Portal to Intelligence Documents

[Yonivore]

The Foreign Military Studies Office (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm) has a website which allows the public to examine and search translated documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- and much else. Links to a wide range of analytical products (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products.htm) are also provided.

Apparently, Fox News is the only mainstream media outlet with enough curiosity to start poring over this cache of documents. Guess what they've already found?

Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html)

Go ahead, poke around yourselves...you can't do any worse than the rest of the Mainstream media...which is nothing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=

interesting article on the fabrication and use of knowingly false information leading up to the war. Bush actually chose to not present the contradictory opinions. Seems to me I 'm right about him withholding intel..

[George Gervin's Afro]

The Foreign Military Studies Office (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm) has a website which allows the public to examine and search translated documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- and much else. Links to a wide range of analytical products (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products.htm) are also provided.

Apparently, Fox News is the only mainstream media outlet with enough curiosity to start poring over this cache of documents. Guess what they've already found?

Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html)

Go ahead, poke around yourselves...you can't do any worse than the rest of the Mainstream media...which is nothing.


I have actually read part of it and there is an awful lot of 'maybes' about the so called relationships and information uncovered.

[Yonivore]

I have actually read part of it and there is an awful lot of 'maybes' about the so called relationships and information uncovered.
Gee, you have zero evidence that George W. Bush lied about anything and, yet, you're convinced he did. A maybe should have you calling for Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.

[Yonivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=

interesting article on the fabrication and use of knowingly false information leading up to the war. Bush actually chose to not present the contradictory opinions. Seems to me I 'm right about him withholding intel..
You do know these are documents being uncovered after the fact, right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee, you have zero evidence that George W. Bush lied about anything and, yet, you're convinced he did. A maybe should have you calling for Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.


for the last time withholding information is just as bad as lying.. if the case was so rock solid then why use bad information? you have ignored this question again. That's fine I have provided you with proof the man withheld information in making the case for a war and you do not seem to have any problem with it. I may put you on my ignore list from here on out..

[Yonivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=

interesting article on the fabrication and use of knowingly false information leading up to the war. Bush actually chose to not present the contradictory opinions. Seems to me I 'm right about him withholding intel..
Can't speak to your NYSlime article but here's what the CIA (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf) was saying in October of 2002:


How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.

Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.

Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year.

[Yonivore]

for the last time withholding information is just as bad as lying.. if the case was so rock solid then why use bad information? you have ignored this question again. That's fine I have provided you with proof the man withheld information in making the case for a war and you do not seem to have any problem with it. I may put you on my ignore list from here on out..
Proof? Where? A New York Times article?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can't speak to your NYSlime article but here's what the CIA (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf) was saying in October of 2002:


Amazing how yesterday you were using the NYT as a reference mocking me to provide a Times article to refute yours yet now the NYT is slime.. your as bad as the people on talk radio..

[Yonivore]

Here's a competing article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml

[George Gervin's Afro]

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public

[Yonivore]

Then this from the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053) in early 2003:


Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes of higher tensile strength than is needed in conventional weapons has been brushed aside by the IAEA's Mohammed El-Baradei. He claims there is no proof that these tubes were intended for modification and use in centrifuges to make enriched uranium. Yet he fails to report that Iraq has the machining equipment to thin these tubes down to the required thickness (less than one millimeter) for an efficient centrifuge rotor. What's more, they don't find it suspect that Iraq did not deliver all the computer controlled machining equipment that it imported from the British-based, Iraqi-owned Matrix-Churchill that manufacture these units.

So, apparently, there isn't universal agreement over what the tubes could or could not have been used for.

Your "proof" evaporates.

[Yonivore]

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public
Take my two articles; proof of an ongoing nuclear program buried in the back yards of Iraqi scientists and proof that Iraqi had the capability to modify said tubes to be used for a nuclear program and I believe your claim is trumped.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then this from the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053) in early 2003:



So, apparently, there isn't universal agreement over what the tubes could or could not have been used for.

Your "proof" evaporates.


