The US government has had a large backlog of translating Iraqi documents since the 2003 invasion. Apparently, instead of devoting large amount of resources to translate them, they have scanned them into a database. This database is supposedly available online at http://70.169.163.24/. Boston Globe: US puts Iraqi documents on the Web

Bloggers have begun to translate these documents and several have surfaced that seem to be quite interesting.

Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism

This document apparently is a call for Iraqi volunteers for suicide missions "to liberate Palestine and strike American interests."

The translation of this document has been done by several different translators and all have similar texts.

This post goes into the timing of the Iraqi "recruitment drive" in the context of 9/11 (this call for suicide attackers was not related to 9/11. The pilots of the 9/11 planes were already in the US at that time and had pretty much completed their flight training.)

Recall that an Iraqi military headquarters had a mural of an Iraqi airliner crashing into a high rise building: CNN Story

Few seem to recall that Vlad Putin had warned the US that Iraq planned on attacking us. CNN Story



There are other memos, including one that says Iraqi intelligence met with bin Laden in 1995 and one that says the Taliban and Osama were in contact with Iraq. link

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

Amlord it is quite apparent that you are attempting to link Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Every link you posted was either a Red Herring or wholely baseless.

The mural of the trade towers might be interesting if it was found before 9-11-2001, but since it was not it is conjecture to think it defines a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Would you really go to war over a picture? I would hope not.

The warnings from Russian came from the same faulty intelligence that had Saddam with stockpiles of WMDs.

It is clear that you are grasping at anything to try to justify this war. Internet Interpretations? Rather embarrassing.

And finally, to assume the worst, that Saddam Hussein was financing and supplying Osama bin Laden, you still come to a dead end because Saddam does NOT HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Georgie's Justifications were as follows:
1. Saddam has WMDs
2. Saddam has ties to terrorism
3. Saddam tortures his people

A logical decision could be reached:
If 1 and 2 were true, then war IS justified.
If either 1 or 2 is false, war IS NOT justified.
3 is irrelevant because America doesn't care about suffering unless it's their own.

Do you know what these memos tell me?

The Iraq war is a solution in search of a problem.

No matter what these memos say, nobody in our intelligence had seen them or they wouldn't be waiting on the general public to be interpreting for them. The only benefit that could come from these documents, is satisfying war monger urges. Meaning, if something is found, it will be used as an excuse to invade another country when nothing can be proven. Clearly intelligence available to Bush has shown that there was reason to doubt the seriousness of the problem with Iraq. Instead, Bush followed his gut and can't come to grips that he was wrong. Now, lies and deception are the only means of defense he has because at the end of the day, he was 100% wrong about every single facet of this war.

Finding something meaningful just gives him less he has to lie about. Unfortunately, anything found to substantiate what he has said in the past will be proof of a lucky guess.

I don't think anyone can or will say it better than DaytonRocker just did.

You don't justify a war after the fact, you present solid evidence before you start dropping bombs and putting boots on the ground. This administration presented the illusion of evidence which we later found out to be lies, half-truths and omissions. Had the case been fully and accurately presented we would not have set foot in the country, at least not at that time. Who knows what a historical fork we didn't take would have brought.

What the release of these memos tells me is that the administration wants to just throw all of this noise out there and hope that some enterprising citizens pick it up and try to do exactly what you are suggesting - justify the war. In fact I think I first saw some of these memos at a right wing blog and later read that the information was completely debunked.

If these documents had any value whatsoever then they would not be publicly available and someone within the government would be spending time and effort to translate and make sense of them.

Define ‘American Interest’? Was it Allawi, who worked for us and set off car bombs in Iraq; that American Interest?

“Interests” seems a bit of a stretch when it comes to a “smoking gun”. Why didn’t you quote the document that indicated that Saddam has issued orders for his Security Apparatus to be on the lookout for Zawahiri so they could arrest him?

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

These documents only reinforce what some of us always knew and some of us have chosen not to believe. While Saddam wasn’t behind the 9/11 attack Iraq was a terrorist state. Some on the left have tried to compartmentalize the whole war on terror down to only those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It’s funny how some of the new revelations have come from the NY Sun which also brought the new Libby leak stuff to light. Is the Sun a tool of the Right?

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

I’m stunned that the government does not have sufficient resources to do this themselves, but it’s a great idea to let the information be made public. It’s obvious the press doesn’t care to change the current perception.


CJ, you know better than to use “I think I saw…” : )

Yes. Certainly the Congress and the Administration thought Iraq was a danger to the US. Had WMD and the ability to make more and had a strong desire to attack the US. That they trained terrorists is clear and this memo makes that even more so. Iraqi military did not then or now (as insurgents) carry out suicide attacks – thus the “volunteers” would be recruited from the ranks of hammas etc.

Certainly more of this will come out of translations of documents and recordings. Skeptics will downplay it of course.


Great idea. Independent translations like this make it much harder for the media to blow it off and/or ignore it. Many of us felt Saddam had a burning desire to get back at us and this just confirms this. IMO the idea that he would not deal with terrorists because of “philosophical differences” was always questionable – at best.

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

There is a site that posts the declassified and translated Iraqi documents, located at FMSO DOC-EX, here.

One of the more interesting purported translations contains the following text:

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Can't comment on the validity of the report or if any action was taken, but it certainly raises some questions.

That's the problem with this debate. You say that as if it's true when in fact, that's completely false. I have never found evidence of Saddam supporting international terrorism ever. While he was brutal inside his own borders (which unfortunately, is what it takes to keep 3 factions from going into civil war), Saddam has never exported terrorism. This is an important point in terms of these memos. If you wish to dispute my response, start a new thread about Saddam's links to international terrorism - I dare you. Bring your A game however, because if you're relying on talking points, they will never overcome the mounds of evidence that prove your statement is not true.

Dayton, isn’t that what this thread is about? Saddam’s régime according to this memo (which has been translated by 3 different sources) was actively recruiting suicide bombers for international terrorism. There is no doubt that Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. Even the most liberal interpretation of Saddam before the war would have him turning a blind eye at terrorists inside Iraq’s borders. Please, spare me the A game threats. This isn’t a game.

