Craig Penshar writes in with this news:
I found some interesting tidbits. I don’t claim to understand the full context, but it appears that these Iraqi officials were admitting to:
* Bribing Russian officials to get specific UN Security Council proposals changed.
* Lying about imported chemicals
* Transporting nuclear material outside of IraqCraig
File description:
ISGQ-2003-M0004667This undated media file contains 62 minutes and 36 seconds of audio recorded tape, of President Saddam Hussein’s meeting with high ranking Iraqi officials, discussing Ikius Report in the Security Council regarding the Iraqi Biological File.
Pg. 2
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ‘AMIR:
…However, there are grounds for the Biological Program. Sir … one could be suspicious of it [the Biological Program] if we concentrate on it [UNINTELLIGIBLE] and the trafficking effort and dodging everything in regards to it…
…We have succeeded in a few of the UN paragraphs, we have won Russia, ahhh … we have convinced Russia by way of generous accounts [payoffs] in which, you remember how and why it happened…
Pg. 10
COMRADE HUSAYN:
…They have a bigger problem with the Chemical program than the Biological program, a lot bigger than the Biological program. It is not the weapons, the size of the imported material, the size of [UNINTELLIGIBLE] that we presented to them or the size of the stockpile. They knew that not all of this was true. We have not told them that we used it on Iran, nor have we told them about the size or kind of Chemical weapons that we produced, and we have not told them the truth about the imported material…
Pg. 13
COMRADE HUSAYN:
…Sir, where was the Nuclear material transported to? A number of them were transported outside of Iraq. A number of them [did not specify whom] knew about the nature of our work in the past [UNINTELLIGIBLE] I mean, they got out. Therefore sir, to solve this issue, we must stand firm. Why should we stand firm? We should stand firm because the time will allow us to confess all that we have … Sir, this estimate could take up to five years while they are trying to solve it….
Screw UN sanctions against Iran… how about UN sanctions against Russia and France for supporting a dictator who was actively engaged in WMD development and hide-and-seek?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
The MSM has been mostly ignoring the declassified Iraqi documents, and when they do mention them, they go out of their way to question their authenticity (unlike certain Texas ANG memos). One wonders if the media would be so skeptical and disinterested if the released information supported, rather than contradicted their Big Lie that Saddam had no WMD and was not in cahoots with al Qaeda.
Actually, we don’t have to wonder. We know exactly how much the documents would be hyped if they supported the Big Lie.
Yawn. Interesting that there’s no date. You wouldn’t be trying to hide that maybe this this was from 1980’s would you? Hell, the “they” in the page 10 excerpt could be Reagan and Rumsfeld for all we know! But please keep trying. In fact, I think all you wingnuts should spend the entire next decade poring over all these documents and doing nothing else. Then in 2016, you can put all your findings together and present them to President Clinton. 😉
Ian if the Wicked Witch of the Left does decide to run her vp candidate could be Samsonite with all the baggage she has
Ian,
I’m the one that did the research and sent the excerpts to Gateway. If you had bothered to read the full text of the document I cited you would know that they date from 1996-1997. It’s just that the EXACT date is not know. Any more questions?
#3 Hillaryous but don’t quit your day job. I don’t much care for Hillary and doubt she’ll ever be Pres but I knew the mention of her name would increase the blood pressure of must who read this blog.
#4 Thanks for that information Craig but I do wish those trying to make the case with these documents would always include dates because dates ARE important. Cynics might conclude that you omit the dates for a reason.
The problem is you are still trying to make the case for a war that just HAD to be started in March 2003 while weapons inspectors were still doing their work. The Bush administration said there was no option, we COULD NOT WAIT and they brought up the idea of mushroom clouds, and all the other scary stuff to cow us into supporting the invasion. With the mindset prevalent around here, when you put up fragments of undated conversations, there is tendency to assume that these conversations were contemporaneous with Bush’ decison to invade. The fact that they occurred six or seven years prior to our rush to invade greatly diminishes their relevance to the decison to rush to war in Iraq.
Rather than totally useless sanctions against France and Russia, why don’t we just tell the UN to go set up shop in Brussels, and get all the dictators and tyrants that the UN legitimizes to foot the bills.
#4 — Craig, Ignorant and nauseating openly and proudly admits that he is a mindless partisan shill with no interest in real debate. Therefore, there’s no point in doing other than ignoring.
Ian, did you miss another boat in your rush to project a penetrating criticism of the memos? “Dates”, as you point out, are important and that’s why –if you’d read something instead of shooting off Democrat Talking Points from your hip– you’d have known that.
And what’s with the “yawn” thing lately? Did Patrick GrampaGryph give you some debating tips? LOL, I hope not.
“Cynics might conclude that you omit the dates for a reason.” Or maybe we can conclude your just too fast to indict and willingly serve as a tool for terrorist apologists.
Ian, the GayLeft is swimming in a tide of documents that will flood and wash away the Democrat Plantation –you need to tread water faster to stay afloat.
#8 – V the K, thanks for the advice, I think you’re probably right about Ian. But, Ian is right about one thing; I should have included the dates. The dates provide important context. Most importantly is that after nearly five years of inspections (and about a year before the Iraqi’s ejected the inspectors), the Iraqi’s appear to have deceiving and undermining the process. Thus, validating the war-hawks claims that further inspections are worthless because the Iraqi’s simply could not be trusted to come clean.
Ian, you really are a good example of how clueless the Democrats are.
