From Weekly Standard: Saddam's Terror Training Camps proven

Proven link between Saddam and Terrorists - dispute this Bush bashers....

It looks as if the liberal party is about to get busted up.

For how long now have we had to read about how Saddam and his regime were no threat to the U.S.A.? A certain clueless old self-promoting former military officer (who doesn't deserve the title or the respect it should command) has told us repeatedly that Saddam was no threat to the west, and that Bush went into Iraq for bogus reasons so many times we've all gotten sick of it.

Unfortunately, I hope that the crow that individual is about to eat settles well in his stomach and doesn't take him off whatever diet he's been mandated to.

The Weekly Standard has an article coming in the next issue that should put an end -- once and for all -- to any statements that Saddam was not helping terrorists, and wasn't a threat to the U.S. or it's interests.

Snippets appear below. Headline is linked. Please see original for complete story.






Saddam's Terror Training Camps

What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.

by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.
The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives.



... much more at original article please see original for complete story.


Meanwhile, again, I hope some folks enjoy the crow they are going to be eating over this issue. I'm sure that it'll be a while before it makes it to the Main Stream Media, and of course The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel don't count at all. Until it's on CBS with Dan Rather giving you the scoop using faked documents, or in the New York Times or Washington Post, it's not news, and isn't real, right?!

Too bad, this appears to be real, and very bad for the Bush bashers.

The good news is that we didn't wait, we did go into Iraq, and we have shutdown the camps, and ended the line of money and support that was flowing from Saddam to these swine and scum. The same would not be true if left with some certain doves on the liberal side of the aisle in charge of our defense, both homeland and internationally.
5,237 views 17 replies
Reply #1 Top
Forum bump on this hot news item.
Reply #2 Top
Check this additional information from the Weekly Standard article for a reason on why this news is just now coming to light:

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

There's a lot of other information in the article as well that helps explain (to some extent) why this news isn't getting out as quickly as it should. Some of which again gives the MSM the black-eye it deserves.
Reply #3 Top
It's all a lie, Bush planted the story and blackmailed reporters into printing it!
Reply #4 Top
Bush planted the story and blackmailed reporters into printing it!


And paid the Iraqi journalists too!

How nice to hear this. I hope that it will be announced from the rooftops. But it won't.

Never is.
Reply #6 Top
The book "Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind has Paul O'Neill who was the Secretary of the Treasury during Bush's first term saying, "Saddam Hussein had been slaughtering Islamic fundamentalists for years---al-Qaeda hated him as much as they did the United States…the last thing he’d do was arm them, if he had any arms to give.” A Secretary of Treasury who worked in the Bush administration has more credibility than a Stephen F. Hayes who works for a conservative Weekly Standard. Hayes is spinning this information with the hopes of damaging liberals. I'm not buying this. You'll have to do a lot better. Saddam hated al-Qaeda and there's no way a link existed.
Reply #7 Top
I'm not buying this.


And there we have the first few liberals trying to paint this away as if there's no truth to the claims here.

Oh how nice it must be to go through life with blinders on.
Reply #8 Top
that's the beauty of liberalism, as long as they have their hatred for Prs. Bush, facts don't matter anymore than terrorism does. It's all just scare tactics... right?
Reply #9 Top
that's the beauty of liberalism, as long as they have their hatred for Prs. Bush, facts don't matter anymore than terrorism does. It's all just scare tactics... right?


Only as long as it may get them votes...

Liberal scares over social security are starting to be lost though, as we get closer and closer to the doom and gloom that -- of all people -- President Bush had been preaching about. We're soon to see the program go broke, and while the Republicans took initiative to start talking about a real fix, the Democrats demagogued and stonewalled.

They would have done the same thing with Saddam, and Saddam and his friends would have turned out many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of trained terrorists that would have been sent throughout the world to do harm to the U.S. and it's allies. As long as there was no directly traceable link, Saddam was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately as these documents finally come to light, we start seeing that there was indeed a traceable link, just one that took a long time to find because we hadn't been looking for it, or because the information wasn't deemed important enough to translate and make use of.

Again, I hope some Democrats and ultra liberals in the Cindy Sheehan whining mold are ready for this news to hit. When it does, perhaps Cindy can choke back some more tears as she realizes that her son died for a noble cause, and not just because Bush is an evil war monger that wanted Iraq's oil.
Reply #10 Top
i'm gonna offer you pretty much the same thing as i did island dog altho--since your opinions generaly seem grounded in some sorta aspect of reality--i'll put a lil more effort into pointing out a few of the major problems i see with this 'proof'.

