Evidence that Saddam Hid the Weapons Emerges

[fossten]

Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005 12:15 p.m. EST
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida



Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.

In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."

Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.


Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:

• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)

• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents

• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam

• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002)

• Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)

Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:

• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity

• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq

• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals

• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims

• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.

It's possible, he writes, "that the 'Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity' was critical of one or another Taliban policies. But it's equally possible, given Uday's known role as a go-between for the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, that something more nefarious was afoot."

"What was discussed at the 'Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government' in November 2000? It could be something innocuous. Maybe not. But it would be nice to know more."

Hayes also notes that an additional treasure trove of evidence on Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaida may be lost forever.

"When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts," he reports.

"As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources."

 

[TheDude]

To bad the evidence didn't have a WMD treasure map with a bring red X pointing to were he hid them.

 

[fossten]

Keep on laughing - pretty soon the evidence will discredit you and all your anti-war pro-terrorist buddies.

 

[MonsterMark]

Keep on laughing - pretty soon the evidence will discredit you and all your anti-war pro-terrorist buddies.

And then Bush's poll numbers hit 90% favorable and he walks over to Congress and sticks his arm halfway up Kerry and Kennedys arses! LOL.

I hope this does not turn out to be one of those too good to be true things.

 

[TheDude]

Keep on laughing - pretty soon the evidence will discredit you and all your anti-war pro-terrorist buddies.

I would be happy if I were wrong, It would certainly make me feel better about the war and those who died.

Now, a question for you. What will you say if this new evidence doe's not lead to WMD's and they are never found?

 

[fossten]

If the evidence points to Syria, for example, then they've got to cough them up or we go in and get them. It's hard to say unless and until we actually go into Syria to find out.

 

[Vitas]

I would be happy if I were wrong, It would certainly make me feel better about the war and those who died.

Now, a question for you. What will you say if this new evidence doe's not lead to WMD's and they are never found?

The war was not about “finding” WMD. The war was about Sadaam not acting in good faith and showing the collective world that he did not have them. Why did he not comply with all the UN Resolutions? You tell us. It was his decision. It would really take the brain of a doughnut to think that he did not have them, and hid them, or sent them across the borders. He had at least four months to do so. Maybe you should find reasons to defend your own country instead of defending murderous, thieving criminals.

 

[TheDude]

The war was not about “finding” WMD. The war was about Sadaam not acting in good faith and showing the collective world that he did not have them. Why did he not comply with all the UN Resolutions? You tell us. It was his decision. It would really take the brain of a doughnut to think that he did not have them, and hid them, or sent them across the borders. He had at least four months to do so..

So I guess all those speeches on WMD's, satellite photos, intelligence reports, the immanent threat Saddam posed etc that Bush spoke about had nothing to do with attacking Iraq? Wow, is this similar to your "We're finding massive amounts of WMD's in terrorist" theory?

Maybe you should find reasons to defend your own country instead of defending murderous, thieving criminals.

I am defending Saddam, I must hate America.................. lol

 

[TheDude]

If the evidence points to Syria, for example, then they've got to cough them up or we go in and get them. It's hard to say unless and until we actually go into Syria to find out.

Sounds like a good plan, if he did send them to Syria, I hope we find them there, but you didn't answer my question.

'What will you say if this new evidence doe's not lead to WMD's and they are never found?'

You are certain that he had them, so that's why I ask. Every time I or someone else brings up the 'No WMD's were found' you get defensive and say that the proof was there, we just haven't found them. I've told you already that I would be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[mespock]

If the evidence points to Syria, for example, then they've got to cough them up or we go in and get them. It's hard to say unless and until we actually go into Syria to find out.

Hey! let's go invade Syria now. We have troop at there border. What do you all say! Gung Ho let do it. It will stop all the Terrorism. I'm with you Fossten. Come on let's leave those liberal wimps and go kick some more Arab @$$!! Are you with me! Let's show them who the Americans are!! Are you with me or are you to soft!

 

[Calabrio]

So I guess all those speeches on WMD's, satellite photos, intelligence reports, the immanent threat Saddam posed etc that Bush spoke about had nothing to do with attacking Iraq? Wow, is this similar to your "We're finding massive amounts of WMD's in terrorist" theory?

Hussein HAD chemical and biological weapons. We know that he HAD them, he had used them in the past. And in Desert Storm, the first Bush administration basically threatened a nuclear attack on Iraq if he were to use them. The question is, if we haven't found them, where did they go? They aren't something you can just "throw away."

