Holocaust Denial, American Style 29 Nov 2007

December 13, 2007

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:11:57 -0800, Don Homuth

<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> mumbled:

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:06:46 GMT, Halsey Knox <little@faus.and> wrote:

>

>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:57:22 -0800, Don Homuth

>><dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> mumbled:

>>

>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:26:01 GMT, Halsey Knox <little@faus.and> wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:58:07 -0800, Don Homuth

>>>><dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> mumbled:

>>>>

>>>>>''We've been looking at

>>>>>this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think

>>>>>it's there,'' a government official said....

>>>>

>>>>"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence

>>>>back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from

>>>>gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up

>>>>and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense

>>>>William Cohen in April of 2003

>>>

>>>If you recite a longish list of Folks Who Were Wrong, it won't ever

>>>convert them into being Right.

>>>

>>>They were Wrong.

>>

>>They were CONSISTENT!

>

>Consistently Wrong.

You go with the intel you have at the time

>You go with the intel you have at the time!

>

>They had no Intel at the time.

LIAR!

December 13, 2007

On Dec 12, 4:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

> "Merlin" <johndo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

>

> news:19a765e5-ae7d-4d50-a867-636420ead2b2@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>

> > On Dec 12, 11:30 am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

>

> >> Are you now claiming that you NEVER claimed that in the part of Iraq

> >> controlled by Saddam there NEVER WERE any groups of Islamists training or

> >> being supported by Saddam or even ones he turned a blind eye to?

>

> > I'm starting to think that you're perhaps insane. The tone of your

> > comments is so exaggerated, that it makes you appear to be a fanatic.

>

> When you can't actually deal with the points raised by others in relation to

> issues in hand do you always resort to the losers tactic of attacking the

> person making them?

It wasn't an attack. It was an observation. I think you're a little

paranoid also.

> > Yes, I can and will assert that I've NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER said those

> > words.

>

> So then you do not believe that Saddam supported al Qaeda or any other

> Islamist group or provided training to them or even turned a blind eye to

> them?

So, you're telling me what I believe, or what I do not believe? What

gives you this right? If I attempted to tell you what you believe, and

I got it so fucked up that it sounded just like the opposite of what

you really believe, would that not just piss you off?

Well, you guessed right, Frito Bandito, you don't tell ME what I

believe.

Are you out of your fucking mind?

Perhaps you meant to say; "Do you believe that Saddam...etc."

Which is it? Are you TELLING me what I BELIEVE?

If so, then you sound more and more like a fucking Muslim every day.

Do you have dreams of slitting my throat? Does that give you chills?

You're one easy fucker to debate with. You talk shit about things you

have no way of knowing.

You're real easy.

> If that is the case then I have no argument with you about that and I accept

> your position that Saddam did not support such groups.

Opps! There you go fantasizing about what coulda shoulda mighta been.

Since I've already made it clear that YOU don't speak FOR me, then

YOU'LL just have to fucking wait until I tell YOU what I think.

Oh, and congrats, asshole. I noticed you've suddenly found your spell

checker. So much for your bullshit remark in that other group about

how "you might be on another computer that didn't have spell check".

Be-a-con, you're so full of shit, you don't even understand how

fucking obvious you are.

> > Personally, yes, I strongly believe it VERY POSSIBLE that Saddam the

> > Madman supported terrorism.

>

> Ah1 Well then that is different! You DO believe Saddam supported terrorism.

> What is YOUR definition of "terrorism" by the way?

Oh well fuck. There you go with the "Ah1" bullshit. What in the flying

fuck does "Ah1" mean?

Is there an "Ah2"?

Yes! My God, I think you might not be brain dead after all!

Yes, Saddam the fucking Crazy ass Motherfucker Hussein the Madman was

a fucking TERRORIST.

Right up until his TERRORIST knees started jerking after he was

dropped from the gallows.

Then he became nothing but another nasty bastard crapping his pants

while he died before he had to out of STUPIDITY.

My definition of TERRORIST, is that of a person who acts like SADDAM

THE MADMAN.

Why is it that TERRORIST loving MOTHERFUCKERS like you never

understand what an asshole is?

I know.....I know.......IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE TOO!

What's my fucking definition of terrorist, my ass.

It's the fucking same definition that all the dead people that were

MURDERED by TERRORISTS have.

Only STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS like you ask what a TERRORIST is.

Any other stupid questions?

> >Note that I make no mention of Islamic

> > Terrorists. His own brand of terrorism was no less sadistic nor any

> > less in reality, MURDER of innocent civilians. He was PROVEN to have

> > done this and prosecuted, convicted and HUNG like the TERRORIST that

> > he was.

>

> I do not think you have looked into the topic? What was he charged with, or

> found guilty of for example?

> What do you define as "terrorism" in the case of Saddam?

You're fucking kidding, right? Dude, the fucking thing was in every

form and type of media for the entire time it started. Right at the

time that that slimy piece of shit SADDAM the insane was caught

whimpering in his garbage hole. The entire thing is know, you stupid

fucker.

> > As for his supporting or sponsoring Islamic terrorists within the

> > COUNTRY that he was DICTATOR of, yes, he knew it was happening in the

> > north and made no concerted effort to eliminate it.

>

> This isn't true! In fact US security reports suggest he DID make an effort

> to attack Islamists in the north of Iraq.

How nice and fucking vague you're suddenly being. You're one phony

MOTHERFUCKER.

Give me the text of the entire report. Give me proof that that text is

EXACTLY what is on the real paper. Show me what it says in it's entire

context. If you don't, then that entire statement is bullshit you

can't prove diddley crap about.

Huh? Proof? Get it now, MOTHERFUCKER?

It works BOTH WAYS, you retarded offspring of a pig.

> >He had the

> > capability and the time to do it, he just didn't. Therefor, by NOT

> > eliminating them from within the COUNTRY THAT HE CONTROLED VIA HIS

> > DICTATORSHIP, he DID SUPPORT THEM.

>

> In fact this is completly adverse to the FACTS! He made efforts to combat

> Islamists! Why wouldn't he? they threathened his dictatorship! He didnt want

> them at all!

Show me absolute proof that you are aware of the FACTS! Show me

documents in their entirety, that prove with no doubt that somebody

who is accepted as an authority in ALL courts, believes after seeing

and hearing the evidence involved, that SADDAM THE INSANE was such a

fucking nice guy that he wouldn't condone a FUCKING TERRORIST.

Dude, you're delusional.

> > Now you can accurately claim that I've said that SADDAM HUSSEIN

> > SUPPORTED AND ALLOWED ISLAMIC TERRORISTS TO TRAIN AND OPERATE WITHIN

> > IRAQ.

>

> Yes. You just stated

> [your words]

> he DID SUPPORT THEM.

> [end quote]

>

> Didn't you?

Well shucks SHERLOCK, you seem to have me down pat. Ahuh, ahuh, you

fucking GOOBER.

Get the fuck on with it, will ya? You're starting to bore most of

Usenet.

> > Now, Motherfucker, what else do you have to say?

>

> Well you could begin by asking me for support for my claims about Saddam

> opposing Islamists and when I supply the Us security and other sources you

> can admit that I have a supported position. But I don't think you will.

Well, I guess I could "begin by asking you for the exact bullshit you

want me to."

Dude, you are one clear piece of glass.

You do realize that most of the fucking people who read this will be

laughing at you as hard as they can, don't you?

You're stance, argument and method are so juvenile that I could let my

15 year old grand daughter take over for me and SHE would still show

you to be the fool you are.

You're pathetic, man. You're a joke. You're a drunk.

Go jump back into your bottle and lush it up, man.

Man, I can't wait to read what you answer this post with.

You're nothing but a Main Vein, man.

A dick. A wanker.

Let me hear it man. Give it your best. I need the laugh.

December 13, 2007

"droll yankee" <stur@bridge.ma> wrote in message

news:s360m3h34tokokcmprv04rgc9a4r3ppna6@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:59:58 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"

> <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> mumbled:

>

>>NOT

>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

>

> A radical armed Islamist group with ties to Tehran and Baghdad has

> helped al-Qaida establish an international terrorist training camp in

> northern Iraq, Kurdish officials say.

NOT in Saddam controlled Iraq! OPPOSED by Saddam. He even tried to attack

them!

Droll Yankee will be gone from the above groups before he even attempts to

respond to these points.

December 13, 2007

"droll yankee" <stur@bridge.ma> wrote in message

news:p870m3t43gi74ga0civ80hjbov4hgur24n@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:40:07 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"

> <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> mumbled:

>

>>NORTHERN

>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

>

> A radical armed Islamist group with ties to Tehran and Baghdad has

> helped al-Qaida establish an international terrorist training camp in

> northern Iraq, Kurdish officials say.

NOT in Saddam controlled Iraq! OPPOSED by Saddam. He even tried to attack

them!

Snip without attribution people like Droll Yankee will be gone from the

above groups before he even attempts to respond to these points

If you want more detail on any references just ask and I will provide it.

I dont like to cut and paste large tracts to make my point. But you keep

posting yu UNSUPPORTED ATTA in Prague. the single rebutted source of the

"Zakawi in Bagdadh for an amputation" story when he is Later photographed

with no false leg! Those Iraqi medics are something else arent they! They

apparently can amputate a leg fix it and put it back on again!

All surces are from cooperativeresearch.org

One day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United

Nations in which he detailed an alleged al-Qaeda-linked training camp in

northern Iraq said to be producing chemical weapons ( February 5, 2003), a

number of US politicians question why the US has not taken any action

against the camp. The camp, located near the town of Khurmal in territory

controlled by the Kurdish rebel group Ansar al-Islam, is said to be closely

linked to Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Los Angeles Times

reports that, "Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp

say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an

explanation for why the United States has not launched a military strike on

the compound." Sen. Joe Biden (D) asks Colin Powell in a public hearing,

"Why have we not taken it out? Why have we let it sit there if it's such a

dangerous plant producing these toxins?" Powell declines to answer, saying

he cannot discuss the matter publicly. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) complains

that she has been asking about striking the camp well before Powell's speech

based on intelligence given in private briefings, but, "We've been asking

this question and have not been given an answer." Officials have replied

that "they'll have to get back to us." Representative Jane Harman (D) notes

that Powell's speech could have cost the US an opportunity to prevent the

spread of chemical weapons produced at the camp, saying, "By revealing the

existence of the camp, it's predictable whatever activity is there will

probably go underground." One anonymous US intelligence official suggests,

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force. If you take

it out, you can't use it as justification for war." [Los Angeles Times,

2/7/2003]

August 20 2002

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, citing various "intelligence reports,"

claims that the Iraqi government is "hosting, supporting or sponsoring" an

al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. This is a likely reference to Abu Musab

al-Zarqawi and his followers, whom the US alleges is an al-Qaeda operative

with links to the Iraqi government. When asked if he has evidence to support

this claim Rumsfeld responds: "There are al-Qaeda in a number of locations

in Iraq.. The suggestion that. [iraqi government officials] who are so

attentive in denying human rights to their population aren't aware of where

these folks [al-Qaeda] are or what they're doing is ludicrous in a vicious,

repressive dictatorship." He also says, "It's very hard to imagine that the

government is not aware of what's taking place in the country." [uS

Department of Defense, 8/20/2002; New York Times, 8/20/2002] Shortly after

the defense secretary's allegations, an unnamed intelligence official tells

the Guardian, "They are not the official guests of the government," adding

that any al-Qaeda in the region are still "on the run." A month later,

Knight Ridder reports that according to an anonymous US official, Rumsfeld's

charge is based on information from Kurdish opposition groups which are

feeding information to the Pentagon. [Guardian, 8/22/2002; Knight Ridder,

9/25/2002 Sources: Unnamed US intelligence official, Unnamed US official]

>

> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-levitt020603.asp

>

> TERROR TO GO

> Zarqawi's own movements are themselves telling. After being wounded in

> the leg in Afghanistan, Zarqawi escaped to Iran. While there, he

WRONG! Where is the evidence that Atta had his leg amputated in Bagdadh?

Jordanian Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi flees Afghanistan ( Early

2000-December 2001) and heads to Iran where he continues to run his militant

group, al-Tawhid. He uses telephones and a network of couriers to maintain

contact with operatives in Europe. By April 2002, he still is based in Iran

and has little to no ties to Iraq. But some time in mid-2002, he unites with

Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist group based in a part of northern Iraq

controlled by Kurdish rebels and opposed to Saddam Hussein (Mid-2002). He

reportedly moves his base of operations there and establishes an explosive

training center camp there as well. [independent, 2/6/2003; Newsweek,

6/25/2003] In an effort to justify military action against Iraq, the Bush

administration will later claim that Saddam Hussein is aware of al-Zarqawi's

presence in Baghdad and therefore is guilty of knowingly harboring a

terrorist (see September 26, 2002). The administration will also

allege-falsely-that al-Zarqawi is a senior al-Qaeda agent and that his visit

is evidence that Saddam's regime has ties to Osama bin Laden. [Guardian,

10/9/2002; Independent, 2/6/2003; Newsweek, 6/25/2003 Sources: Shadi

Abdallah] But the administration never offers any conclusive evidence to

support this allegation. The claim is disputed by intelligence analysts in

both Washington and London. [Daily Telegraph, 2/4/2003]

In April 2002, German intelligence compile a report about militant leader

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; it suggests that al-Zarqawi is not a part of al-Qaeda

(see March 28, 2002). At the end of March 2002, al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida

was captured and interrogated by US forces (see March 28, 2002). While few

details of what Zubaida is said to say are known, some details must have

been quickly passed to the Germans because this German intelligence report

says, "Even in the interrogations of al-Qaeda leaders there are no

indications of al-Zarqawi's membership in al-Qaeda. Thus, Abu Zubaida (an

al-Qaeda recruiter), in one of his interrogations, speaks instead about the

'Group of al-Zarqawi." [bergen, 2006, pp. 359, 422] (Note that information

gained from such interrogations are of unknown reliability, especially when

torture is used. Zubaida appears to be tortured around this time ( May

2002)).

Rumsfeld claims the US government has "bulletproof" confirmation of ties

between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda members, including "solid

evidence" that al-Qaeda maintains a presence in Iraq. The allegation refers

to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Palestinian who is the founder of

al-Tawhid, an organization whose aim is to kill Jews and install an Islamic

regime in Jordan (December 2001-Mid-2002). Rumsfeld's statement is based on

intercepted telephone calls in which al-Zarqawi was overheard calling

friends or relatives. But Knight Ridder Newspapers reports that according to

US intelligence officials, "The intercepts provide no evidence that the

suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working

on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq." [Knight Ridder, 10/7/2002

Sources: Unnamed US Intelligence Officials]

October 2 2002

The Associated Press reports that Islamist militant leader Abu Musab

al-Zarqawi "was in Baghdad about two months ago, and US officials suspect

his presence was known to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,

a defense official said." This anonymous US official also calls al-Zarqawi

among al-Qaeda's top two dozen leaders. The article notes that "some US

officials. contend the United States has no solid evidence of Iraq and

al-Qaeda working together to conduct terrorist operations." [Associated

Press, 10/2/2002] But despite this caveat, just five days later, in a public

speech President Bush mentions "one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received

medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with

planning for chemical and biological attacks" (October 7, 2002). This is a

reference to al-Zarqawi, and is said to be based on communications

intercepts. But the same day as the speech, Knight Ridder Newspapers reports

that according to US intelligence officials, "The intercepts provide no

evidence that [al-Zarqawi] was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was

working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq." [Knight Ridder,

10/7/2002; US President, 10/14/2002] After the US invades Iraq in March

2003, evidence of this Baghdad connection will start to be questioned.

Reports that al-Zarqawi was there to have a leg amputated will later be

debunked (see January 26, 2003). In June 2003, Newsweek will report, "Bush

Administration officials also have acknowledged that their information about

al-Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad is sketchy at best." [Newsweek, 6/25/2003]

Whether al-Zarqawi stayed in Baghdad and if the Hussein government was aware

of his movements remains unclear.

October 7

In a televised speech, President Bush presents the administration's case

that Saddam Hussein's regime is a threat to the security of the nation and

insists that regime change would improve lifes for Iraqis. "Some worry that

a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the

situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security

and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve

dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of

Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban." The speech is widely

criticized for including false and exaggerated statements.

Iraq has attempted to purchase equipment used to enrich uranium for nuclear

weapons - Bush claims that a shipment of 3,000 aluminum tubes to Iraq, which

were intercepted in Jordan by US authorities in July of 2001 (see July

2001), had been destined for use in a uranium enrichment program. But by

this time numerous experts and government scientists have already warned the

administration against making this allegation. [uS President, 10/14/2002]

Three weeks before Bush's speech, The Washington Post ran a story on the

aluminum tubes. The article summarized a study by the Institute for Science

and International Security (ISIS), disputing the administration's claim that

the tubes were to be used for gas centrifuges. The report was authored by

the institute's president and founder, David Albright, a respected nuclear

physicist, who had investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the

First Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's

inspection team and who has spoken before Congress on numerous occasions. In

his study, he concluded that Iraq's attempts to import the tubes "are not

evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear

weapons" and "do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge

plant or when such a plant could be operational." [Washington Post,

9/19/2002; Guardian, 10/9/2002; San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/2002;

Albright, 10/9/2003] Soon after the speech, Albright tells The Guardian

newspaper that there is still no evidence to substantiate that

interpretation. As one unnamed specialist at the US Department of Energy

explains to the newspaper, "I would just say there is not much support for

that [nuclear] theory around here." [Guardian, 10/9/2002] The Washington

Post article also reported that government experts on nuclear technology who

disagreed with the White House view had told Albright that the

administration expected them to remain silent. [Washington Post, 9/19/2002;

Independent, 9/22/2002] Houston G. Wood III, a retired Oak Ridge physicist

considered to be "among the most eminent living experts" on gas centrifuges

reviewed the tube question in August 2001 (see 1950s) and concluded at that

time that it was very unlikely that the tubes had been imported to be used

for centrifuges in a uranium enrichment program. He later tells The

Washington Post in mid-2003 that "it would have been extremely difficult to

make these tubes into centrifuges," adding that it stretched "the

imagination to come up with a way." He also says that other centrifuge

experts whom he knew shared his assessment of the tubes. [Washington Post,

8/10/2003] In addition to the several outside experts who criticized the

tubes allegation, analysts within the US intelligence community also doubted

the claim. Less than a week before Bush's speech, the Energy Department and

the State Department's intelligence branch, the INR, had appended a

statement to a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq disputing the theory

(see October 1, 2002). [Central Intelligence Agency, 10/1/2002 Sources:

David Albright]

Saddam Hussein ordered his nuclear program to continue in 1998 - Bush says

that US intelligence has information that Saddam Hussein ordered his nuclear

program to continue after inspectors left in 1998. "Before being barred from

Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive

nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment

sites," Bush charges. "That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi

nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises,

Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue." [san Francisco

Chronicle, 10/12/2002; US President, 10/14/2002] But Bush's "high-ranking"

source turns out to be Khidir Hamza, who is considered by many to be an

unreliable source. Albright, who was president of the Institute for Science

and International Security where Hamza worked as an analyst from 1997 to

1999, says that after Hamza defected, "he went off the edge [and] started

saying irresponsible things." [san Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/2002] And

General Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law who was in charge of the

dictator's former weapons program but who defected in 1995, told UNSCOM and

IAEA inspectors, as well as US and British intelligence, that Khidhir Hamza

was "a professional liar." Kamel explained, "He worked with us, but he was

useless and always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could

not deliver anything.. He was even interrogated by a team before he left and

was allowed to go." [united Nations Special Commission, 4/16/1998; New

Yorker, 5/12/2003]

Iraq is developing drones that could deploy chemical and biological

weapons - The President claims that Iraq is developing drones, or unmanned

aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to disperse chemical or

biological weapons across broad areas." He goes so far as to say, "We're

concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions

targeting the United States." [Guardian, 10/9/2002; US President,

10/14/2002] But this claim comes shortly after US intelligence agencies

completed a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, in which Air Force

intelligence had disputed the drone allegation (see October 1, 2002). Bush's

drone allegation is quickly derided by experts and other sources. The

Guardian of London reports two days later that according to US military

experts, "Iraq had been converting eastern European trainer jets, known as

L-29s, into drones, but. that with a maximum range of a few hundred miles

they were no threat to targets in the US." [Guardian, 10/9/2002] And the San

Francisco Chronicle will cite experts who say that "slow-moving unmanned

aerial vehicles would likely be shot down as soon as they crossed Iraq's

borders" because "Iraqi airspace is closely monitored by US and British

planes and radar systems." The report will also note, "It's also unclear how

the vehicles would reach the US mainland-the nearest point is Maine, almost

5, 500 miles away-without being intercepted." [san Francisco Chronicle,

10/12/2002] Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for

Strategic and International Studies, will say he believes the drone

allegation is unrealistic. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle,

he says, "As a guesstimate, Iraq's present holdings of delivery systems and

chemical and biological weapons seem most likely to be so limited in

technology and operational lethality that they do not constrain US freedom

of action or do much to intimidate Iraq's neighbors." [san Francisco

Chronicle, 10/12/2002] These criticisms of Bush's claim are validated after

the US invasion of Iraq. Two US government scientists involved in the

post-invasion hunt for weapons of mass destruction will tell the Associated

Press in August 2003 that they inspected the drones and concluded that they

were never a threat to the US. "We just looked at the UAVs and said, 'There's

nothing here. There's no room to put anything in here,'" one of the

scientists will say. "The US scientists, weapons experts who spoke on

condition of anonymity, reached their conclusions after studying the small

aircraft and interviewing Iraqi missile experts, system designers and Gen.

Ibrahim Hussein Ismail, the Iraqi head of the military facility where the

UAVs were designed," the Associated Press will explain in its report.

[Associated Press, 8/24/2003]

Saddam Hussein could give terrorists weapons of mass destruction - Bush

asserts, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or

chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." [uS

President, 10/14/2002] But not only have numerous experts and inside sources

disputed this theory (see July 2002-March 19, 2003), US intelligence's

National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq-completed just one week

before-concluded that this is an unlikely scenario (see October 1, 2002).

"Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting

terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States," the

document clearly stated. "Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could

no longer be deterred he probably would become much less constrained in

adopting terrorist actions." [san Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/2002]

Iraq rebuilding facilities associated with production of biological and

chemical weapons - Bush claims that surveillance photos indicate that Iraq

"is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and

biological weapons." [uS President, 10/14/2002] On the following day, photos

are published on the White House website showing that Iraq had repaired

three sites damaged by US bombs-the Al Furat Manufacturing Facility, the

Nassr Engineering Establishment Manufacturing Facility, and Fallujah II. [uS

President, 10/14/2002] But no evidence is provided by the White House

demonstrating that these sites have resumed activities related to the

production of weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi authorities will give

reporters a tour of the facilities on October 10 (see October 10, 2002).

Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly

gases - Bush alleges that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda operatives "in

bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." [uS President, 10/14/2002] The

claim is based on a September 2002 CIA document which had warned that its

sources were of "varying reliability" and that the claim had not yet been

substantiated (see September 2002). The report's main source, Ibn al-Shaykh

al-Libi, an al-Qaeda operative who offered the information to CIA

interrogators while in custody, later recants the claim (see February 14,

2004). A Defense Intelligence Agency report in February 2002 (see February

2002) had also expressed doubt in the claim, going so far as to suggest that

al-Libi was "intentionally misleading [his] debriefers." [CNN, 9/26/2002;

New York Times, 7/31/2004; Newsweek, 7/5/2005; New York Times, 11/6/2005]

And earlier in the month, US intelligence services had concluded in their

National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that this allegation could not be

confirmed. [CNN, 9/26/2002; Newsday, 10/10/2002; San Francisco Chronicle,

10/12/2002; Washington Post, 6/22/2003]

A very senior al-Qaeda leader received medical treatment in Baghdad - Bush

claims: "Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These

include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in

Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical

and biological attacks." The allegation refers to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a

Jordanian-born Palestinian who is the founder of al-Tawhid, an organization

whose aim is to kill Jews and install an Islamic regime in Jordan. It was

first leaked to the press by an anonymous US official several days before

Bush's speech (see October 2, 2002). The allegation is partly based on

intercepted telephone calls in which al-Zarqawi was overheard calling

friends or relatives (see December 2001-Mid-2002). But on the same day as

Bush's speech, Knight Ridder Newspapers reports that according to US

intelligence officials, "The intercepts provide no evidence that the

suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working

on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq." [Knight Ridder, 10/7/2002;

US President, 10/14/2002] Al-Zarqawi will link with al-Qaeda, but only in

2004, after the start of the war in Iraq (see October 17, 2004).

Nov 2002

US intelligence concludes that Islamist militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

is planning to use ricin in attacks on civilians in Europe. Several months

earlier, the US had determined the location of his main training camp and

chemical weapons lab, located in a part of northern Iraq controlled by

Kurdish rebels, and decided against attacking it with cruise missiles (June

2002). [MSNBC, 3/2/2004] By this time, al-Zarqawi is known to have

masterminded the assassination of a senior American diplomat in Jordan the

month before. Al-Zarqawi had his group had fled the camp several months

before, but new intelligence indicates that he has reoccupied it. At the

time, he is using a satellite telephone, and intercepts of his

communications show that he is frequently calling from within the camp.

[Wall Street Journal, 10/25/2004] In light of the new intelligence, the US

military draws up a second attack plan on the camp, but the White House

again decides against it. Former National Security Council member Roger

Cressey will later claim, "People were more obsessed with developing the

coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of

preemption against terrorists." [MSNBC, 3/2/2004]

Jan 2003

British police discover a ricin lab allegedly connected to a militant

training camp in northern Iraq controlled by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Six

suspects are arrested in London. The US has known about the camp and its

ties to chemical weapons production for months, and twice the US military

has drawn up plans for a strike upon it, and twice the White House has

decided against taking action (June 2002 and November 2002). Based on these

new developments in London, the US military draws up a third attack plan

against the camp, but again the White House rejects taking action. [MSNBC,

3/2/2004] Communications intercepts indicate that al-Zarqawi is still making

calls on his satellite phone from within the camp. [Wall Street Journal,

10/25/2004] Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, deputy commander to Gen. Tommy Franks

at Central Command at the time, will later say that the training camp "was

so troubling to us. We almost took them out three months before the Iraq war

started. We almost took that thing, but we were so concerned that the

chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take

them by land rather than by smart weapons." [PBS Frontline, 6/20/2006]

However, in March 2003 shortly after the Iraq war begins, the camp will

actually be hit by air strikes and not the land attack indicated by DeLong

(see March 20, 2003). NBC News will later comment, "Military officials

insist their case for attacking al-Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the

[bush] administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could

undercut its case for war against Saddam [Hussein]." [MSNBC, 3/2/2004]

President Bush will secretly decide around early March 2003 not to attack

the camp until the US invasion of Iraq is underway later that month (see

Early March 2003).

Jan 26 2003

On January 26, 2003, Newsweek reports that in 2002, Islamist militant leader

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "supposedly went to Baghdad, where doctors amputated

his leg (injured in Afghan fighting) and replaced it with a prosthesis."

Newsweek also claims that al-Zarqawi "is supposed to be one of al-Qaeda's

top experts on chemical and biological weapons" and that he also met with

"Hezbollah militants" and "Iranian secret agents." This new account builds

on previous reports claiming that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad for some

unspecified medical treatment (see October 2, 2002). The article does note,

"Not surprisingly, reports putting al-Zarqawi in Iraq piqued the interest of

Pentagon hard-liners eager to find evidence to support their suspicion that

Saddam [Hussein] and bin Laden are allied and may have plotted 9/11

together. But neither the CIA nor Britain's legendary MI6 put much stock in

al-Zarqawi's alleged Iraqi visits, stressing such reports are 'unconfirmed.'"

[Newsweek, 1/26/2003] Despite these caveats, it soon will be widely reported

that al-Zarqawi had a leg amputated in Baghdad, with at least the tacit

knowledge of the Iraqi government. For instance, several days later, USA

Today reports, "To those who operate with and against the shadowy

al-Zarqawi, including the Kurds of northern Iraq, he is called 'the man with

the limp.' That is a reference to a poorly fitting artificial limb that

replaced a leg amputated in Baghdad last August." [uSA Today, 2/5/2003] And

Secretary of State Colin Powell will claim in his February 5, 2003

presentation to the United Nations that al-Zarqawi went to Baghdad in May

2002 for medical treatment and stayed two months (see February 5, 2003). But

in October 2004, Knight Ridder will report, based on a new CIA report (see

October 4, 2004), "Al-Zarqawi originally was reported to have had a leg

amputated, a claim that officials now acknowledge was incorrect." [Knight

Ridder, 10/4/2004] In early 2006, al-Zarqawi will be seen walking in a

videotape, clearly in possession of both his legs. And when he is killed

later that year, x-rays of his dead body will show a fracture of his right

lower leg, but apparently that was caused by the blast that killed him.

[Atlantic Monthly, 6/8/2006; Associated Press, 6/13/2006]

In 2006, a bipartisan US Senate report on "Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq"

will note that "detainees that originally reported on [links between Ansar

al-Islam and Iraqi intelligence] have recanted, and another detainee, in

September 2003, was deemed to have insufficient access and level of detail

to substantiate his claims." The report will conclude, "Postwar information

reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and

that [iraqi intelligence] attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

[uS Senate and Intelligence Committee, 9/8/2006 ]

Colin Powell's SPEECH: while hailed as ABSOLUTE evidence in the US is given

analysis in europe and comes up short according to US own intellegence

sources!

The Independent reports on February 3 that according to security sources in

London, Colin Powell will attempt to link Iraq to al-Qaeda in his February 5

presentation to the UN. But the sources say that intelligence analysts in

both Washington and London do not believe such links exist. [independent,

2/3/2003 Sources: Unnamed British intelligence sources] This is followed by

a report the next day in the London Telegraph, reporting that the Bush

administration's insistence of a link between al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam,

and Saddam Hussein "has infuriated many within the United States

intelligence community." The report cites one unnamed US intelligence source

who says, "The intelligence is practically non-existent," and explains that

the claim is largely based on information provided by Kurdish groups, which

are enemies of Ansar al-Islam. "It is impossible to support the bald

conclusions being made by the White House and the Pentagon given the poor

quantity and quality of the intelligence available. There is uproar within

the intelligence community on all of these points, but the Bush White House

has quashed dissent." [Daily Telegraph, 2/4/2003 Sources: Unnamed US and

British intelligence sources] The Telegraph predicts that "if Mr. Powell

tries to prove the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the whole thing could

fall apart," explaining that the veto-wielding Security Council members,

"France, Russia, and China. all have powerful intelligence services and

their own material on al-Qaeda and they will know better than to accept the

flimsy evidence of a spurious link with Baghdad." [Daily Telegraph,

2/4/2003]

December 13, 2007

"Halsey Knox" <little@faus.and> wrote in message

news:jln0m3pk35tplvc6u4do8vn5tcp8pdjh79@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:51:07 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"

> <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> mumbled:

>

>>[snip.

>

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/

>

> SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 - Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com

> indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on

> two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq

> allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants

> with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The field tests used by

> MSNBC.com are only a first step in the evidentiary process and are

> typically followed by more precise laboratory testing that MSNBC.com

> has not conducted. U.S. intelligence agents were conducting their own

> tests in the same area and had not yet released their results,

> according to officials in northern Iraq.

March 31 2003:

US Special Forces working with local Kurdish forces overrun the small border

region of Iraq controlled by the militant group Ansar al-Islam. This is

where Secretary of State Colin Powell alleged militant leader Abu Musab

al-Zarqawi had a 'poison factory' near the town of Khurmal where chemical

weapons of mass destruction capable of killing thousands were made. Joint

Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers says, "We think that's probably

where the ricin that was found in London probably came; at least the

operatives and maybe some of the formulas came from this site." Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld comments, "We're not certain what we'll find but

we should know more in the next three days - three or four days." [New York

Daily News, 3/31/2003] In a 2007 book, CIA Director George Tenet will claim,

"Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, al-Zarqawi's camp in Khurmal was bombed

by the US military. We obtained reliable human intelligence reporting and

forensic samples confirming that poisons and toxins had been produced at the

camp." [Tenet, 2007, pp. 277-278] He will further claim that the camp

"engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as

cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that al-Zarqawi's men had tested

these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own

associates. They laughed about how well it worked." [Tenet, 2007, pp. 350]

But Tenet's claims seem wildly overblown compared to other subsequent news

reports about what was found at the camp. In late April 2003, the Los

Angeles Times will report that, "Documents obtained by the Los Angeles

Times, along with interviews with US and Kurdish intelligence operatives,

indicate [Ansar al-Islam] was partly funded and armed from abroad; was

experimenting with chemicals, including toxic agents and a cyanide-based

body lotion; and had international aspirations. But the documents,

statements by imprisoned Ansar guerrillas, and visits to the group's

strongholds before and after the war produced no strong evidence of

connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated

terrorist organization. The group was a dedicated, but fledgling, al-Qaeda

surrogate lacking the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its

mountain borders." A crude chemical laboratory is found in the village of

Sargat, but no evidence of any sophisticated equipment is found. "Tests have

revealed the presence of hydrogen cyanide and potassium cyanide, poisons

normally used to kill rodents and other pests. The group, according to

Kurdish officials, had been experimenting on animals with a cyanide-laced

cream. Several jars of peach body lotion lay at the site beside chemicals

and a few empty wooden birdcages." While a lot of documentation is found

showing intention to create chemical weapons, the actual capability appears

to have been quite low. [Los Angeles Times, 4/27/2003] As the Christian

Science Monitor will later conclude, the "'poison factory' proved primitive;

nothing but substances commonly used to kill rodents were found there."

[Christian Science Monitor, 10/16/2003] Journalist Jason Burke will also

later comment, "As one of the first journalists to enter the [al-Qaeda]

research facilities at the Darunta camp in eastern Afghanistan in 2001, I

was struck by how crude they were. The Ansar al-Islam terrorist group's

alleged chemical weapons factory in northern Iraq, which I inspected the day

after its capture in 2003, was even more rudimentary." [Foreign Policy,

5/2004]

>

> MSNBC.COM CONDUCTED the tests over a two-day period at Sargat, an

> alleged terrorist training camp a mile from the Iraq-Iran border.

> MSNBC.com purchased the test kits commercially. The field tests,

> developed by Osborn Scientific Group in Lakeside, Ariz., are regarded

> by some experts as very effective and have been used by U.N. weapons

> inspectors and federal government agents around the Sept. 11, 2001,

> attack site in New York City.

Islamists in a camp not sponsored by SADDAM! why didnt the US bomb the camp

earlier for example?

october 2004

The Telegraph reports that US military intelligence agents in Iraq believe

that the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the supposed leader of al-Qaeda in

Iraq, has been greatly exaggerated. The Bush administration has used

al-Zarqawi as a villain to blame post-invasion troubles in the Iraq war and

to connect the Iraqi insurgency to al-Qaeda ( February 9, 2004). [Daily

Telegraph, 10/4/2004] For instance, in April 2004, US military spokesman

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said that more than 90 percent of the suicide attacks

in Iraq were carried out by terrorists recruited and trained by al-Zarqawi.

[Washington Post, 6/10/2006] The Telegraph reports: "US military

intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often

tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source,

'told us what we wanted to hear. We were basically paying up to $10,000 a

time to opportunists, criminals, and chancers who passed off fiction and

supposition about al-Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the

linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq. Back home this stuff was

gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a

villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one.'"

Millitary intelligence officials believe that the insurgency is dominated by

Iraqis and that the number of foreign fighters such as al-Zarqawi could be

as low as 200. However, some of these officials complain that their reports

to US leaders about this are largely being ignored. [Daily Telegraph,

10/4/2004] In 2006, leaked classified US military documents will show that

the US military ran a propaganda campaign from at least early 2004 to

exaggerate al-Zarqawi's importance in the US and Iraqi media ( April 10,

2006).

>

> The Sargat camp, set back in an isolated valley and surrounded by

> snow-capped peaks, was home to the radical Islamic militant group

> Ansar al-Islam, which counts among its some 700 followers scores of

> al-Qaida fighters.

Who were ALL opposed by Saddam!

>

> In a Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of

> State Colin Powell showed a satellite photo of the Sargat camp and

> described Ansar al-Islam as "teaching its operatives how to produce

> ricin and other poisons." U.S. officials have repeated the allegations

> in recent weeks.

>

Yes and elsewhere I have alluded to this speech . I could go into it in

detail. stuff it i will:

Feb 5 2003

US Secretary of State Colin Powell presents the Bush administration's case

against Saddam to the UN Security Council, in advance of an expected vote on

a second resolution that the US and Britain hope will provide the

justification to use military force against Iraq. [uS Department of State,

2/5/2003] At the insistence of Powell, CIA Director George Tenet is seated

directly behind him to the right. "It was theater, a device to signal to the

world that Powell was relying on the CIA to make his case that Iraq had

weapons of mass destruction," Vanity Fair magazine will later explain.

[bamford, 2004, pp. 371-2; Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 232] In his speech

before the Council, Powell makes the case that Iraq is in further material

breach of past UN resolutions, specifically the most recent one, UN

Resolution 1441. Sources cited in Powell's presentation include defectors,

informants, communication intercepts, procurement records, photographs, and

detainees. [uS Department of State, 2/5/2003] Most of the allegations made

by Powell are later demonstrated to be false. "The defectors and other

sources went unidentified," the Associated Press will later report. "The

audiotapes were uncorroborated, as were the photo interpretations. No other

supporting documents were presented. Little was independently verifiable."

[Associated Press, 8/9/2003]

Iraq's December 7 declaration was inaccurate - Powell contends that Iraq's

December 7 declaration was not complete. According to UN Resolution 1441 the

document was supposed to be a "currently accurate, full and complete

declaration of all aspects" of its programs to develop weapons of mass

destruction. But Saddam has not done this, says Powell, who explains that

Iraq has yet to provide sufficient evidence that it destroyed its previously

declared stock of 8,500 liters of anthrax, as it claimed in the declaration.

Furthermore, notes the secretary of state, UNSCOM inspectors had previously

estimated that Iraq possessed the raw materials to produce as much as 25,000

liters of the virus. [New York Times, 2/5/2003; US Department of State,

2/5/2003; Washington Post, 2/6/2003]

Iraq has ties to al Qaeda - Powell repeats earlier claims that Saddam

Hussein's government has ties to al-Qaeda. Powell focuses on the cases of

the militant Islamic group Ansar-al-Islam and Abu Musab Zarqawi, a

Jordanian-born Palestinian, who had received medical treatment in Baghdad

during the summer of 2002 (see December 2001-Mid-2002). [uS Department of

State, 2/5/2003] However, just days before Powell's speech, US and British

intelligence officials-speaking on condition of anonymity-told the press

that the administration's allegations of Iraqi-al-Qaeda ties were based on

information provided by Kurdish groups, who, as enemies of Ansar-al-Islam,

should not be considered reliable. Furthermore, these sources unequivocally

stated that intelligence analysts on both sides of the Atlantic remained

unconvinced of the purported links between Iraq and al-Qaeda (see February

3-4, 2003). [independent, 2/3/2003; Daily Telegraph, 2/4/2003] Powell also

claims that Iraq provided "chemical or biological weapons training for two

al-Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000." The claim is based on a

September 2002 CIA document which had warned that its sources were of

"varying reliability" and that the claim was not substantiated (see

September 2002). The report's main source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an

al-Qaeda operative who offered the information to CIA interrogators while in

custody, later recounts the claim (see February 14, 2004). [CNN, 9/26/2002;

New York Times, 7/31/2004; Newsweek, 7/5/2005] Larry Wilkerson, Powell's

chief of staff, will later say that neither he nor Powell ever received "any

dissent with respect to those lines. indeed the entire section that now we

know came from [al-Libi]." [Newsweek, 11/10/2005] Senior US officials will

admit to the New York Times and Washington Post after the presentation that

the administration was not claiming that Saddam Hussein is "exercising

operational control" of al-Qaeda. [New York Times, 2/6/2003; Washington

Post, 2/7/2003]

Iraq has missiles capable of flying up to 1,200 kilometers - Describing a

photo of the al-Rafah weapons site, Powell says: "As part of this effort,

another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that

is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in

size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the

right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine

comes out. The exhaust vent on the right test stand is five times longer

than the one on the left. The one of the left is used for short-range

missiles. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles

that can fly 1,200 kilometers. This photograph was taken in April of 2002.

Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it

so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath the

test stand." [uS Department of State, 2/5/2003; New York Times, 2/5/2003]

But according to the Associated Press, ". UN missile experts have reported

inspecting al-Rafah at least five times since inspections resumed Nov. 27,

have studied the specifications of the new test stand, regularly monitor

tests at the installation, and thus far have reported no concerns."

[Associated Press, 2/7/2003] Similarly, Reuters quotes Ali Jassem, an Iraqi

official, who explains that the large stand referred to in Powell's speech

is not yet in operation and that its larger size is due to the fact that it

will be testing engines horizontally. [Reuters, 2/7/2003; Guardian,

2/15/2003] Several days later, Blix will report to the UN that "so far, the

test stand has not been associated with a proscribed activity." [Guardian,

2/15/2003]

Iraqis attempted to hide evidence from inspectors - Powell shows the UN

Security Council satellite shots depicting what he claims are chemical

weapons bunkers and convoys of Iraqi cargo trucks preparing to transport

ballistic missile components from a weapons site just two days before the

arrival of inspectors. "We saw this kind of housecleaning at close to 30

sites," Powell explains. "We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly

move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to

demonstrate what they had or did not have?" [uS Department of State,

2/5/2003] But the photos are interpreted differently by others. An unnamed

UN official and German UN Inspector Peter Franck both say the trucks in the

photos are actually fire engines. [Mercury News (San Jose), 3/18/2003;

Agence France-Presse, 6/6/2003] Another series of photos-taken during the

spring and summer of 2002-show that Iraqis have removed a layer of topsoil

from the al-Musayyib chemical complex. This piece of evidence, combined with

information provided by an unnamed source, leads Powell to draw the

following conclusion: "The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth

from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons

evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity." [uS

Department of State, 2/5/2003; Washington Post, 2/6/2003] Showing another

series of pictures-one taken on November 10 (before inspections) and one

taken on December 22-Powell says that a guard station and decontamination

truck were removed prior to the arrival of inspectors. Powell does not

explain how he knows that the truck in the photograph was a decontamination

truck. [uS Department of State, 2/5/2003; Washington Post, 2/6/2003;

Washington Post, 2/6/2003]

Communication intercepts demonstrate Iraqi attempts to conceal information

from inspectors - Powell plays recordings of three conversations intercepted

by US intelligence-one on November 26, another on January 30, and a third, a

"few weeks" before. The conversations suggest that the Iraqis were

attempting to hide evidence from inspectors. [New York Times, 2/5/2003; US

Department of State, 2/5/2003; London Times, 2/6/2003; Sydney Morning

Herald, 2/7/2003] Senior administration officials concede to the Washington

Post that it was not known "what military items were discussed in the

intercepts." [Washington Post, 2/13/2003] Some critics argue that the

intercepts were presented out of context and open to interpretation. [sydney

Morning Herald, 2/7/2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 2/9/2003] Others note that

the conversations were translated from Arabic by US translators and were not

analyzed or verified by an independent specialist. [Newsday, 2/6/2003]

Biological weapons factories - Colin Powell says that US intelligence has

"firsthand descriptions" that Iraq has 18 mobile biological weapons

factories mounted on trucks and railroad cars. Information about the mobile

weapons labs are based on the testimonies of four sources-a defected Iraqi

chemical engineer who claims to have supervised one of these facilities, an

Iraqi civil engineer ( December 20, 2001), a source in "a position to know,"

and a defected Iraqi major (February 11, 2002). Powell says that the mobile

units are capable of producing enough dry biological agent in a single month

to kill several thousand people. He shows computer-generated diagrams and

pictures based on the sources' descriptions of the facilities. Powell says

that according to the chemical engineer, during the late 1990s, Iraq's

biological weapons scientists would often begin the production of pathogens

on Thursday nights and complete the process on Fridays in order to evade

UNSCOM inspectors whom Iraq believed would not conduct inspections on the

Muslim holy day. [New York Times, 2/5/2003; US Department of State,

2/5/2003; Washington Post, 2/6/2003; Reuters, 2/11/2003] Powell tells the

delegates, "The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer, who

supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during

biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident

occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological

agents." He displays models of the mobile trucks drawn from the source's

statements. [CBS News, 11/4/2007] Responding to the allegation, Iraqi

officials will concede that they do in fact have mobile labs, but insist

that they are not used for the development of weapons. According to the

Iraqis, the mobile labs are used for food analysis for disease outbreaks,

mobile field hospitals, a military field bakery, food and medicine

refrigeration trucks, a mobile military morgue and mobile ice making trucks.

[Guardian, 2/5/2003; ABC News, 5/21/2003] Iraq's explanation is consistent

with earlier assessments of the UN weapons inspectors. Before Powell's

presentation, Hans Blix had dismissed suggestions that the Iraqis were using

mobile biological weapons labs, reporting that inspections of two alleged

mobile labs had turned up nothing. "Two food-testing trucks have been

inspected and nothing has been found," Blix said. And Ewen Buchanan,

spokesman for the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission,

said, "The outline and characteristics of these trucks that we inspected

were all consistent with the declared purposes." [Guardian, 2/5/2003; ABC

News, 5/21/2003] Powell's case is further damaged when it is later learned

that one of the sources Powell cited, the Iraqi major, had been earlier

judged unreliable by intelligence agents at the Defense Intelligence Agency

( February 11, 2002). In May 2002, the analysts had issued a "fabricator

notice" on the informant, noting that he had been "coached by [the] Iraqi

National Congress" (INC) ( May 2002). But the main source for the claim had

been an Iraqi defector known as "Curveball," who was initially believed to

be the brother of a top aide to Ahmed Chalabi. The source claimed to be a

chemical engineer who had helped design and build the mobile labs. His

information was passed to Washington through Germany's intelligence service,

the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), which had been introduced to the source

by the INC. In passing along the information, the BND noted that there were

"various problems with the source." And only one member of the US

intelligence community had actually met with the person-an unnamed Pentagon

analyst who determined the man was an alcoholic and of dubious reliability.

Yet both the DIA and the CIA validated the information. [Veteran

Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 8/22/2003; Los Angeles Times,

3/28/2004; Knight Ridder, 4/4/2004; Newsweek, 4/19/2004; Newsweek,

7/19/2004] Powell says that the US has three other intelligence sources

besides Curveball for the mobile bioweapons labs. Powell will be infuriated

to learn that none of those three sources ever corroborated Curveball's

story, and sometimes their information contradicted each other. One of the

three had failed a polygraph test and was determined to have lied to his

debriefers. Another had already been declared a fabricator by US

intelligence community, and had been proven to have mined his information

off the Internet. [buzzflash (.com), 11/27/2007] In November 2007, Curveball

is identified as Rafid Ahmed Alwan. Serious questions about Curveball's

veracity had already been raised by the time of Powell's UN presentation. He

will later be completely discredited ( November 4, 2007). In addition to the

inspectors' assessments and the dubious nature of the sources Powell cited,

there are numerous other problems with the mobile factories claim. Raymond

Zilinskas, a microbiologist and former UN weapons inspector, argues that

significant amounts of pathogens such as anthrax, could not be produced in

the short span of time suggested in Powell's speech. "You normally would

require 36 to 48 hours just to do the fermentation.. The short processing

time seems suspicious to me." He also says: "The only reason you would have

mobile labs is to avoid inspectors, because everything about them is

difficult. We know it is possible to build them-the United States developed

mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane-but it's a

big hassle. That's why this strikes me as a bit far-fetched." [Washington

Post, 2/6/2003] After Powell's speech, Blix will say in his March 7 report

to the UN that his inspectors found no evidence of mobile weapons labs (

March 7, 2003). [CNN, 3/7/2003; Agence France-Presse, 3/7/2003; CNN,

3/7/2003] Reporter Bob Drogin, author of Curveball: Spies, Lies and the Con

Man Who Caused a War, says in 2007, "y the time Colin Powell goes to the

UN to make the case for war, he shows the world artists' conjectures based

on analysts' interpretations and extrapolations of

Arabic-to-German-to-English translations of summary debriefing reports of

interviews with a manic-depressive defector whom the Americans had never

met. [CIA director George] Tenet told Powell that Curveball's information

was ironclad and unassailable. It was a travesty." [Alternet, 10/22/2007]

Iraq is developing unmanned drones capable of delivering weapons of mass

destruction - Powell asserts that Iraq has flight-tested an unmanned drone

capable of flying up to 310 miles and is working on a liquid-fueled

ballistic missile with a range of 745 miles. He plays a video of an Iraqi

F-1 Mirage jet dispersing "simulated anthrax." [uS Department of State,

2/5/2003; New York Times, 2/5/2003; Washington Post, 2/6/2003] But the

Associated Press will later report that the video was made prior to the 1991

Gulf War. Apparently, three of the four spray tanks shown in the film had

been destroyed during the 1991 military intervention. [Associated Press,

8/9/2003]

Imported Aluminum tubes were meant for centrifuge - Powell argues that the

aluminum tubes which Iraq had attempted to import in July 2001 (July 2001)

were meant to be used in a nuclear weapons program and not for artillery

rockets as experts from the US Energy Department, the INR, and the IAEA have

been arguing ( February 3, 2003) ( January 11, 2003) ( August 17, 2001) (

January 27, 2003). To support the administration's case, he cites unusually

precise specifications and high tolerances for heat and stress. "It strikes

me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far

exceeds US requirements for comparable rockets," he says. "Maybe Iraqis just

manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but

I don't think so." Powell also suggests that because the tubes were

"anodized," it was unlikely that they had been designed for conventional

use. [uS Department of State, 2/5/2003; Washington Post, 2/5/2003;

Washington Post, 3/8/2003] Powell does not mention that numerous US nuclear

scientists have dismissed this claim ( August 17, 2001) (September 23, 2002)

( December 2002). [Albright, 10/9/2003] Powell also fails to say that Iraq

has rockets identical to the Italian Medusa 81 mm rockets, which are of the

same dimensions and made of the same alloy as the 3,000 tubes that were

intercepted in July 2001 (see After January 22, 2003). [Washington Post,

8/10/2003] This had been reported just two weeks earlier by the Washington

Post. [Washington Post, 1/24/2003] Moreover, just two days before, Powell

was explicitly warned by the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence

and Research not to cite the aluminum tubes as evidence that Iraq is

pursuing nuclear weapons ( February 3, 2003). [Financial Times, 7/29/2003]

Iraq attempted to acquire magnets for use in a gas centrifuge program -

Powell says: "We. have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is

attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines. Both items

can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium. In 1999 and 2000,

Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia

for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to

produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the

magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War." [uS

Department of State, 2/5/2003; New York Times, 2/6/2003] Investigation by

the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency [iAEA] will demonstrate that the

magnets have a dual use. IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said a little more

than a week before, on January 27, in his report to the Security Council:

"Iraq presented detailed information on a project to construct a facility to

produce magnets for the Iraqi missile program, as well as for industrial

applications, and that Iraq had prepared a solicitation of offers, but that

the project had been delayed due to 'financial credit arrangements.'

Preliminary investigations indicate that the specifications contained in the

offer solicitation are consistent with those required for the declared

intended uses. However, the IAEA will continue to investigate the matter.."

( January 27, 2003) [Annan, 1/27/2003 ] On March 7, ElBaradei will provide

an additional update: "The IAEA has verified that previously acquired

magnets have been used for missile guidance systems, industrial machinery,

electricity meters and field telephones. Through visits to research and

production sites, reviews of engineering drawings and analyses of sample

magnets, IAEA experts familiar with the use of such magnets in centrifuge

enrichment have verified that none of the magnets that Iraq has declared

could be used directly for a centrifuge magnetic bearing." ( March 7, 2003)

[CNN, 3/7/2003]

Iraq attempted to purchase machines to balance centrifuge rotors - Powell

states: "Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show

that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance

gas centrifuge rotors. One of these companies also had been involved in a

failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into Iraq." [uS Department

of State, 2/5/2003; New York Times, 2/6/2003]

Powell cites the documents removed from the home of Iraqi scientist Faleh

Hassan - Powell cites the documents that had been found on January 16, 2003

by inspectors with the help of US intelligence at the Baghdad home of Faleh

Hassan, a nuclear scientist. Powell asserts that the papers are a "dramatic

confirmation" that Saddam Hussein is concealing evidence and not cooperating

with the inspections. The 3,000 documents contained information relating to

the laser enrichment of uranium (see January 16, 2003). [Daily Telegraph,

1/18/2003; Associated Press, 1/18/2003; BBC, 1/19/2003; US Department of

State, 2/5/2003] A little more than a week later, in the inspectors'

February 14 update to the UN Security Council (February 14, 2003), ElBaradei

will say, "While the documents have provided some additional details about

Iraq's laser enrichment development efforts, they refer to activities or

sites already known to the IAEA and appear to be the personal files of the

scientist in whose home they were found. Nothing contained in the documents

alters the conclusions previously drawn by the IAEA concerning the extent of

Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Guardian, 2/15/2003; BBC, 2/17/2003;

Associated Press, 8/9/2003]

Iraq is hiding missiles in the desert - Powell says that according to

unidentified sources, the Iraqis have hidden rocket launchers and warheads

containing biological weapons in the western desert. He further contends

that these caches of weapons are hidden in palm groves and moved to

different locations on a weekly basis. [uS Department of State, 2/5/2003] It

will later be suggested that this claim was "lifted whole from an Iraqi

general's written account of hiding missiles in the 1991 war." [Associated

Press, 8/9/2003]

Iraq a few dozen Scud missiles - Powell also says that according to unnamed

"intelligence sources," Iraq has a few dozen Scud-type missiles. [Associated

Press, 8/9/2003]

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction - Secretary of State Colin Powell

states unequivocally: "We. have satellite photos that indicate that banned

materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass

destruction facilities. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has

biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

Elsewhere in his speech he says: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined

to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." [uS

Department of State, 2/5/2003; CNN, 2/5/2003]

Reaction - The speech does little to change minds on the Security Council.

France, Russia, and China remain opposed to the idea of a new resolution

that would pave the way for the US to invade Iraq. These countries say that

Powell's speech demonstrates that inspections are working and must be

allowed to continue. "Immediately after Powell spoke, the foreign ministers

of France, Russia and China-all of which hold veto power-rejected the need

for imminent military action and instead said the solution was more

inspections," reports The Washington Post. But governments who have been

supportive of the United States' aggressive stance remain firmly behind

Washington. [Washington Post, 2/6/2003; Washington Post, 2/7/2003] The press'

response to Powell's evidence is also mixed. The Times of London, a

relatively conservative daily newspaper, describes Powell's presentation as

a "few smudgy satellite photographs, a teaspoon of talcum powder, some

Lego-style drawings of sinister trucks and trains, a picture of an American

U2 spy plane, several mugshots of Arabic men and a script that required a

suspension of mistrust by the world's doves." [London Times, 2/6/2003] The

Washington Post opinion pages, however, are filled with praises for the

speech. [New York Review of Books, 2/26/2004] The editorial proclaims that

after the presentation, it is "hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that

Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." [Washington Post, 2/6/2004]

> In an operation timed to coincide with the war on Iraq, U.S. special

> operations forces have targeted Ansar al-Islam's militants in northern

> Iraq. Hundreds of Islamists, including al-Qaida fighters who took

> refuge in northern Iraq after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan,

> have been killed.

They could have done this before the war but that would have taken away one

of their excuses wouldnt it?

>

> Although U.S. officials for months have leveled charges that the Ansar

> al-Islam and al-Qaida militants were producing poisons in northern

> Iraq, it wasn't until this week that specialist U.S. teams were able

> to gain access to the Sargat camp to test for traces of biological and

> chemical weapons.

>

Not true. they could have attacked it months before. Clinton bombed similar

places.

December 13, 2007

"Halsey Knox" <little@faus.and> wrote in message

news:tqn0m3putocckp2uu5a4hv8e1d5aioog0o@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:51:07 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"

> <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> mumbled:

>

>>So then you do not believe that Saddam supported al Qaeda

>

> http://www.meforum.org/article/579

>

> Ansar al-Islam announced its inception just days before the September

> 11 attacks on the United States.

Ansar was NOT Al qaeda but Saddam also opposed them!

>One month before, leaders of several

> Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qa?ida leadership

> in Afghanistan[8] seeking to create a base for al-Qa?ida in northern

> Iraq.[9] Perhaps they knew that the base in Afghanistan would soon be

> targeted, following the impending terrorist attacks against U.S.

> targets.

>

> There were other clear indications that al-Qa?ida was behind the

> group's creation. The authors of a document found in Kabul vowed to

> "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of

> jihad, [and] rule every piece of land ? with the Islamic Shari'a

> rule."[10] The Los Angeles Times, based upon interviews with an Ansar

> prisoner, also corroborates this, noting that in October 2000, Kurdish

> Islamist leaders:

the anser and Zakawi story ios blown up out of proportion.

Oct 4 2004

The Telegraph reports that US military intelligence agents in Iraq believe

that the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the supposed leader of al-Qaeda in

Iraq, has been greatly exaggerated. The Bush administration has used

al-Zarqawi as a villain to blame post-invasion troubles in the Iraq war and

to connect the Iraqi insurgency to al-Qaeda (February 9, 2004). [Daily