How many "scandals" or documented "lies" or "contradictions" is the media and the Democratic party going to have to come up with before they finally find one that sticks? Doesn't it seem like at least once a week there is some new controversy that makes worldwide headlines and the anti-Bush media treats it like "this is the one! Finally we're going to take down President Bush!", but then it cools off, necessary corrections are rarely made, and apologies are almost never given.

Well, this week hasn't disappointed, and given us at least two. First was the false idea that President Bush is planning to nuke Iran, and next was the Washington Post's (I guess it was their turn. I think CBS, NY Times, WAPO, all get together and say "okay, it's our turn this week") story that supposedly busted the President for lying in late May of 2003. They tried to say that his claim that we'd found mobile WMD labs in Iraq came after he already knew that the trailers weren't mobile WMD labs. ABC was complicit in the media's misinformation campaign. Obviously the rest of the media picked it up and ran wild.

Finally though, the White House fired back angrily, and McClellan asked for an apology. I still think that sitting back and taking it all these years has done them irreparable damage, but every once and a while they strike back. Sure Rummy gives his little jabs from time to time like "I have a real daytime job" and "get a life" (follow links for Expose the Left's videos). As good as those are, they aren't the type of serious outrage we got from McClellan over this latest incident.

AP by way of Fox News

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan vigorously denied suggestions that Bush was making claims that had been debunked when he said two small trailers seized in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories.

Bush declared in a May 2003 television interview, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was cited at the time as supporting evidence for the decision to go to war.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that experts on a Pentagon-sponsored mission who examined the trailers concluded that they had nothing to do with biological weapons and sent their findings to Washington in a classified report on May 27, 2003.

One day later, the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency publicly issued an assessment saying the opposite — that U.S. officials were confident that the trailers were used to produce biological weapons. The assessment said the mobile facilities represented "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." On May 29, 2003, the president repeated the claims from the public intelligence report.

This is the source of the understandable outrage coming out of the White House. The media spun a story to make it seem like the President had been told that the trailers weren't for producing WMDs, but that he ran out to say they did to suit his agenda, which would mean he lied. The facts prove otherwise though, but you know the media won't be so quick to report the true

McClellan dismissed the Post article and a report based on it that aired on ABC News Wednesday morning as irresponsible. He said ABC News should apologize and took issue with the way the Post story was written.

"The lead suggested that what the president was saying was based on something that had been debunked, and that is not true," McClellan said. "In fact, the president was saying something that was based on what the intelligence community — through the CIA and DIA — were saying."

Not that we should expect any better out of any of the media, but we really shouldn't be surprised at ABC's involvement here. They just suspended a producer for his Bush hatred (obviously a necessary PR move), less than a week before hiring anti-war protestor Meredith Vieira to fill the already liberal seat of Katie Couric.

More from the AP via Yahoo! News:

"This is nothing more than rehashing an old issue that was resolved long ago," McClellan said. "I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong."

"The intelligence community makes the assessment," he said. "The White House is not the intelligence-gathering agency."

more...

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck declined to speak specifically about the classified field report but said in general that producing a finished intelligence report takes time, coordination, debate and vetting.

"This is not a fast process, especially when dealing with complex issues," she said. "It is not typically something that happens in a matter of hours."

Again, I think the White House should stooped low and not taken the high road all these years and blasted the dishonest hate Bush media. I'm glad McClellan struck back a little here, but I'm afraid it's too little too late. I wouldn't care so much if they haven't consistently undermined the war effort though, and done nothing short of operate as propaganda writers for the enemy.

I just wanted to also quickly mention that as usual, Yahoo! News was playing the front page headline game with this again. Even though the story makes clear what really happened, the headline conveys a different message so Yahoo! was sure to run it on the home page. I've busted them for making up their own lying headlines before, but this one appears to actually be the work of the AP (who wrote the story), because I see it being used elsewhere.

 

cross-posted at Expose the Left

h/t Drudge

You probably thought that headline was a joke huh? If there was ever a time to use the phrase - "You can't make this stuff up", it's now.

In documents captured in Iraq, as part of the untranslated document dump that is being slowly released to the public we learn that Saddam wanted to use camel's as (involuntary obviously) suicide bombers. Now if I had said this a week ago without the documentary evidence, you'd think I was perpetuating a racist stereotype muslims/camels/sand, etc. But this is all to insanely real.

Beyond the odd weapon choice, the Telegraph reports that this funny little tidbit comes from a potentially more important report, that if translated properly, seems to indicate that Saddam trained the outside terrorists that we're now fighting over there.

via The Telegraph (click for entire article)

Saddam Hussein planned to use "camels of mass destruction" as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces.

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.

In the memo, they are described as "estishehadeyeen", Arabic for suicide martyrs, and would almost certainly have been foreign volunteers.

The memo details a training commission to be headed by senior officers, including a colonel from the "Directory of Political Orientation". Their job, says the report, was to "prepare a very intensive training course", "to raise the physical fitness and train in the use of Kalashnikovs and hand grenades".

It continues: "The largest section of the course will be specialised to focus on using the explosive material in the body, in motorcycle, in cars, and in camels". Camels will be "provided by the Directory of General Military Intelligence".

