Theory on why Iran and Iraq.

Post Reply New Topic

My statements are not propaganda, they are factual. AIPAC is real, the power it wields in Washington is real.

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for.

<snip>

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused.

<snip>

In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests.

<snip>

The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

<snip>

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign.

<snip>

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.
Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”

Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “sh***y little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg’s magazine was not amused.)

Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”
Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority.

<snip>

A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

<snip>

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.
“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.

About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.”

Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”

<snip>

In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:

[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.

America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”

The Munich Card

As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs.

<snip>

President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

<snip>

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Why can't people blame both gulf wars on Saddam's stupidity ??

... devalue the American Dollar..... This would be a HUGE non-confidence vote in the American Dollar which is pretty much based on international credit rather than a gold standard.

First one, maybe ....

First one, maybe ....

Don't you remember being told the 2nd war was to get the weapons of mass destruction. There was fabricated evidence in order to try to get support to destroy WMD that could be deployed in just minutes.

When it became obvious there wasn't any, a different spin started and the reason behind the war changed to "get Saddam".

Surely George Orwell can recognise doublespeak

and getting back on topic, I don't think it would be important if any sales from a middle east country to Europe was is a non-US currency. Because options and futures markets are in USD, any player in the market would be hedging in USD. And suppose the price of West Texas Crude went up in USD? Would a middle east producer not want to increase the price in Euro to match it? There would be an enormously profitable arbitrage opportunity otherwise, bringing the 2 prices into balance.



Not quite true ... a flaoting exchange rate is the market price for the currency. Anyone (from Overseas "o/s") wanting to buy American goods has to buy american dollars. Likewise Americans wanting to buy BMW's etc have to sell USD (to buy DM). o/s Investors in US companies have to buy USD to buy shares, US companies paying dividends overseas have to sell USD.

Most economists say its the balance of trade (goods and services) that determine exchange rates. I think there is such a large volume of investment money in the world, this also influences exchange rates. While confidence in a currency can have some effect on exchange rates, don't underestimate the power of hedge funds.

However would a lower dollar be a bad thing? Why? If it was lower, Japanese and Chinese imports would cost more, and US made products would be more price competitive to imports. Exporters could increase their prices and earn more USD for their goods. It would help improve your trade deficit.

The Japanese and now the Chinese have had a policy to keep their currencies lower than the market would otherwise determine, for years. The Chinese have the rate fixed. The Japanese used a policy called "leaning against the wind". You can look it up.

I can't see what currency oil is sold in would matter, but I could be wrong. Its an interesing line of thought though.

However would a lower dollar be a bad thing? Why? If it was lower, Japanese and Chinese imports would cost more, and US made products would be more price competitive to imports. Exporters could increase their prices and earn more USD for their goods. It would help improve your trade deficit.

This is just a theory I heard (and I wholly welcome argument and disproving it) that the reason why we went into Iraq and are currently threatening Iran is oil. Not that the US needs it but rather it was being leveraged as a way to devalue the American Dollar. Iraq was seeking to begin major oil production and have their oil priced in Euros instead of Dollars. This would be a HUGE non-confidence vote in the American Dollar which is pretty much based on international credit rather than a gold standard. So in acting on this, Iraq was attacked, Saddam removed, and a friendly government put in that when the oil was eventually returned to a production level, it would be priced in Dollars.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's office is to report in three months on the impact of the switch to euros, which a U.N. study said would cost Iraq at least $270 million.

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Saeed Hasan reported earlier that Baghdad would delay the changeover until after Nov. 6, rather than put it into effect on November 1, as originally announced. Iraq has called the dollar the currency of an "enemy state."...

Iraq had also threatened to stop oil exports, the bulk of which flow through the U.N. humanitarian programme, if its request for payment in euros was denied.

Syria's Central Bank Governor Dr. Adib Mayala said on Tuesday that the country "would rid itself of the relationship between the Syrian lira (pound) and the U.S. dollar at the beginning of the upcoming year."

Specifically, Syria decided to exchange its foreign currency surplus - some USD 20 million - to Euros, and use the sum to pay off foreign debts, the Syrian source said, adding that the move is aimed at paying Damascus’ external debts and combating the U.S.’s economic sanctions.

