2
   

Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?

 
 
okie
 
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 12:01 am
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml

I start this thread as I did for the Saddam Hussein tapes for the purpose of calling attention to new evidence as it is released and evaluated. We know that the news media has already written the conclusion of the book purporting to summarize everything known about Saddam Hussein's WMD program, that he had none, he no weapons, and he was absolutely no threat to anyone, and that his regime had absolutely no contact with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Obviously we are still collecting and evaluating the material that will allow us to write the introduction or the first chapter of the book.

Some of these documents now being released confirm what Bush told us was in fact true, that Hussein was engaged in an elaborate program to continue to hide and avoid detection of his WMD programs, equipment, and materials from the U.N. inspectors, and from the knowledge of other nations. In addition, more evidence comes forth that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were in contact with and may have had assistance from Husseins regime.

Nobody has ever asserted that Hussein was involved with assisting in any way the event of 911. Even though Bush has been accused of claiming that to be the case, he has never asserted that to be the case. I am not going to argue for that possibility here, but as more information emerges, I am not prepared to conclude that such a possibility can yet be discounted for sure. I think there is evidence that Bush has been right all along about Hussein and WMD, and that he also was in communication with and assistance of Al Qaeda. This all means the media and the Democrats have been guilty of lying about this ever since the war started, not President Bush.

To truly acknowledge evidence, we all must throw off all the spin thats been fed us for the last 3 years and be willing to actually judge the evidence for what it tells us, not according to what other people tell us that it tells us, so that their premature conclusion can be protected from being shot full of holes. That is extremely difficult and probably impossible for many people because the blinders are on and they won't come off easily.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,783 • Replies: 127
No top replies

 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 12:09 am
Why are you posting crap from newmax.com as if it has any resemblance to fact? No wonder you are so deluded.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 12:12 am
I meant to post more. Heres a more recent one.

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

Google it and you will find more info. If you are interested in evidence, I would suggest you take a look at it.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 09:00 am
Why don't you just post from real news sources from the git-go?

You lost me when you posted bullshit from newsmax. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 10:19 am
While you are at it, you might want to check out this link.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/694980.html

Quote:
Saddam kept pretense of WMDs to prevent Israeli attack

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein pretended to have chemical weapons because, among other reasons, he feared that Israel might attack if it discovered he did not. This is revealed in a recently declassified internal report by the American military.

The report was compiled from many dozens of interviews with senior Iraqi officials and hundreds of documents captured by the American forces during and after the war.

Hussein made the above statement at a meeting with leaders of the Ba'ath Party, said Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, to American interrogators. Ali was in charge of using chemical weapons against the Kurdish forces at the end of the 1980s.

According to Chemical Ali, Hussein was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary," the report states. Ali explained that such a declaration could encourage Israel to attack, the report says.

The 100-page report has not been released yet, but some 9,000 words of it are to appear in the next edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine.

There is a growing tendency in the U.S. to declassify Iraqi documents captured after the war and release them. Hundreds of thousands of documents are expected to be released next week, following an agreement between the intelligence community, the National Security Council and American lawmakers.

The report details Hussein's reasons for deciding to continue deceiving the international community into thinking that Iraq had WMD, despite the fact that such deception could increase the chances of a military attack on the country.

Last moment

Hussein did not believe until almost the last moment that the U.S. would send its forces into Baghdad, the report says. He was much more afraid of subversive elements in Iraq - mainly the Shi'ites and Kurds - and from regional powers - mainly Iran but also Israel - than of an American invasion.

This is why he decided to leave the bridges leading into Iraq standing, believing he would need them, and to maintain ambiguity until close to the invasion, causing Western intelligence to believe he had WMDs.

"Many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possesed WMD capability hidden away somewhere. Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them," the report says.

Senior Iraqi officials told their interrogators that Hussein had no idea what the true state of the country's weapons was, because everyone lied to him and refrained from giving him bad news for fear of being executed.

Hussein's deputy Tariq Aziz told interrogators, "The people in the military industrial commission were liars. They lied to you, and they lied to Hussein. They were always saying they were producing special weapons."

"A captured military industrial commission annual report of investments from 2002 showed more than 170 research projects. When Hussein asked for updates on the nonexistent projects, they simply faked plans and designs to show progress," the report says.

Many in Israeli intelligence still believe Hussein had chemical weapons, which were transferred to Syria before the war. Israel discussed this with the Americans, but the latter no longer believe that Israeli evidence is conclusive on the matter.

The report also describes how unprepared Iraq was for the American invasion. Many of its commanders were unsuitable, appointed for political reasons, including Hussein's son. In addition, the militias Hussein formed to protect his regime were not trained professionally


And this from Okie's own link from ABC.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 10:49 am
Here is another very enlightening article about Saddam from Foreign Affairs, based on information gleaned from these documents:

Quote:
Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside
By Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray


From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006

Summary: A special, double-length article from the upcoming May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, presenting key excerpts from the recently declassified book-length report of the USJFCOM Iraqi Perspectives Project.