If the translation is correct, it suggests that many of the foreign fighters now attacking coalition forces and bombing Iraqi civilians were directly trained by the Saddam regime, although there are no known reports of camels being used in suicide attacks.

read more

(sarcasm)Wouldn't you be shocked to find out that Saddam was training terrorists?!(/sarcasm)

This is a perfect example of why I created that extremely long post (linked below) on the case for WMDs and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. So as documents like this come in and get translated, I can point back to that original post as further support when a liberal wants to whine that a single new document is "just one" and therefore doesn't hold much weight. While this isn't about either of those two things specifically, it does stand to show yet another terror tie. It's piling on, and it would seem we're just getting started.

Previous:
Russian and Turkish Scientists Were In Iraq, Saddam Didn't Believe He'd Be Ousted
The Case For Iraq's WMDs, Al Qaeda Connections, And Russian Involvement

 

cross-posted at Expose the Left

This is a very long post, but after this I will try to keep my own comments on this (and stories on future released and translated documents) to a minimum, as I suspect we'll continue to see this kind of information roll in for quite some time. In the future, I'll most likely reference this post for background for people who need to catch up, that way I won't have to repeat all of this everytime we learn more. Don't expect to read this in one sitting, but you will probably want to use it as a reference and link resource and as this story continues to develop.

You should already be familiar with the fact that chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra had been pressing for the release of millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the documents and tapes have yet to be translated, but many conservatives have long believed that there was important information in these documents that would go a long way to reveal connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda (among other terror groups) and possibly information about an ongoing WMD program.

Many of the documents have just been sitting around in store houses not being translated for a number of years now, but Hoekstra and others have continued to put pressure on the administration to release them, something you'd think they would want to do anyway considering the information would seem to support the administration's position on Iraq. Many have wondered if the administration's reluctance to release the documents might be over concern of embarassing and alienating our Russian "allies", because we think we're going to need their help with the current Iran situation. This scenario makes sense considering the scattered reports of Russian involvement in transporting Saddam's WMDs to Syria in days before the war, among other things. And if these documents are damning for the Russians, that would most certainly make them our enemies, right? I mean, if they were actively working against us in the UN for their own sinister reasons (of course we already all know about oil for food anyway), how could they remain an ally?

Personally I say "screw Russia", let the truth come out. But as you know, the President and the administration don't concentrate on polls, instead they do what they believe is right in the face of all the media and hatred coming from the left that has now affected mainstream America's view of the war in Iraq. I have long believed that the WMDs were moved to/through Syria and that the information will come out eventually. The question is when? Will it be 20 years from now when it won't matter as much? Or will it be later this year? Imagine the global impact proof of WMDS would have on our country, the world, and public opinion everywhere.

Recent events have brought all of this "release the documents and tapes" talk to the forefront. First there was the Intelligence Summit, earlier this year, that gave an exclusive to ABC News (why them I don't know), releasing some translated Saddam tapes where he discusses WMDs and attacks on the United States (see here and here.) Then there has been coverage (though not as much as it deserves from the MSM) of Iraq's former Air Force General, under Saddam, who has written a book and continues to insist that Saddam had the WMDs flown and trucked to Syria shortly before the Iraq war. Recently I've seen interviews with him in which he says that he believes without a doubt that the information will all eventually come out in the near future.

I actually saw Sada on Fox & Friends being interviewed by Brian Kilmeade the other day, and this Sierra Times article sums up what they talked about. Basically Sada is claiming that Newsweek mistranlated (intentionally or not) some newly released tapes and used them to further push the "no WMDs" claim. Sada says they didn't take in to account the Tikrit dialect, etc. and that the tapes actually say that Saddam DID have WMDs.

General Sada says that the tapes were not translated correctly and his translation is that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. Why would Newsweek publish an erroneous story? Sada believes they used unqualified translators who confused Arab dialects. Others believe Newsweek may have a vested interest in perpetuating the story that Iraq had no WMD.

Despite the fact that the left blasts him as this "lone" voice who is just trying to sell books, he has not wavered, and he is not a lone voice.

General Sada's allegations are confirmed by others. A Pentagon official, John A. Shaw, who was responsible for keeping track of Iraq’s weapons programs, claims that special Russian troops in civilian clothes supervised the transfer of Saddam’s WMDs into Syria. An Israeli general, Moshe Yaalon, has made a similar claim. The general in charge of Pentagon spy satellites has admitted observing large truck convoys from Iraq to Syria before the war began.

Yet most of the 2 million documents have not been explored or even translated. It’s almost as if the CIA and the Pentagon don’t want to know what they contain.

If you'd like to see and listen to a couple Sada interviews, Ian at Expose the Left has some:
- Daily Show (of all places) interview
- Radio interview with Mark Rosen - Part 1, Parts 2 & 3

As for others making claims that WMDs did in fact exist, here are just a few articles of the many out there. Again, no smoking guns here, but a lot of information that has been out there and has only gotten brief mentions (if that) by the MSM:

CNSNews.com: Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
This rather long article, dated October 04, 2004, is a report on documents released to them from "a senior government official who is not a political appointee" The documents seem similar to the newly released documents, in that they discuss Saddam's extensive terror ties (but it's totally different information separate from the ties detailed in the new docs). The reports apparently also claim that the documents show that Saddam bought mustard gas and anthrax in the summer of 2000.