Do you know who was carrying out the inspections?
The UN.
Do you know who was being bribed by Saddam to specifically assist him in evading sanctions and inspections?
The UN and its member countries.
This is akin to saying that we should have waited to act until cops who have been bribed to ignore and hide evidence find some.
Then again, maybe you’re not clueless; maybe you and your fellow Democrats knew full well that Saddam was bribing the UN to hide and ignore evidence of his weapons programs.
So why did you want that process to continue?
Speaking of deceiving and not coming clean, I find it fascinating that Repubs are trying to replace one liar and thief, Duke Cunningham, with another liar – thief status yet to be determined – Harold Kaloogian. On his website, he tries to pass off a photo taken in Turkey as a peaceful street scene in Baghdad! In this day of cybersleuths, I’d say that Kaloogian is not only too dishonest for office but too stupid as well. LOL!
http://tinyurl.com/lkl6g
Ian –love the move: when confronted with facts, change the subject! Good one; are you going to start writing press releases for Crooks & Liars, now?
I think constant spamming of comment threads is grounds for banning.
#13: What are you talking about? You and Craig both agreed with me that dates are important in considering the import of these documents. Neither the post on this site nor the linked site provide any hint of a date so why are you complaining about me asking? As for this tide of documents, please keep searching but we already have the dated documents that prove Bush was lying when he publicly claimed in early 2003 that he had not decided on war. In fact he had already set the date for when the bombs would start to fall.
http://tinyurl.com/pdo5h
Stop and think for a moment. What would we expect, given that the KGB is in power in Russia? Er, ex-KGB. Why would we expect them to be allies?
They’re not. Neither is France or Germany, both of whom sold Hussein weapons and weapons materials until he was deposed. Why are we pretending that they are allies, other than the Democrats ran a frog-wannabe in the last election?
Ian, you’re slipping out of the normal moonbat rant, guy.
You meant to write: “George Bush planned to invade Iraq during a secret meeting on his Texas ranch with Colin Powell and Dick Cheney 6 months before the 2000 election. We have crumbs –with their DNA on it– from the cake in the shape of Iraq which they ate to cement the deal. They knew there were no WMDs. They knew they had to invade Afghanistan before Iraq or the American people wouldn’t support the primary invasion; Afghanistan was a ruse. And they positioned the WTC nearly 30 years earlier in NYC to allow for the attack by jetliners. When Rumsfeld visited with Saddam, it was to brief him on a plan on how to link up with al Qaeda, buy dirty bombs, inflame the Arab world with a brassy attack on the US and become leader of the pan-Arab world.”
OK, now you’re safely back on the narrow gauge track of the MoonBat Train.
rwp, good points. I wish diplomats could be more like John Bolton and less like Ramsey Clark or Neville Chamberlain… be frank with Americans, underscore there are few allies in the WOT and France/Russia are no friends unless the gravy train is pumping money.
#13: What are you talking about?
Perhaps you need to reread my post.
But I have the feeling you dodged because it hit too close to home.
Again, Ian, why should the United States have waited for the UN to find something, when the UN and its member nations were being specifically paid to conceal, obstruct, and hide evidence?
#15 – A classic “red herring” or attempt to change the subject. Setting the date – i.e., creating the option – for when you MIGHT commit yourself to a project is not making the final decision to commit yourself.
Bruce, doesn’t Ian sound like someone we might already know and have dealt with before?
(p.s. I wonder if ‘chickenhawk’ is coming next? Four, three, two… )
Speaking of Iraq, One of the CPT Captives Rescued from Insurgents Was Gay
So, basically, this guy went to Iraq to side with the Islamic Extremists who believe that homosexuality must be punished by stoning against the forces of Western culture, wherein his right to be openly gay is protected.
Um… does that seem a little, I don’t know, self-loathing to anybody?
VdaK, plus he didn’t enlist in the army –he’s a chickenhawk too!
(Are you listening, GoB –we got one on a self-loathing gay and chickenhawk… could your day be any brighter?)
#22 – This is why I don’t tie arguments for my rights – whether “gay” rights or my general human rights – to Christianity or any form of philosophical altruism. Christianity and formal philosophical altruism, in their pure forms, explicitly advocate the sacrifice / loathing / extermination / abandonment of the personal self. In fact, Jim Loney is being philosophically consistent and honorable because, by his own terms and principles, he shouldn’t ever care what might happen to himself. He is standing on a consistent principle – just a particularly insane one, or one I don’t share. But all of that is a big story for another time.
P.S. Loney’s withholding from his captors of the fact that is gay (so they wouldn’t immediately single him out and kill him) may fairly be seen as according with his purpose of completing his anti-military “mission”, rather than reflect a concern for self. The fact that he went to Iraq (for a misguided cause) in the first place, suggests his consistency in not caring what happens to his personal self.
I simply don’t respect people who loath themselves to that degree, or who are that foolish. I can admire sacrifice, but only sacrifices for the very best of causes – say, defending freedom. And such sacrifices are, in a backhanded way, ultimately an assertion of self – a way of leaving one’s mark on the world. But now we are getting WAY far afield. I apologize. I just didn’t want my remarks to be misconstrued.
See this.
#24 & #25 – Calarato, I have met very few people who understand and articulate the tragic philosophical implications of altruism so accurately and explicitly: All of them are Objectivists. I know its not the topic here, so feel free to either post here or email me privately about your philosophical influences. I’m very interested.
craig@penshar.com
Craig, sent you email.