0
rushmc

New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training

Recommended Posts

From the Weekly Standard, Reprinted on NewsMax.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 11:07 p.m. EST

The Bush administration is preparing to release never-before-seen documents captured when U.S. forces liberated Baghdad that chronicle the extensive training of thousands of radical Islamic terrorists by Saddam Hussein's regime.

"The secret training took place primarily at three camps in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak," reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, who adds that the operations began two years before the 9/11 attacks and were "directed by elite Iraqi military units."

The existence of these documents, and the nature of what they describe, has been confirmed to the Standard by eleven U.S. government officials, Hayes says.

If true, the documents represent a bombshell finding that shatters the claims of Iraq war critics who have maintained for three years that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Islamic terrorism.

More intriguing still is the documentation on Salman Pak - a camp previously described by Iraqi defectors as the location of airline hijacking dress rehearsals that bear a striking resemblance to what took place on 9/11.

Hayes reports that the materials currently being reviewed for release include photographs, handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes and videotapes - plus information recovered from compact discs, floppy discs and computer hard drives.

Taken together, the material chronicles a massive operation that trained 2,000 terrorists to attack Western interests each year from 1999 to 2002.

The volume of material examined so far represents the tip of the iceberg. Of the 2 million items recovered from Saddam's regime, just 50,000 have been thoroughly translated and analyzed.

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has convened several meetings in recent weeks to discuss the Pentagon's role in expediting the release of this information," the Standard says.

"According to several sources familiar with his thinking, Rumsfeld is pushing aggressively for a massive dump of the captured documents."
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this Oct 2004 Info from CNS.........

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html

And from Kristol, using docs from as far back as 1992.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/566igaww.asp
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This report will turn out to be bollocks. Besides, the justification for the invasion was WMD. He was an imminent threat to the USA. Remember????



Ah yes, the "WMDS" was the "only" reason DNC talking point.:S

This information has been in and out of the news for at least 3 years. It has never been refuted. If it comes out, no, when it comes out that SH WAS linked to the terrorist and may have been involve in 9/11 I will await your tail between you legs admision of "sorry, Iwas wrong". If the docs show the other way then I will do the same.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ah yes, the "WMDS" was the "only" reason DNC talking point.:S



Well you can litter your post with crazy faces all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush's reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD and was an imminent threat to the USA. And he didn't and he wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Historically Bush cycled through many different reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Prior to the first military action the story was about WMDs. It was only when it was no longer a dead certainty about the WMDs that the focus shifted to other justifications.

The initial claim "Saddam has WMDs" turned to "Saddam had WMD programs" which then branched into "WMD programs", "Torture rooms", "March of Democracy", and "Links to Al Quida". These were focused on in a sloppy kind of rotation as holes were created in the justification of the week.

Please dont assume this is a left/right debate, as this was a story that existed in the rest of the world. The US press itself is far to weak and dependent on the corporate cock to have investigated the vallidity of these claims.

Average time of european story to US press: 6 weeks, but only if it gained any sort of traction on the internet.

This was something I was paying extremely close attention to and you can find various sources in prior posts I made. You can also verify this by doing a Google news search and sorting by date, at which point you'lll see the pattern I describe above.

Ignore the republican / democrat thing. It has nothing to do with the real story here.

As for the veracity of the current documents, I wont comment because, like the rest of the world, there's no evidence to suggest their falsity yet.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So do you think Clinton's official gov't policy advocating regime change in Iraq was wrong?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So do you think Clinton's official gov't policy advocating regime change in Iraq was wrong?



I think making stuff up in an attempt to get international support for the invasion of Iraq is wrong. Don't you?



Yes, that would be wrong.

Is that what you think Clinton did also? He didn't invade, but it was official policy to pursue the overthrow of SH's regime. He wasn't effective at it, but it was policy.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't confuse them with the facts.

Their minds are made up.

No amount of factual information will make a difference.

Quote

Historically Bush cycled through many different reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Prior to the first military action the story was about WMDs. It was only when it was no longer a dead certainty about the WMDs that the focus shifted to other justifications.

The initial claim "Saddam has WMDs" turned to "Saddam had WMD programs" which then branched into "WMD programs", "Torture rooms", "March of Democracy", and "Links to Al Quida". These were focused on in a sloppy kind of rotation as holes were created in the justification of the week.

Please dont assume this is a left/right debate, as this was a story that existed in the rest of the world. The US press itself is far to weak and dependent on the corporate cock to have investigated the vallidity of these claims.

Average time of european story to US press: 6 weeks, but only if it gained any sort of traction on the internet.

This was something I was paying extremely close attention to and you can find various sources in prior posts I made. You can also verify this by doing a Google news search and sorting by date, at which point you'lll see the pattern I describe above.

Ignore the republican / democrat thing. It has nothing to do with the real story here.

As for the veracity of the current documents, I wont comment because, like the rest of the world, there's no evidence to suggest their falsity yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A journalist once interviewed a Palestinian (captured) suicide bomber about his car bomb.

"I was going to do it because the Israelis dropped a 500 lb bomb on my family from an airplane moving 400 mph. It did not discriminate between civilian and military."