SO THEN WHY USE IT AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR ? Why not tell America that your proof has been disputed even by your own scientists? that has been my question from the begining? If you are ok with the Preseident cherry picking information to go to war then we are all in trouble.

[boutons_]

"lied about anything"

lies can be of commission, or of omission. It's obvious to any intelligent person of good faith that WHIG omitted/suppressed all doubts about Iraq "evidence" used to justify the invasion and start a war.

The WHIG acted in criminal, impeachably bad faith by omitting and suppressing serious doubts in the intelligence community about every single bit of "evidence" against Iraq.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Take my two articles; proof of an ongoing nuclear program buried in the back yards of Iraqi scientists and proof that Iraqi had the capability to modify said tubes to be used for a nuclear program and I believe your claim is trumped.


This reminds of dick cheney's interview on Meet The Press. Russert replayed a statement he made " Iraq had an active WMD program and reconstituted their nuclear weapons program"..

When confronted Cheney said he misspoke he meant to say "they had the 'intent' to reconstitute their wmds program". I almost fell out of my chair... :spless: dick cheney made a case for war saying they had an active program to then casually say he simply misspoke.. again just another long line of coincedences

[Yonivore]

Here's the CIA's post-invasion response to critics of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

It doesn't specifically address the aluminum tubes issue but, it does speak to other "myths" about the findings in that document.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html

[Yonivore]

This reminds of dick cheney's interview on Meet The Press. Russert replayed a statement he made " Iraq had an active WMD program and reconstituted their nuclear weapons program"..

When confronted Cheney said he misspoke he meant to say "they had the 'intent' to reconstitute their wmds program". I almost fell out of my chair when dick cheney made a case for war saying they had an active program to then casually say he simply misspoke.. again just another long line of coincedences
Apparently they did have an active WMD program. What's your point? And, please, in the future, provide exact quotes with sources.

[Yonivore]

Read all the links on this page and tell me Saddam Hussein wasn't still pursuing a Nuclear Bomb.

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

Nevermind the mounting proof of other prohibited weapons.

[boutons_]

Iraq was presented as an immediate threat to the USA, where the ONLY option was immediate invasion and war.

In the context of the al-Quaida threat and the on-going (and now unraveling) war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq was totally unjusitified.

Going after Saddam was already a done decision in 2000 before the Repugs were even elected. Lots of people in the intelligence community had the consensus impression that the the Repug war was decision already made, and the intelligence community was to provide supporting evidence, NOT to provide balanced evidence for and against.

The Fox news "conclusion" still does not excuse the invasion, nor the incredible incompetence in planning and execution (assumption: "welcomed with open arms", NOT a multi-year insurgency, "stuff happens").

[Yonivore]

Then, there's this post-invasion story by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html

If they didn't have the capability of producing nuclear weapons how can the IAEA say that materials capable of producing nuclear weapons, that were there before the invasion, went missing after the invasion?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Read all the links on this page and tell me Saddam Hussein wasn't still pursuing a Nuclear Bomb.

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

Nevermind the mounting proof of other prohibited weapons.



U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

*** Excerpt ***

QUESTION: Maybe this is another question that you won't like. There's a story, I believe in the Post this morning, suggesting that the Iraqis have not done very much since December to reconstitute their weapons of mass destruction. What do you have to say about that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, let me say that that isn't a question I don't like, and I, in fact, enjoyed your question as well, as I enjoy all the questions here in the briefing room. Sometimes I enjoy them and don't like them at the same time. Because I'm the spokesman for the State Department, I'm capable of holding those two thoughts in my head.

But in response to your question, the only effective means for the international community to know whether Iraq is taking steps to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program is to have inspectors on the ground with the right to visit all sites. We need expert UN weapons inspectors on the ground with full Iraqi cooperation, as required under Security Council resolutions, for us to have high confidence that there is credible arms control in Iraq. Those Security Council resolutions haven't changed. The problem is Iraq's refusal to do what the Council - that's the entire world, through the Council - has directed it to do.

With respect to our ability to monitor outside of inspections, let me say that it is limited; that the only really effective way is to have inspections. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we have no reason to believe there have been significant efforts to reconstitute their weapons of mass destruction programs.