I'll begin with a quote from Amlord, concerning the Downing Street memo:

source

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

I'm not sure that one, or even several memos are grounds for anyone to jump to any conclusions. How ironic that Amlord asks us if perhaps this translated memo can justify an entire war. I'm afraid that some more damning evidence is needed.

Indeed, the right-wing punditocracy (including many on this site) has made practically a career of attacking and minimizing so-called hearsay damnation of the Bush administration by people who were formerly a part of it. Why should this memo cause us to to suddenly justify this crazy war? Of the many credible insiders have come out of the Bush administration and damned it in one way or another, how many of them have been brutally slandered by the right? All of them, near as I can tell. And yet, now, someone translated a scrap of a memo and suddenly Iraq was a terrorist state? Where's your probing for truth now? Where's your desire to dismiss un-corroborated pieces of paper? Gone as soon as the paper says something you agree with? For shame.

As Amlord said in the quote, this memo does not jive with other available evidence. It might be true, it might be nothing.

The most ironic part is this: if I were to construct an argument stating that the writer of this memo was acting on his own, without the approval of Hussein, that he was a liar and not representing Iraq, I would be called an apologist and worse. And by the same people, of course, who find ways to justify everything going on in the Bush administration, every time some former insider makes a claim.

DaytonRocker your argument amazes me....I can't understand such determination to clear Saddam Hussein's record of abuses to such a degree as I have seen from you. Is it that important for you to so poorly portray the current US policy in Iraq that you must distort the facts so terribly?

Hussein is notorious for his support of "international terrorism" In fact I would say it is probably a legacy he is quite proud of. 9/11 is not the only terrorist event to have occurred nor is al Qaeda the only terrorist group to have ever existed. I don't think the war on terror makes this distinction, I thought terrorism in general was no longer going to be so conveniently ignored and unacted on.

If you are unaware of Saddam's legacy of a "philanthropist" in the Islamist terror network there is plenty of information already available....

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.
source

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997.

When Saddam Hussein was in power, MEK received the majority of its financial support from the Iraqi regime.
source


U.S. forces captured the leader of a Palestinian terror group accused of masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which an American was murdered.
Abbas, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Front during the 1980's and 90's, has been living in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government.
source

I've never denied the abuses although I will say they've been exaggerated to some extent. For example, Saddam did not pull innocent women and children from their homes and torture them. Saddam did not drop chemical weapons in downtown Bagdad. But if you crossed him, God/Allah help you. This being said, I don't know how you decided I was defending his abuses.

The international terrorism aspect is quite different. Of course he contributed financially to Hamas - just like every other Arab country in the region. Our good friend and ally - Saudi Arabia - had freaking telethons to raise money for terrorists for pete's sake.

But at the end of the day, Saddam did not shoot up Olympic villages, send suicide bombers out, or hijack airplanes. Never did he do that. After 9/11, that's all I cared about. He could kill all the Muslims he wanted for all I care as that means there is less to hate us. But as long as he kept it in his own borders - much like a half dozen African countries who are far, far worse - I'm for defending Americans.

You're making an argument towards something I've never stated.

But "philanthropy of terror" is beside the point. One could make a solid argument that the US, as the world's largest supplier of arms and military materiel, is far more of a "philanthropist of terror" than Hussein could have ever hoped to be. Consider Turkey, who has massacred thousands of Kurds using arms and helicopters from the US. Consider Indonesia, supported by the US, committing genocide in East Timor. Consider Iran and Iraq themselves. We helped fund their war with eachother. We even had a third-rate (not to mention criminal) president in the 80s who funded and supplied arms for wars all through Central America.

Do you really think we haven't funded and supported people as bad or worse than Hamas?

Look, no one here is saying Hussein was a good guy. No one is claiming he never harbored a grudge against the US.

As for the memo, none of us knows whether or not it is even indicative of an actual reality in Husseins government. Certainly it isn't enough to turn anyone into a supporter of the war. Even if true, it doesn't justify invasion. We have certainly acted 'against the interests' of many countries over the years. Are any of them justified, therefor, in invading us? Somehow I doubt you would think so.

If Iraq had placed sanctions on us for ten years, after destroying our infrastructure, sanctions that led to malnutrition deaths of half a million children, and throughout the ten years continued almost daily bombing sorties against us, do you suppose we might have been interested in 'striking against Iraqi interests?' My guess is the answer would be 'yes.' And I imagine we wouldn't be too concerned about how those 'strikes' got carried out.

Not really, it may prove the opposite. If they “trained terrorists” why would they ask for volunteers?

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

I don’t recall the president saying we’re going to invade Iraq because they may have written some nasty memos about us.

Even still, this pales in comparison to the very real threat of having an even worse enemy waving their nuclear ambitions in our faces. Odd how you want to justify a war over “memos” that are less threatening than actual actions recently taken by Iran.

And you have to consider the precedent. Every time we intercept a memo or email with similar content off we go?

I agree with Bucket. Saddam was a major supporter of terrorism but he went well beyond Saudi Arabia. Sure lots of Arab countries allowed citizens to collect money for Hammas but this was not direct government support as with Saddam.

And none of the other countries invaded a neighbor (obviously not inside his “borders”), produced massive amounts of WMD and defied even UN resolution after being tossed out of an invaded country.



http://www.husseinandterror.com/

There is hardly one thing you've gotten correct here. Iraq invading another country? Sure...you got that one right. But I suppose you expect us to believe that was the first war in the middle east that was a result of a land dispute? And what does that have to do with international terrorism anyway?

Produced massive amounts WMD? That's only a half-truth. Actually, they couldn't produce squat without the materials we sent Saddam to help defeat Iran. So, your point should have been "Saddam and the US produced massive amounts of WMD to defeat Iran". Although I'm sure you'll find it hard to find countries that have used WMD in war...*cough*Hiroshima...*cough*Nagasaki*.