1. does it seem likely to you that an administration so needy for something...anything...of substance to justify or validate its decision to invade iraq would discover such a trove of evidence to support its policies but not have teams working 24/7 to vet it in order to: a. improve its performance in iraq? b. force the country (and the world) to see just how right they were?

i mean, what's the most likely reason it's taken nearly 3 years to evaluate only 2.5% of this stuff? what's goin on is exactly the opposite of how it would be handled if there was anything there.

2. then there's this lil gem:

"The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

if there's one thing this administration does obsessively--generally with more passion than sense, it's spending a lotta time in a constant chase for american hearts n minds.

not this time? gimme a break.

if, in fact, the major reason for not making this information public is their fear the 'facts' may be tweaked, inaccurately reported, by those monsters of the msm...yall are in much worse trouble than even i'm able to imagine,
Reply #11 Top
Kingbee - you ever try looking for needles in a haystack? That is exactly what is going on in Iraq. It's not like we should expect every useful piece of information to have a big label on saying "This is evidence to be used against Saddam" or anything as simplistic as you would seem to want. Hell, even if it was there, you and your friends on the left would deny it and claim just as you are trying to above, that's it made up shizzle fo' nizzle.

And that little gem you quoted is dead on. Without context, we already know what happens when the MSM gets their hands on information. The New York Times / CBS are ready to run with just about anything and they are known to miss important key words along the way, or better yet, to have someone like Mapes call up friends and get documents made to order.

Last I recall, well, the last one that could be recalled is that the liberal side was the one making up documents, not the conservative side. Witness CBS/Mapes/Rather, or no? Witness the NY Times reporters that were creating stories from nothing? The Washington Post prize winners that did the same?

Wanna try again?
Reply #12 Top
The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel don't count at all. Until it's on CBS with Dan Rather giving you the scoop using faked documents, or in the New York Times or Washington Post, it's not news, and isn't real, right?!


dan rather, ted koppel, peter jennings, tom brokaw and the rest of the major tv network newscasters/anchors/analysts, reporters were--as a consequence of not actually owning the networks for whom they worked--unable to broadcast any unapproved information or opinion.

same thing goes for reporters and staff writers.

contrast that with publisher kristol who not only owns the standard and therefore can print any damn thing he can imagine or convince himself to be the truth. furthermore, kristol--unlike rather--founded and is a member of several groups with very definite agendae, one of which has been and continues to be pushing america into a war in iraq. in fact, he was the main cheerleader.

for as long as he's able to retain control of his lil publication, you can expect an endless parade of 'proof' he was right. 20 years from now, if he's still alive and lucid, you can be sure he'll be filling the standard with the newest amazing discovery of shocking evidence sure to vindicate everyone who fell under the spell of his 'invade iraq' campaign.
Reply #13 Top

Reply By: BenUserPosted: Saturday, January 07, 2006
Golly gee Batman. I thought we went to war over WMDs.

We wil forgive you your ignorance.

This time.

Reply #14 Top

altho--since your opinions generaly seem grounded in some sorta aspect of reality

As opposed to yours?

Reply #15 Top
kingbee -

If Bush and the administration are such pathologic & willing liars, why didn't they just make this shit up 2 years ago? Same with WMD.

You want to have your cake and eat it, too. Just dismiss anything not found "soon enough" - the definition of "soon enough" of course being yours.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #16 Top
Well done Kingbee, I had completely forgotten Kirstol was the head of the conservative. Stephen's name rang a bell but I couldn't identify what article he had written. Today I remembered.

Stephen was the man behind Case Closed
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Who reported on Feith's memo
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe080703.html

And issued a retraction
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html

I am reminded of Bill Moyer's comments about the guy who kept getting it wrong. I think his latest article has a more than a few similarities with old one eh?
Reply #17 Top
dan rather, ted koppel, peter jennings, tom brokaw and the rest of the major tv network newscasters/anchors/analysts, reporters were--as a consequence of not actually owning the networks for whom they worked--unable to broadcast any unapproved information or opinion.


I fail to see how this makes any difference - Kristol just cuts out the middleman.

Rather had "no agenda"? Puhleez.

contrast that with publisher kristol who not only owns the standard and therefore can print any damn thing he can imagine or convince himself to be the truth.


How exactly does this contrast with the NYT? Again, the only difference I see is the NYT's publisher doesn't write a column.

for as long as he's able to retain control of his lil publication, you can expect an endless parade of 'proof' he was right.


And for as long as there is a leftist media, you can expect an endless parade of innuendo, distortion and false accusations. So what's your point?

Cheers,
Daiwa