Kevin Woods is a defense analyst in Washington, D.C. James Lacey is a military analyst for the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Williamson Murray is Class of 1957 Distinguished Visiting Professor of History at the U.S. Naval Academy. Along with Mark Stout and Michael Pease, they were the principal participants in the USJFCOM Iraqi Perspectives Project.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The fall of Baghdad in April 2003 opened one of the most secretive and brutal governments in history to outside scrutiny. For the first time since the end of World War II, American analysts did not have to guess what had happened on the other side of a conflict but could actually read the defeated enemy's documents and interrogate its leading figures. To make the most of this unique opportunity, the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) commissioned a comprehensive study of the inner workings and behavior of Saddam Hussein's regime based on previously inaccessible primary sources. Drawing on interviews with dozens of captured senior Iraqi military and political leaders and hundreds of thousands of official Iraqi documents (hundreds of them fully translated), this two-year project has changed our understanding of the war from the ground up. The study was partially declassified in late February; its key findings are presented here.

...
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:20 am
I think the jury is still out obviously, but if you look at the possibility that Saddam Hussein himself was fooled, or that he wished to fool everybody else and cause them to believe he had WMD, either way, brings up a question. If the regime was so brutal and so deceptive that perhaps Hussein himself or perhaps many of Iraq's own military officers and government officials did not know the truth about their own WMD, how in the world could we have been expected to know the complete story? I am very interested in what more will come out in the weeks, months, and years ahead. We are far from evaluating all of the information and coming to any solid conclusion about this.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 03:14 pm
Update on the documents:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_tapes

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 04:57 pm
revel wrote:


If there is any shred of truth to this article, there is simply no explanation for why Saddam thwarted the inspectors for all those years. Wouldn't any normal person simply open up the warehouses when the inspectors came by and show them how there was nothing inside? More especially wouldn't somebody who seriously wanted the sanctions lifted do this? That was the only requirement for the sanctions being lifted.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 08:05 pm
Foxfyre, if you read revel's link, you will find what amounts to an editorial written by a Charles Hanley, AP correspondent, wherein he pulled a quote from here and a quote from there, out of context, with the majority of the article being his opinion. Frankly, I'm not impressed. As I reminded everybody at the start of this thread, the news media has a vested interest in making sure the conclusion of the book already written by them is supported by the evidence still being collected and interpreted. You will note that his quotes and conclusion is in direct conflict with other transcripts of tapes if you simply read what was said, not what somebody has concluded about what was said.

Interesting also, do a search on Hanley and interesting things come up. He supposedly won a Pulitzer prize for a book written about U.S. soldiers massacring civilians in Korea during the Korean War, however this has been apparently debunked by further investigations by a Major Robert Bateman. This is found in the link below:

http://www.norwich.edu/about/news/2004/colby3.html

Hanley has also been accused of writing slanted stories on global warming. I found this out with a 10 minute search. No telling what could be found. I found this out after I read his little editorial and concluded it was an editorial instead of a news story.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 08:41 pm
Ah yes, we go from the article okie posted
Quote:
Focusing on extensive documentation from previously overlooked sources, his book attempts to debunk the AP allusion to a widespread massacre of civilians by U.S. forces at No Gun Ri and show how veterans who allegedly witnessed this event and influenced others were not even present.
to okie's interpretation of the article....


Quote:
however this has been apparently debunked by further investigations by a Major Robert Bateman.


okie, you have been accused of writing slanted stories on global warming as well here on a2k. Is the accusation enough or should we look at the facts of what he wrote before we jump to believe the accusation?


I think you need to learn the difference between an editorial and a journalistic piece. I see nothing in the piece by Hanley that can be referred to as opinion.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 09:39 pm
"Compelled by suspected fallacies in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press story of the alleged slaughter of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri, Major Bateman presents an alternate explanation of the events through the perspective of the soldiers and their commanders, the 1948-50 South Korean civil war, and the broader state of U.S. military policy and force readiness. Focusing on extensive documentation from previously overlooked sources, his book attempts to debunk the AP allusion to a widespread massacre of civilians by U.S. forces at No Gun Ri and show how veterans who allegedly witnessed this event and influenced others were not even present."

The above is a direct quote from the link. You are correct, Parados, it says Major Bateman "attempts to debunk" the book by Hanley. I would think however that if the people that allegedly witnessed the event as written by Hanley were not even present, it sounds like his "attempt to debunk" may have been successful. And Bateman has extensive documentation in his "attempt to debunk." Okay, not proven, but suspicious.