And to support your argument, you provided a stellar link to prove your point. Three in the list are Palestinians. How about you save us a little time here and name one Arab country in that region that didn't support the Palestinians. You've painted those contributions as the exception when you know it's the rule.

And especially Ansar Al-Islam. That's what discredits that entire link. Ansar Al-Islam was/is 700 strong and has never contributed to international terrorism. But even if they did, what could Saddam do about it? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Ansar Al-Islam was protected by the no-fly zones so in effect, we (The United States) supported Ansar Al-Islam more than Saddam did. Saddam couldn't touch them even if he wanted to.

And the Abu Nidal Organization? Saddam loved them so much that he expelled that group back in the 80's. News flash Ted...this is the new millennium...seriously.

You suck this type of spin up to reconcile the failure that is called the Iraq War. You hold out for nuggets in a pile of papers to vindicate your blind support for the most liberal president this country has ever seen since Jimmy Carter. Stalin and Lenin would be proud to know dimwits like Bush are following their idealology methods.

These papers will only show what you want them to show. But the evidence on the ground is clear. Bush was 100% wrong about every single facet of this war. He couldn't even get one thing correct. Instead of taking a united country and world with him to fight actual terrorists, he bet everything on a losing horse. Now he's trying to turn it into a winner with the help of people who refuse to face the facts.

And somehow, you're happy with all that. No wonder this party is broken.

What “half-truth” is that. The nuke program less than 2 years from the bomb in 1991? The huge chem./bio production they admitted to? And please give me a break on the ridiculous notion we gave Saddam squat that was vital to him for weapons of any kind. He had the ability to buy (and probably did) raw anthrax bacteria from half the industrial world including his buddies in Russia. All other WMD help came from his friend in Security Council who insured him he would never have to comply with all those nasty UN resolutions – France (who even sold him weapons in the 90s illegally), Russia and Germany.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/building-bomb.html

Iraq 1992
This is the Iraqi bomb—slightly smaller than the one dropped on Hiroshima, but nearly twice as powerful—packing an explosive force of at least 20,000 tons of TNT. The official is dramatizing a drawing he has made in his notebook, based on documents seized in Iraq. He is sure that the bomb, if built to the specifications in the drawing, will work.
This is the bomb that, according to U.N. estimates, Saddam Hussein was 18 to 24 months from building when the gulf war started. It is the bomb he is still likely to build, despite the war and the most intrusive nuclear inspections in history, unless the United Nations changes its tactics.
They are pouring concrete as we speak," says a U.N. official at the next desk. Saddam, he says, is rebuilding the bombed nuclear sites in plain view of the U.N. inspectors. "He is even planting trees and re-landscaping," he adds, "to boost employee morale." Another U.N. official has a similar story. During a visit to the Iraqi nuclear weapon testing site at Al Atheer, he says, his Iraqi hosts looked him in the eye and said, “We are waiting for you to leave."
Iraqi scientists know, for example, how to cast uranium metal into bomb parts in a vacuum furnace. The vacuum prevents molten uranium from burning in air. At Al Atheer, U.N. inspectors found vacuum furnaces made by a German firm, Arthur Pfeiffer Vakuum Technik. The inspectors rejected Iraq's claim that the furnaces were for scientific research.
The inspectors also found a large "isostatic" press, made by a Swedish-Swiss firm, Asea Brown Boveri. This, too, the Iraqis claimed was for research. But the U.N. team thinks the machine was for shaping the high-explosive charges that set off a nuclear chain reaction.


Despite the size of the Iraqi program, it had only a dozen or so scientists and engineers who were in a position to plan and implement nuclear projects. Without these key people, the nuclear program could not have existed. Before the Gulf War, the IAEA had no idea who they were or what they did, nor did Western intelligence agencies seem to have much interest. More than 400 Iraqis were trained in France and Italy during the late 1970s, yet none of them reported being approached about what they were doing. Nearly all the current leaders of the program were drawn from those trainees.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so98hamza

In early 1979, Iraq built the first factory to produce insecticides with the help of Italian engineers. The factory was built in the region of Akashat at a cost of $50 million. A security system was also built to protect the factory that cost another $60 million. The building of this factory experienced many problems, such as espionage attempts by the Mosad, the Israeli intelligence service. The western companies that dealt with the defunct regime -- for instance Australian and Dutch firms -- exported a lot of materials related to this field of production. For instance, the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco (name as transliterated), a material that is essential in the production of mustard gas, at a cost of 1.5 million Marks. Multinational Italian firms also supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Oxycklorure (name as transliterated), a phosphoric material that is also used in chemical industries that can be put to dual-use. As for the French companies, they exported to Iraq large quantities of a gas (not further identified) that can be used in warfare. This gas was exported across the borders from Italy and Turkey. This transaction was concluded through the mediation of the German Company Karl Kolb. A confidential report issued on 21 August 1990 by Helmut Hossman (name as transliterated), the Economy Minister of then West Germany, confirmed that the German companies had the lion's share in these transactions. The report said that since 1983, West German companies have exported to Iraq huge quantities of raw materials, equipment, and small industrial factories to produce poison gases. The report also said that these companies participated directly in building the Sa'd Project, the Iraqi chemical project, and the construction of the military complex in Al-Taji.

