posted April 08, 2006 12:38 AM            

But, I know you don't want to confuse yourself with facts so I'm not posting this for you. Perhaps there are others who have thought Bush lied, people died, who would like to know the truth about Saddam's WMD and his deception with the UN inspection teams.

Purchase order for Anthrax from Saddam's factory...year 2000 http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/anthrax.asp
Purchase order for Mustard from Saddam's factory...year 2000 http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/mustardgas.asp

posted April 08, 2006 11:12 AM              

with a trojan......

heres the html version....these are the same tapes again jwhop, the same as have been reported on and posted here in gu and in this thread, except your "intelligence summit" version is riddled with their own interpretations of what is being said.....lol

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:KmdcvckdFt4J:www.intelligencesummit.org/WMD/Tap es.ppt+i

ntelligence+summit+saddam+tapes+transcript&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

********

A spokeswoman for John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, said information

contained in the transcriptions of the tapes was already known to intelligence officials.

"Intelligence community analysts from the CIA, and the DIA reviewed the translations and

found that, while fascinating, from a historical perspective the tapes do not reveal

anything that changes their post-war analysis of Iraq's weapons programs nor do they change

the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey group report," she said in a

statement.

"The tapes mostly date from early to mid-1990s and cover such topics as relations with the

United Nations, efforts to rebuild industries from Gulf war damage and the pre 9/11

situation in Afghanistan."

Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the

war, says the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden

in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003. "What they do is support the conclusion in

the report, which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of

posted April 08, 2006 11:34 AM              

History

CNS was launched on July 16, 1998, by founder Brent Bozell, as an "alternative news service" to mainstream news sources which reports by MRC claim have a "liberal bias."

CNS says it strives to "cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission," and "endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story."

CNS claims proof Hussein had WMD and ties to Al Qaeda

On October 4, 2004, CNS reported that a "senior government official who is not a political appointee" provided CNS with 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents which were then translated from Arabic by two CNS translators. CNS reports that the official told them that the documents answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."

CNS further claimed three experts reviewed the documents and said they were likely geniune: Laurie Mylroie, author of the book Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America; Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official; and an unnamed former UNSCOM weapons inspector. The named "experts" are both individuals with a history of making ideologically charged and controversial statements in support of the war in Iraq neoconservative agenda. The anonymous individual who supplied the documents is quoted as saying it is "unlikely" that others in the U.S. government "even know this exists." The article does not explain how this is possible if this source is indeed a "senior government official." The timing of the news story, which appeared near the end of the U.S. presidential campaign, suggests that it was written with the intention of shoring up support for Bush, whom the article notes has been hurt politically by the failure of investigators to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

CNS says the documents show that Iraq bought "five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of [ anthrax ] on Sept. 6, 2000." from what appears on the documents as "Saddam's company," which "Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, "a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication." which were received by IIS. It is worth noting that five kilograms of mustard agent would only fill up to three artillery shells. [1] http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/muhammadiyat_ii/muhammadiyat_ii_s03.html http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970825/970613_dim37_91d_txt_0001.html

A memo in the alleged documents from 1993 includes "Saddam's directive" that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..." CNS then connects this to the Mogadishu attack in Somalia nine months later, as the rebels involved were Arab. CNS also mentions in passing the "warlord" of southern Mogadishu's (Mohammed Farah Aidid) alleged connections to Osama Bin Laden and Bin Laden's "network."

CNS additionally provides much more commentary from Tefft regarding the nature of the documents.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cybercast_News_Service

posted April 08, 2006 11:52 AM              

Hey Petron, if you and the poodles of the leftist media want to try to sell the American public that the standard for sufficient truth to print a story is that some anonymous source told them something and that another anonymous someone didn't deny it...go for it.--jwhop
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001038-3.html

Note the leaker of the information Kerry uses is alleged to be an anonymous government source.

One after the other, Kerry's lies and distortions about the President are being punctured.

If Kerry ever showed up for work on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he wouldn't have to rely on anonymous sources or be forced to make things up.

I think that many times those unidentified sources never existed but the term is handy to put forth a position that could not otherwise be made...because who can check an "unidentified" source?--jwhop

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000734.html

Please take note of that Petron and also that this source is an anonymous source. This is the second time you've attempted to elevate someone to a White House Source who isn't and never was.--jwhop
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000707.html

News providers should regard anonymous sources simply as tipsters. Unless hard digging provides real verified facts, the anonymous stuff should be flushed down the toilet.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001038-2.html