Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 11:07 p.m. EST

New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training


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.

You are such a puppet on strings.

There *Was* no connection...just because one was found doesn't justify the war now...

You are such a puppet on strings.

There *Was* no connection...just because one was found doesn't justify the war now...

Absurd statement.

You are such a puppet on strings.

There *Was* no connection...just because one was found doesn't justify the war now...


Let's see if the rest of us can understand your profundity:

1. You call me a name.
2. You state there was no connection (which statement is refuted by my article)
3. You contradict and refute your own statement, acknowledging that a connection was found
4. You make an unfounded assertion which no rational person agrees with.

Yep, same old Raven...

Thank you for noncontributing as usual.

I LOVE LAMP!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/Mark8Rules/MC3324.jpg

Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 11:07 p.m. EST

New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training



Could it be possible this new evidence was fabricated after the fact to justify America's actions?

(I think that's what RaVeneyes was saying in his response to you too, but I could be wrong.)

Besides, take something in consideration, if you had absolute rule and absolute rites to the wealth of a country, would you go and threaten that by attacking a country that is far superior and has already has proven in the past it can destroy your military with ease (Desert Storm)? Call Saddam what you will, murderer, scumbag, scoundrel, P.O.S., but one thing he wasn't was stupid.

Call Saddam what you will, murderer, scumbag, scoundrel, P.O.S., but one thing he wasn't was stupid.

I'm worn out. We have given you fiberals every opportunity to 'see the light' and to figure things out on your own. I am convinced that the Left has a chemical imbalance in the brain making them incapable of a clear train of thought.

No Saddam wasn't stupid. Glad you figured that out. But what you didn't figure out was that Germany and France were whispering in Saddam's ear the whole time. Up until the day of the 'Shock and Awe' campaign, Saddam was being told the U.S. would back down. That is why we went ahead. We were battling our own supposed allies.

I wish you guys could leave the Land of Oz and figure some things out on your own. Maybe even join the rest of us out here in the real world for a change.

No Saddam wasn't stupid. Glad you figured that out.

I never thought Saddam was stupid, you have to be extremly clever to survive 24+ years as a dictator.




I wish you guys could leave the Land of Oz and figure some things out on your own. Maybe even join the rest of us out here in the real world for a change.


Right back at ya!

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.


I dont know about the 'bombshell' part. But I'll make a few simple points.

It was said that Saddam was connected to Al Qadia and Bin Ladan - that report doesnt say that, it only says "Islamic terrorism"

Damn near every country over there has some connection to "Islamic terrorism" - I dont see us invading Saudi Arabia...

The war was sold on WMDs - Remember, that little Speech Powell gave, taking about all the trucks that made biological weapons, and the other WMDs? Where are they all? Where is all this WMD that IRAQ supoosedly had? ----- And before anyone says it - If its in Joran or Syria or anywhere else, why did they let it out of the country in the first place? And if you know where it is - GO GET IT - I dont care who has it, GO GET IT if your so sure. Clearly, if invading IRAQ was ok because they had WMDs - then invade whoever has them now and GO GET THE WMDs.

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.


SO its takes 11 'Government Officials' to come up with this kind of BS?

I dont know about the 'bombshell' part. But I'll make a few simple points.

It was said that Saddam was connected to Al Qadia and Bin Ladan - that report doesnt say that, it only says "Islamic terrorism"

So who do YOU think runs Islamic terrorism? The French?

Damn near every country over there has some connection to "Islamic terrorism" - I dont see us invading Saudi Arabia...

The Saudi Arabian government isn't running terrorist training camps...they themselves have been victims of terrorist attacks.

The war was sold on WMDs - Remember, that little Speech Powell gave, taking about all the trucks that made biological weapons, and the other WMDs?

There were twenty two additional reasons given for invading Iraq in the Senate resolution. Here is a summary of them from Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

Even more importantly, the U.S. Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We seem to have forgotten that entirely.

If the Bush administration erred in privileging the dangers of Iraqi WMDs, then the Congress in its wisdom used a far broader approach (as Sen. Robert Byrd complained at the time), and went well beyond George Bush in making a more far-reaching case for war — genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols. It was the U.S. Senate — a majority of Democrats included — not Paul Wolfowitz, that legislated a war to reform and restore the wider Middle East: "...whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region".

