Saddam's Documents
Posted March 29th, 2008 by Da King
Remember those 600,000 pages of Iraqi documents that were found during Operation Iraqi Freedom ? Some, but not all, have now been translated, and the Department Of Defense (DOD) has published redacted versions online, along with conclusions about Saddam's links to terrorism.
The venerable Grey Lady, the leading light of liberal print media, the New York Times, reported on the findings with the following headline: "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link".
So there you have it. Bush lied, kids died. Damn neocons. End of story. Nothing more to see here. Let's move on. What do you guys want for dinner - pizza, Chinese, or what ? Vote for Obama !
Well, actually, there is ONE little teensy weensy problem with the conclusions of the New York al Times, which is…
THEY ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
Far from proving that Saddam didn't have ties to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, the documents proved the exact opposite. They proved Saddam DID have terrorist ties aplenty. Here's the report's abstract summary:
Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
That sounds quite different from the al Times "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link", doesn't it ? This is why you can NEVER depend on the liberal media to report the truth. NEVER. They are not there to report the truth, they are there to create their own truth. There is a word for that. It's called 'propaganda.' If you get one lesson from this blog, get that. Find the real truth, not the swill they dish out.
Ken Timmerman details some of Saddam's specific ties to terrorism here. Following is a sample:
One of the most damning documents to emerge from the Harmony data base, I wrote, was a Jan. 18, 1993 order from Saddam Hussein, transmitted to the head of Iraqi intelligence, “to hunt the Americans that are in Arab lands, especially in Somalia, by using Arab elements or Asian (Muslims) or friends.”
In response, the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed Hussein that Iraq already had ties with a large number of international terrorist groups, including “the Islamist Arab elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and [currently] have no place to base and are physically present in Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.” In other words, al-Qaida.
The authors of the IDA study note that Saddam’s Iraq “was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism,” and that these particular documents provided ‘detailed evidence of that support.'”
The study also points out that the captured documents “reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior” to the 2003 war.
But the study shies away from identifying them as al-Qaida terrorists, even though many of them were members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, whose leader, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, became the deputy leader of al-Qaida in 1998.
Saddam was a terrorist supporter and a terrorist himself. They were doing much more than flying kites in Iraq prior to the american invasion.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Of course Saddam had terrorist links. I dont need the NYT or anyone to tell me one way or the other on that. Do I think he had ahand in 9/11? No. But the fact he had major links with major terrorist groups is fairly clear.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:20 am
My intuition tells me that Bush Jr. also was motivated by the fact that Saddam had tried to have Bush Jr's. padre assassinated, and in a monarchical way, (as "royalists" who operate within their close family group and with loyalists who profit from remaining loyal—all within a closed system, more or less, above the "little peoples" consent) AND, because Bush Jr., in a sense, was in a sort of siblingish rivalry with his bro' Jeb, to prove he was the more loving son, by "getting" Saddam—all this added up to a war that has permanently maimed more than 30,000 of OUR children, and killed more than 4,000 of said same (shortly, probably today more will die).
I imagine that within the Bush Family, the psychological reasoning I've laid out rings true and is why Bush Sr. disapproved of Bush Jr. initiating a war against Saddam because Bush Sr. knew his son's deepest motivations and knew the entanglement would be disastrous. He knows Bush Jr. is impetuous and tends to be insensed (read: petulant and angry) when his ideas are not followed strictly by those loyalists surrounding his "Heiness". Bush Sr. knows his son, having observed him all his life. I imagine when Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton got "buddy-buddy", they spoke a bit about this character flaw of Bush Jr's. Only a guess, though.
Witness that when Powell was "proving" the connection by reading what he was supposed to read to the riveted listening multitudes, although he knew deep inside that it all was an expedient lie as he spoke. Hence, he quit the public life.
Not to mention the untold thousands of Iraqis who have died for "our" cause (no real estimate exists since tracking the numbers is "impossible" and, of course, serves the political purpose of hiding the casualties we have caused, as well). Some estimates range from 100,000 Iraqis killed to 1 million.
So sad. This area (Iraq) was the "fertile crescent", where much of civilization evolved on the path to Europe and eventually, to the shores of North America. Certainly these people love their children, too.
Of course, my intuitive thinking is not valued—but I feel I am right in the deepest marrow of my bones.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:44 am
My left elbow tells me your right, Rebecca, but my trick knee is leaning toward Da King's point.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Very good comment Rebecca. Very well said.
