Saddams Secret Tapes, Proof of WMDs?

Well this should be interesting

Quote:

---

The Intelligence Summit
January 6, 2006
John Loftus


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:


SADDAM'S PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION TAPES TO BE UNVEILED
AT THE INTELLIGENCE SUMMIT


A former military intelligence analyst, who currently works as a civilian contractor, believes he has found a cache of extremely confidential--and very shocking--audio recordings of Saddam Hussein's office meetings. The audiotapes, which had apparently been overlooked, were found in a warehouse along with many other untranslated Iraqi intelligence files. These tapes are extremely significant, since they may be the best evidence yet of Saddam's secret intentions concerning weapons of mass destruction.

Before 9/11, many intelligence experts were convinced that a very strong and important Iraqi WMD connection existed, only to change their minds when no concrete evidence of that connection could be uncovered in the three years following the beginning of Iraqi war.

Because of the considerable historical importance of this stunning recent development, the contractor who obtained and reviewed these tapes plans to release them to the public on February 17, 2006 at the Intelligence Summitsm, a non-partisan, non-profit conference open to the public, scheduled to be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, Virginia that weekend.

After his presentation, a panel of intelligence experts will discuss the ways in which experts may verify the fact that Hussein in fact recorded these audiotapes. These procedures include utilization of voiceprint analysis and other technical means of voice verification.

The Intelligence Summitsm, now in its second year, has been of particular interest to Intelligence and law enforcement officials, college and university professors and other staffers concerned with Intelligence issues, as well as non-profit organizations involved in funding Intelligence research and/or other anti-terrorism efforts.

In regard to these highly confidential audiotapes, Attorney John Loftus, President of the Intelligence Summitsm, recently stated that, "Saddam's secret office recordings continued well into the year 2000. In all, they contain at least 12 hours of totally candid discussions with his senior aides. Clearly, after these tapes have been verified and corroborated, they will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important-and controversial-weapons of mass destruction questions." Loftus went on to say that the contractor who found and recovered the tapes has requested that his identity remain anonymous until he makes his presentation.

The International Intelligence Summitsm is a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral organization that utilizes charitable funds to hold a conference that serves as a forum where personnel from Intelligence agencies throughout the free world and emerging democracies may gather to meet and exchange information about their experiences, expertise and ideas. In this way, the Intelligence Summitsm provides a unique opportunity for the Intelligence Community to listen and learn from each other so that they may share their resources to strengthen the war against terrorism.

John Loftus, who formerly served as a Federal Prosecutor, currently works as an intelligence consultant for various television networks. He has also authored four books, one of which was a Pulitzer Prize nominee. Loftus' "60 Minutes" interview won an Emmy award for TV journalist Mike Wallace.

The Intelligence Summit's International Advisory Council includes two former CIA directors, several generals, a senior officer of the Mossad and the former Chair of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. In addition, this year's list of Intelligence Summitsm presenters includes many top Intelligence, espionage, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence leaders who work for a wide variety of agencies throughout the free world.

In light of the number, variety and experience and expertise of this year's presenters, many observers have commented that The Intelligence Summitsm may well be the most prestigious conference in the world on international studies concerning intelligence policy-making, terrorism and homeland security.

Further information about The Intelligence Summitsm may be found on its website: www.IntelligenceSummit.org.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As a former intelligence officer & Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files. As a private attorney, he works without charge to help hundreds of intelligence agents obtain lawful permission to declassify and publish the hidden secrets of our times. He is the author of four history books, three of which have been made into films, two were international best sellers, and one was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. The Loftus Report is heard by four million listeners every weeknight from 10:30 to 11 PM on ABC National Radio's John Batchelor Show. Mr. Loftus is also President of the Intelligence Summitsm, an international non-profit non-partisan educational forum for the intelligence agencies of the free world and Vice Chairman of the Florida Holocaust Museum.

---

I cant wait to hear whats on these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well this should be interesting



I cant wait to hear whats on these.

---

A former intelligence officer.. claims to have found tapes.. exciting... :dozey:

P.S. Anything on Hoffa yet?

There going to be verified. If their not real it will come out.

:coffeenews:
Oh. How exciting.
...does anyone really even care anymore ? I'm willing to bet most of it consists of the participants shooting their mouths and telling the Arabic versions of the sorts of bad jokes that now tend to fly back and forth between underlings and overlings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:coffeenews:
Oh. How exciting.
...does anyone really even care anymore ?

---

the amount of idiots with cute bumper stickers that read "nobody died when Clinton lied" suggest that people do.

"Intentions"??!? Is that it? He's not allowed to say he'd possibly like some (and let's not forget there are loads of other countries doing a hell of a lot more than thinking wistfully they'd like some).