So read the senators' October 2002 resolution. It is a model of sobriety and judiciousness in authorizing a war. There are facts cited such as the violation of agreements; moral considerations such as genocide; real worries about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam (e.g., "...whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens."

Where are they all? Where is all this WMD that IRAQ supoosedly had? ----- And before anyone says it - If its in Joran or Syria or anywhere else, why did they let it out of the country in the first place?

So the weapons inspectors wouldn't find it.

And if you know where it is - GO GET IT - I dont care who has it, GO GET IT if your so sure. Clearly, if invading IRAQ was ok because they had WMDs - then invade whoever has them now and GO GET THE WMDs.

Precisely whom do you think would authorize that, given the poisoned political climate for which we can thank your side?

Could it be possible this new evidence was fabricated after the fact to justify America's actions?

(I think that's what RaVeneyes was saying in his response to you too, but I could be wrong.)
ANSWER:


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.


Besides, take something in consideration, if you had absolute rule and absolute rites to the wealth of a country, would you go and threaten that by attacking a country that is far superior and has already has proven in the past it can destroy your military with ease (Desert Storm)? Call Saddam what you will, murderer, scumbag, scoundrel, P.O.S., but one thing he wasn't was stupid.

See, you forget that Saddam tried to bully Kuwait, which was an inferior, weaker country than Iraq, militarily. But he got his butt kicked when we kicked him out of Kuwait and left him disorganized and embarrassed. Saddam was stupid to ignore us then when we told him to get out, and he was stupid to ignore us this last time when we told him to comply with the UN resolutions. It's clear that he wanted revenge and he also wanted to run amok in the middle east whenever he felt like it, and the USA was going to prevent him from doing that.

Don't forget that during Desert Storm he immediately launched SCUDs into Israel. Who do you think he was going to use the WMDs on?

I dont know about the 'bombshell' part. But I'll make a few simple points.

It was said that Saddam was connected to Al Qadia and Bin Ladan - that report doesnt say that, it only says "Islamic terrorism"

Damn near every country over there has some connection to "Islamic terrorism" - I dont see us invading Saudi Arabia...

The war was sold on WMDs - Remember, that little Speech Powell gave, taking about all the trucks that made biological weapons, and the other WMDs? Where are they all? Where is all this WMD that IRAQ supoosedly had? ----- And before anyone says it - If its in Joran or Syria or anywhere else, why did they let it out of the country in the first place? And if you know where it is - GO GET IT - I dont care who has it, GO GET IT if your so sure. Clearly, if invading IRAQ was ok because they had WMDs - then invade whoever has them now and GO GET THE WMDs.




SO its takes 11 'Government Officials' to come up with this kind of BS?

1. "It was said..." Who said it? Not Bush or Cheney. Sorry, pal, that dog won't hunt.
2. Most of the countries in the Middle East are cooperating with the war on terror, including Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran have a bulls-eye on them b/c they won't cooperate.
3. You mischaracterized the article - it said that eleven government officials CONFIRMED the documents. Interesting that any documentation that shows that Bush is right is instantly labeled as BS by you fiberals, even though you HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT IT.

3. You mischaracterized the article - it said that eleven government officials CONFIRMED the documents. Interesting that any documentation that shows that Bush is right is instantly labeled as BS by you fiberals, even though you HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT IT.

Using the RWW method of responding, The standard is a RWW rag, and what are the names of those 11 government officials and what are their titles/jobs?

Using the RWW method of responding, The standard is a RWW rag, and what are the names of those 11 government officials and what are their titles/jobs?

I'm sure we'll know when the Admin releases the docs. Be patient.

Like you care. You'll just demagogue the docs as per your typical LWW standard response.

Saddam's Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes


THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives.
[snip]
The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator.

It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.
Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

Don't you know that those documents are FAKE??? EVERY ONE OF THOSE 50,000 documents is a FAKE! A FAKE, I TELL YOU!!!!

AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: *owned* *owned* *owned*

Hey!!!! Ar-rent-you the same guy that is 'almost always right' according to Barry?