Don't you remember being told the 2nd war was to get the weapons of mass destruction. There was fabricated evidence in order to try to get support to destroy WMD that could be deployed in just minutes.

When it became obvious there wasn't any, a different spin started and the reason behind the war changed to "get Saddam".

Surely George Orwell can recognise doublespeak Confused

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

<snip>

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign.

<snip>

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

There was WMDs in Iraq, there simply wasn't stockpiles of them. He did have programs, they just (appear) not to have been active at the time of the invasion. He had the plans (including nuclear plans), and the capabilities to develop weapons of mass destruction.

His [Buchanan], and others obsession with the "Israel" or "Jewish" lobby, and it's threat to our interests ignores the piles of cash that are spent by the Arab lobbies to send cash to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, ect...Of course, Pat Buchanan, views the Arab despots with rosier pictures then an Israel often under siege. He even has had kind words for Syria's murderous ruler.

I have never heard of this. From what I understand the only evidence of WMD was a few empty artillery shells containing traces of chemical weapons that dated back to the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. military looked long and hard, excavating the desert, sending SCUBA teams to the bottom of ponds, but came up empty handed.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are client states of the U.S., and the U.S. behaves like a client state of Israel. If Egypt or Jordan were to become diplomatically hostile toward Israel they would see their financial assistance from America go down very quickly. It is American cash and military that prevents these regimes from being toppled by their own populations who are very opposed to their governments' policies of recognizing Israel.

Saudi Arabia is a wealthy nation and I don’t believe they receive direct monetary assistance from the U.S.

a country that is economically, politically, or militarily dependent on another country

The Saudi population is one of the most anti-Zionist in the region and the royal family is somewhat cooler to the Israelis than is Egypt or Jordan, at least publicly.

However the House of Saud can rest assure that U.S. firepower will back them if there is a threat of internal revolt.

The chapter 1979, marked a turning point in the Middle East. That was the year of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The revolution with its return to "reform" impacted on the liberalisations that had been taking place in the country. Everyone in the Middle East could feel the sudden and sinister wind of change. Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise. Khomeini criticised the Saudi monarchy.

He said there should be no king in Islam. This was an attack on the Saudi rulers.

The Saudi royal establishment was frightened and panicked as they had everything to loose. So the tiny changes that had been a part of the liberalising process were eliminated and the increasing influence of the hard-liners was evident on the street as they sought to placate the fundamentalists.

The society was going backward and things were tense...To add to the tension was the news that Islamic extremists had captured the grand Mosque at Mecca. The Mosque was retaken by French GIGN paratroops and many of the extremists publicly executed.

The Egyptian, Saudi, and Jordanian lobbies in the U.S. pale in comparison to the power of AIPAC.

Furthermore AIPAC is not required to register as a foreign lobby when the others are, another testament to their power.

The formal Arab lobby is the National Association of Arab-Americans (NAAA), a registered domestic lobby founded in 1972 by Richard Shadyac. The NAAA was consciously patterned after its counterpart, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Shadyac believed the power and wealth of the Arab countries stemming from their oil reserves, would allow the Arab lobby to take advantage of the political process in the same way the Jews have been thought to. Like AIPAC, the NAAA makes its case on the basis of U.S. national interests, arguing a pro-Israel policy harms those interests. Aid to Israel is criticized as a waste of taxpayers' money, and the potential benefits of a closer relationship with the Arab states is emphasized.(emphasis noted)

Between 1973 and 1987, AIPAC knew more failure than success in influencing key U.S. decisions which had an impact on Israeli security. AIPAC achieves influence—or protects congruence—in Washington by enunciating Israel's general importance and by promoting positions in line with existing White House perceptions of U.S. national interests. The Nixon administration supported Israel with an airlift during the 1973 Yom Kippur war—to the satisfaction of AIPAC—for the White House was loathe to see a pro-Western democracy succumb to the military onslaught of well-supplied Soviet client states such as Egypt and Syria. Yet, in 1981, the Reagan administration sold sophisticated airborne warning and command system (AWACS) aircraft to Saudi Arabia—in the face of great opposition from AIPAC—for the White House felt doing so would improve relations with moderate Arab states without unduly compromising Israel's security or the regional balance of power

there have been various claims throughout that there were WMD programs or whatever but there's only vague evidence at best and it more reeks of propaganda trying to boost a war that has no legs to stand on at this point.