"...but you were going to explode a 100 lb car bomb."

"Yes, we have no airplanes. Give us airplanes to deliver bombs and we won't use cars."

War plans are based on the resources at hand.

Suicide bombers are used because that is the only available resource to wage war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ah yes, the "WMDS" was the "only" reason DNC talking point.:S



Well you can litter your post with crazy faces all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush's reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD and was an imminent threat to the USA. And he didn't and he wasn't.



WMDs were one of the reasons and if you care to look at his speach you will see he never used the word imminent. That word has been used Clinton, Kerry, other Dems and the media.

But I am sure you don't care.......

So, if SH was in bed with the Osama will that make any difference to you? Or will you continue to hang your hat on the WMD bs?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So do you think Clinton's official gov't policy advocating regime change in Iraq was wrong?



I think making stuff up in an attempt to get international support for the invasion of Iraq is wrong. Don't you?



Your post above said he was "making stuff up"! What stuff did "he" make up? Back up your statement. But please remember, mulitple countries and people all said, long before GWB was in office that SH had WMDS so "he" did not make that statement up so, what "stuff" did GWB make up to go to war?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No facts, just wishes on your part.

I still believe SH had/has WMDs and they are in Syria but that is beside the point of this thread.

One of the other reasons GWB said he went after SH was that he supported the terrorist (WMDs were not the only reason despite your attempt to make it so). So, if (when) the link is verified will you change your tune?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is that what you think Clinton did also? He didn't invade, but it was official policy to pursue the overthrow of SH's regime. He wasn't effective at it, but it was policy.



Who cares what Clinton did. He has nothing to do with this discussion. I really don't understand why you keep mentioning him. Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? Are you suggesting what Bush did was ok because Clinton would have done the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crozby, I think the issue with Clinton here is simply that he had 8 years in office, knew of the danger that OBL and AQ posed, and was not aggressive enough to stop this monster.

If one really wants to track the rise of OBL/AQ, they need to start back in Carter's reign, and look carefully at what happened between the USSR, Afghanistan, and the US...and research where and what OBL was doing at this time, including his stay in Sudan (circa 1996, iirc).

As for the documents, Salman Pak is not new news...perhaps the documentation from SH is new, but we were very aware of Salman Pak and it's training capacities for a long, long time.

It will be interesting to see what the rest of the documents show, and if they prove accurate and authentic. Frankly, there is a connection, but not necessarily one which is rock solid, perfect, and absolutely clear cut. It's the nature of the terrorist business, I'd guess.

Ciels-
Michele


~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rush, go back, cast your mind back, that was the ONLY reason. The big rush for inspectors, the need for Iraq to comply with the resolution to provide all documented evidence. The speed reading of thousands of pages of documentation listing the armaments of a country. Hans Blix. ETC ETC.

Basic stuff. The other stories did not come about until later, when the world started frowning about the way the US was rattling its sabers.

Please, go back and check out what I'm saying. In this case you are incorrect and it's very easy for you to verify that for yourself through whatever primary sources you deem most accurate.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

WMDs were one of the reasons and if you care to look at his speach you will see he never used the word imminent. That word has been used Clinton, Kerry, other Dems and the media.



You are just playing with words. Do you deny that both the US and UK governments led their citizens to believe that they were threatened by SH and his WMD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah yes, the "WMDS" was the "only" reason DNC talking point.:S



Well you can litter your post with crazy faces all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush's reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD and was an imminent threat to the USA. And he didn't and he wasn't.



WMDs were one of the reasons and if you care to look at his speach you will see he never used the word imminent. That word has been used Clinton, Kerry, other Dems and the media.



His lackeys used "imminent" and "immediate":

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 09/19/02

“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003

But then lied about it

"the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004

Just another lie to confuse lazy people who don't bother to check.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Crozby, I think the issue with Clinton here is simply that he had 8 years in office, knew of the danger that OBL and AQ posed, and was not aggressive enough to stop this monster.



I still can't see what Clinton has to do with Bush and his administration misleading the American people about the threat that SH posed to the USA and the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I still can't see what Clinton has to do with Bush and his administration misleading the American people about the threat that SH posed to the USA and the rest of the world.


I'm not sure, but iirc, Clinton had advocated regime change as well as acknowledged the "credible" evidence of WMD.

In this thread, I'm speaking for someone else, so I may be completely incorrect, but the thought seems to be that if they (the Clinton Admin) believed both of those, then why didn't they take strong action, and if they didn't believe it, why did they say it? And also, when everyone on the left is screaming Bush is an asshole, perhaps people are just pointing out that there are other politicians that are assholes, too?

Again, I find myself speaking for someone else, and I am uncomfortable with that. So I'll just let this be where it ends, all right?

Ciels-
Michele


~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your doing that Obfuscation thing here...... By mentioning OBL & AQ in a thread about SH your doing the very same thing as our damned governments have been doing... trying to establish a link where none has been proven.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are just playing with words. Do you deny that both the US and UK governments led their citizens to believe that they were threatened by SH and his WMD?



No I do not deny this. What I said was WMDs, at least for Bush, were not the ONLY reason.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0