The hell? The link leads eventually to a PDF file which itself appears to be a bad scan of a printout of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) web page on the Iraqi secret services. There’s a bunch of hand-written notes scribbled all over the document in Arabic, which I can’t read, so for all I know they are just as likely to be something like, “those idiots haven’t got a clue”, as they are to read "damn those infidels, they know everything we’re up to ".
Jeez, chill guys. I wasn’t trying to claim this was some sort of ‘smoking gun’. I presented it as ‘some interesting stuff’. That’s what I think it is. Interesting. There’s another document there, btw, which tends to discourage the notion that Iraq was in bed with al-Qaida, because it’s a document prepared by the intelligence service of ‘known al-Qaida operatives’ in Iraq. There’s only a handful of them, including Zarqawi. From the context, it seems to me evidence that there wasn’t a major ongoing cooperation between the two.
Another document requests information about 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis going to Afghanistan to fight the U.S. This is the government of Iraq trying to figure out if that rumor is true, which is again evidence that they weren’t heavily involved in opposing the U.S. there in any official capacity.
It’s interesting that the subject comes up at all. Because it suggests that contrary to the evidence thus far, supporters of the administration or ‘conservatives’ do have some residual shame for having both bought and encouraged the big lie that carried the invasion forth.
Everyone else is well past debating the fact. Yes the war commenced on an open and deliberate plan to decieve and defraud the public purse to the same end. That’s hardly a controversial statement. And indeed a cause of much pride amongst the common ranks of red-voters. But signs of shame, such as you’d expect from fully formed human beings, with a residuum of decency? That’s a new one.
Clearly he’s just waiting us out. As soon as we turn our backs, he’s bound to start researching another PIOP. We cannot wait while dangers gather. If the UN does not confront him, we will.
FYI… Juan Cole in fact does translate this arabic text on his Blog. It is a report by the Iraqi Intelligence Service on the fact the FAS has published this stuff in 1997 (generally they seem unperturbed by it):
What does the Arabic say?
"The Institutions of the Apparaatus of the Intelligence Service on the Internet:
You will find enclosed information on the Apparatus that has been published on the internet. It has information on our organization, but it is clear that the information is relatively old. Otherwise, it does not do more than mention some correct and important matters . . ."
It then goes on to list the names of some agents. As an intelligence service, its main concern was with cover, apparently.
In other words, Iraqi intelligence notes the appearance of the document on the internet in 1997, and laments that it is very basic [‘does not do more than’] and then notes with some amusement how out of date it is (with the implication that Western intelligence on Iraq must be pretty bad). The “out of date” comment probably refers to the Western document’s preoccupation with WMD, which Iraqi Intelligence would have known was gone by then. It may also refer to personnel having been switched around. Note that the Iraqi comment does not endorse the internet document. It not only says it is “old” intelligence, which is very damning in intelligence work, but it also uses the word “some” when referring to what is accurate and important in it. “Some correct and important matters.” There will be those who read this as a blanket endorsement; it obviously is not
I really do hate to disillusion you, FI, but I do have a life. I don’t hang out on the SDMB for hours at a time, looking to take cheap shots at other posters, as you apparently do.
Bite me, Raven. I simply presented something that was interesting. In true SDMB fashion, the snarkiness and namecalling immediately started, thereby proving that said posters had nothing of value to say and could not refute what I posted in the first place.
When and if there is ever real evidence of WMD in Iraq prior to our invasion and occupation, we won’t have to dig around on the internet for it. We will hear it from top Administration officials and from the lips of every Republican in office. It will be on the front page of every newspaper in the country and the lead story on every news program. This time they will produce rock solid evidence.
But I wouldn’t hold my breath. I think this Administration has told so many lies that it would not matter. There comes a point where they are not to be believed anymore. What they say is essentially irrelevant to what I believe.
Address them? I doubt it (but please prove me wrong, Clothahump). He’s hiding behind the shield of “Oh, well, you were mean to me! I’m not going to talk to you!”
Friend Cloth, you present an interesting line of conjecture. With regret, I advise that few, if any, SDMB denizens regard the Washington Times with anything but the most barely concealed contempt, and a number are suspicious, as well, of psychic powers as a basis for policy decisions.
This, shirley, is no reflection on our regard for yourself, but only that we remain unsatisfied as to the bona fides. As mentioned before, we suspect that if any substantial proof of these…conjectures…actually existed, the Bushiviks and thier minions would be screaming themselves hoarse, from the rooftops, treetops, and every media outlet including the local Shopping Guides.
In order to advance our discussion, may we prevail upon you to offer some substantiation? That would be nice.
Which is an exercise at looking back and saying ‘you were wrong’. Going into Iraq was not illegal, nor is being wrong about Intel. You can’t punish someone for a legal act that simply was wrong (beyond not re-electing them, which again is a moot point).
If we find stock piles of WMD’s in Iraq, it won’t change anything at this point. Nor will finding out there are NO WMD’s (as most assume). We are there, the situation will not change on that fact; and frankly I don’t see those against the war now eatting crow and changing their opinion of the current situation.
Honor means different things to different people; I’m not sure you could find a universal defintion, let alone apply it to a country instead of an individual.
Yes, you’re right. I apologise to Clothahump for my insulting characterisation of him, and (as I said in my earlier post) I do hope he’ll be back to debate his OP and the responses that have been posted to it.
Going into Iraq may not have been illegal but if it comes out that Bush/cheney cherry picked or “massaged” the intelligence that drove the invasion, there must be accountablility, otherise over two thousand troops have died for nothing.
As far as an excercise in looking back, what the hell does that even mean? I suppose we shouldn’t have investigated Watergate, because that was all in the past. War criminals shouldn’t be brought to justice because, hey, let’s let bygones be bygones.
Worst. Apologist. Evar.