Portal to Intelligence Do ents

[Yonivore]

Remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...rq.centrifuge/

[George Gervin's Afro]

Remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...rq.centrifuge/

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to recons ute 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 cir stantial evidence.. no smoking gun.. there is plenty of cir stantial 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 recons ute 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 cir stantial evidence.. no smoking gun.. there is plenty of cir stantial 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 recons uting 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

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 do entation 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 quan y of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only cir stantial 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 do ents 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 cir stantial 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



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 su ions.. 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 su ions..

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?'

, 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.


, 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 do entary evidence, much of which has been discussed in this forum.

But a newly-translated Project Harmony do ent, CMPC-2003-00011084-HT-DHM2A.pdf, 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 do ent 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] do ents

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 do ents, and subs uting 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 do ent 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 do ent is BIAP-2003-003488.pdf. It is one of those dry, bureaucratic lists, led "Bonus Record for 2003." So it must have been created shortly before the Iraq war began.

This eight-page do ent 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%5C06-2...003-003057.pdf

[Yonivore]

http://70.168.46.200/Released%5C07-0...003-004346.pdf

[Yonivore]

http://70.168.46.200/Released%5C07-0...003-000878.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 do ents 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 do ents demonstrating an on-going WMD program means nothing?

Who are you? Saddam Hussein's illegitimate son?