[Yonivore]

Here, read this too.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

[Yonivore]

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

*** Excerpt ***

QUESTION: Maybe this is another question that you won't like. There's a story, I believe in the Post this morning, suggesting that the Iraqis have not done very much since December to reconstitute their weapons of mass destruction. What do you have to say about that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, let me say that that isn't a question I don't like, and I, in fact, enjoyed your question as well, as I enjoy all the questions here in the briefing room. Sometimes I enjoy them and don't like them at the same time. Because I'm the spokesman for the State Department, I'm capable of holding those two thoughts in my head.

But in response to your question, the only effective means for the international community to know whether Iraq is taking steps to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program is to have inspectors on the ground with the right to visit all sites. We need expert UN weapons inspectors on the ground with full Iraqi cooperation, as required under Security Council resolutions, for us to have high confidence that there is credible arms control in Iraq. Those Security Council resolutions haven't changed. The problem is Iraq's refusal to do what the Council - that's the entire world, through the Council - has directed it to do.

With respect to our ability to monitor outside of inspections, let me say that it is limited; that the only really effective way is to have inspections. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we have no reason to believe there have been significant efforts to reconstitute their weapons of mass destruction programs.
Not a very definitive statement on Rubin's part; "no reason to believe." And, in light of discoveries since that statement, I say we now have reason to believe.

[Yonivore]

Here, let me make it easy on you.

Post some definitive proof -- not disputed or over which reasonable people could disagree -- that between the November 2002 NIE and the March 2003 invasion Iraq was not engaged in a nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons development.

[Yonivore]

Remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

[George Gervin's Afro]

Remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/


U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

I seem to rememebr all of the dire predictions of 45 minute strike capabilities to mushroom clouds.. yet we found 12 yr old plans buried in a yard that justify the war? Of course even our govt said this was not evidence of one.. I am tired of conversing with you when you ignore obvious half-truths by bush and his cronies.. it's very simple..Bush did not give the American people the whole story ,which I think we can both agree, concerning the 'evidence' of iraq's wmds program. If you are ok with any president sending us to war and not giving us ALL of the information necessary to make that decision then you are a sad American.

In the court of law many people are sent to prison based soley on circumstantial evidence.. no smoking gun.. there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that bush withheld information.. this is it. I am done with this topic.

[Yonivore]

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

I seem to rememebr all of the dire predictions of 45 minute strike capabilities to mushroom clouds.. yet we found 12 yr old plans buried in a yard that justify the war? Of course even our govt said this was not evidence of one.. I am tired of conversing with you when you ignore obvious half-truths by bush and his cronies.. it's very simple..Bush did not give the American people the whole story ,which I think we can both agree, concerning the 'evidence' of iraq's wmds program. If you are ok with any president sending us to war and not giving us ALL of the information necessary to make that decision then you are a sad American.

In the court of law many people are sent to prison based soley on circumstantial evidence.. no smoking gun.. there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that bush withheld information.. this is it. I am done with this topic.
Again, proof mounts that Iraq had nuclear designs (again, not to mention all his other illegal and extra-UNSC Resolution activities THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN) and you want a dotted i and crossed t to prove it. However, with the President, you're willing to call him a liar based on nothing more than...well...nothing.

You're a hypocrite. A Bush-hating hypocrite at that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Again, proof mounts that Iraq had nuclear designs (again, not to mention all his other illegal and extra-UNSC Resolution activities THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN) and you want a dotted i and crossed t to prove it. However, with the President, you're willing to call him a liar based on nothing more than...well...nothing.

You're a hypocrite. A Bush-hating hypocrite at that.


I'm sorry if I expect my President to be honest about we have to rush into a war that has turned out to be completely unecessary. At the very least I can think for myself.. and not rely on right wing websites to do my thinking for me..

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry if I expect my President to be honest about we have to rush into a war that has turned out to be completely unecessary. At the very least I can think for myself.. and not rely on right wing websites to do my thinking for me..
Obviously we disagree on whether or not the war was unnecessary and, to be sure, reasonable people can disagree on that point. However, you've yet to provide one iota of proof that the President or his administration deliberately misled the country or Congress on their justification for the use of force in Iraq.

