T Nation

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD

This needs confirming, but until then…

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein?s regime to work with some of the world?s most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam?s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world?s most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

If this is true, I am sure the Bush team had it sitting in a case labelled “for emergency use only” since 2003.

Gotta love those October surprises.

I’m going to wait until something more reputable comes along than “cybercast news service” before I get excited.

I did however notice that the author states they can’t be authenticated and that some of the wording implies the documents are supporting the conclusion given but steers clear of directly stating so.

Waiting…

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m going to wait until something more reputable comes along than “cybercast news service” before I get excited.

I did however notice that the author states they can’t be authenticated and that some of the wording implies the documents are supporting the conclusion given but steers clear of directly stating so.

Waiting…[/quote]

Sorry vroom, but CBS probably won’t run with this one - but if they did, we’d have all the documentation that they could manufacture.

You’ve decried the reputation of most all of the internet-based news sources cited in these threads.

Just for shits and giggles, what do you consider a reputable news source?

No, Jack.

It cannot be.

He had no WMD.

No way!!!

He never conspired with terrorists.

If he did: Then the Democrats can’t win. We just can’t have that.

Therefore, Saddam “was a danger” but “there was a right way to remove him and a wrong way.” Our way apparently didn’t pass the “World Test.”

No WMD, No Ties. No chance.

JeffR

Actually, most of the mainstream news organizations. Until it gets that far, nobody is paying attention. When it does get that far, as with CBS, it will get scrutinized. So, while I may have considered the CBS story worthy of thought, I now have to place it in limbo because there is no proof.

Sound fair?

Also, I’ve published my own non-political materials online before. I know how little it takes to become an online source of information. Anybody can type lies on the Internet and not have anybody bother to refute it.

Oh look, the resident parrot is cheerleading again. Isn’t stuff like this a bit embarrassing for thinking republicans? I mean really, is your best argument to toe the party line and regurgitate spin? Is that all you’ve got?

How pitiful.

No WMD, No Ties. No chance.

JeffR[/quote]

That’s how it’s going to play out in the election, Jeff.

New Gallup poll shows Kerry has closed the gap on Bush (due Kerry’s strong performance in the debate!)
You must be in agony, Jeffyboy.

Ding-Dong-Dean,

Come on to the challenge. You can be ILOVEGWBUSH #6.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Please get excited about John Kerry’s candidacy!!! What a steady influence!!! What a powerful alternative!!!

He has so many well thought out positions!!!

He can’t lose!!!

JeffR

I am not overly ecstatic about John Kerry, Jeff. He lacks an essentail something, maybe charisma, that prevents me from endorsing him 100%.

But he sure beats the alternative- 4 more years of lying, corrupt dealings, and poorly thought-out decisions.

John Kerry will also try to heal America’s rift with the world. The world hates Bush. He single-handedly turned massive worldwide sympathy for America over 9/11 into hatred and disgust over the invasion of Iraq, the slaughter of innocents, and the corrupt dealings of his inner circle.

I see Rumsfeld has just admitted he was wrong in earlier stating that Iraq had WMDs and that there were strong links between Iraq and Al Qaeda!
‘To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two’. - Donald Rumsfeld.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I see Rumsfeld has just admitted he was wrong in earlier stating that Iraq had WMDs and that there were strong links between Iraq and Al Qaeda!
‘To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two’. - Donald Rumsfeld.[/quote]

Wow, this sure goes against his rather reaffirming “we know where they are – they’re in the north, south, east, west region” Remember that gem?

Rumsfelt now says no WMD.
Bush said he doesn’t know what happenend to WMD.
Has Cheney said it?
Powell has apologized for that ‘performance,’ right?
Who else?

Remember when Cheney said ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda were ‘pretty much confirmed’?

The only question is: Bush administration, a bunch of liars or just stupid?