Ben: Of course you don't need anyone to tell you about Saddam's invisible and undocumented ties to terrorism folks. Your mind is already made up. Was it made up before Bush began his fraud-up or after?
King: Your own link states this….
"While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network,.."
To me, you see, that's the story. No connection with the 9-11 group. None. And it was the connection with the 9-11 group that matters here. Not that Saddam was a bad guy.
Bush/Cheney used a bogus connection with al-Qaeda to sell their propagandized war of choice. That's the only consequential point of any discussion about Saddam, American pre-emptive choices, and Bush's Iraq quagmire.
Once again, for the umpteenth time….the point of contention, the crux of the fraud…..was not that Saddam was a bad guy with a bad history….but instead did Saddam's Iraq pose an imminent threat to the U.S.A.? He didn't…..thus the fraud…..which included the bogus connection to al-Qaeda. A bogus connection that even your post link agrees is…..still bogus.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
The plan laid out by the administration after 9/11 was to change the political dynamics in the Middle East by eliminating states that sponsored terrorism–the "with us or against us" stuff. It was stated clearly many times.
It made more sense than a simple revenge killing of Osama, which is what lefties have been stupidly advocating as of utmost importance the last couple years. I'd guess they've deluded themselves into believing it by now.
And how come Rebecca's intuition is so much better than Ben's, Reverend?
March 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
1. Rebecca says, "Certainly these people [Muslims] love their children, too."
Sure they do. That's why they get them the best suicide belts possible. It is also why they perpetuate an environment of hate & violence throughout their societies. And because they love their children so much, Muslims, especially of the Arab type, treat half of their children [the female ones] like dogs. Yea, it all adds up.
2. Larry D wonders, "And how come Rebecca's intuition is so much better than Ben's, Reverend?"
Answer: Maybe the answer is that she's a woman and Ben isn't.
But aside from Rebecca's "feelings," there were real & serious geopolitical reasons for going into Iraq. It can be argued that the war was a mistake, but only a fool could not recognized the points that were made for the war and instead come up with kook theories such as hers.
3. Say, if memory serves, didn't this Rebecca throw a hissy fit a while ago and say she was leaving this site? Maybe this is a different Rebecca, huh? I don't think so.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Here we go again. It is well documented that the Bush administration was seeking an excuse to invade Iraq before they took office. They needed no connection to 9/11. It was the first step in the PNAC plan to establish world hegemony. It's about oil and permanent military bases in the middle east.
After 9/11, it was imperative that we destroy bin Laden and his followers, providing a deterrent for any terrorist wannabes.
bin Laden wanted two specific things: he wanted UStroops out of Saudia Arabia and he wanted the US bogged down in a war which would drain our economy. It looks like he got both.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Ghost—In any society, there are good and bad people—everyone loves their children (almost). Do I need to point out the obvious to you all the time? I am sure there are those in Iraq who hate their government, don't condone suicide bombers, etc.
Reread my post—I said that, Bush was "also motivated by…" meaning these papers cited as "proof" were part of the motivation by him, in addition to my intuitive thoughts. Oh, and my thoughts, too, are supported by "evidence " that I cited, that I am sure you refute.
America treats its' women pretty awful, too, in some ways. I won't use this space to list all the ways, nor get into that battle with you, who obviously has little experince being a woman.
You never know when I'm commenting anymore, Ghost—I never left the sight, just this time, I used my name, by accident regettably.
As far as "hissy" fit—whatever the hell that means, I think men do more "hissy" fitting—I see it all over the place on this blog—it's just called something else that doesn't emasculate you—"standing up for yourself", "stating your opinion", "taking a stand"—
And judging by the way you treat me when I comment, I am very glad I am not your daughter, or your wife, or even your son, for that matter.
Don't intimate that I am a kook, because I am not.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
One other thing, Ghost—Was it you that I called a fornicating buttocks orifice, or your homeboy Da King?
I stand by my discription still.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
that crazy kook of a woman Says:
"America treats it's women pretty awful too, in some ways."
Everybody in America gets treated badly at some time or another, but to equate that with the treatment women receive under islamic law?
If that's what you had in mind, you simply cannot be taken seriously. How women are treated in America, and how they are treated in islamic countries is as different as night is from day.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:41 am
Rev Red, you have never wanted to believe in those documents that have been worked on for years but by a shorthanded group since this nation isn't full of people who can translate Arabic to English. It will probably be years before the proper ones are translated but it is coming. I just hope we old people can be around when it does come and that I know where you are so I can point out how ridiculous you usually sound trying to make things like these documents anything but true. You do still have your supporters so make sure you never stop trying.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:47 am
Roy,
I knew the Rev would cherry pick that one sentence out of the groups conclusions and ignore the rest. That's what the NYT did as well. No surprise there whatsoever. That was the reason I wrote my post, to expose the dishonesty of it.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:51 am
larry d,
Did you happen to see CIA head Hayden on Meet The Press yesterday ? He talked about Bin Laden a little. He said that while they were still trying to find Bin Laden, that capturing him wouldn't change anything in the battle against Al Qaeda, because Bin Laden isn't operationally involved anymore, he's more of an iconic figurehead. Most of the operational persons running Al Qaeda are Al Masri out of Egypt now.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:49 am
Crazy says,
1) "And judging by the way you treat me when I comment, I am very glad I am not your daughter, or your wife."
I second that point. Do I ever. And I doubt that I'm not alone in expressing such a sentiment.
2) "Don't intimate that I am a kook, because I am not."
No, no, you're not a kook, Crazy. Perish the thought. It's just that kook ideas flow out of you as naturally as a bird flies.
3) "You never know when I'm commenting anymore, Ghost—I never left the sight [site], just this time, I used my name, by accident regettably."
It's pretty obvous when you post, Crazy. There a certain element of — shall we say — irrationality in your messages that even some of the Dims here couldn't take, and that's saying something. .
4) "America treats its' women pretty awful, too, in some ways."
Ah, the old victim game. Can't let B. Hussein Obama have a monopoly on victim status, can we? Oh no, the fems have got to get their share, too. [This is ironically; it is exactly this politics of identity & victimhood that is now tearing the Dims apart. Sweet!]
+++
But there is good news for Rebecca. Her candidate, Comrade Hillary, is still in the race. The old battleaxe won't concede, and there’s a decent chance (30% or so) that she will actually succeed in stealing the nomination from BO.
Go Hil, go!
March 31st, 2008 at 7:02 am
I missed it, King.
I'm sure the Reverend thinks Hayden's just a Bush lackey who lies but it's pretty obvious that killing any one man won't make that much of a difference in regard to terrorism. It's a social issue as much as a police issue, and the root causes have as much to do with the governments over there as with the imams.
Iraq might still be a big mistake but at least it is an effort at changing the big picture in the Middle East. It seems like Bush is the only one who remembers the big picture these days, to his credit. The two democratic candidates seem to think history has stopped.
The deficit worries me but when I think of my grandkids the thing that really scares me is what is going to happen in the Middle East when we finally stop buying oil from those maniacs and they simultaneously run out of water.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:11 am
The NY Times not reporting the truth? I'm not sure if they have any credibility left, to lose? I sense they'll do another smear hit on General Petraeus, in the upcoming weeks, and finalize their fate.
We'll hear the talk about the WMD's, but I agree with many responses above that world stability should be our primary concern. The libs talk of unity, but why can't we seem to agree on the much important issue of national security? While our soldiers march on, they seem to be content serving as Al-Jazeera cheerleaders. Is securing the White House more important than protecting our population?
March 31st, 2008 at 8:22 am
Ghost—It is not a "victim" game; it is true still that certain groups are left out of the big picture—yes, ghost, we do have it much, MUCH better than the majority of women in other places, and yet, good paying jobs are elusive for us, (as they are now for men, too) but women still only make 77 cents for each dollar a man makes for the same work—and so many of us have either gotten ourselves out of abusive marriages (another symptom of patriarchy where men retain the power and are valued above women) or other situations–
I digress from the main topic, now—another female trait where we think out of both sides of our brain simultaneously intead of just the dominant side, and flow in our conversations from one topic to another other—sorry.
Now, the questions is…am I welcome here to add a feminine side to this blog or should I just acquiesce and allow only you guys to comment?
Oh ya, Ghost—I haven't commented on this blog by my name nor any other name ( my bad) since I left when you guys "beat me up" about my comments. It is many other blogs that I comment on, not just the ABJ.
Ghost—do you desire a world where all people are honored and are loving toward one another?—is that a goal of yours in your life and your grandchildrens' lives or do you really enjoy perpetual warfare?
Honestly—and, also—I'm tougher than you think–all it takes is one bomb and the situaiton that warrants using it—Believe you me, I would make a fabulous soldier in the right circumstances. No mercy here.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Crazy Kook of a Woman says,
"Honestly—and, also—I'm tougher than you think–all it takes is one bomb and the situaiton that warrants using it—Believe you me, I would make a fabulous soldier in the right circumstances. No mercy here."
The Ghost replies, "Wasn't 9-11 enough to get you going?"
March 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I think Rebecca fits in quite nicely.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:22 am
"Iraq might still be a big mistake but at least it is an effort at changing the big picture in the Middle East. It seems like Bush is the only one who remembers the big picture these days, to his credit. The two democratic candidates seem to think history has stopped."
It's in paragraphs like these that larry, my friend and fellow commenter, goes off into the wild blue yonder.
Changing the big picture? Surely you don't believe that. The big picture now looks worse than it did. Not better. And it will stay that way for a long time…thanks to big picture Bush.
In larry's fairy tale version of events….Commander Codpiece, ever brilliant in his foresight, sold his war of choice(while allowing Bin Laden to go free) on the basis of WMD, pilotless drones attacking the east coast, al-Qaeda/Saddam connections, mushroom clouds, etc….BUT….his real reason for fraudulently selling the war of choice, the reason Americans never heard because he didn't tell us, was because, in his brilliant foresight, he saw the bigger picture. Like a wise daddy making sh*t up because his little children can't understand the bigger picture.
George W. Bush…..the wise prophetic sage.
Facts, naturally, frame a different story…but no matter….Bush was a man lightyears ahead of his peers. Jesus.
Additionally, making totally ignorant and silly excuses for not taking down Bin Laden, Zawahiri and the main players in al-Qaeda, the guys who attacked us, are just as misguided as saying Bush saw some bigger picture.
Somehow , in wingnut logic, we're supposed to believe that Bin Laden's continuing to be free…..is of no consequence. You know, Bin Laden is so little picture.
It would all be like if I said….the nuclear annihilation of Africa may still be a mistake but at least it addressed the bigger picture of HIV.
Total detachment from reality in order to hang on to one's own mistaken beliefs.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
***Total detachment from reality in order to hang on to one's own mistaken beliefs.***
Let me re-aim those words so they hit Rev Red. They have so aptly described him, for me, for years and years. Nice shot Red.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
That's right, roy.
I'm rubber and you're glue, Reverend.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 am
larry d,
The Rev gave his predictable response, but I think you're right. The Democrat candidates are acting not only as if the world has stopped, but as if the realities in Iraq and the Middle East don't even exist.
To the Dem candidates credit (or even deeper discredit, depending on your viewpoint), I think their Iraq views are phony, just made up to placate the anti-war folks for votes. Hillary and Barack can't be as senseless as they're acting on the campaign trail.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 am
Well they've got to keep the Reverend happy I suppose.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Hillary and Barack are acting "senseless" by speaking the truth about Bush's trumped up phony war and how America needs to cut it's losses.
I suppose over 60% of the nation is "senseless" as well.
The reality of Iraq is that there is nothing our military can "win" there and only more despair to gain.
Neo-cons and extremists refuse to accept that "sensible" reality.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
So then, Rev, what do you think would happen if the USA just up and left Iraq ? Tell me what the "sensible" aftermath would be. Who would rush in to fill the enormous security gap ? Iran maybe ? What good would come of that ? Can you think beyond your "neocon" labeling ?
April 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Iraq was a Shi-ite majority nation held tightly down by Saddam. Iran is a Shi-ite nation.
Taking out Saddam was a mistake. It made our situation in the middle east worse….not better.
Let the Iraqis fish or cut bait. 5 years is already too long.
The neo-con labeling is central to the entire discussion here.
It is the neo-cons who have proved themselves to be traitorous national and international criminals. It doesn't matter whether those who buy into the neo-doctrine believe that or not.
It's just the way it is.
Bush/Cheney are responsible for the purposeless deaths of 4000 American soldiers and at least 100,000 Iraqis. All for nothing.
Convene the International Criminal Court.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Rev,
Amen
April 8th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Rev,
I guess you CAN'T think beyond the neocon labeling, because you sidestepped my question, with your only tangential response being, "let the Iraqis fish or cut bait". In other words, you'd abandon america's word to the Iraqi government and people, and thrust that country straight back into chaos without a second thought, thus making sure that all those americans and iraqis died for nothing. Nice policy.