Reply With Quote
Well, now I feel much better about this war.
Gateway Pundit assembles evidence of Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda ties and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Click on the image to see the .pdf file.
The Arabic original shows the Falcon emblem of the Iraq Intelligence Service. A translation is provided if you scroll down in the linked pdf do ent. I have highlighted the key wording but there is more:
Unless we see a translation that is different I think we have this:
1) Proof that Saddam had small amounts of anthrax -- or a belief by his intelligence service that they possessed enough anthrax to use in this endeavor.
2) Proof that Saddam was willing and had planned to use non Iraqi terrorists to carry out a biological attack.
Well, now I feel much better about this war.
Well, that's good.
Yes the Bush administration is crowing about this as we speak.
As meaningless as such a revelation would actually be now; something like this, if it got steam could actually influence the elections this November; although nothing has changed about our current situation.
, couple this with gas at or below 2 bucks, and the Republicans have time to gain seats. Such is the nature of the American electorate.
Couldn't we have just tortured this information out of Saddam?
Consider this is just one of over 1.9 million do ents from the Ba'athist regime that have yet to be translated.
Of the more than 2 millions do ents seized only about 100,000 have been translated.
I think there will be more such revelations -- probably of much more significance, in the future.
I do remain amazed at how some people, such as ChumpDumper, are so married to the articles of faith that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and that Saddam Hussein wouldn't work with terrorists. I wonder if anything would even allow them to think the opposite could be true.
He had WMDs -- once.
Never used them on the US.
Ever.
That's the truth.
I'm amazed that people such as Yonivore are so desperate to deny that simple fact, that it has become their main distraction from the fiasco that Iraq has become.
According to this do ent, they were planning to use anthrax in 2003.
And?
So? He tried to shoot down enough of our planes in the preceding 12 years, alone, to justify our resumption of hostilities. Not to mention all the other provocations that have been mentioned ad naseum in this forum at various times over the past 3 years.
And, now, he never will use them on the U.S. Will he?
I don't deny the fact that he never used Weapons of Mass Destruction on the U.S. I also don't the deny the mounting set of facts that show he possessed them and continued to pursue them up to the end of his regime.
You're the one in denial.
What anthrax?According to this do ent, they were planning to use anthrax in 2003.Then why are you stuck on stupid RE: WMDs? But thanks for pointing out that Saddam was under our thumbs already and we could bomb the out of him whenever we wanted to and just how weak Iraq was militarily.So? He tried to shoot down enough of our planes in the preceding 12 years, alone, to justify our resumption of hostilities. Not to mention all the other provocations that have been mentioned ad naseum in this forum at various times over the past 3 years.It means he never would have at all, since he didn't even use them to defend his own regime.And, now, he never will use them on the U.S. Will he?Bull . You're the one who claims he was THE imminent threat to the US -- moreso than Al Qaeda, since you supported diverting most of our forces away from his pursuit for some nice nation-building in Iraq.I don't deny the fact that he never used Weapons of Mass Destruction on the U.S. I also don't the deny the mounting set of facts that show he possessed them and continued to pursue them up to the end of his regime.
You're the one in denial.
The anthrax that was mailed to Democratic Congressmen and News Reporters that no-one ever got around to investigating, of course. The whole thing just sort of faded away.What anthrax?
How would I know? You act as though this stuff was catalogued, stored, and clearly marked for discovery.
Why are so intent on discounting the possibility and, in light of the ever increasing mound of evidence, the likelihood that Saddam Husseing was -- in addition to all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years -- in the business of pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction?
You don't know the mind of Saddam Hussein -- and neither do I. I do, however, suspect -- in light of all the revelations about Russia, France, and the U.N. vis-a-vis the Oil For Food Scandal and other business dealings -- that he probably had some assurances that the U.S. could be held at bay and that he was completely taken by surprise by our invasion. I also believe the initial bombing of Baghdad, while it didn't kill him, did prevent him from commanding and controlling his troops. And, if we know nothing else about his regime, his military commanders didn't sneeze without his approval.
I've never said that. And, in the words of General Tommy Franks:
Any reason to doubt Tommy Franks? Not for me.
If there was ever a guy who failed to 'get Usama' it wasn't Clinton, it is Tommy Franks.
Yoni, you bore me.
So, don't read my posts.
Yoni, you bore me.
If it was ready to use on the US, why wouldn't it be?How would I know? You act as though this stuff was catalogued, stored, and clearly marked for discovery.Because he never used WMDs on the US or its forces. I fully acknowledge all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years, but i will never pretend he was a bigger threat to the US than Iran or North Korea, precisely because he was already under our thumb and all we had to do was decide how hard to press down at any given time. We don't even enjoy this advantage in Iraq now.Why are so intent on discounting the possibility and, in light of the ever increasing mound of evidence, the likelihood that Saddam Husseing was -- in addition to all the other crap he had been pulling for 12 years -- in the business of pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction?I know he never used WMDs on the US when he had two chances to do so in defense of his own regime. When would be a better time to use them?You don't know the mind of Saddam Hussein -- and neither do I.But not so much that he wasn't able to ship all of the WMDs to Syria, right? You really need to make up your mind about this.I do, however, suspect -- in light of all the revelations about Russia, France, and the U.N. vis-a-vis the Oil For Food Scandal and other business dealings -- that he probably had some assurances that the U.S. could be held at bay and that he was completely taken by surprise by our invasion.Yes. Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Mission accomplished, indeed.Any reason to doubt Tommy Franks?
And, even if that were true, it changes the credibility of his statement how?
If there was ever a guy who failed to 'get Usama' it wasn't Clinton, it is Tommy Franks.
even if that were true
You must have missed Tora-bora.
We obviously completely secured Afghanistan. There is absolutely no Taliban presence there at all.
Why would you ask me that question?
I think there were other dynamics, other than the direct threat posed by Saddam Hussein, in play.
Whether you want to admit it or not, al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan into Iraq since before our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. There is plenty of evidence Saddam Hussein was trying desperately to shake off sanctions so he could rebuild his weapons assets and, there are Iraq officials that have testified that he had the materials and capabilities to field some chemical weapons on very short notice -- as little as weeks.
I also believe Iraq is a more strategic location than is North Korea and there are fewer attendant diplomatic issues (CHINA) than there would be if we were to invade North Korea. Invading Iraq has changed the dynamic in the Middle East. Terrorists are funneling into the place to die by the hundreds.
Maybe he believed his regime would survive an invasion. He survived the first encounter with the U.S. without resorting to WMD's. Maybe he believe he could bargain his way out again -- and, by the time he realized this President wasn't in a bargaining mood, the opportunity to use them had passed.
I'm sure he considered that if he did use WMD's on U.S. Troops, we would have decimated his country from the air because, if you can't send in the infantry due to them being sitting ducks for WMD's you obliterate the target.
I think we'll wait until all the facts are in. I don't have enough of the facts, nor do you, to know where the WMD's went. There is evidence that some did go to Syria.
And, that would be in line with the thinking that he believed he was going to survive the invasion or that an invasion would be prevented by his UN allies Russia, Germany, and France -- not to mention Kofi Annan -- and, so maybe it'd be prudent to hide or get rid of any that he did have.
Just what were those hundreds of trucks hauling out of that known weapons site a month before the invasion? Aren't you curious?
Well, there are 500 (or so) fewer this week than last week.
Okay, that's one occasion. Only about 10 more to go before he passes Billy Boy.
You must have missed Tora-bora.
Why wouldn't I? If reams of do ents prove the antrax exist and orders to use them written, why would they not be available and clearly marked?Why would you ask me that question?It's very convenient for you to downplay the WMD issue when the well runs dry, isn't it?I think there were other dynamics, other than the direct threat posed by Saddam Hussein, in play.So where are they?Whether you want to admit it or not, al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan into Iraq since before our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. There is plenty of evidence Saddam Hussein was trying desperately to shake off sanctions so he could rebuild his weapons assets and, there are Iraq officials that have testified that he had the materials and capabilities to field some chemical weapons on very short notice -- as little as weeks.And to live. And to recruit more terrorists. And to kill more Americans. Who is going to be there longer?I also believe Iraq is a more strategic location than is North Korea and there are fewer attendant diplomatic issues (CHINA) than there would be if we were to invade North Korea. Invading Iraq has changed the dynamic in the Middle East. Terrorists are funneling into the place to die by the hundreds.So you DO know the mind of Saddam. Bravo.Maybe he believed his regime would survive an invasion. He survived the first encounter with the U.S. without resorting to WMD's. Maybe he believe he could bargain his way out again -- and, by the time he realized this President wasn't in a bargaining mood, the opportunity to use them had passed.
I'm sure he considered that if he did use WMD's on U.S. Troops, we would have decimated his country from the air because, if you can't send in the infantry due to them being sitting ducks for WMD's you obliterate the target.So, if that's true we are less safe now. I agree.I think we'll wait until all the facts are in. I don't have enough of the facts, nor do you, to know where the WMD's went. There is evidence that some did go to Syria.We weren't curious enough to stop them were we? Aren't you curious about that?Just what were those hundreds of trucks hauling out of that known weapons site a month before the invasion? Aren't you curious?
Yes, and fewer Americans too. I'm sure you're happy about that. It's great that we finished the nation-building in Afghanistan before jumping into Iraq. Mission accomplished.
You're an idiot. I'm sorry, that's the only thing to conclude.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