The role of German companies in building the Iraqi nuclear program (subhead)
The German Company Karl Kolb that is specialized in equipping chemical laboratories played a crucial role in supplying the defunct regime over the past 30 years with toxic chemical materials through a middleman who helped Dr Amir al-Sa'di. Al-Sa'di prepared for his doctorate in chemistry in this institution and married a German woman. He worked in the Iraqi chemical project and was in charge of coordinating the defunct regime's transactions and requirements with the management of the Karl Kolb company. In October 1985, the operations of this company ceased by order of the German judiciary after it sold Iraq two electronic systems that test toxic gas inhalation levels. These are used in closed gas chambers where they measure toxic gas reactions with biological tissues. They also measure the level of their effect on animals, such as dogs, donkeys, and mules as well as humans. These gases were tested on prisoners that opposed the Iraqi regime.
The German engineering company NPI in Frankfurt expressed its regrets for the conduct of its colleagues in Karl Kolb in providing Iraq with the necessary technology to build its program to produce poison gases. These gases were used by the Iraqi regime in its wars against its neighbors and its own people. The German companies also sold Iraq seven chemical factories and launchers that could be used as chemical weapons. The Karl Kolb company, that has been under judicial investigation and prosecution since October 1985, also built a camp near Baghdad to test six laboratory units specialized in producing chemical materials to protect plants from locusts. These were sent to the complex in Al-Samarra. In the early 1980s, engineers from NVA, an East German company, built a complex near Baghdad to test chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It was designed like the non-conventional weapons testing center in East Germany. It is equipped to protect against radiation. It consists of special buildings that are equipped with stations to remove traces of toxicity from equipment, personnel, and military materiel.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

I'll put this question back to you in the following way Amlord since you have yet to weigh in on your topic. You have poo-poo'ed items such as the Downing Street memo in past posts. One example is this post where you said:


I would completely disagree with you that it doesn't jive with other evidence, especially evidence that has emerged since last year when you wrote that. However, that would be off topic here.

In your mind the memo is worthless because it doesn't jive with evidence. So moving on to these memos, why in the world would you believe them to have any meaning whatsoever even if they are authentic when it simply doesn't jive with the evidence we have (unless you are denying the evidence)? Is it because it supports your point of view? Why?

The Bush administration has desperately been seeking a smoking gun to justify this war since the war began and they simply haven't found one. They've claimed to have found one several times and it has always back fired because it is later proven to be false.

Now they dump a whole bunch of memos written in arabic on the public and you are fully prepared to believe this is a smoking gun that somehow justifies the invasion? It is a plain and simple fact that if they believed these memos had any value whatsoever they'd be working on them in some government agency, eagerly awaiting the results so they could start a "see we told you it was justified!" national tour. It is noise, plain and simple and if someone translates one of these and starts publisizing it then it only works to their benefit.

What we are seeing here is the last Hail Mary effort by the administration to improve their image on the Iraq war. Look at any poll out there, just under 2/3rd's of Americans are against what we are doing in Iraq, think it was handled badly and don't believe it is justified. The administration figures that maybe, just maybe someone will translate one of these things, it'll circulate and it may just cause enough public confusion (hopefully with the sizeable contingent of Republican voters who have turned against the war) to limit the damage at the polls in 2006.

But that's just a question for you to justify your position here, I still hold by my first post in this topic.

How is Saddam’s support of international terrorism which was financial, logistical and inspirational beside the point? Specifically when asked to consider justification for military action under the banner or title...war on terror? Seems to me to be the point.

Now if the topic was about justification for war or encouraging war with America based on her ties to international terrorism then maybe perhaps your comments would be more on point.



No what is going on is that some are so determined to place the USA actions in a negative light that they will misrepresent events, claim falsehoods, justify genocide and massacres and even give reason to the murdering of civilians.

You wish for us to believe that Iraq was left without any other choice than to retaliate with terrorist means and DaytonRocker even wishes to disown Saddam's most horrific crimes...even claiming Saddam somehow took caution when it came to women and children. I can't believe this is an argument I have been offered. Haven't you paid any attention to his trial and what crimes he is accused of?..human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. Why would anyone want to give reason or justify or even as DaytonRocker went so far as to claim usefulness for these actions.

And this link I found just for you DaytonRocker, I saw a documentary about this dig..One child was found in his mother's arms said to be approx 6-7 mos old with a bullet in the back of his head, executioner style, the Americans working on this site claimed it was one of the most difficult tasks they have ever had to face in life.

Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

I haven't seen a soul defending Hussein, least of all DaytonRocker. We all know Saddam was a Bad Man™ but that doesn't answer the question of why we were justified in waging a war that so far has claimed over 2,000 American lives, who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and has cost us nearly half a trillion dollars with no end in sight.

The world is filled with many evil men, a lot of them a heck of a lot more evil than Saddam could ever have dreamed of. Does that give us justification to go ahead and invade all of those countries?

If the justification for war was "support of terrorism" then we should be looking other places than Iraq like Saudi Arabia for example which is an exponentially greater supporter of terrorism than Iraq was. If the justification was because he was a Bad Man™ then there are at least half a dozen African countries with much more brutal dictators that are actively engaging in genocide right now.

This is about justification for war, or lack thereof. Not one supporter of this war has been able to come up with any sort of justification that has withstood even the lightest scrutiny because there simply is no justification.

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

The Iraq liberation is history. This history cannot be altered. We can argue among ourselves if Saddam was bad enough to do what we did, but the fact of the matter is that we did what we did on the information available at the time. No amount of paper is ever going to change this fact of life. Suck it up, buttercup.

Putting untranslated memos online seems like a financial and face-saving thing to me. Now people will translate the memos for free, and nobody cares what sexual orientation the freebee workers are.

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

No. Valid justification for an invasion can only happen prior to the invasion.


Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

I can't see that it makes any difference.

Really this is a non issue. We know the war wasn't fought on the justification of these documents, so they don't really matter. The USA put forward its justifications prior to the war and thats what matters if we must debate the public justifications for the war.

Personally though, I think its fairly obvious that the Bush administration simply couldn't bebothered playing games with Saddam Hussein any more and they simply used WMD's and terrorism as a pretext to get rid of him and the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it was a good job, well done.

For all the talk of diplomacy and 'peaceful dialogue', as we can see with Iran, right before our eyes, how pointless diplomacy with tyrants has become. They use it merely to stall for time whilst they work towards strengthening themselves. GW Bush, saw Saddam Hussein as a problem that wasn't going to go away for as long as he was allowed to keep messing about with the UN, so he called him a terrorist and had him removed.

These documents don't really shed anything new to that. Sure they bring fresh light upon a few minor details of who Saddam Hussein is/was, but who cares? His own trial is already documenting his crimes well enough and if these documents have any value then perhaps it is as evidence at his trial.
I just wish they'd get on with it and bring the full responsibility for his crimes upon his head!