In fact, this is what the President said right AFTER Congress voted to approve the use of military force in Iraq...so, you can't blame their vote on the President lying about Iraq having nuclear weapons:


Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

[Yonivore]

Here, I'll do you one better. I'll quote an article that is critical of the President's decision to invade Iraq to show that there was, at the time, reasonable disagreement over what the evidence did or did not prove about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and ambitions.

Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9)


By many accounts, including those of career officials who did not support the war, there were good reasons for concern that the Iraqi president might revive a program to enrich uranium to weapons grade and fabricate a working bomb. He had a well-demonstrated aspiration for nuclear weapons, a proficient scientific and engineering cadre, a history of covert development and a domestic supply of unrefined uranium ore. Iraq was generally believed to have kept the technical documentation for two advanced German centrifuge designs and the assembly diagrams for at least one type of "implosion device," which detonates a nuclear core.

What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials.

But the Bush administration had reasons to imagine the worst. The CIA had faced searing criticism for its failures to foresee India's resumption of nuclear testing in 1998 and to "connect the dots" pointing to al Qaeda's attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney, the administration's most influential advocate of a worst-case analysis, had been powerfully influenced by his experience as defense secretary just after the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

Former National Security Council official Richard A. Clarke recalled how information from freshly seized Iraqi documents disclosed the existence of a "crash program" to build a bomb in 1991. The CIA had known nothing of it.

"I can understand why that was a seminal experience for Cheney," Clarke said. "And when the CIA says [in 2002], 'We don't have any evidence,' his reaction is . . . 'We didn't have any evidence in 1991, either. Why should I believe you now?' "

Some strategists, in and out of government, argued that the uncertainty itself -- in the face of circumstantial evidence -- was sufficient to justify "regime change."

And, what of Saddam Hussein's UNSC obligation to disabuse the world of its weapons capabilities? Why isn't it his fault that the world was so uncertain about his nuclear weapons capabilities?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Here, I'll do you one better. I'll quote an article that is critical of the President's decision to invade Iraq to show that there was, at the time, reasonable disagreement over what the evidence did or did not prove about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and ambitions.

Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9)



And, what of Saddam Hussein's UNSC obligation to disabuse the world of its weapons capabilities? Why isn't it his fault that the world was so uncertain about his nuclear weapons capabilities?


Well you don't go to war and sacrifice our blood on suspicions.. so if there was disagreement about the evidence why weren't we told before the war started? So then we can surmise Bush & the boys knew there was some concerns with the evidence but decided the American people should not know about it. You are ok with our govt commiting us to engage in a selective war.. and not bothering to tell us 'we don't know for sure?'

[DarkReign]

I dont know how you do it, George.

Peeps like Yoni I just write off as whack-jobs with above average intelligence. As long as they arent leading any real human beings thru life, we are alllll good.

[Yonivore]

Well you don't go to war and sacrifice our blood on suspicions..
And, if that had been the only justification for the resumption of hostilities between coalition forces and Iraq, you'd have a point. But, in fact, it was only one of more than a dozen given by this administration.


...so if there was disagreement about the evidence why weren't we told before the war started? So then we can surmise Bush & the boys knew there was some concerns with the evidence but decided the American people should not know about it. You are ok with our govt commiting us to engage in a selective war.. and not bothering to tell us 'we don't know for sure?'
Hell, the disagreement was played out in countless newspapers between the October 2002 NIE and the March invasion. If you didn't know there was disagreement, you weren't paying attention.

The President defended his position and made his judgments based on that position. Sometimes you've got to fish instead of cut bait and, in his judgement, it was time to quit cutting bait.

Again, you can disagree with that judgment, but -- as many have said since the invasion -- only history will be able to judge whether or not it was the right one. I believe it was, you don't.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And, if that had been the only justification for the resumption of hostilities between coalition forces and Iraq, you'd have a point. But, in fact, it was only one of more than a dozen given by this administration.


