Information from newly discovered Iraqi intelligence documents. From CNSNews.com, with thanks to all those who sent this to me:
CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
The source of the documents
A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.
So now then will the left finally shut their mouths about the "illegitimacy" of the Iraq war???
Saddam DID possess WMDs, whether any were found or not does not matter the fact is he was a west hating lunatic who needed taking down before he infected tens of thousands of westerners with anthrax or god knows what else ( I for one would am glad thery did it).
None were found..... WHO CARES, do the war critics not think it slightly possible that he may have hidden them before the UN(needed), inspections??? Do they not think for one second it was worth making sure our country was safe (boo-hoo...Iraqs a war-zone now... so friggin' what??? It was no garden of eden beforehand, and at least there's alittle hope on the horizon, in fact were it not for the cowardly maggots who keep slaughtering innocents, who want a better life, and as a result are seen as "aiding kaffir", there would be no fighting!!! If they care so much about the "occupation" then give it a friggin' rest already!!!), I for one would rather Iraq be a war-zone than my own country.
And then there are the skeptics who like to point out that Saddam had nothing to do with al qaeda, to these gullible morons I'd like to point out there are more terror groups than al qaeda ( has the war not proven that with all the other groups of cockroaches that have entered the scene since : Tawhid and Jihad, the Back Banners...etc...etc...).
The truth is this is a War on Terror, not a "war on al qaeda", and that title implies all terrorists are going to be targeted (all terrorists that are against the west...ie- islamic ones with their hatred, and jihad).
Another truth is that Saddam was approaching the status of "Super-Tyrant", and that would have been disastrous for us all (and the middle east too, either from the perspective of our troops being attacked in the middle east or countries that Saddam already had beef with), and if a war of that magnitude had've taken off, guess who'd be right there alongside Saddams army, taking cowardly pot-shots, ambushing, sniping, bombing..... yes thats right... al qaeda, and every other terror-organization from Morrocco to Bangladesh.
We know this the left probably know this, but they're more concerned with the human rights of people who ignore the concept of it, so far be it from them to support their country, their allies their defenders.... oh no.... they're far too busy making sure the terrorists, and enemies get a fair run of things (how upside down can you get.... and how terribly sad!!!).
There are quite a few mistakes in the above post, for that I apologise..... Sorry!!!
This nails it.
The principal justification for the war was Saddam's possesion of WMD, and only then al-qaeda ties. This confirms both. Am pretty certain the MSM will go all out to heroically overlook it coz it doesn't quite fit into their worldview.
Now its time to 'manage' Iran a wee bit, eh? Yup, u guessed it, Syria and Pak are next in line....not for costly invasions and even more costly reconstructions bt for plain and simple - punishment bombings...or so I hope....
The grand prize - Saudi will come last....(if only!)
Where has KeithJoy been? I want to hear his response to the continuing influx of proof for President Bush's intelligence-based contentions.
I'm sure those behind the media (and the Democratic party) are desperately seeking a way to spin this into something else entirely.
this is all well and good, but someone tell me when the mainstream media reports this story, namely CNN or MSNBC.
better yet, someone send it to them.
When will the left acknowledge that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the world vis a vis WMDs? Never, in all likelihood.
When it comes to this subject, they are more than a bit like the folks who still say there's no direct link between smoking and lung cancer about WMDs and the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Nobody ever said there were formalized pacts between Osama and Saddam. What Saddam did do (in the best of Mao Tse Tung's "My enemy's enemy is my friend tradition), is, when and were it suited his purpose, give safe haven to Al-Qaeda and connected operatives.
As for WMDs, unless it's a great big nuclear bomb, they are likely to yawn at reports of a few biologicals or accuse the US of having provided Saddam with the stuff.