They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)

read more

Washington Times: Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs
This article, dated October 29, 2003, cites a higly credible source who claims that in weeks leading up to the war, Saddam hide, moved, and destroyed his WMDS:

Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.

Iraqi government officials "below the Saddam Hussein and the sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to dispose, destroy and disperse," he said.

Gen. Clapper said he felt strongly that the satellite imagery of Iraq's weapons facilities before the war was "accurate and balanced."

"Based on what we saw prior to the onset of hostilities, we certainly felt there were indications of [weapons of mass destruction] activity," said the retired general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

read more

The American Thinker: A second Iraqi former commander confirms WMDs
I don't see the date on this, but I believe it was from mid-February of this year. The article discusses claims made by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator, that parallel General Sada's comments. Ibrahim's comments come from an interview by Ryan Mauro, which the article uses for it's source, including this quote:

I know Saddam’s weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980’s that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn’t going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

He goes on to discuss Saddam's Al Qaeda ties and debunking the myth that we brought Saddam to power and gave him WMDs. He actually says that it was the Soviet Union who supported the Ba’athist Revolution, and that the KGB was actually there training Iraqis. Again, this is all very interesting considering the newly released and translated documents we're seeing this week.

read more

Washington Times:
This article, dated October 28, 2004, cites controversial source, former deputy undersecretary of defense John Shaw. Shaw has been one of the few voices maintaining that the weapons were moved to Syria and Lebanon with Russian military assistance. This article is talking specifically about the now famous Al-Qaqaa facility, and the missing materials used for making high explosives and nuclear devices.

Pravda.RU: Pentagon thinks Saddam bought WMDs in Russia and hid them in Syria
This is another article that relies heavily on the testimony of John Shaw. Pravda, a Russian paper, discusses a Shaw report based on documents received from the friendly Ukraine, as well as British Intelligence:

“Weapons of mass destruction bought by Saddam in Russia were taken to Syria and Lebanon,” announced the former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who was speaking at the summit held in Arlington .

“They were moved by Russian special forces dressed in civilian clothing, who had been instructed to enter Iraq to move the weapons and destroy all the evidence that would prove their existence,” he declared.

The Ukraine, as a way of expressing their gratitude for the US’s help in them gaining independence, has pulled certain highly important documents out of their archives. The documents give evidence of the transfer of weapons from the Soviet Union to Iraq and also show that Russia has given support to Saddam Hussein’s regime. In 2004, when John Shaw presented his information to the Defense Departments of both the USA and the Central Intelligence Agency, they unanimously declared it be to false intelligence. However, thanks to Shaw’s connections in Great Britain and in the Ukraine, his report has been released.

The article also adds retired General-Lieutenant of the US Air Force Thomas McInerney's comments in to the mix:

"Iran’s nuclear program is advancing more quickly than anyone can imagine. The USA now relies on Russia, China and France. The Bush administration does not want to release any information which would cast them in a bad light.”

read more

The New York Sun: Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim (original article was located at the NY Sun's site here, but now you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing. Luckily someone pasted the entire thing at ChronWatch Forum.
This article, dated February 8, 2006, is about David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, and his claims about WMDs that he believes are still in Iraq and he knows the locations, but for some reason they aren't being checked out:

David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to the Talill Air Base in Nasiriyah at the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His job was to pick up any intelligence on the whereabouts of senior Baathists and weapons of mass destruction and then send the information to the American weapons inspectors gathering in Baghdad that would later become the Iraq Survey Group.

Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by these sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. But in all but one case, they never arrived.

read the entire article for much more

I think this is an important article that seems like it barely got anyone's attention, even less than the rest of these.

This web page cites comments from Paris-based Syrian dissident, Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), about whom a January 5, 2004 article in the Dutch paper De Telegraaf was based. Nayuf has maintained that he knows the locations of Iraq's WMDs in Syria, though I would assume they are no longer at these same locations (but who knows.) There is more information about these claims out there, I just happen to have this bookmarked from a while back. See this page for maps and coordinates of where he claims the weapons of mass destruction are being stored.

Jumping back in this post, but ahead in news stories, let's look again at the Weekly Standard article from earlier this week, dated March 20, 2006 (based on the WS issue release date, the article was done and online a while earlier). In light of the ABC News story on the Intelligence Summit tapes, Congressman Pence and Congressman Hoekstra asked the President, in a briefing on Iraq, about releasing the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes. The President seemed interested in getting them released, and he apparently expressed the same thing last November with some of the same players around:

Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. "If I knew then what I know now," Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, "I would have been more supportive of the war."

Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman's chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, "I hear you. It will be taken care of."

The article notes that Negroponte has been stalling, saying that the documents are only important as historical artifacts. Obviously, since very few have been translated, the folks deserve to see them ASAP to make their own determination. Of course Negroponte could be covering for the Russians, as we discussed earlier, so we don't alienate them while we deal with Iran. The article goes on to cite a very extensive August 13, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle article based on documents the Chronicle discovered, showing Russian training of Iraqi Secret Police among other things.