Using the RWW method of responding, The standard is a RWW rag, and what are the names of those 11 government officials and what are their titles/jobs?

'Scuse me, but you get your articles from Huffingtonpost, Daily Koz, and other left-wing wacko websites. FYI, the Weekly Standard is pretty mainstream and tells it like it is .... it's YOUR views that are out of the mainstream.

'Scuse me, but you get your articles from Huffingtonpost, Daily Koz, and other left-wing wacko websites. FYI, the Weekly Standard is pretty mainstream and tells it like it is .... it's YOUR views that are out of the mainstream.Hey Todd, thanks for your 2 cents!

Come on guys - tone it down... No need for name calling - especially names like idiot and stupid. Argue the issue.

1. "It was said..." Who said it? Not Bush or Cheney. Sorry, pal, that dog won't hunt.


:bsflag:

You know damn well Cheney made the connection between Saddam and Bin-Ladin. We've been around this block before. He's on VIDEO for cryin out loud. I don't have the transcript memorized, but he essentially said that "anyone who believes there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin-Ladin is an idiot". Are you putting yourself into that "idiot" barrel?? Stop being a weasle by nitpicking semantics.

This article, while it may be factual, doesn't shed one iota of new light on the issue. WHY would anyone be surprized to find evidence of terrorists training camps in Iraq?? DUH! No one EVER said that Saddam didn't fossten.......... er foster (sorry Freudian slip) terrorism. He had an army, didn't he? Gee, you think he trained them to play tennis??

You know, we wouldn't be having this conversation today if *some* prior administration would have taken care of buisness when they had the opportunity. And NO I'm not talking about Clinton, I'm talking about BuSh Sr. He had the primo opportunity to oust Saddam in Gulf-war I, but instead he limp-dicked it.

[I]Even more importantly, the U.S. Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We seem to have forgotten that entirely.

If the Bush administration erred in privileging the dangers of Iraqi WMDs, then the Congress in its wisdom used a far broader approach (as Sen. Robert Byrd complained at the time), and went well beyond George Bush in making a more far-reaching case for war — genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols.


I've made this point several times. The above stated items are blatant acts of war.But the post is always ignored...why is that :confused: ? It goes to show that the left only cares about the lives of military members when it suits their goals. Because we were getting shot at daily before 2003...

:bsflag:

You know damn well Cheney made the connection between Saddam and Bin-Ladin. We've been around this block before. He's on VIDEO for cryin out loud. I don't have the transcript memorized, but he essentially said that "anyone who believes there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin-Ladin is an idiot". Are you putting yourself into that "idiot" barrel?? Stop being a weasle by nitpicking semantics.

This article, while it may be factual, doesn't shed one iota of new light on the issue. WHY would anyone be surprized to find evidence of terrorists training camps in Iraq?? DUH! No one EVER said that Saddam didn't fossten.......... er foster (sorry Freudian slip) terrorism. He had an army, didn't he? Gee, you think he trained them to play tennis??

You know, we wouldn't be having this conversation today if *some* prior administration would have taken care of buisness when they had the opportunity. And NO I'm not talking about Clinton, I'm talking about BuSh Sr. He had the primo opportunity to oust Saddam in Gulf-war I, but instead he limp-dicked it.

No, you're right, johnny...my error...I misunderstood the statement by Joey to be a connection b/t Saddam and 9/11, and it was THAT connection that I contend Cheney didn't make.

My bad.

See, barry, I don't think I'm always right. :N

Come on guys - tone it down... No need for name calling - especially names like idiot and stupid. Argue the issue.

Joey,

I was using irony and was referring to Bryan. Your editing of my post is not warranted under your own rules, considering I was making a point and it is clear that I was not calling Bryan stupid or an idiot.

But you already knew that, didn't you? You only edited it to take away some of the sting of the absurdity.

How thoughtful of you to edit my post (which didn't actually call anybody any names) while leaving other posts intact which ACTUALLY INTEND on calling somebody stupid or an idiot.

This is a clear example of an administrator using his power of censorship to advance an agenda. I don't care if you own the site. That's bad form. :ban

:bsflag: