Ed Morrisey has posted more information from those recently translated documents from Iraq. These show more links between Saddam and al-Qaeda prior to the U.S. led invasion.
Those ties look a lot stronger as more of these documents get translated and linked together. We have already seen operational ties between Saddam and terrorists in the region, and the evidence of his assistance to the same jihadi network that launched repeated attacks on American assets up to 9/11 grows stronger. We need a high-powered effort to get the rest of the thousands of IIS documents translated in order to gain the clearest picture of Saddam’s connections to the terrorists arrayed against us.
I wonder how many man hours journalists spent in 2000 searching for evidence to support those rumors of Bush cocaine use. I wonder if anywhere close to as many have been expended looking into these documents being translated.
Well Lorie, you must understand that stories about rumored cocaine use are far more in the realm of the ‘public’s right to know’, than proof of WMDs, Saddam-Al Queda links, etc.
You don’t get Pulitzer prizes, and lucrative book deals that way.
But the cocaine story is true.
There was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
These aren’t the connections you’re looking for…
Nothing to see here
Move along
.
.
.
.
There are two ways of looking at this new evidence .Whatever tenous links Saddam had with Al queda training camps before, to continue the baseball metaphor” Post Hussein Iraq has become what some experts call a “supermagnet” for jihadists… “We’ve created the World Series of terrorism,”..Unfortunately would-be terrorists and jihadists seem energised by the Iraq war rather than discouraged by it. And any previous ties that Saddam may have had with Al queda have become very seconday asince the ‘American ‘ invasion into a muslim country is what is at stake. . Rather than puting out the fire, we’ve created a domino effect, not so much for democracy, but for new training grounds and bitterness towards the US. ..so this unending debate continues..For the worst case scenario see the wrong war” (June 2004) by Peter Bergen..Unfortunately, not much has changed..
Lorie
Before you get so carried away w/ Captain’s Quarters, Fox and Ray Orbison & his document project, you ought to do a little googling about Robison & his venture.
Robison is no expert & some on the blogosphere who are familiar w/ Arabic have found some pretty shoddy translation.
Further, from what little I’ve read of this Robison/Iraqi document project, there are an amazing number of assumptions, probables, perhaps and likelies. Not very definitive work.
According to Robison’s own admission he doeasn’t have a military intelligence background. But if you go to his website, it definitely appears to be a rather extremist pro-war site, rather devoid of any indication that it is the site of someone w/ expert intelligence analysis background..
Looks like a lot of potential quackery. This might explain why this project was left to some self-appointed clown rather than undertaken by US agencies, ,w/ all of Robison’e qualifiers, there doesn’t seem to be much there there.
And yet it’s still more credible than 60-Minutes TANG scoop
Nowhere near the journalistic man hours spent on Clinton’s consensual affair. If, during early 2001, the new admistration paid even the slightest attention to the intel about upcoming Al-Queda activity, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this now. I’m still waiting for a connection to be made between BushCo and some kind of intelligence.
scsiwuzzy
You posted: “And yet it’s still more credible than 60-Minutes TANG scoop”
Just another insightful counterpoint? This kind of crappy nonresponse is typical of far too many of the Wizbang Choir.
You really add a lot of depth to a Wizbang discussion. Stop yipping at the sidelines like a Pavlovian Puppy, scwoozy, or is it squishy, for intellect?.
mak 44,
you failed to mention I am a former army officer with ten years experience including the Gulf War and Kosovo missions. You also fail to mention that I worked under DIA contract with the Iraqi Survey Group with these documents. Likewise you fail to mention that the bad translation you refer to was a government provided translation, and not our original work, a lesson we have learned from. BTW, a person does not have to be an intelligence analyst to perform this work, only able to read translations and research the people places and things, and then provide all source material so that critical reasoning is supported by fact. It is a neat trick, try it sometime.
Ray Robison
Richard Clarke, in Against All Enemies, writes,”Intelligence involves analysis of raw reports, not merely their enumeration or weighing them by the pound. Analysis, in turn, involves finding independent means of corroborating the reports.”
What your project appears to do is comb thru, on an amateur intelligence level, the mass of documnets from Iraq that Negroponte has arranged to be posted on the web, and provide some fairly speculative interpretation.
According to Scott Shane of the NYT, “the database includes a fair amount of suspected forgeries, peddled by hustlers both before and after the war and obtained through determined Iraqi exile opposition groups.”
They are raw, and as Clarke points out ( he actually was an intelligence analyst) there’s a lot more to intelligence than translating. With all the “most likelies” and “probables” etc along w elipses w/ your suggested “likely” content, you have basically nothing to offer in your interpretations except speculation.
Additionally, Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran says, in regard to these documents, , “There’s no quality control. You’ll have guys out there with a smattering of Arabic drawing all kinds of crazy conclusions.”
Just like “Radio Sawa,” no?
Pat,
Don’t take it personally. mak44 is just part of the KOSsak choir and is repeating the talking point that Comrade Markos gave him.
It’s a standard in thier playbook: If the message is true, but does not comform with your worldview, then you attack the messenger.
Ray Robison
Forgot to ask. What exactly was your position in the ISG and what exactly did you do?
P. Bunyan
Another Wizbang Choir crappy ad hominem.
I went nowhere near “KOS” for the posts I made, nor did I collect “talking points.” I simply did a little “googling” & there is a trove out there once you get beyond the usual self-reinforcing rightie extremist blogsites where it’s just one fool quoting another fool from another site based on NOTHING.
Your dismissive & assinine post adds nothing to the topic of this thread.
mak44,
Maybe not, but Osama, Kim Jung Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appreciate your continuing efforts to deligitimize the war and destroy the credability fo the United States.
Maybe Saddam and “al-Qaeda” negotiated, but of course this was not the same “al-Qaeda” that we are fighting now. This was a harmless “al-Qaeda” that co-existed peacefully with other Middle East nations before our illegal invasion of Iraq. There were no real terrorists in Iraq. Nothing to see here.
/barking moonbat satire
(PS – This is probably a good argument for mak44 to try on his moonbat friends.)
P.Bunyan
You posted; “Maybe not, but Osama, Kim Jung Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appreciate your continuing efforts to deligitimize the war and destroy the credability fo the United States.”
More typical Right-wing response; slime anyone’s patriotism and accuse them of giving aid & comfort to America’s enemies.
If anyone has destroyed the credibility of America, it is Bush & his war of choice.
Because I do not accept Robison’s pseudo “intelligence analyses” of a raft of raw Iraqi documents that he claims show a link between Saddam & UBL or al-Qaeda, I am supporting the likes of the creeps you listed?
You have a really distorted concept of patriotism, which probably explains your fawning love for anything jingoistic.
BTW: What does the “P” in your user stand for, poll-parrot?
Mike
If anyone to the left of Hitler is a “moonbat5” then you must be at least a crypto-fascist.
Mak44
What, you hold the franchise on snark around here?
the point that you won’t see, or admit to seeing, is if you applied your standards evenly, you’d either be open to the notion that there is cause to follow and track down the leads the doc project is finding and find the truth behind them OR you’d discount the Bush=AWOL=draft dodger meme as utter crap.
But one plays into your stereotypes and agenda, the other does not.
BTW, good to see that you cannot go through an entire thread without juvenille name calling. Keep it up, you only marginalize yourself when you do…
Are these the documents that the US Govt. won’t even touch because they are unable to verify them?
Oh. Yeah, they are.
“the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available…”
Sorry Lorie. : (
scsiwuzzy
But you can go thru an entire thread w/o posting anything of intellectual merit or thought or argument.
But, wow, your gems re 60 Minutes really cut thru all the haze.
Geez, mak, you talk about how quickly you found contrary evidence, but you didn’t bother to actually cite it or provide links. I’m sorry, but I just don’t give you that much credibility. In fact, given your history, I don’t give you any credibility at all. As the old saying goes, if you were to say the sun rises in the east, I’d have to double-check an almanac.
BTW, your spelling sucks, too. “thru.” “assinine.” “documnets.”
J.
Speaking from personal experience, Richard Clarke was a self-important, self-promoting, self-absorbed political opportunist whose perceived “competence” is based solely on his taking credit for the work of others.
mak44,
It is my sincere opinion that the efforts of the left (MSM/Democrats) to delegitimize the war do embolden the United States’ enemies. It is my opinion that the words of John Murtha, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Dick Durban, et. al. have done more to aid and encourage the terrorists than anything anyone on the right has ever done.
It is my opinion that the Islamo-fascists are the enemy of the United States and George Bush is not.
Why do you so strongly feel the need to discredit the information that is being discovered in these documents?
Mak44:
Since you’re such a google expert: Have you googled Gen. Georges Sada’s name? He wrote a book called “Saddam’s Secrets” and mentions in the first few pages that Iraq indeed had WMDs.
Please explain this away–another first-hand account of what was really going on inside Iraq.
You folks are amazing. Your brains must really hurt–going through all those gyrations to make reality fit your preconceptions.
Jay,
Even with links, mak44’s quotes would still be from lefties with a strong anti-Bush agenda so they would not have any more credibility than anything else that comes from the MSM.
Jay
If you wanted the info (pardon me, information)you can find it by “googling.”
One site, by a blogger w/ his own capability in Arabic is abuaardvark.typepad.com Sorry, but I’ve not had much luck w/ the url function on this site.
As for my spelling, you stretch to make a point rather than note the lilkely typos. If you want to make spelling points, just check out some of your choir bloggers…and these are not typically typos. And they go frequently beyond possible typos to misspellings to mangling English construction.
As for your dismissal of points I raised, I am not surprised, because, in spite of your protestations in other posts you make, you do not reflect someone who typically researches to find information across a spectrum.
While I realize that you prefer to just dismiss what I’ve posted, anyone as clever as you would not need point-by-point citations in order to check the reliability of the references. In fact, I might have thought that you would already have probed Robison a little further just to make certain that there really is something there.
P.Bunyan
With a slight turn to your post above: “Even with links, Wizbang Choir quotes would still be from righties with a strong pro-Bush agenda so they would not have any more credibility than anything else that comes from the Faux News & Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh”
Now, that takes care of anything you have to argue, according to your insight as a truthseeker.
Glad to see the bar lowered to this point, especially in an ad hominem attack from one of this site’s principal blogger. Really sets the tone.
all this parsing about saddam and potential terror links is rediculus-the middle east in general is a cauldron of anti-western sentiment, period. to think that all these hostile regimes were insulated somehow from one another just goes against common sense. all these arguements in defense of saddams “innocense” are just misdirection. they may not have “done” 9/11 directly, but hell, just look all the approval and celebrations that took place in the muslim community after it happened, i saw em on the news! they all thought the attack was the best thing since turbans! you can bet that many many sources of money and support for this type of thing will never reach the light of day. doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. i think time would be better spent investigating the conspiracy theories against our country, rather than spend all this energy trying to disparage our countries efforts to defend against the threats. i might add that i am not a great admirer of GB et al, but they are what weve got and is defending the country such a bad thing? go easy on the lawyer semantics and use a little common sense!
Doug L
Did some “googling” about Sada per your suggestion. Found this quote from Sada that strongly suggests that his knowledge of WMD shipments to Syria was not firsthand.
Sada-
“Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used
them against our Iraqi people…I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria“
Also, I came across this news report of Jan 2004, from, of all places, Fox News–“White House: No Evidence Iraq Moved WMD to Syria”
Sada certainly seems to have thoroughly made the rounds of just about every right-wing site or organization imagineable and the reason for that is quite apparent in his message. But, as in his quote above, as well in his appearance on the Daily Show, he makes no claim of firsthand experiential knowledge. And that has to be considered in the light of the White House statement above, reported from God’s own right-hand news agency.
jp2, re:
“the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available…”
Sounds like a disclaimer. I’d put one too, because no doubt someone will find one that isn’t completely correct and then accuse the entire administration of lying. Far fetched, I know.
While I would form entire world opinions on some of these documents, they’re frankly about as good as it’s going to get concerning information on these links.
I also think they shouldn’t be ignored…unless the possibility of their authenticity undermines certain arguments you’ve held dear. Then it’s ok to disregard any offending material.
mak44:
as well in his appearance on the Daily Show, he makes no claim of firsthand experiential knowledge.
Yeah, I remember seeing that episode. Jon Stewart was incredulous when Sada said without a doubt WMDs had been moved to Syria. Probably the only time that I can remember Stewart not having anything funny to say.
Correction to my post to jp2:
While I wouldn’t form entire world opinions..etc
mak 44, that is why every article begins with a second document confirming the relationship between the Maulana and Saddam, a document used in a West Point study on al-Qaeda. It is because we find this relationship in a high confidence second source and no where else, and because this document (the IIS notebook) was captured in Iraq, that you can place high confidence in its authenticity. Perhaps that just doesn’t make sense to you. I leave it in your capable hands to determine how showing a second source enemy document captured in afghanistan with cooberating privilaged information does not lend any credibility to the IIS notebook. But thanks for explaining to me how to build credibility in a document.
Mak44:
Nice try, but no cigar for you.
Remember, the liberal mantra from the beginning has been “where are the WMDs?? Where are the WMDs?? Iraq didn’t have them! Bush LIED!!” Are we at least in agreement on that? (We probably aren’t, because that doesn’t help your argument.)
General Sada may not know where the WMDs have gone, but he has first-hand knowledge that Saddam developed them and thought about using them—on Israel. (Read the flippin’ book!)
So your attempt to change the subject doesn’t fly–not with me, not with a lot of people. (Changing the subject = “there are no WMDs in Iraq” to “no one knows if the WMDs in Iraq were moved to Syria or not.”)
What is it with people like you? Why do you hate Bush so much? And don’t you believe we’re in a war with Islamic fascists? Can you honestly answer these questions? For once?
Jay N.B.
In just one Wizbang Choir post above:
“rediculus” “arguement” “innocense” (must be a new fragrance)
Perhaps this last is a bit unfair of me as the writer probably meant: “n : white and lavender to pale-blue flowers grow in perfect rings of widely spaced bands around the stems forming a kind of pagoda; California [syn: purple chinese houses, Collinsia bicolor, Collinsia heterophylla”You wouldn’t want to overlook “disparage our countries efforts”
And in the close there is “use a little common sense!”
Shouldn’t that have been “scents” in light of the prior usage of “innocense.?”
Of course, as an illiterate speller from the Quayle skule of “potatoe” I wouldn’t want to comment on the punctuation or failure to usecapitalization. LOL
Mak44,
Given that you quoted Scheuer, I figure you would be interested is seeing what else he has to say. Here’s the web site this quote is from.
In Scheuer’s book Through Our Enemies’ Eyes he describes his thesis: “[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel.” The book also documents a number of areas in which Scheuer believed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cooperated.
If Scheuer is right, that the confrontation with militant Islamists is inevitable, then Bush was wise to take the battle to Afghanistan and Iraq and then issue the challenge (bring it on) to the militants. What’s really brilliant about the President’s plan is that we are training Muslims (Iraqi police and military) to kill Islamic militants.
Doug L
Wouldn’t want your cigar. It’d probably explode from the rest of the WMD’s Saddam hid in cigars.
Nonetheless, in spite of your desperate need to cling to Sada’s clearly stated second-hand evidence, you insist on overlooking the report from God’s own right-hand news network & Rice’s affirmation of no shipments to Syria.
What I hate about Bush is the manipulative and deceitful way he railroaded this nation into a war w/ Iraq on the pretext of fighting terrorism while his clumsy ham-handed incompetent & untutored use of American force hgas led to a new breeding ground and training ground for terrorists. That along w/ a likely growing failure to eradicate the real menace in Afghanistan according to the reports coming from that country.
This man, Bush, has been the greatest untutored & unskilled practioner of Foreign Affairs in modern history.
His expertise in Foreign Relations doesn’t even run the gamut from A to B. He is an empty-headed fool whose undisciplined mind has been easily filled w/ tons of neo-con crap analysis of world events. His Presidency is merely a stalking horse for the man, Cheney, who really runs the Executive Branch.
MacLorryHad you looked further thru thius site, you would have found this in regard to Scheuer’s book, Imperial Hubris:
For Scheuer, the war in Iraq was like a “Christmas gift” to bin Laden not just because it distracted the U.S. military from the war against al Qaeda, but more importantly because it has provided global jihadists a failed state from which to operate that is even more conducive to terrorism than Afghanistan. By attacking and occupying the second holiest place in Shi’a Islam, the U.S. has turned Iraq into a lightning rod for jihadists from around the globe to come attack the occupying armies.”
mak44 is fun …
No-one spouts conspiracy theories better than he.
PS: Lee, groucho, mak44, et al claim that invading Iraq was bad because it enraged extremists. But at the same time, they claim to have wholeheartedly supported the War in Afghanistan.
So let’s see; invading and toppling a regime that was secular is bad because it would enrage “jihadists“. But invading and toppling a regime that is explicitly theocratic would … not?
Mak44,
Actually, I read the entire page, but what I quoted was the part that seemed best to counter the part you first quoted. The difference is that I supplied a link (not that you needed it) so that anyone could read more if they wanted. That goes to Jay’s point about you not providing links when you quote sources not within the thread.
Scheuer is an interesting man with several seemingly contradictory statements. Reading the interview between O’Reilly and Scheuer makes it clear what he thinks the solution is when he said “Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That’s the first step.”
Invading Iraq might have been a “Christmas gift” to bin Laden in the short run, but it was and is a death trap for Islamic militants As Iraqis take more and more control of their country, it will even de-legitimize global jihadists as they will find themselves fighting a true Islamic nation while the US sits on the sidelines. The jihadists are in a brilliantly laid trap they can’t get out of without winning in Iraq, and they know it. They also know that the only way they can win is to destroy political support for the war in the US. That’s why they need you and the left’s continued support in this war.
Mac Lorry
You had some interesting things to say in your post until you got to that tired old crap about
“They also know that the only way they can win is to destroy political support for the war in the US. That’s why they need you and the left’s continued support in this war.”
That kind of line suggesting that criticism or opposition to a war is aiding the enemy is just more of what people like you said in the Viet Nam era, in spite of the history involved.
And now you righties do the same w/ Ieaq, because, when your wrong-headed war goes amuck, it must be the critics. Hitler said the same about the loss of WWI.
Stop casting legitimate criticism as a cause of failure rather than seeing the wrong headedness of what Bush has wrought.
Mak44,
But that’s what I belive. Do you want me to lie to you? Besides that, I see a lot of your recycled old crap including the following.
What failure are you talking about? It seems you have already cut and run. If the war with Islamic militants is inevitable, as Scheuer states, when are you going to stand up to them?
Lorie until you can eleminate the hijacking that is habitual on your threads,how can any one objectivly discus and evaluate. I know that you are loath to pull the trigger,but today Mak44 tried to make a man that knows more than that idiot can even concieve of,out to be a liar or incompetent. I’m sorry but you must make a judgement as to what this thread represents,either honest conversation or constant hijacking that accomplishes nothing.
jainphx
Pointing out some of what exists on the internet about the subject of the thread is hardly hijacking.
What you want is compliance with poll parrot repitition, regardless of any information that is available.
Sorry, jainphx, but Robison is no “intelligence analyst” notwithstanding his years in the Armed Services.
What you want, jainphx, is Group Thought. Not surprising that you have your whacko view of the world.
The best way to stop hijacking of threads is to ignore those trying to hijack. I think it shows how weak their arguments are that they have to change the subject, so I let that stand as their best contribution to the topic.
As for Mak’s complaint repeated several times that the documents in question are not being translated in a sufficiently professional manner (I am paraphrasing), then I would suggest he put some pressure on those whose judgment and authority he would respect to undertake the task of translating them. As for these documents’ suthenticity being too suspect to warrant attention, there are literally millions of others that have been found in Iraq — surely those on the left can’t maintain that there is no value in any of them. Are they all suspect? Before you answer that, it would be interesting to know your position on the Bill Burkett/Lucy Ramirez/Mary Mapes documents. The truth is that most on the left simply don’t want to know the truth. Or, as Jack Nicholson said once(I think it was in A Few Good Men), they “can’t handle the truth.”
Lorie
Your reply is noted.
What troubles me about these docs in Arabic from Iraq is that careless non-experienced analysts are doing the translation & the interpretation.
Robison came up w/ one translation purportedly reflecting an Iraqi plot to put anthrax on forged US leaflets to be dropped over Iraq. That interpretaion was disputed in more than one aspect, including Arab usage & syntax. Part of the issue involved the translation as “impaired radio” for “sawa” and discussed the Arab usage of “radio” as reflected by the usage of the word amongst US military.
Anyone the least familiar w/ language study is well aware of “idiom” among other aspectc in usage. An assumption based on American idiom applied to Arabic usage does not necessarily lead to accurate translation of meaning or intent.
BTW; if I hijacked your thread, I apologize. I thought the essence was “connecting the dots” based on Morissey’s story about the Robison project.
Lorie,
I almost never agree with Mak44, but he has withheld much of his flaming rhetoric on this thread while making some serious points and posting quotes from several sources. Frankly, he’s been the most interesting liberal on this thread. Lets not discourage good posts just because they challenge our own thinking. It’s such posts that sharpen and refines our own thinking so that we are better prepared to defend our opinions.
Why, Mac Lorry, thank you. Your post is aninspiration to keep up in a similar vein whan I am not attacked as a “moonbat” “kommiecrat” etc or when what I post is not simply dismissed regardless of content.