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb...

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

1. Saddam still had all of the relevant documentation to restart his nuclear program, so the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC teams obviously did not "destroy all vestiges" of Iraq's nuclear program. After all, the documentation is what the Times proclaimed as a dangerous breach that would allow Iran to build a bomb.

2. If the FMSO documents on the website are dangerous to publish because they might assist Iran in designing a nuclear weapon, then obviously they were dangerous sitting in Saddam's files. Missing that particular point seems willfully dense at best.

3. Saddam had unexpurgated copies of the IAEA report in his files -- the ones that the UN inspectors are so unhappy about being hosted at the FMSO site. I wonder how that happened?

4. Since the rest of the FMSO documents came from the same locations as the ones that the NYT proclaims as authentic and dangerous, that means that the rest of these documents are authentic as well. That's the primary point of this post -- because when one looks through the documents, it becomes clear that Saddam had many connections to terrorism, and had active WMD programs right through 2002.

...1. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan were in touch with the Iraqis and that group of the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden had visited Iraq.
2. The United States of America has evidence that the Iraqi government and Osama Bin Laden's group expressed cooperation among themselves in bombing targets in American [sic-Jim]...

...In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate Respectful Mr. in charge of Fedayeen Saddam

My respects and regards, Sir:

Referral to your Excellency’s orders on the days of 20-25/05/1999, to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/ bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/ Iran/ Self ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance. Also, I would like to indicate here (according to the first directed operational plan) the explanations of all the orders and directives that have been issued to us by you during the first and the second meetings with your Excellency which lay the groundwork towards our achieving the goal .

1- Code name of the special operations (Tamooz Mubarak) [Blessed July].
2- The duties will be divided into two branches which are:

A- Bombings
B- Assassinations ...

The IIS has no information about the mass graves in the Southern Area.
• Graves have to be tested for the presence of nuclear radiation.
• Were they buried alive or did they die of suffocation?
• Were they military or civilian?
• Was there any identification of their names?
• Place signs and accurate details for the mass graves to be reached easily.
• Use trusted news agencies to leak rumors and information that there is a misunderstanding and signs from some Coalition Forces members regarding the presence of the mass graves in Southern Iraq.
• Request assistance from some friendly countries that possess the technological capabilities to search for these graves.
• Give CNN the priority to cover this incident to make a bigger effect on the international community.
• Leak rumors to trusted media sources that the atrocities and mass graves found in the Southern Area were committed by the Coalition Forces. This is in order to make these actions noticeable as monstrous and inhuman to the whole world.
• After that, the remains are to be taken out of the graves; military procedures and arrangements will be made to pay the deceased their last respect. Also the building of memorial statues for the dead in every governorate.

Ricin toxin is found in the bean of the castor plant. UNMOVIC inspections since December 2002 have verified that the bombed caster oil extraction plant at Fallujah III has been reconstructed on a larger scale.

Undeclared BW agents, there are a number of microorganisms and toxins that have been developed as BW agents by several countries, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium bottalinum toxin, Yersinia pestis (plague), Francisella tularensis (tularemia), Brucella species (Brucellosis) Coxiella burnetti (Q fever) and Variola major (smallpox). Drying of BW Agents, BW agents are produced by a process that usually results in a liquid product, for example bacteria in an aqueous suspension, or toxins in an aquesous or organic solution.

Bacterial BW agent production, this requires certain equipment, typically a fomenter and down stream processing equipment such as separators and settling tanks. Also required for the production of bacterial BW agents are nutrients that are dissolved in water and added to the fermenter. The lack of supporting documentation makes it difficult for UNMOVIC to confirm Iraq's figures on the quantities of bacterial BW agent produced.

Genetic Engineering and Viral Research. Genetic Engineering, a process whereby an organism's genetic material is modified, has many medical and industrial applications. BW Agent Stimulants are chemicals or microorganisms that have very similar characteristics and properties to a biological warfare agent.

UNMOVIC inspections and Iraqi declarations confirm that Iraq continues working with organisms that could be used as BW agent stimulates. The documents display after each section the actions that Iraq could take to help in resolving the issue and convincing the UN inspection teams that the activity have stopped or were fruitless and so on.

can you pm me the whole thing or send me a link where i could read the whole thing?