The Chronicle article is another article that is a bit long, but necessary read. It reveals that while Russia was working against us in the UN in the lead up to the war, they were training Iraqis which is more than just a slap in the face and very unally-like, but against UN santions. Interestingly, this article is more than two and a half years old, and with newly released documents, we're hearing pretty much the same exact story this week.

The documents found Thursday and Friday in a Baghdad office of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi secret police, indicate that at least five agents graduated Sept. 15 from a two-week course in surveillance and eavesdropping techniques, according to certificates issued to the Iraqi agents by the "Special Training Center" in Moscow.

read more of the Chronicle article

Back to the Weekly Standard article, we see Negroponte has done a 180 and is now singing a different tune, after continued pressing from Hoekstra:

Perhaps anticipating the weakness of his "mere history" argument, Negroponte abruptly shifted his position last week. He still opposes releasing the documents, only now he claims that the information in these documents is so valuable that it cannot be made public. Negroponte gave a statement to Fox News responding to Hoekstra's call to release the captured documents. "These documents have provided, and continue to provide, actionable intelligence to ongoing operations. . . . It would be ill-advised to release these materials without careful screening because the material includes sensitive and potentially harmful information."

The article offers more on potential Russian involvement being a factor in the stonewalling:

"They are State Department people who want to make no waves and don't want to do anything that would upset anyone," he says.

This is not idle speculation. In meetings with Hoekstra, Negroponte and his staff have repeatedly expressed concern that releasing this information might embarrass our allies. Who does Negroponte have in mind?

Then we have a compromise, and while it's a start, it's not good enough:

Hoekstra says Negroponte's intransigence is forcing him to get the documents out "the hard way." The House Intelligence chairman has introduced a bill (H.R. 4869) that would require the DNI to begin releasing the captured documents. Although Negroponte continues to argue against releasing the documents in internal discussions, on March 9, he approached Hoekstra with a counterproposal. Negroponte offered to release some documents labeled "No Intelligence Value," and indicated his willingness to review other documents for potential release, subject to a scrub for sensitive material.

Luckily Hoekstra feels the same way I, and I imagine many of you do, that this limited release is a good start but we need a full release. Hoekstra seems determined to make this happen, and I'm very thankful, because it would seem Hoekstra is almost a lone voice, but a semi-powerful one.

"I'm encouraged that John is taking another look at it," Hoekstra said last Thursday. "But I want a system that is biased in favor of declassification. I want some assurance that they aren't just picking the stuff that's garbage and releasing that. If we're only declassifying maps of Baghdad, I'm not going to be happy."

He continued: "There may be many documents that relate to Iraqi WMD programs. Those should be released. Same thing with documents that show links to terrorism. They have to release documents on topics of interest to the American people and they have to give me some kind of schedule. What's the time frame? I don't have any idea."

Hoekstra is not going away. "We're going to ride herd on this. This is a step in the right direction, but I am in no way claiming victory. I want these documents out."

So does President Bush. You'd think that would settle it.

Fast forward a couple days to the present, and we're beginning to get a slow trickle of documents, being released at this site, which for some reason is currently down but check back. I'd be interested to know why it's down, by the way. Hacked? Documents embarassing our allies forced government to shut it down? Who knows, let's just hope it's a server crash due to a bombardment of traffic. Anyway, many of the docs are coming out untranslated, and the blogosphere and others are doing the translating and reporting on their own.

Bluto at DreadPundit quickly dug out a Zarqawi photo from untranslated documents from 2002.

Omar at Iraq the Model personally translated a document which you can find here.

A few days ago, Michelle Malkin linked to ABC News's beginning coverage of some of the newly released documents. Many of us in the blogosphere shared outrage at their "editors note" or disclaimer that sought to give less credibility to the documents, yet we never see these disclaimers on their other stories when they (or when the rest of the media) cite unknown and uncorroborated sources. Malkin gives a few of the more notorious examples. Malkin also seems to have a translation of the same document we saw at Iraq the Model here.

Now, this was all immediately upon the release of the documents. The MSM caught on after a few days, but with their might and resources should really be digging through this stuff and helping Hoekstra press for more documents to be released, by getting the public fired up about it. Hopefully they'll at least help us little guys get the word out. ABC News for some reason seems to be outfront on this again for some reason. Obviously Fox News would like to be, so I'm not sure what is going on that ABC keeps getting these exclusives (like with the Summit/Tierney tapes). Anyway, what's odd is that the ABC News article that Michelle Malkin, Confederate Yankee, and countless others were linking to has the date changed to on March 17, now has a date of March 23, and is the same article that much of the rest of the MSM has been referencing for the past couple days. Just kind of weird, not sure what's going on over there. Hopefully it's just that they've added more to the initial report, and it's just sort of an updated compilation.

Now, to the meat and bones of what has been revealed in ABC's coverage of some of these documents. Despite claims of the left, and this news really stands to hurt them, Saddam did have contacts with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They weren't the religious versus secular mortal enemies we've been told they were. Of course we've had a lot of information about connections for some time, but again this is all information coming out of these newly released documents captured throughout the course of the current war.