The whole business of attempting to show a specific connection -- a meeting here, a letter there -- between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is misplaced. But it has been offered up in lieu of the real connection that counts. Iraq is a Muslim Arab state. Saddam Hussein was "secular" only in the sense that he was a Sunni in a majority-Shi'a population, and in order to preserve Sunni dominance, the Ba'ath ideology proved useful to suppress mosque-centered (and therefore Shi'a-centered) political rivals. But whenever he needed to, he invoked Islam. He called his battles against the Iranians the names of ancient battles of Arabs against Persians. He was building the largest mosque in the world. He was a patron of Qur'anic calligraphers. He put the Qur'anic verses on the Iraqi flag. He was no secularist himself, but simply someone inclined to use Ba'athism for his own purposes.
The real Iraq-Al Qaeda connection is that of Islam. And no sensible Infidel poweer, knowing even dimly and imperfectly what Infidels everywhere are beginning to grasp, can permit a Muslim state to acquire major weaponry, if such acquisition can be headed off (it is too late for Pakistan, but other arrangements may there be imposed to force Pakistan to make a choice: complete economic and political chaos, or surrender of the "Islamic bomb"). It is not merely a question of deliberate state policy, i.e. of Saddam Hussein passing off such weaponry. No, it is also a question of others in any Muslim state having the ability to seize such weaponry, to use it themselves in a renegade operation, or to pass it to other Muslim states or terrorist groups. And this is why, for example, it is absurd to be concerned one whit about Israel's weaponry, which makes peace more rather than less likely, instead of moving heaven and earth to prevent Iran from getting it (and those who do so worry are, most of them, impelled by more sinister motives).
We don't care, or should not care, if Australia acquires major weapons, but if Indonesia does -- it is another matter entirely. Fair? Of course it isn't fair, if one is a Muslim and sees no reason why anyone should be allowed to limit Muslim power as it attempts to spread everywhere. But sensible on the part of Infidels? Of course it is, for it has to be recongized that there is a war, not of civilisations, but a war of Islam, not a war against the West, but a war against All the Rest, that has been going on, with many stops-and-starts, and long periods in which, because of ignorance of the great world, or complacent assumptions about the Dar al-Islam, or most importantly, because superior military power prevented the various Jihads that were declared -- in West Africa, in North Africa, in East Africa, in Istanbul in 1915, in India at various times against Sikhs, Hindus, and the British, in the East Indies and in western China, in the regions of the Gobi Desert (see Mildred Cable's "The Gobi" about the jihad of 1930) -- wherever Jihad by military means was declared in the last two centuries, it was beaten back -- by the French, the British, the Dutch, the Chinese, the Russians. But this did not mean that the doctrine had somehow disappeared. It never did.
Jihad remains, and will remain, central to the teachings of Islam. And that is why sensible non-Muslims will recognize, even if they do not yet state (or may never state), that they cannot permit, for their own safety, any Muslim polity or group to acquire major weaponry. It was folly to deliver Stinger missiles to Afghanistan. It is folly now to continue to supply Egypt with military aid, even as it conducts WMD research. It was folly for the French to aid the first nuclear project of Saddam Hussein, and folly of the Western world to condemn Israel for destroying the nuclear facilities in Iraq. It is folly now to sit and wait while Iran works busily aday, until some Mullah can proudly lead the dedication ceremonies once a few bombs have been produced and spread, for safekeeping, around the country. The example of Pakistan is bad enough. One hardly knows what will happen to those Pakistani bombs -- those "Islamic" bombs - should the present government fall, or even if it does not fall, should those Jihadis who are within every Muslim government manage to divert some of those tempting bombs for the purposes of Jihad.
That is the real Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. But the Administration is either too fearful to make it, too inhibited by its own failure to articulate the problem -- for which it has had three years to develop a strategy of "How to Talk About It" - that is, about Islam, Jihad, and the other tenets of what is not merely, or mainly, a belief-system of religious worshp.
No Muslim polity can be allowed to acquire major weaponry. That has to be the policy of NATO, of Russia, of China, of India. Such a policy applies to those countries that have invaded their neighbors and are ruled by horrible despots (Iraq), and those that have bullied their neighbors and are ruled by slightly-less horrible despots (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria), and it applies to regimes that have so far done neither but are full of people, in or out of the government, who accept Islam's tenets, and therefore accept, at some level, the need to destroy the dar al-Harb by all means possible. Sorry, but we Infidels simply cannot allow you the means to achieve that -- not in weaponry, and not, one hopes, through the weapon of demography.
Surely, after the election, certain truths will begin to be told. Will have to be told -- by Bush, or by Kerry, or by a thousand other commentators. This has to happen. The refusal to see what is staring everyone in the face is intolerable, and dangerous.
Strangely enough this report didn't get mentioned by the dhimmi BBC - because it wouldn't fit into their Anti-American, Anti-Israeli view of the world. How much longer before these traitors in our mass media get exposed for the appeasers and collaborators they really are?
Strangely enough this report didn't get mentioned by the dhimmi BBC - because it wouldn't fit into their Anti-American, Anti-Israeli view of the world. How much longer before these traitors in our mass media get exposed for the appeasers and collaborators they really are?
Hugh is correct again! The real connection between any Muslim country and terror violence is Islam. As long as Muslims accept the Koran as a inviolable unit including jihad against the infidels, violence and deception will always be the way that Islam deals with non-Muslims.
The refusal to see the connection is a dangerous blend of obdurancy of a belief in both the power of negotiation and of the correctness of the Christian world view toward humanity. As much as we want Christ's love to overcome all obstacles, it is dangerous to believe that after 1350 years Muslims will suddenly see the light.
The 1350-year failure of negotiation between Islam and the West is another pattern that is foolishly overlooked. This is not rocket science. No negotiation is possible with an entity that only desires one's destruction using any means possible.
Thus it is indeed very foolish to equip these people with the kind of technology and the know-how to destroy us as they will do so as if squashing a bug that comes into one's clean home, for that's how they view all non-Muslims.
Wonder how long it will take the BBC to report on this story !!
And wait for the BBC spin surgeons surgery when it appears.
My American neighbours: DO NOT VOTE FOR KERRY.We cannot surrender in this war against militant islam.
Then why didn't Saddam Hussein use them against the American and coalition forces?
I still haven't seen any other news organizations pick this story up yet. I emailed Fox News Online with it. If the documents are authentic, I think they will cut down a lot of the BS from the left.
Has everone forgotten the U.N. blunder,THEY were the ones boasting they needed more time since the inspections showed about 7000 missiles or warheads were unaccounted for.
We've seen the removal of 2 metric tonnes of uranium,about 50 banned Jet-fighters found buried in the desert,mass graves,and the biggest scam which was a Doctor that finally got to tell the truth that Saddam forced his to keep dead children in cold storage so they could be paraded out to a Bogus press conference to show sanctions
were killed 1.5 million kids.
As for Kerry,since he chose to supress information about war-crimes and atrocities in Vietnam until he felt ready to reveal it,is this the guy you'll want to take the risk with YOUR life when he's been witness to atricities and stays mute to hide it.
Bush may have avoided his Tour of duty in Nam,but Kerry saw an injustice and did nothing,at least for Bush not one V.C. attacked Texas.
OH-OH!!!
Rumsfeld's gone and made a major boo-boo, and said that he has seen no hard evidence of a connection between al qaeda and Saddam.
Personally I don't give a damn, but what makes me really sick is that you just know we're never going to hear the last of this from the left.
Even in light of the above article, Rumsfeld has still reloaded the lefts cannon ( as if it needed reloading, when out of ammo they usually resort to filling it with manure).
Hugh, the Sodom Insane-al-Qaida connection is tighter than the bonds of Islam. The 9-11 Commission report itself mentions that when Osama Bin Laden was headquartered in Khartoum (and Sudan is a nasty, Islamofascist regime), his people met regualry with the Iraqi embassy. What exactly was said, however, is not known for sure, so we can still say there's no "direct" connection between Sodom Insane and the 9-11 attacks.
Also, it's only in the movies (and the pudding that passes for brains in some heads) that the CIA is omnipresent and omniscient, knowing everything that can be said in such meetings.