Hell, the disagreement was played out in countless newspapers between the October 2002 NIE and the March invasion. If you didn't know there was disagreement, you weren't paying attention.

The President defended his position and made his judgments based on that position. Sometimes you've got to fish instead of cut bait and, in his judgement, it was time to quit cutting bait.

Again, you can disagree with that judgment, but -- as many have said since the invasion -- only history will be able to judge whether or not it was the right one. I believe it was, you don't.

The only thing I like about your posts is the excellent grammar.

[Yonivore]

The only thing I like about your posts is the excellent grammar.
You forget their exellent rationale as well.

[violentkitten]

anybody got the cliffs notes? i got a pussy to tend to.

[Yonivore]

The conventional wisdom about Iraq's WMD programs is that they were moribund after the First Gulf War, and the hundreds (that's right, hundreds -- not zero as is being brayed by the Left) of chemical weapons that have been found in Iraq are merely detritus which was most likely lost or forgotten by Saddam's government. That narrative flies in the face of a great deal of physical and documentary evidence, much of which has been discussed in this forum.

But a newly-translated Project Harmony document, CMPC-2003-00011084-HT-DHM2A.pdf (http://70.168.46.200/searchResults.aspx?keyword=CMPC-2003-00011084-HT&topPagination=&botPagination=), provides some of the most definitive evidence yet that Saddam's government continued its illicit weapons programs long after the conclusion of the Gulf War.

This document is a letter from the Director of the Criminal Department, Na'man Ali Muhammad, to the Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, dated September 4, 1999:


Mr. Muhammad indicated that the International Inspection Committee would be inspecting the Al-Rashad location, among other locations, looking for non-conventional weapons and other chemical agents. He added that the following procedures were implemented on the fifth month of this year [TC: May 1999] in order to prevent disclosure of the locations:

1- Relocate all I[raqi] I[ntelligence] S[ervice] documents

2- Relocate all IIS chemical materials and equipment

3- Designate a group of employees from the Ministry of Health to replace the IIS employees

4- Relocate some of the officers and employees, whose job descriptions are not compatible with the Ministry of Health to Al-Rashidiah, and implement other appropriate concealment procedures.

He continues to state that present situation of the Directorate could be extended for an unspecified period of time. This situation could frequently reoccur, which has a direct negative impact on the performance and duties of the Directorate, with regards to providing essential levels of security. Consequently, the location of the site could be discovered. In addition the Ministry of Health may not be able to afford releasing its employees for a long period of time. Also, the presence of the Ministry of Health employees, and their integration with our employees, is a security breach. The close location of the directorate to other public locations, such as Al-Thaurah and Hay AlSinak, makes it a non-secure location. He added that the location is within the range of the enemy’s coordinates, and that special attention should be given to the collaborators who are present within these areas. The following alternate locations were suggested:

1- The Technical Research Center located on Palestine Street (previous Olympic Committee), since part of its Criminology Research Department was transferred to the Criminology Department.

2- Scientific Research Center, since it contains some laboratories that can be used for the work of the Criminology Department.
This seems pretty definitive. The subject is how to evade the search for "non-conventional weapons and other chemical agents." The evasion includes moving Iraqi Intelligence documents, and substituting Department of Health employees for intelligence agents. Further, the Intelligence Service's "chemical materials and equipment" were relocated. This doesn't sound like they were just moving old munitions left over from the 1980s from place to place.

As much as one document can prove anything, this seems to demonstrate that Iraq was secretly producing and hiding chemical weapons as of September 1999.

[Yonivore]

Another just-released Project Harmony document is BIAP-2003-003488.pdf (http://70.168.46.200/searchResults.aspx?keyword=BIAP-2003-003488). It is one of those dry, bureaucratic lists, titled "Bonus Record for 2003." So it must have been created shortly before the Iraq war began.

This eight-page document is a list of employees in various categories who received bonuses listed as "5,000"--dinars, I assume. Most of the categories are what you would expect: "Office of the General Director," "Finance," "Consultant Office," etc. Presumably the names under each of these headings are the employees in those departments who received bonuses.

But then we have these categories: "Chemical;" twelve employees got bonuses. "Nuclear;" nine employees got bonuses. "Missiles;" seven employees got bonuses. "Biological;" nine employees got bonuses. I suppose those words might mean something other than the obvious.

But, if so, what?

[Yonivore]

http://70.168.46.200/Released%5C06-28-06/BIAP-2003-003057.pdf

[Yonivore]

http://70.168.46.200/Released%5C07-05-06/CMPC-2003-004346.pdf

[Yonivore]

http://70.168.46.200/Released%5C07-05-06/CMPC-2003-000878.pdf

[Yonivore]

And the hits just keep rolling in.

I wonder when the Mainstream media is gonna catch on?

[Yonivore]

So, what's the matter with the Saddam-lovers on this forum? Is the Democratic Underground not yet excusing these documents so you don't have the talking points?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't even think you're reading these.

Sodium Carbonate?

Saddam was building an instant ramen bomb?

[Yonivore]

I don't even think you're reading these.

Sodium Carbonate?

Saddam was building an instant ramen bomb?
Who didn't read? You had to overlook a whole lot of incrimination to find that.

[ChumpDumper]

The only doc that intimated anything was the sprayer one.

Show me WMDs, not PDFs.

[Yonivore]

The only doc that intimated anything was the sprayer one.

Show me WMDs, not PDFs.
They have. 500 individual WMD's over the past 3 years. But, you ignore that as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Neither the administration nor the Army count those. Why should I?

[Yonivore]

Neither the administration nor the Army count those.
So, the presence of Iraqi documents demonstrating an on-going WMD program means nothing?

Who are you? Saddam Hussein's illegitimate son?

[ChumpDumper]

The war was not about documents.

[Yonivore]

You're right, the war was about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the rest of the world. I find it funny you don't have the intellectual curiosity to look at the documents being uncovered from the former regime.

I found yet another interesting piece of information regarding Saddam Hussein's pursuit of WMD. In a summary of a larger document, the translators found that Iraq had restarted its processing of castor-bean extraction, from which ricin can be developed -- and that UNMOVIC discovered it in December 2002.

From CMPC-2003-003766-HT.pdf:


Ricin toxin is found in the bean of the castor plant. UNMOVIC inspections since December 2002 have verified that the bombed caster oil extraction plant at Fallujah III has been reconstructed on a larger scale.

Undeclared BW agents, there are a number of microorganisms and toxins that have been developed as BW agents by several countries, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium bottalinum toxin, Yersinia pestis (plague), Francisella tularensis (tularemia), Brucella species (Brucellosis) Coxiella burnetti (Q fever) and Variola major (smallpox). Drying of BW Agents, BW agents are produced by a process that usually results in a liquid product, for example bacteria in an aqueous suspension, or toxins in an aquesous or organic solution.

Bacterial BW agent production, this requires certain equipment, typically a fomenter and down stream processing equipment such as separators and settling tanks. Also required for the production of bacterial BW agents are nutrients that are dissolved in water and added to the fermenter. The lack of supporting documentation makes it difficult for UNMOVIC to confirm Iraq's figures on the quantities of bacterial BW agent produced.

Genetic Engineering and Viral Research. Genetic Engineering, a process whereby an organism's genetic material is modified, has many medical and industrial applications. BW Agent Stimulants are chemicals or microorganisms that have very similar characteristics and properties to a biological warfare agent.

UNMOVIC inspections and Iraqi declarations confirm that Iraq continues working with organisms that could be used as BW agent stimulates. The documents display after each section the actions that Iraq could take to help in resolving the issue and convincing the UN inspection teams that the activity have stopped or were fruitless and so on.
So here we have confirmation that Iraq continued to work on WMD, and that the new UNMOVIC inspections verified that. We had previously heard from the mainstream media that UNMOVIC only found that the Iraqis still refused to cooperate fully with the inspections, but this puts a little different light on the situation as the UN found it as they debated how to deal with Iraq. Even with Saddam actively pursuing WMD, as it turns out, they refused to take any action except to propose extended inspections.