Below is just a sampling of what we learn from the ABC News coverage of some of the documents. Read the entire article to learn about their discussions of Russian tip offs about US war strategy, Iraq's contacts with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, discussions of operational cooperation, techniques used for UN deception, and Iraq's awareness of Al Qaeda presence in the country.

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

and this...

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

- That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
- That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
- That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
- That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

and this...

Document dated March 23, 1997

A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:

- Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.)
- Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored
- Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents
- Removing files from computers.

The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents.

Read the entire thing for more.

The one update we see is the part about Russian involvement:

Two Iraqi documents from March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

Document written sometime before March 5, 2003

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

Document dated March 25, 2003

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.

This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers (presumably seeking further elaboration of the U.S. war plans) contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. Needless to say, this caused great embarrassment to the ambassador, and the officers were instructed "not to mention the ambassador again in that context."

(Editor's Note: The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil — worth roughly $1.5 million. )

This is the bit of shocking information got the attention of much of the rest of the media. I'm not sure about network news coverage, but I know Fox News has made a lot of mention of it. But we see a lot of articles (at least on the internet) covering the story, so I think the information is getting out to some extent.

FoxNews.com has this AP coverage of the story, as their top story as we speak, and I've heard it mentioned on TV many times over the last 24 hours. Here's more AP coverage, and here's Reuters. Both of those articles offer in discussions on the Russians tipping off Saddam as to our military strategy. If there was ever a time for the cliche saying "with friends like these..."

So to be clear, it's pretty well established that while Russia was battling us at the UN, they were training Iraqi forces, then before the war they were tipping of Iraq on our military plans, then there are reports and many people claiming that Russia helped transport Saddam's WMDs to Syria, much of which he may have bought from them in the first place. By the way, that would be a good reason for the Russian military to want to hide it, no?

Stephen Hayes has a new piece at the Weekly Standard, that cites some of the newly released documents, and reveals further Saddam terror and specifically Al Qaeda connections. To wet your taste buds the article begins:

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

Be sure to read the whole thing, or at least check out the segment from Wednesday night's Hannity & Colmes on which Hayes appeared to discuss the information, and gave a pretty good summary of what's contained in the article. Expose the Left has the video, as always. Be sure to catch Colmes trying to spin and say that it doesn't reveal Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, dispite the fact that no one is claiming it does. Hayes clears it up, but Colmes tosses it out there again at the end of the segment making sure there wasn't time for Hayes to correct him a second time.

The New York Sun is also covering Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda in a new article, with a bit of a different angle. The Sun interviewed former Senate DEMOCRAT and 9/11 Commissioner, Bob Kerry, who acknowledges the great importance of these documents, and the truths they reveal, even though he had to throw in the Colmes "no 9/11 connection" spin, which again is pointless because such a claim isn't being made:

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.

"Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said. "It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Laden, but this makes clear that there was a relationship."

I'm glad to see Bob Kerry being a stand up guy about this, and responding in an honest way to the findings. I wonder what we'll here from the other Kerry, and the rest of the Senate Democrats who have repeatedly called the President a liar and said he mislead the nation about Iraq's WMDs and Al Qaeda ties, despite making the same and even stronger claims themselves for over a decade leading up to the war.

I'm hoping that the MSM realizes that this is the most important story of the year, and part of what is likely the most important story of our lives (9/11, War on Terror, Iraq, etc.) I regularly rip on Yahoo! for pumping lying and misleading headlines on their home page with regularity, but they seem to be leading with the Russian involvement story right now, with an AP story under the headline: "Russian Spies Operated in Iraq Through '03"

In closing, I'd again like to say that this long post is meant to serve as a background reference for future posts as these documents continue to be released and reported on. In the future I'd like to be able to post on new developments, without having to give a bunch of background in each post to avoid drive-by liberal commenters whining "this is just one document, so what". This is sort of a clearinghouse of information that we have at this point, that we can all point back to as we move forward.

Open Trackbacks:
Samantha Burns, Point Five, 7 Deadly Sins, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Colbert Report, Imagine Kitty, Uncooperative Blogger, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Adam's Blog, Stop the ACLU, TMH's Bacon Bits, Wizbang

 

SCROLL FOR UPDATE

Just thought we all could use a reminder of what the President said in his justification for taking military action against Iraq:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office (The President) told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," (The President) said.

Operation......, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, (The President) said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,"(The President) said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said (The President).

(The President) also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, (The President) said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," (The President) said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, (The President) said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," (The President) said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

(The President) said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said (The President). "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

(The President) also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," (The President) said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, (The President) said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

...

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Now the President has taken a lot of heat from Senate and House Democrats, and liberals around the country in general. The media has also been particularly harsh with the President for making these statements in the lead up to taking military action in Iraq... oh wait... I'm sorry..... I just noticed the date of the CNN article I pulled all that from, is December 16, 1998, and these were statements made by former President Bill Clinton before he launched strikes against Iraq. This was also about a month and a half after Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, effectively making Iraq "regime change" the United States policy, which is probably why he mentions assisting in such a regime change in these comments (though as we know, he never followed through).