Then perhaps you should read the thread over again...


The above is a defense against accusations that Saddam was in fact supporting international terrorism.


This is a defense against Saddam as not be as bad as many claim (we exaggerate apparently) and to give the impression that Saddam knew some form of restraint...as to claim he never tortured women and children..when the Saddam regime in fact killed women and children, infants even, maybe they weren't innocent ?

and lastly and the most upsetting in my mind...

This comment seems to imply there is a use for men like Saddam because they get rid of more Muslims which according to DR means less hatred.

Why would any one and more than one wish to defend comments like these?

Since you chose to ignore the bulk of my post Bucket I'll repeat the main point for you as it relates to this thread. How is this a justification for war? If you are going to go to war over human rights abuses then why not take action in Darfur or China or any of a 100 other places?

You have completely missed the point of this debate.

Has she?

...'cause, if she has then so have I since I can't see how documents pertaining to the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, have any bearing on hypothetical actions in Darfur or China...

That I happen to be sympathetic to her position might colour my perception of course, but it seems to me that whilst bucket might have lost the point of your post, but she is still on track with regards to the topic of this thread.


He was a continuing threat to global American interests as well as the surrounding region.

Why do you need to place him in a context beyond that? Is getting rid of tyranny not a cause worth fighting for? If it isn't, just what is worth fighting for?

Do you enjoy being an American? Because if you do, then what you have to accept is that your country's power and influence is what maintains your lifestyle and 'freedoms' and that power and influence is built on military and economic supremacy.

If you allow nations like Iraq and Iran to develop to the point where they threaten your nations interests then you will see an economic repercussion that would end the USA as you know it today and replace it with a far weaker, and poverty stricken nation.


If they threaten the security of your nation? then yes. Of course.


"Support of terrorism" was never more than one facet of the justifications put forward against Saddam Hussein and Saudi Arabia is already contained, so why attack that whole nation just because it contains elements who support terrorism?

By and large its a funny sort of anti-war argument that asks why don't we also attack these other country's`

I don't understand why so many Americans are making a fuss over Iraq. As wars go, its a success beyond belief. Any former age would have cheered such a victory that cost so little. 2,372 casualties over the course of a three year engagement is an amazingly small death rate (if I were you I'd be more inclined to argue on behalf of the 10,000 wounded)

It seems to me that the anti-war crowd is simply mad that a war happened at all. It doesn't matter that an entire country was liberated and give the chance to be free. It doesn't matter that one of the most brutal dictators in modern times ahs been brought to account! All that matters is that the president went to war, and the anti-war crowd take exception to his 'justifications'.

And they say they aren't defending Saddam Hussein. Well, from where I'm sitting, it seems to me that if this war hadn't taken place, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, the people of Iraq would, would most likely still be under sanctions and the people who are pointing the finger at GW Bush for the war would be pointing still their fingers at GW Bush for the deplorable state of Iraq.

I used to be sympathetic to the anti-war perspective. When I saw the devastation unleashed in Iraq I also thought that GW Bush was wrong, but the more time passes, and the more I see whats happening in Iran, I realise that GW Bush is not a lone idiot at the helm of a great war machine, but rather he is just the political head of a considered and astute nation that will undertake what ever it must to defend itself.

Considering the alternatives and considering how Iran and North Korea treat diplomacy then what other credible course of action was/is available?

Saddam Hussein was a Bad Man™. He was a terrorist supporter, and a threat to the region and thus US econimc interests. He was a tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of people. He was a threat to democracy and thus world peace.

Now. As much as it annoys me to have to say it, thanks to George W Bush, Saddam Hussein is a foot note in history and Iraq is free.

Getting rid of tyranny is indeed a cause worth fighting for - for those affected by that tyranny. Getting rid of Saddam is a job for Iraqi people, not American people. As for Saddam being a continuing threat to the region, let's see - after he was gone, Iraq is anything but stable, civil war is on the verge of breaking out; Iran, no longer having a rival and a mortal enemy across the border, proceeds with their nuclear ambitions... If you ask me, Saddam was one of many components that held this region together. Let's face it - it takes a tyranny to hold together a nation in the Middle East which consists of three ethnic groups hating each other.

Well. As a citizen of a nation once liberated by the Allied powers I have to say I don't agree with that perspective at all. By that line of reasoning Denmark would simply no longer exist as a free nation. Indeed it seems to me that the end product of this argument could very easily be a world ruled by tyrants.

Also, on reflection, I firmly believe the strong always have an obligation to protect the weak.


Interesting argument. So what your basically saying is that the people of the Middle East are so... what...? Morally corrupt? ...Politically incompetant? ...that they cannot be governed by anything but tyranny?

Are you aware that that is one of the same arguments the British used to counter Ghandi in order to continue their Imperial hold over India?

Its not exactly the sort of winning argument I would expect from an anti war opponent. Usually opposition to war is framed through arguments of non violence as opposed to the appeasement of tyranny.

As for the argument that Iraq is now in chaos as a result of the removal of Saddam Hussein let me remind you that even Ghandi's non violent, domestic uprising led to years of civil disturbance between Muslims and Hindu's, the creation of Pakistan and the state of war between Pakistan and India which continues to this day.

The people of Iraq are now free to decide for themselves what their future will be. As always such freedom brings with it responsibility's and many hard choices, but in no way do these mean that the US government was wrong to do what it did or that we, as free. and strong people, should just stand aloof and watch with impassivity as brutal acts of tyranny are commited upon the weak.

Moif, your historical parallel is not exactly accurate: Denmark was occupied by a foreign nation. Iraq was not occupied by a foreign nation. Surely you can see the difference....
If anything, existence of Iraq as we have known it for the past 100 years is in peril now - much more so than it was under Saddam, who held it all together: a possibility of a breakup of Iraq into three different republics - Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni - is being entertained all over the media.



No, that is not what I am saying moif. They're not corrupt, or politically incompetent. They are followers of Islam. I am saying exactly the same thing that you've been saying in different threads, particularly in those related to the publications of cartoons in Denmark:




This is just going through a couple of pages of that thread... You posted pages after pages of opinions arguing how we are different from them culturally, and how Islam promotes the culture of violence, opression, stifled freedom, etc. For that reason, you seemed to have a particular problem with Muslim community of Denmark, and not with Romanian, Russian, Greek, etc. Given that our cultures are so, ahem, different, don't you think that it's a bit naive to assume that our forms of society and government will work and will take hold - particularly, if not chosen willingly and naturally, but are enforced? These are the followers of the same culture who are unable, and unwilling, to embrace Western values in Denmark and other places in Europe.
And why is it that thousands of Americans should die to participate in that experiment?

Of course I can. but I also recognise that in the moment my family is dragged away and murdered, then the nationality of the murderers is some what irrellevent.

I can't see how one tyrant power is allowed a free pass whilst others are punished with military intervention. Whats the real difference between Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein?

As far as I am concerned they are both murdering dictators who saw their end because people from across the globe stood up to them ...and if it means breaking a few laws along the way to do so then I'd rather be responsible for violating such laws than for standing by and allowing murder to happen.

If the UN can't stop people like Saddam Hussein then what the hell is it good for?


So what?

Let the people of Iraq decide what is in their best interests. If their nation (which is mostly an artifical construct anyway) falls to bits then let it. If they as a people find a common ground to be one nation, then let them.

The point is, they are now free to decide for themselves.


I met an Iraqi today. He works in the bakery across the road from me. Around his neck he wore a Persion lion symbol and on his forearm he had a tattoo of a cross. Not all Iraqi's are Muslims, just as all Muslims are not religious freaks.

You are correct in pointing out that I have 'a problem' with Islam. I do. I consider Islam as it is practiced today to be an intolerant ideology that oppresses people and I will be saddened if the people of Iraq choose this opporunity to adopt sharia law as has been indicated in the media. To do so would be to stupidly throw aside a precious opportunty.

But I won't begrudge them the right to choose for themselves. Nor will I condem the man who gave them that opportunity just because I don't like him.


Because the United States of America, bears a burden of responsibility for the situation as it is in Iraq today.

The USA supported the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and as a consequence the USA owes the people of Iraq.


edited to change a word.

She has done the same thing she always does, finding things that don't exist in people's arguments and then focusing on them.

The questions for debate were:
Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

Therefore moif one is called upon to determine whether the well known fact that Saddam was a Bad Man™ is justification for a pre-emptive war.

Your previous post is in agreement with what I've said so I don't see the problem unless you are just trying to be argumentative.


Because war is not something we should lightly toss around Moif. Getting rid of tyranny is not alone enough of a reason to start a pre-emptive war with another country. If it was then we'd be at war with a decent portion of the planet right now.


No it does not mean that I have to accept that. I do not accept that America must always be the world's policeman nor that if we didn't serve that role then our freedoms would go away. Is that the source of your freedom Moif, the mighty Denmark military or is it something else perhaps?


Why only America moif, wouldn't this also threaten your country and the rest of Europe? The problem with Iraq was that it was completely unjustified and Bush wanted to go in, the evidence be damned. He did not assemble an international coalition like we had for the first gulf war because the rest of the world simply didn't see the non-existent threat.

Iran is a different story entirely and it would be nice if you wouldn't muddle this topic up with off topic discussions of Iran. There are at least 5 topics on that subject if you want to discuss it.


Where's the proof that Iraq threatened the security of the US? That's precisely the problem, there is no proof.


I'm not anti-war moif, and I never have been. I fully supported what we did in Afghanistan. I have not ever supported the action in Iraq. I'm not inherently against military action in Iran, it depends on the circumstances.


A success beyond belief? You have to be kidding me. The country is in civil war right now Moif. There are scores of high level military officers that have gone on the record saying it is a complete disaster. It has burned the little bit of goodwill that America had after 9/11 on the international stage. It has made the area in general less secure and has increased terrorism worldwide.

Oh and we've paid nearly half a trillion dollars for it with no end in sight. It may be great for you but your country isn't paying for it. If Denmark wants to pony up that kind of cash then maybe you can start thumping your chest and proclaiming how you don't know how Americans are upset over it.


...until you developed a hatred for muslims anyway...

Moif, you're putting those against you in an impossible position. No one on this board is going to say that tyranny is not worth fighting against. However, this fight against Saddam wasn't the justification sold to the US for the Iraq war. Had Bush Jr. just come out and say, "Look, this Saddam character is a Bad Man who violates Human Rights and the UN and we need to stomp this mofo out." Then you and Bucket would have a point. Instead, we were fed stories about WMDs, links to Al-Qaeda, democracy spreading through the Middle East, liberation, being greeted as liberators, being out in 6 months, yellow cake, and other junk. So why does the "anti-war crowd take exception to his 'justifications'"?
Well, maybe because if our country is going to take actions as serious as going to war we want to know the real reason why we're going in. Do you think it's ok to the President get away with something he lied about just because the end result turned out "good"?

No you wouldn't Cube Jockey, you'd all be in the exact same position you are now because not even the USA is strong enough to tackle more than one or two issue's at a time.


It is something else. Namely the intervention to free Denmark from Nazi Germany and the solidarity and protection against the threat of annexation into the Soviet Union by the Allied Powers and NATO.

Denmark is a very small and militarily weak country. Our freedoms are safeguarded because the United States has undertaken to head the military organisation that protects western Europe against exterior military threats.

I see no reason why the USA should not extend the same hand of friendship to the people of Iraq given that the USA for a long time, through necessity in maintaining its stance against the USSR and other antagonistic powers, like Iran, supported the tyranny which subjected the Iraqi's to decades of oppression.


That is a generalisation. The rest of the world does not have a communal voice. Not even in the UN and you have no basis for your argument when you claim it does.

Denmark just so happens to belong to the rest of the world, as does Italy, Holland and the UK.
It is my considered opinion that most nations use the argument of no threat to avoid having to go to war. War is become so unpopular now that it must have so water tight motivation that not even the fanatical anti war crowd can argue against it.
This war, has from the beginning, been portrayed as being about oil, greed, hegemony and any number of reasons by those who oppose it. But just as they argue there is no justification for this war, so also do they lack a credible explanation as to why it happened. The anti war argument makes a great play about the duplicit nature of GW Bush, and it ignores the simple truth.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator, responsible for the deaths of millions.

Only a fool leaves an enemy standing.

GW Bush was re-elected by the American people.


Because of course Iran has no bearing on why GW Bush went into Iraq... right?


Indeed there isn't, which is why GW Bush used so many half truths and diversions to go to war.


And as I pointed out earlier, Ghandi's peaceful, non violent revolt against the British also led to civil war and and increase in hostility.

Was he then wrong to take the stand he did? Some thought so. I do not.

Its the same with Iraq. GW Bush was false about the reasons for going to war and it was patently obvious for the whole world to see according to your perspective. He should have been called to account by the American people. Instead, he was re-elected.

That Iraq is now in a state of civil unrest (it is not in civil war) is no surprise. Such violence often follows the creation of a political vacum. Does this mean it was wrong to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Not in my opinion.


I'm starting to detect a certain antipathy towards Denmark here.

In fact Denmark is helping to pay for it in that Denmark has troops on the ground in Iraq. We'd probably have more but our meager military resources are already stretched with our commitments in the Balkans and Afghanistan.


So, in other words its wrong for bucket to find things that don't exist in people's arguments', but its quite alright for you?

Your answer is amsuing in that it echoes the sort of accusations I used to get from the right wingers last year, only then I 'hated Americans'. Its quite funny how swiftly people fall back on accusations of hatred when their arguments are opposed in open debate.

I don't 'hate Muslims'. Its their religion I am opposed to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I accept all of that Psyclist.

I personally would never, not in a million years, vote for GW Bush and I was astounded, beggered beyond belief as the English say, when the American people re-elected him.

There was a moment when he could have been brought to account but instead he was given a mandate to continue. It seems clear that the American people did not care to know the real reason why they were going into Iraq. They accepted the justifications offered without question.

Kerry might not have been much of an alternative, but he was an alternative.


No, but I think its always worth considering why some one lied and in this case I think the removal of Saddam Hussein, whilst it doesn't completely exonerate Bush from his deceptions, still goes a long way to lessening my judgement of him.

I've asked the question of how can a democracy go to war? here at before but it didn't get much attention. It strikes me that our modern western culture differs from much of history in that it does not like war. We do not glorify it as was the case through out much of history. As such its near impossible to use war a sa apolitical tool without creating false pretexts. In Vietnam the US used the Bay of Tonkin incident I believe and even Hitler had to stage a fake attack by Polish forces to justify his invasion of Poland... even if no one outside of Germany believed him.

GW Bush has done the same thing in Iraq. He used false information and deceptive language to create a threat which apparently didn't exist. By itself this alone is grounds for concern, but whats lacking is an understanding of why he did this. No one has provided a good reason as to why Bush attacked Iraq.

Obviously he felt it was necessary, but why? Its sound military sense to never leave an opponent in a position of strength and I have a feeling that GW Bush was simply finishing what he felt his father had left undone. The USA has deep interests in the Middle East and Saddam Hussein was a threat to those interests. Simply by being in power he could and would continue to work against the USA.

Bush decived the US population in order to justify war. That much has been clear from the beginning. Blair did the same yet both men were re-elected.

There was a thread a year or two ago that posed a moral question as to whether or not one could/should break the law in order to do good. I answered that I would break the law if there was no other way to do what had to be done but that afterwards I would plead guilty and accept the judgement of the court.

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

Maybe I'm punchdrunk from all of the previous threads I've read, but this doesn't sound new to me. Haven't we been through these things before? Justification could be made (IMO) if there is evidence that there was a true, imminent and compelling threat to us or the middle eastern region. Such evidence would have to offer something that made me think, "Whew! Thank goodness we got there in the knick of time...no telling what would have happened otherwise..." Frankly, there isn't much here to that effect.

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

It's a little unnerving to me that we don't have enough translators in government to do this, rather than relying on the worldwide web for expediency. This should be remedied immediately. Otherwise, I don't see anything really wrong with putting it out there...



That is actually almost always the way it works. If the end result is "good" there is flag waving and lots of cheer, regardless. If, for instance, the Iraqis had thrown us roses and immediately set about creating a stable, safe society we wouldn't be having this discussion. No one (or very few) would care about how we got to that point.

In fact, it wouldn't even take that much. It's all based on the public perception. If the public simply THOUGHT that it had been worth it (fed selective truth, happy thoughts, or whatever), few would care. It's the results that matter to most. Rough example...the Balkans. The president didn't even bring it up for Congressional vote, let alone obtain approval, but it turned out well (relatively), and that is all that mattered to most. How often does anyone bring up the Darlan deal when we speak of world war II? Out of necessity we embraced the Vichy French forces in North Africa, but if we hadn’t the outcome might have been different. Ergo, doing the wrong thing was probably the right thing to do and no one second guesses the decision today….it is barely a blurb in the history books. The list goes on and on....The results are the real problem here.

Fair enough. But when things don't turn out swimmingly and public support for the war drops then people start to look at what the benefit to the war is. The benefit of going to war in the first place was supposedly to get rid of WMDs, fight terrorism, stop Saddam from getting a nuke etc. When someone looks at the cost of war now and the "benefits" what "benefits" (ie: justification) are they supposed to compare them to? All the others turned out to be lies. So now the Administration has to come up with some sort of benefits/justifications so when you do your cost benefit analysis in your head to form an opinion, you still think it's a good idea to be in Iraq. Well, that's not how it works. You (or maybe it's just me) have to look at the cost of war and weight it against the original justifications, which don't hold up anymore.

Sure they are, the problem is that our administration is inept. A smart administration could handle multiple diplomatic issues simultaneously with grace and the military could manage several small to medium scale conflicts.


There is a big difference between extending a hand of friendship and launching a pre-emptive invasion based on lies and half truths.

Further, I will repeat that the United States does not exist to fight the world's battles, nor should it.


Sure it does, and all one has to do is compare the support and execution of the Gulf War to the war in Iraq today. George H. W. Bush assembled an impressive international coalition that included a lot more than moral support from other countries, they contributed significantly in a financial and military fashion. The world spoke against Hussein by their actions and their support. Regardless of the "coalition of the willing" PR the United States launched this war almost unilaterally, the only nation that even contributed something significant was the UK. The world was clearly against our actions there and it spoke with it's lack of support. This is of course ironic because we claimed to use the violation of UN resolutions in part as justification when the rest of the UN didn't agree with us.


Your point? The vast majority of the electorate now has buyer's remose, just look at the poll numbers.


I don't know moif, do you have knowledge of some vast conspiracy that I'm not aware of? Did you happen to sit in on the PNAC meetings discussing strategy? My point was that discussing Iran is not germane to this discussion. There are plenty of other topics to discuss it. This one specifically deals with Iraq and the justification for the war based on some memos.


He was re-elected by a very small margin Moif, it wasn't as if the election was a landslide or something. Further the election was complicated by including "values issues" on the ballot in 11 states designed to get the religious right vote out in force. Further there are numerous credible allegations of voter supression and intimidation that no one seems to want to investigate.

Finally, look at how he is polling just a year into his term on any issues that matter - he's a lame duck.

The fact that he was re-elected does not vindicate his foreign policy.


Well you are misreading that then. What I do have a problem with is all the chest thumping on your side when your country isn't paying for this excursion either in dollars or lives. You asked how Americans could be upset over it, I answered. There are numerous problems America is facing that are far more important than Iraq ever was which that money could be used for. Not even considering the domestic problems we simply aren't even fighting the war on terror anymore, we've strayed from the path.



That sounds like a poor justification to me, you cannot hate the core of who someone is and not hate the person too.

Your views are well documented with recent events such as the French riots, the cartoon issue, muslim integration into Europe and your own country. I could go into a lot more detail but that would be highly off topic here. The point is I've made an accurate statement and you've simply confirmed it by saying "I don't 'hate Muslims'. Its their religion I am opposed to."

No I was being selective not ignoring, the point or objective of my posts was to highlight how desperate some have become to portray the Iraq war as unjustifiable.

As for Darfur, you are wrong the US is not being hypocritical because they have been to the UN with their demands to send UN peacekeepers into Sudan, to help stop a Genocide that neither the UN wishes to end or recognize. It is the US representatives that keep pushing and insisting on a plan for UN forces in Sudan. Bush even took this plea to NATO where it was also rejected. Have we ever chose not to send our troops or offer military assistance to help contain human rights abuses that the UN has chosen to act on?

Do you believe we should once again be asked to go forward without UN support, against international law and place our troops in a position that most the world over would disagree with and consider aggressive? Do you feel that once again taking military action without the consent of the UN and the financial and logistical support of all our allies is yet necessary? Or do you use the Darfur example loosely, just how serious are you exactly about Genocide in Darfur?

It may one day be necessary tho. who knows what the Darfur conflict will look like in 12 years. This idea of confinement is an obviously failed political objective as these situations usually progress and effect the region entirely, trade ultimately and the human race indefinitely. But hey if we can label them Sudanese, place their deaths within borders outside our own we can somehow "contain" their suffering and even go so far as to claim this position is peaceful.



I don't think the difference is as stark or easily defined as you claim. Because Iraq was occupied and as you later give credit to the West, created by us.

We were an occupying force with the UN sanctions that controlled trade in and out of the country, with the No-fly-zone that again controlled access and movement within the country and the UN oil for food programm which not only controlled the nation's greatest national resource but the funds from the sale of this resource.

How exactly can we have so much control over a nation and then at the same time claim we were not an occupying force? And being that we were an occupying force how could we then absolve ourselves from any responsibility for the human rights abuses and violent actions that were occurring under the Iraqi government? A government mind you that the UN negotiated with and allowed to remain in power, yet a controlled state of power, under certain agreed upon terms and conditions.

We "contained" Saddam and we in fact boasted of this containment and it's mass numbers of casualties so exactly how do we claim this containment was not a form of occupation?

First, the lives
The families of Jesper Nielsen, Bjarke Olsen Kirkmand and Preben Pedersen would be surprised to hear that they were just "chest thumping." Add their tragic deaths to the 3 Danish servicemen who were killed disarming a rocket in Kabul in 2002 and you total 6 Danish deaths alongside US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last I checked, Denmark's population was around 5 million, or 1.67% of the US' 300 million. In terms of deaths per total population, Denmark's casualty rate in these two conflicts is much higher than you suggest, something like 1.2 per million, vs. the US figure of about 8 per million. Sure, it's less than the US, but they are certainly "paying in lives." And even if the numbers don't add up, the soldiers are certainly risking all just like we are. For instance:

AFP


Now, the dollars. Well, actually that would be Kroner, but anyway... These figures indicate that Denmark spends about $2.5B on their military, while the US spends $466B. So, in terms of population, Danes spend $500 each per year on military for every man, woman and child, while we in the US spend $1,333 per year per capita on the military. Given our commitments in Germany, Korea and Japan, I don't think that it's unreasonable to argue that Danes may spend nearly as much per person on the effort in Iraq, and lesserly Afghanistan.

Of course, we need not mention the high price Denmark has paid for daring to advance press freedom and offend the sensibilities of Muslims around the world by treating them exactly like Danes treat every other religion and institution - with humor. Chest thumping, indeed.

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion?
If only to refresh the selective memories of those who argued rightly against Iraq having WMD. We all thought they had WMD, the Iraqis acted like they had them, and frankly the onus was on them to prove otherwise. Which they didn't do, because, well, they probably did have them. Here is the latest translation to find it's way to the internet. Due to the open-source nature of this, I have to qualify by saying it's by someone on Free Republic. More translations to follow, I'm sure. Anyway, wonder why they wanted to move "special munitions" in March of 2003?