One of the reasons used to support the claim was the Hussein was in possession of chemcial and bio weapons, and he had weapon programs in place with the goal of developing nuclear and other bio and chemical weapons. This has been proven.

Liberal Democrats have been dishonest when stating the argument about WMDs. We never said "Hussein has a nuke." It was that he was seeking out the means to build a nuke.

Would you rather we had waited until he had a nuke or readily able to launch a chemical attack on us before we invaded? Isn't it wiser to strike an enemy BEFORE they are fully armed?

The other thing is, WMDs were not the ONLY reason to support the war. In actual, Bush didn't push the WMD issue with the American people all that much. Not nearly as much as he relied on the humanitarian issue. I doubt anyone remembers this, but for most of the build up, the WMD angle wasn't maximized at all. I know, because I was pissed off that he was making a big enough issue of their weapons programs.

The war in Iraq is a strategic war. It's a defensive war. It's part of a broad, realist, foreign policy. It's not "just" because he wanted to build a nuke (which he did), it's not "just" just because he had stockpiles of disappearing chemical and biological weapons (which he had), he was state sponsor of terror (undeniable), located in a key strategic location in the Mid East, and it was (unfortunately overestimated) believed the infastructure and people of Iraq would be best capable of adapting to the democratic and western influences.

What would happen if Hussein did develop a nuclear weapon once France succeeded in ending the sanctions? What would we do if Hussein had the ability to kill 30,000 America troops as they crossed into Iraq with a primative atomic weapon?

This is what is so disgusting about the dissent surrounding this war. More accurately, the dissent that historically comes from the political left. It's based on lies. And it's also created by people who either have no understanding of history, nation politics, or they just chose to lie to the public because they think it's in their best interest. Either their well intentioned and stupid, or they are evil and know how manipulative they are.

I am defending Saddam, I must hate America.................. lol

No, but you are either, uninformed and well intentioned, or informed and a dishonest political opportunist.

I hope this story turns out to be accurate. Unfortunately, too many of these stories tend to evaporate after a few days.

Hey! let's go invade Syria now. We have troop at there border. What do you all say! Gung Ho let do it. It will stop all the Terrorism. I'm with you Fossten. Come on let's leave those liberal wimps and go kick some more Arab @$$!! Are you with me! Let's show them who the Americans are!! Are you with me or are you to soft!

Is your sarcasm meant to imply that you think any kind of military action should be off the table regarding Syria?

I think the administration is taking the right tact. Removing Hussein from power sent a strong message to other enemy state leaders. The application of soft power is being applied right now, and it's been working so far. When that fails, then military strength becomes an option.

Same as Iraq. Pressure was applied to Iraq, but Hussein wouldn't budge. He was confident he could rely on France and Russia to manipulate the corrupt UN into preventing any decisive action against him. He was wrong. America doesn't need a permission slip to defend its self interest.

 

[MarkOfDeath]

Hey! let's go invade Syria now. We have troop at there border. What do you all say! Gung Ho let do it. It will stop all the Terrorism. I'm with you Fossten. Come on let's leave those liberal wimps and go kick some more Arab @$$!! Are you with me! Let's show them who the Americans are!! Are you with me or are you to soft!

We could do the UN thing for 10+ years

 

[TheDude]

Calabrio,

I know Saddam HAD chemical weapons, he used them on his own people, the Kurds and Iran. The arguement (one of them) from the left is that the sanctions imposed on him after Desert Storm were working and he was disarming. No one argue's that he never had chemical or biological weapons ever, thousands killed by them prove it. Who do you think supported and helped supply him during the Iran-Iraq war those 8 years? I'll tell ya, we did.

 

[fossten]

Calabrio,

I know Saddam HAD chemical weapons, he used them on his own people, the Kurds and Iran. The arguement (one of them) from the left is that the sanctions imposed on him after Desert Storm were working and he was disarming. No one argue's that he never had chemical or biological weapons ever, thousands killed by them prove it. Who do you think supported and helped supply him during the Iran-Iraq war those 8 years? I'll tell ya, we did.

Wrong.

The argument from the left is that BUSH LIED TO GET US INTO WAR. Your 'argument from the left' about 'sanctions' is a joke, now that we know that virtually the entire U.N. was taking bribes from Hussein in return for vetoes.