Obviously I did this deliberately and changed "Clinton" throughout the article to read "(The President)" for the effect of the surprise ending, and didn't actually think I was reading President Bush's comments in the lead up to the current war in Iraq. You could probably tell they weren't Bush's statements because in many respects they are much stronger statements than Bush even made, but in general the message is virtually identical. I did have to remove two small paragraphs that related to the Clinton impeachment situation, as that would have obviously ruined the whole illusion, but othe than that and using "(The President)" instead of Clinton, this is ripped directly from the CNN article.

So I'm just curious, where were all the "Bush lied, people died" folks then? Where were all the "mislead us to war" "the President lied" Senate Democrats screaming about Clinton warning about how Saddam's WMD programs, including nuclear could be rebuilt in "months, not years". Now this is a bit of overkill but we know that the Democrats spent over a decade making a stronger case for war than President Bush ever did on the same intelligence. This included people in the Senate Intelligence committees and continued up to the eve of the war that began in early 2003. Incase you've somehow been asleep, see here for some of these comments from all of your favorite "Bush lied" Democrats, making the same and stronger arguments as President Bush. See here for Kerry's personal list of these type of comments, including pre-2004 election flip-flops on them (when you get to the page, scroll down a ways to go back as far as 1990).

Cal Thomas, in a piece on Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda, provides us this other Kerry quote from October 9, 2002:

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. ... He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel . ... We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

More on Iraq and Al Qaeda's connections here, and this doesn't include anything from the hundreds of thousands of documents that have been found in Iraq and not translated. We can only speculate as to what is found in those documents.

But back to the point. I just recently happened upon this 1998 CNN article detailing these Clinton's comments before striking Iraq and I was just a little irritated that I'd never seen this anywhere. I'd never heard interviewers say to the bloviating Democrats and Democratic operatives "but look what Clinton said!" Hannity isthe only one I've seen play gotcha with similar things to this a number of times, and it's always great to see a dumbfounded liberal look like they want to jump out the window. Most know the game now and are prepared not to slam the comments, knowing that Hannity will reveal they were made by leading Democrats.

Anyway, I think you get the picture, but in closing I think we should also note that not only did Clinton make the same (and arguably a stronger) case for military action and regime change (the law he signed anyway) in Iraq, but we had all the more reason when President Bush did the same thing because we had been attacked on 9/11/2001. Did all the liberals come out screaming "President Clinton, you're attacking a country that never attacked us" back when he launched his strikes on Iraq during peace time?

And one last little known story I happened to find recently... Despite Russia's opposition to the Iraq war, after 9/11, Russian President Putin warned Washington that Russian intelligence had learned that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the United States! I'm sure you probably didn't hear much about this, but it's not a joke, check it out via CNN here (June 18, 2004).

(partial excerpt)

Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

read more...

I still think there is something to the reports of Russian military aiding in the transport of Saddam's WMDs to Syria in the days before the war, so I'm not sure how this intelligence sharing fits with that, other than the fact that there is a lot of corruption in the Russian military, and perhaps those aiding Saddam were involved in activities not sanctioned by the government. But that is all a whole different issue.

So anyway, next time someone wants to forget what Clinton said, you'll be able to remind them, and provide them with some other information they're probably not familiar with. I know I've shared a lot of similar information with uninformed liberals in recent months, and will continue to do so.

Open Trackbacks/Linkfests:
Right Wing Nation, TMH's Bacon Bits, The LIberal Wrong Wing, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Wizbang, The Bullwinkle Blog, Don Surber, Point Five, Church and State, Stop the ACLU

UPDATE - 3/7/06 2:25 AM CT
Expose the Left has video of hecklers at a Clinton speaking event calling him a "war criminal". I'd be interested to find out specifically what they're complaining about. I'm also curious what Bill thinks about this behavior that conservative speakers experience regularly, only our people get pies and such thrown at them too. Anyway, I found it interesting that this comes just a couple days after I posted this flashback post.

Now obviously I'm not taking credit for setting liberals off (though that would be hilarious), but based on what we see here, the people who do this to President Bush should be doing it to Clinton as well. I don't know if this story will develop further, but I suppose it's possible that these people were conservatives mocking the lefty protestors who do this sort of thing, because I've just never heard of them doing this to their hero... Although, Sheehan has slammed Hillary, so maybe these were some of her troops?

 

No matter how much Dems (and it would seem most Republicans) would like to put the WMD issue to rest, it's not going to happen. Althought there was obviously no smoking gun, I thought that the recently released Saddam tapes (see here and here) would at least be covered a little on Fox News, after they were released this weekend at the Intelligence Summit.

As I've mentioned before, there are countless Iraqis who claim that the stuff was moved to Syria, not to mention Syrian exiles who say the same thing. Then virtually every intelligence agency in the world and the UN believed they were there. We know he had the stuff and used it, and have no reason to believe that he turned good guy and destroyed the stuff on his own. Of course we also have lists of all the leading Democrats, even those who now call President Bush a liar, making a stronger WMD argument for over a decade leading up to the war. In addition to all of that, we have a former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq saying there are a number of sites in Iraq where the stuff is likely still located!

