would have done that that guy has more class than that. it was a cheap shot now there attacking powell!.

Posted by: JAY at March 24, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #135724
Although it is true that Saddam might have had WMDs at one time, they were all gone after the Israel Airforce bombed Iraq’s nuclear power plants in 1981.

HA HA HA HA HA…

Well, that just invalidated your opinion on the matter…

It would be nice if some people had a sense of reality when they debated here.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 24, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #135742

I think THIS is an example of the kinds of things being released that bloggers are helping to analyze and translate. There will be more.

Green

Saddam used WMD in the late 1980s. Coalition forces found and documented some in the early 1990s and everyone agrees he had them in 1998. Sometime between 1998 and 2003 he got rid of them or hid them. We still don’t know where.

Posted by: Jack at March 24, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #136915

Brain S.,
I saw that Jon Stewart interview. My 15 year old son and I do every day…

The man seemed reasonable, sincere, intelligent and very articulate, didn’t he? Not at all like the rabid wild-eyed fanatic that were were supposed to believe all Muslims are.

What struck me was he couldn’t say that he saw them. First hand. For the #2 guy in the Iraqi Air Force I thought this was a bit… unusual? Which brings to mind what I have asked many times on this blog and maybe you can answer.

WMD is not developed, created, maintained or distributed so easily. Training it its use (you know, like check the wind direction before launching a chemical artillery shell), handling and transportation would not be simple.

There would have to be someone… someone, somewhere with first hand knowledge. A secret like that cannot be kept… especially after 3 years.

Why hasn’t there been someone cashing in on this information? Coming out and stating that they guarded it, transported it… something?

Like I said, the man was reasonable seeming… there are rational, possibly even greedy people that must have something tangible that they could exploit concerning the WMD… but we never get first hand reporting of it. I see that as very curious… don’t you?

So, I wasn’t quite ready to jump up and down and declare the President’s actions a “winner.”

Have we learned nothing at all about basing our opinions on our desire to read things into reports, accounts, I have a friend who knows a friend that has it on good authority…? It leads to monumental mistakes.

So, instead of flying to a carrier in a jet and proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED I will reserve judgement if it is all the same.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #138923

Some say that there are no WMD’s in Iraq, even though it has not and cannot be proven.

Yes, that’s right, you masters of logic and fallacy, CANNOT BE PROVEN!! You cannot prove a negative proposition………so please stop claiming it has been done.

For your sublime edification: it may be correct to claim that the suspected stockpiles have not been located, it is naught but the pinnacle of stupidity to claim that you know they are not in Iraq, even if they are not found in 30 years!

I guess my glue gun has ceased to exist as well, since I haven’t been able to discern its exact location in my house, lo these last few months.

Another thing……the war in Iraq is over.

It was over when we captured SH and all major cities and seats of govt……..what you see now is a reconstruction during a period of insurgency, and nothing more.

Not so, you claim? Then please could you point to at least one time in history when this was not the standard for declaring the end of “hostilities”?

What’s that? You can’t?

Could it be that the lefty pundits would like to see the last helicopter lifting off from the roof of the American embassy in Baghdad, as the only acceptable sign of the end of “the war”?

Could it be that the left will cling desparately to their mantra of “Iraq is a failure”, until they can sway public opinion to their knee-jerk belief in the inherent wrongness of any action taken by a Republican administration?

Could it be that they will simultaneously ignore any success in our troops’ missions, while making bogus claims of their barbaric treatment of innocent Iraqis, in the hopes that a Mai Lai redux may be found to help in that swaying?

Say it ain’t so, Joe……say it ain’t so.

Posted by: dilligras at April 7, 2006 8:51 PM
Post a comment