Your statement about us helping supply him against Iran has nothing to do with either Bush president, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

You want to go be a witness and try to get Saddam off? Maybe put him back in power so he can torture and murder more people? Be my guest. Otherwise, stop defending him. It makes you look like a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio,

I know Saddam HAD chemical weapons, he used them on his own people, the Kurds and Iran. The arguement (one of them) from the left is that the sanctions imposed on him after Desert Storm were working and he was disarming.

But we KNOW this not to be true.

First of all, if he were actually "disarming" there would be evidence. These were chemical and biological weapons, they don't just disappear. If he had honestly disarmed, there would be ample paper work associated with the dismantling and disposal of the weapons we know he had.

And while his more ambitious weapon programs were relatively dormant, he was attempting to acquire the components necessary to ambitiously reactive the program once France succeeded in getting the sanctions lifted.

One more touch of liberal dishonesty- prior to the war, liberals were arguing AGAINST the policy of sanction and containment because they associated it with the death of 50,000 innocents every year because of starvation and inadequate medicine. All of a sudden, now, they supported the sanctions. A few months ago, they supported the war. The only thing consistant about the leadership of the political left is their political opportunism and their lack of integrity.

No one argue's that he never had chemical or biological weapons ever, thousands killed by them prove it. Who do you think supported and helped supply him during the Iran-Iraq war those 8 years? I'll tell ya, we did.

Russia and France actually.
Our primary contribution to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War was intelligence information. But in terms of munitions and money, our assistance was a single digit percentage of what he received.

Think about it, is his air force made up of F-16s or MiGs?
Are they firing M-16s, or Ak-47s.

This is really just another dishonest, liberal lie, that is picked up by people like you who just don't know better.

 

[TheDude]

But we KNOW this not to be true.

First of all, if he were actually "disarming" there would be evidence. These were chemical and biological weapons, they don't just disappear. If he had honestly disarmed, there would be ample paper work associated with the dismantling and disposal of the weapons we know he had.

And while his more ambitious weapon programs were relatively dormant, he was attempting to acquire the components necessary to ambitiously reactive the program once France succeeded in getting the sanctions lifted.

One more touch of liberal dishonesty- prior to the war, liberals were arguing AGAINST the policy of sanction and containment because they associated it with the death of 50,000 innocents every year because of starvation and inadequate medicine. All of a sudden, now, they supported the sanctions. A few months ago, they supported the war. The only thing consistant about the leadership of the political left is their political opportunism and their lack of integrity..

We're just going to have to wait I guess, Like you said, weapons don't just disappear. Unless he shipped them as someone said 'in invisible trucks' and their still in those trucks. I hope your intel is correct and we do find them. Will I hold my breath for it? No.

Russia and France actually.
Our primary contribution to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War was intelligence information. But in terms of munitions and money, our assistance was a single digit percentage of what he received.

Think about it, is his air force made up of F-16s or MiGs?
Are they firing M-16s, or Ak-47s.

This is really just another dishonest, liberal lie, that is picked up by people like you who just don't know better.

Intelligence information is the BEST weapon, we are as guilty as the rest. Apparently anything negative about Bush, conservatives, republicans is a liberal lie.

 

[fossten]

Apparently anything negative about Bush, conservatives, republicans is a liberal lie.

There you go again, with your improper generalization. There is no evidence in this or any other thread that what you just asserted is true.

Come on, dude. You just said you hope we find the WMDs. Aren't you ready to back off your "BUSH LIED" stance now? Enough is enough. It's okay to admit the truth. We stand with open arms ready to accept you into the brotherhood of truth.

:W

 

[TheDude]

There you go again, with your improper generalization. There is no evidence in this or any other thread that what you just asserted is true.

It was partly sarcasm, but come on, you're the king of quotes like 'Fiberals', 'Democrat Congressworms' 'Liberal Media' and there are plenty more expletives I can't think of.

Come on, dude. You just said you hope we find the WMDs. Aren't you ready to back off your "BUSH LIED" stance now? Enough is enough. It's okay to admit the truth. We stand with open arms ready to accept you into the brotherhood of truth.

I do hope we find the WMD's, it would restore some faith in this admin for me. But I'm not holding my breath.

I won't flat out say Bush lied anymore; it would be extremely hard to prove that he lied even if he did. In all honesty, you can't really say with 100% certainty that Bush did not willingly lie about anything pertaining to Iraq. But the decisions he made and how he used the information is another story.

If solid proof comes out that the Bush admin falsified or misused information to coerce the general public into supporting the war, I am fairly certain Bush will use the 'I was tricked' routine as his defense. Wouldn't it be funny (not in a haha way) if this happened? Imagine the threads in here.

Even though the darkside has a strong pull, I will not join.... Monstermark tried to convert Raven, you shall not convert me.

 

[fossten]

It was partly sarcasm, but come on, you're the king of quotes like 'Fiberals', 'Democrat Congressworms' 'Liberal Media' and there are plenty more expletives I can't think of.



I do hope we find the WMD's, it would restore some faith in this admin for me. But I'm not holding my breath.

I won't flat out say Bush lied anymore; it would be extremely hard to prove that he lied even if he did. In all honesty, you can't really say with 100% certainty that Bush did not willingly lie about anything pertaining to Iraq. But the decisions he made and how he used the information is another story.

If solid proof comes out that the Bush admin falsified or misused information to coerce the general public into supporting the war, I am fairly certain Bush will use the 'I was tricked' routine as his defense. Wouldn't it be funny (not in a haha way) if this happened? Imagine the threads in here.

Even though the darkside has a strong pull, I will not join.... Monstermark tried to convert Raven, you shall not convert me.

LOL - Fair enough. Well said.

 

[fossten]

Lol

I just heard a heated debate on the radio between Sean Hannity and Dem Lib Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Hannity read a quote, presumably from George W. Bush, from 2002 talking about how we needed to disarm Saddam because of his WMDs:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

He then asked Kucinich if it was a lie or not. Kucinich started ranting that of course it was a lie, the administration falsely misrepresented the facts about Iraq to take us to war, etc.

Then Hannity said, "There's just one problem, Congressman. The quote I read to you wasn't said by George W. Bush. It was said by Senator Hillary Clinton. Did she lie?"

You should have heard Kucinich backtracking! He was LITERALLY hemming and hawing! He stammered something about Bush deceiving the Congress, but Hannity kept boring in: "How can you say that if Bush said those words it's a lie, but if Hillary said them then it's not a lie?" Then he said, "You've been CHECKMATED, Congressman!"

It was HILARIOUS. Some of the best radio I've ever heard.

 

[Calabrio]

Intelligence information is the BEST weapon, we are as guilty as the rest. Apparently anything negative about Bush, conservatives, republicans is a liberal lie.

Providing intelligence information is far different than the claim advanced my most poorly informed liberals who like to insist that Hussein's military was a creation of the American Government.

I don't mind reading negative facts about the Republicans, however reading the same old lies and distortions gets really tiresome. There are honest criticisms that need to be made directed at the government. They aren't partisan. And when they are made they are done with the intention of strengthening the country, not picking up a couple seats in the senate.

 

[Vitas]

So I guess all those speeches on WMD's, satellite photos, intelligence reports, the immanent threat Saddam posed etc that Bush spoke about had nothing to do with attacking Iraq? Wow, is this similar to your "We're finding massive amounts of WMD's in terrorist" theory?

I am defending Saddam, I must hate America.................. lol

The issue here gets down to whether you want to discuss, in good faith, together, or whether you want to talk "at." You decide.

 

[TheDude]

As far as this thread is concerned, we will have to wait what this new evidence leads to in my opinion. Personally, I do not have the faith in the Bush admin that it will and that it will be swept under the rug.

 

[Vitas]

As far as this thread is concerned, we will have to wait what this new evidence leads to in my opinion. Personally, I do not have the faith in the Bush admin that it will and that it will be swept under the rug.

This thread has nothing to do with it. There are profoundly logical reasons about what is happening. Do you want to, in good faith, discuss, or do you want to rant? P.S. Given your previous answer, you will have to enunciate clearly that you are acting in good faith. Otherwise, why would anyone spend the time.......

 

[mespock]

Is your sarcasm meant to imply that you think any kind of military action should be off the table regarding Syria?

Who said I'm being sarcastic.. You have won me over... am I not good enough to be on your side.

Hey good friend, I'm with you.. We can't let these guy have the run of the world.. We need to go in and take them over while we can. I'd sure hate to see what would happen if Hillary gets in. Damn we'd just pull out before and end this great opportunity to take out the evil in Syria, and maybe even Iran. We'll can set up strong US friendly governments in Syria and Iran, plus build a great cushion for Israel. Then they can take out those Palestinian bastards that blow themselves up in the Israeli markets.

I am with you... Let's get them while we are strong and have the support of congress. That's what we have to do. The more we control the middle east the safer we are. I am with you. 100%

Sarcastic hell thanks for the support!