Add all that to John Shaw continuing to insist that the stuff was moved with the help of Russian military. I recall a few small news stories about this a while back that were never really followed up in the MSM (big surprise).

Today, Pravda has the latest John Shaw story that makes it clear he's not going away, and neither is this angle to the weapons of mass destruction story. Due to it's importance, I have reproduced the whole thing below. One point that stood out most to me was from retired General-Lieutenant of the US Air Force Thomas McInerney. He believes that we can't blast Russia over this right now because we need their help with Iran who may be moving towards a nuke quicker than we know.

Via the English version of Pravda.ru

If you think the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq came to nothing and that the pretext for the war was unjustified, then you would be mistaken. Saddam possessed a huge arsenal which he managed to smuggle out of Iraq with the help of Russian special forces. Indeed this story came to light several years ago. The source of this story is John Shaw, the former high-ranking Pentagon official. In October 2004 he announced to the world that Russian special forces had hidden the Iraqi dictator’s weapons in Syria and Lebanon. It is true that not even those in the organization itself believed him. Did the head of the Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld dream of finding WMDs in Iraq?

Since his resignation, Shaw has not stopped voicing his views. Last Saturday at the so-called “International Intelligence Summit” he again linked Saddam, Syria and Russian special forces.

“Weapons of mass destruction bought by Saddam in Russia were taken to Syria and Lebanon,” announced the former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who was speaking at the summit held in Arlington .

“They were moved by Russian special forces dressed in civilian clothing, who had been instructed to enter Iraq to move the weapons and destroy all the evidence that would prove their existence,” he declared.

Shaw called the removal of weapons from Iraq “an organized campaign in which the neighboring states were directly involved. There is a long history of relations between these states and Russia.”

The former official of the US Defense Department thinks that Saddam managed to amass more than 100 million tones of weapons and ammunition. This makes up approximately 60% of the US’s military arsenal. In his words, these weapons came into Iraq’s hands from Russia, China and France .

John Shaw’s information comes from British intelligence service: “Intelligence services noticed numerous occurrences of lorries crossing Syria ’s border and then returning empty.”

Shaw worked closely on a report with Julian Walker, the former British ambassador to Iraq, where he spent some twenty years or so. Shaw also helped a certain Ukrainian, who subsequently held a high position in the Ukraine ’s intelligence services.

The Ukraine, as a way of expressing their gratitude for the US’s help in them gaining independence, has pulled certain highly important documents out of their archives. The documents give evidence of the transfer of weapons from the Soviet Union to Iraq and also show that Russia has given support to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

In 2004, when John Shaw presented his information to the Defense Departments of both the USA and the Central Intelligence Agency, they unanimously declared it be to false intelligence. However, thanks to Shaw’s connections in Great Britain and in the Ukraine, his report has been released.

The transfer of the WMDs to Syria and Lebanon was carried out by Russian forces. One of the main aims of the operation was to “hide all traces of Russian involvement in Iraq’s WMD program.”

Shaw believes that the publishing of his findings, which show that Bush’s administration ignored the fact that Russia helped Iraq , could lead to very serious consequences.

However, retired General-Lieutenant of the US Air Force Thomas McInerney has not been worried about giving his opinion and he cites the Iran as one of the main reasons for the current politics of Bush’s administration. “ Iran’s nuclear program is advancing more quickly than anyone can imagine. The USA now relies on Russia, China and France. The Bush administration does not want to release any information which would cast them in a bad light.”

Information on the summit

The International Intelligence Summitsm, a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral forum that uses private charitable funds to bring together for the first time the intelligence agencies of the free world and the emerging democracies. The purpose of The Summit is to provide an opportunity for the international intelligence community to listen to and learn from each other, and to share ideas in the common war against terrorism. The Summit's Advisory Council includes Generals, former senior FBI official, former senior Mossad officer, and the former Chair of British Joint Intelligence Committee, says the official website (www.intelligencesummit.org).

One of the main sponsors of the summit is a charitable fund of Michael Cherny, the former Russian aluminum tycoon. He now lives in Israel .

John Shaw himself has been involved in one of the scandals at the centre of the reconstruction work in Iraq . He in particular has tried to attain contracts for firms of his friends and their business partners. Once, when presenting himself as a worker for the notorious company Halliburton, Shaw tried to enter restricted territory of one of Iraq’s ports. The scandal occurred in 2004. Two and a half months later he appeared with his evidence.

Others who are covering the ongoing John Shaw/WMD story:
Guarino, The Paladin, Battalion of Deborah, GOP Insight, Red Hot Cuppa Politics, Progressive Conservatism, Martin's Musings

 

Okay, if somehow you missed the story of the soon to be released Saddam tapes, I've got the whole low down here.

Anyway, it's kind of late now considering Nightline will be on soon, but I did get video of the preview that was on ABC World News Tonight earlier. Only because of my ghetto video capture thing it cut out for 2-5 seconds three quick times. You don't miss much, but you'll notice what seems like a CD skipping or something. But that's all it is.