You see nothing in the piece by Hanley that is opinion? I need not go past the first sentence: "BAGHDAD, Iraq - 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." This is a sentence constructed by Hanley, not any quotes from a tape. To support this assertion, he uses short quotes out of context from different times and different settings. Now are we to ignore the long history of evasion and fooling and other tapes contradicting this statement in terms of Hussein and his people talking about hiding their weapons and programs? Surely Parados, you are not so naive as to believe even the very first sentence describing Hussein, but even if we believe it, it may simply mean Hussein wanted to prove to the world they had no weapons even while they had them. Surely Parados, with your skill at debating, you could find plenty of holes in many of Hanley's statements, that is if you wanted to.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 10:10 pm
okie wrote:
"Compelled by suspected fallacies in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press story of the alleged slaughter of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri, Major Bateman presents an alternate explanation of the events through the perspective of the soldiers and their commanders, the 1948-50 South Korean civil war, and the broader state of U.S. military policy and force readiness. Focusing on extensive documentation from previously overlooked sources, his book attempts to debunk the AP allusion to a widespread massacre of civilians by U.S. forces at No Gun Ri and show how veterans who allegedly witnessed this event and influenced others were not even present."

The above is a direct quote from the link. You are correct, Parados, it says Major Bateman "attempts to debunk" the book by Hanley. I would think however that if the people that allegedly witnessed the event as written by Hanley were not even present, it sounds like his "attempt to debunk" may have been successful. And Bateman has extensive documentation in his "attempt to debunk." Okay, not proven, but suspicious.
"veterans who allegedly witnessed" doesn't say if it refers to every veteran or 2 out of 32,000. It is a vague statement.

Quote:
You see nothing in the piece by Hanley that is opinion? I need not go past the first sentence: "BAGHDAD, Iraq - 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." This is a sentence constructed by Hanley, not any quotes from a tape.
Really? Have you listened to the tape? Read the transcripts? I got the exasperation from the little bit of transpcrit quoted in another thread. Which part wasn't true? You don't believe they were exasperated or you don't believe they were under global pressure or you don't believe they were trying to prove to the world they had given up the weapons?

Quote:
To support this assertion, he uses short quotes out of context from different times and different settings. Now are we to ignore the long history of evasion and fooling and other tapes contradicting this statement in terms of Hussein and his people talking about hiding their weapons and programs?
Where is this tape talking about hiding?

Quote:
Surely Parados, you are not so naive as to believe even the very first sentence describing Hussein, but even if we believe it, it may simply mean Hussein wanted to prove to the world they had no weapons even while they had them.
It could mean that. Hanley doesn't say one way or the other. He only reports on the findings of US investigations that found there were none.
Quote:
Surely Parados, with your skill at debating, you could find plenty of holes in many of Hanley's statements, that is if you wanted to.
Perhaps you think the US decision that Saddam had no WMD was incorrect? But that doesn't change what they reported.

Saddam and his cohorts were under global pressure to prove they had no WMD. They were upset that they couldn't prove it. The US investigation found no WMD after Saddam was removed. There might be some complaints about Hanley's word choices but it isn't editorializing.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 07:14 am
I was going to answer, parados, but you're doing better than I can so..
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 10:15 am
parados wrote:

Where is this tape talking about hiding?



http://usconservatives.about.com/od/iraq/a/saddamtapes_3.htm

http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usconservatives&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fibd%2F20060225%2Fbs_ibd_ibd%2F2006224issues01

parados wrote:

There might be some complaints about Hanley's word choices but it isn't editorializing.

Whatayaknow, thats about the closest I've ever heard you come to any admission of ever being even slightly wrong!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 10:51 am
Okie, they were discussing whether they should disclose everything or keep silent, nothing about hiding weapons.


From your link in the CNN section
Quote:
"The question becomes, do we have to disclose everything or continue to keep silent?" Kamel said to Hussein. "I think it would be in our interest not to, because we don't want the world to know about what we possess because it has become clear to the countries who are forced to be allies of the U.S. that our position is untenable."



In the Duelfer report it did talk about some left over programs and scraps of weapons of which Saddam did not disclose.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Again from your link in the CNN section:

Quote:
Of the tapes, Duelfer said, "The tapes tend to reinforce, confirm, and to a certain extent, provide a bit more detail, the conclusions which we brought out in the report.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:19 am
revel wrote:
Okie, they were discussing whether they should disclose everything or keep silent, nothing about hiding weapons.


I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:14 pm
okie wrote:
revel wrote:
Okie, they were discussing whether they should disclose everything or keep silent, nothing about hiding weapons.


I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.


Oh please. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 08:11 pm
We've already suspected the Russians were in bed with Hussein, but this further confirms what was going on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11995121/

And then theres this about Iraqis planning terrorist acts in London among other places.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/009euijs.asp

And I agree with the last sentence in this report; "With each additional release of the Iraqi intelligence documents we learn more."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:04 pm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 03:44:40