Another point seems rather interesting here. The third paragraph seems to match up pretty well with the CIA/DIA description (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/paper_w.pdf) of the mobile laboratories discovered shortly after the invasion of Iraq:


Common elements between the source’s description and the trailers include a control panel, fermentor, water tank, holding tank, and two sets of gas cylinders. One set of gas cylinders was reported to provide clean gases—oxygen and nitrogen—for production, and the other set captured exhaust gases, concealing signatures of BW agent production.

The discovered trailers also incorporate air-stirred fermentors, which the source reported were part of the second-generation plant design.
Once again, it looks like Saddam's own documentation makes it clear that he had never stopped working on WMD programs. This time, it also shows that UNMOVIC and the UNSC knew it.

Hans Blix never mentioned ricin or castor beans in his UN presentation on March 7, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/). In fact, it never even mentions the word "violation" once.

[ChumpDumper]

We were led to believe Saddam was in possession of WMDs he was ready and willing to use on the US at any moment.

So, where are the WMDs the administration and the Army would actually count as WMDs?

[Yonivore]

We were led to believe Saddam was in possession of WMDs he was ready and willing to use on the US at any moment.

So, where are the WMDs the administration and the Army would actually count as WMDs?
Well, it's been speculated, with some supporting evidence, they were moved to Syria on modified commercial jetliners.

So, if they have all this documentation that shows Saddam Hussein was still in the WMD business, you won't be convinced until they show up?

[ChumpDumper]

That's right.

And if these WMDs actuially exist, we're much less safe now than before when they were held by a man who wouldn't even use them against the US in defense of his own regime.

Twice.

[Yonivore]

That's right.

And if these WMDs actuially exist, we're much less safe now than before when they were held by a man who wouldn't even use them against the US in defense of his own regime.

Twice.
Yeah, nevermind that al Qaeda was flowing into Iraq from Afghanistan. Nevermind they were being trained at Salman Pak. Nevermind that there had been a relationship, over chemical weapons, going back to the early 90's.

Nah, no chance Saddam Hussein was going to share this stuff with bin Laden. Right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, nevermind that al Qaeda was flowing into Iraq from Afghanistan. Nevermind they were being trained at Salman Pak. Nevermind that there had been a relationship, over chemical weapons, going back to the early 90's.

Nah, no chance Saddam Hussein was going to share this stuff with bin Laden. Right?


But what the hell let's just start an unecessary war woohoo!!

[Yonivore]

But what the hell let's just start an unecessary war woohoo!!
Explain, again, exactly why it is unnecessary?

Because from where I sit, I see this:

1) Iraq continuing, in spite of multiple UNSC resolutions, their WMD Program.

2) Iraq getting cozy with al Qaeda.

3) Iraq plying Russia, France, and Germany (with OFF) to undermine the sanctions so they can ramp up their Nuclear program.

4) Iraq continuing to provide financial support to Palestinian terror organizations. (I only add this because it demonstrates that he was operating pretty much with impugnity, otherwise, he'd have more to say grace over in his own country and, therefore, unable to give aid and comfort to the PLO, HAMAS, et. al.)

5) Al Qaeda flowing into Iraq from the fighting in Afghanistan.

6) Salman Pak training facility that, coincidentally, has just the equipment needed to help terrorists figure out how to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings.

7) Iraq's Ecological and Environmental terrorism to the wetlands in Southern Iraq.

8) Iraq's mass murder of Shi'ites to the South and Kurds to the North -- After the '91 ceasefire.

9) Repeated acts of aggression against coalition military assets operating in the agreed to no-fly zones over the past decade.

10) Iraq's failure to declare, disclose, and destroy ALL WMD assets -- as agreed to in the '91 ceasefire.

11) Iraq's failure to return to Kuwait the prisoners and plunder taken in the '90 invasion of that country -- as agreed to in the '91 ceasefire.

12) Evidence that Iraq moved Kuwaiti prisoners -- illegally held since '90 -- to act as human shields during the expected Coalition invasion of '03.

13) Iraq's humanitarian offenses against its own people in diverting OFF funds to military and regime expenses.

So, again, what made this war unnecessary?