Anyway, we'll have to see what more comes of the Nightline special, and then when the rest of the press gets hold of the tapes when they are released this weekend. At least Fox News will cover it I'm sure, but I don't know about the rest.

 

SCROLL FOR UPDATES...

h/t Drudge Report

CNS News is reporting (via Crosswalk.com) that organizers of an Intelligence Summit have 12 hours of Saddam tapes that may just be the "smoking gun". Apparently ABC's plans to devote tonights Nightline to these tapes. Should be veeeeery interesting. Nightline (at least when it was under Koppel) was an extreme left show though, so I'm going to expect them to try to downplay this development as much as they can. But we can always hope they report it honestly.

excerpt (read more here):

(CNSNews.com) - Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline" program Wednesday night, a former federal prosecutor told Cybercast News Service.

The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The panel's chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), declined to give the Sun details of the content or context of the recordings, saying only that they were provided to his committee by former federal prosecutor John Loftus.

Loftus has been tight-lipped about the tapes, telling the Sun only that he received them from a "former American military intelligence analyst."

On Tuesday night, Loftus told Cybercast News Service that ABC's "Nightline" would air an "extensive report" on the tapes Wednesday night. Loftus also described an ABC News "teaser," which reportedly contains audio of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with WMD. "Nightline will have a lot more," said Loftus.

more...

The documents also 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. The papers showed that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

Couple this with the testimony from countless Iraqis claiming the stuff was moved to Syria shortly before the war, including most recently was General Sada. Tie that in with Syria exiles making the same claims.

IMPORTANT, I FORGOT TO POST THIS LAST WEEK... Along with all the other stuff, add the fact that we have a former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war saying that he knows where the WMDs are (or where they were at one point)

(just a small excerpt from this MUST READ ARTICLE.)

A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed.

AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MUST READ ARTICLE!!!

So add in all those things, and the fact that we know Saddam DID HAVE WMDs at one point, because he used them. The fact that virtually all world intelligence said they were there, meaning the stockpiles we all thought were there are still technically "unaccounted for" today. All the leading Dems made a stronger case than Bush for over a decade preceding the war. Add the fact that Saddam wasn't giving unfettered access to the UN inspectors. If you think they were never there, then you're choosing to believe that the mass murderer Saddam Hussein is the good guy here, and chose to destroy his own WMDs behind the world's back. Riiiiiiiiight liberals, that's what happened.

I suspect the MSM will largely ignore this, but it looks like ABC News is at least going try to tackle it (again, I still fear the liberal downplaying spin). Yeah, the rest of the media is too busy to look at this story, or any of the others that should be the most important of our lives like Able Danger and Oil for Food, etc.... No, they're much busier finding out why they weren't the first to be informed about Cheney's hunting accident, because that really affects the American people.

UPDATE 11:39 AM CT MacsMind reminds me of another bit of information I meant to mention in my initial posting of this - Rockefeller's bragging admission that many have called treasonous (but is extremely disturbing to say the very least):

I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

Way to tip off the enemy you idiot, and then be stupid enough to brag years later on national television. What a shock we can't find the stuff huh?

That said, again thanks to MacsMind for reminding me of what I set out to mention... But beyond that, MacsMind seems to imply that the visit may be part of the subject matter in these tapes:

UPDATE III: I don't know if this will be on the tapes shown tonight, but word is a certain Senator's visit is inferred.

Open Trackbacks at Right Wing Nation

By the way, the libs will continue to be dishonest and deny the WMDs until the unthinkable happens... The positives of this story, however, are that at some point hopefully we'll gain credibility back in the world that we shouldn't have lost in the first place... And this will (if it all comes to light) officially bury the Democratic Party. This has been all they've had for years now is the "Bush misled" (because the media won't bust them on having made a stronger case for over a decade). But if/when they're proven to be the dishonest ones, we can once and for all virtually eliminate the Democratic Party, or at least what the Democratic Party has become for too many years now. It will be a great day. Pardon My English wonders what the libs will do when the truth comes out. My guess is they'll scream: "CHENEY SHOT A GUY AND DIDN'T TELL THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS IMMEDIATELY! WHY!? WHY!? WE SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO KNOW EVERYTHING!"

More:
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, Small Dead Animals,

UPDATE 12:17 PM CT

I just called the Intelligence Summit and they confirmed this. Apparently there will be 5 minutes on ABC's regular news, and the entire Nightline program will be devoted to this.

Apparently I'm a little behind on this one... I'm being told that Loftus has been talking about this on the John Batchelor show for weeks now. It seems that the MSM has really been trying to hide this one, because it only stands to hurt the Democrats in the long run. The Jawa Report was on this over a week ago... So was Stop the ACLU after reading this Sun article that I somehow missed.

UPDATE - 2:24 PM CT:
ABC News finally has this posted on their site:

(partial exceprts, read entire article here)

One of the most dramatic moments on the 12 hours of tape comes when Saddam predicts —during a meeting in the mid 1990s — a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2nd and told the British as well & that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

more...

.....In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that UN inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's Biological Weapons program—a program the existence of which Iraq had previously denied.

At one point, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the UN.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting "not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct." Shortly after this meeting, in August 1995, Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan and Iraq was forced to a