If they are genuine it'd better a lot better than what it seems in the first report. :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

So a guy who's STILL chasing the WMD argument got some tapes from one guy who got the tapes from another guy... He knows what's on the tapes, stating that they "will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important - and controversial - weapons of mass destruction questions." yet at the same time:

"Mr. Hoekstra said he is not yet prepared to say President Bush was premature in calling off the hunt for the weapons last year, but conceded that his inquiries may lead him to that conclusion if some of the leads offered to his committee check out. He also said the White House has been supportive of his inquiry."


I'm curious too, but I suspect that this is Hoekstra making a mountain out of a molehill in hopes of attracting attention to his own personal cause, Iraq's supposed WMD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:coffeenews:
Oh. How exciting.
...does anyone really even care anymore ?

---

Classic. :laugh4:

:bow:
Well, the issue is way past its sell-by date.

This won't have much more impact than a fart in church.

The WMD issue is no longer current. There are no WMDs and haven't been for years. Bush either knowingly lied in order to foment conflict with Saddam's Iraq or his administration was near criminally negligent in evaluating the data that led him to pull the trigger.

Either case indicates that the war against Iraq was begun on false pretenses and that the thousands of Iraqi deaths, thousands of coalition deaths, and the inevitable civil war that will begin in earnest 20 minutes after the coalition pulls out -- with its 10's of thousands of deaths -- can be laid at the feet of Cheney, Bush and the other neocons.

The verdict of history has already been made.


















!NOT! :no:

In other words, Gawain, too much time has elapsed and too many viewpoints have crystalized on this subject. While some of the thinking libs -- AdrianII for one example -- will wait until the data has been released, evaluated, and then add it into the hopper, most won't bother. Anything short of a Hans Blix source (any coalition source is too tainted and the assumption would be that it was a fix) opening up a LARGE desert cache of nerve toxin or Saddam buying his life by revealing such caches won't be credited. You and I might care, but ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:bow:
Well, the issue is way past its sell-by date.

---

Please tell that to those people with the stickers, I drive up close to read their bumpers and it's the same old stickers, BUY some new stickers!!! If I'm going to risk causing an accident then I at least want a chuckle at a new sticker.

:furious3:

You filthy American partisan politics are no concern of mine. :beadyeyes: Now shoo, I'm going to sip some red wine to go with good cheese while listening Vivaldi. :beatnik2:

Secret, candid tapes of Saddam and his aides discussing WMD.

All these tapes will prove is that Saddam wanted WMDs (no surprise there). They will not prove that he actually had them. The common opinion these days is that his aides lied to him about the progress on his weapons. If this is the case, the tapes will prove nothing except desire.

if there is 12 hours worth then besides WMDs is there any chance that the name Al Queda, or Taliban, or World Trade Center, cause then you've got peoples attention.

"...continue well into the year 2000", so you can pretty much forget about WTC.

Wasnt the first one before 2000?

Does someone actually still remember that one ? I for one don't, unless reminded.

It kinda bombed, after all.

**jumps out of the path of stampeding Saddam apologists rushing to his defense on this thread**

Boy, that was close.:sweatdrop:

Intelligence Summitsm, an international non-profit non-partisan educational forum for the intelligence agencies of the free world
How nice , a completely neutral charitable organisation sponsored by arms dealers and suppliers of mercenaries worldwide .

A former military intelligence analyst, who currently works as a civilian contractor, believes he has found a cache of extremely confidential--and very shocking--audio recordings of Saddam Hussein's office meetings.
If they are so shocking and confidential then why the hell didn't he hand them over to his government or to the international bodies that have been looking for things like this for years ?
Hey actually , as he took these tapes from a warehouse , doesn't that mean that he is a thief , arrest the bugger .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

**jumps out of the path of stampeding Saddam apologists rushing to his defense on this thread**

Boy, that was close.:sweatdrop:

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I find it odd the tapes haven't already been seized by US forces there, and the contractor is allowed to hold onto them despite them being evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

**jumps out of the path of stampeding Saddam apologists rushing to his defense on this thread**

Boy, that was close.:sweatdrop:

---

Whip out your shovel and start digging for nukes, Dave, for you are the only man alive who believes the President's drivel about Iraqi WMD.
Heck, not even George Bush believes George Bush anymore. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I find it odd the tapes haven't already been seized by US forces there, and the contractor is allowed to hold onto them despite them being evidence.

---

Well, who got there first when that UFO dropped them? :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Whip out your shovel and start digging for nukes, Dave, for you are the only man alive who believes the President's drivel about Iraqi WMD.
Heck, not even George Bush believes George Bush anymore. :laugh4:

---

Tell that to these guys...
http://www.intelmessages.org/images/Kurds01.jpg
http://www.democraticunderground.com...8_gassing2.jpg

Sigh. Dave, "used to have before" and "still had" are two quite different things.

Tell that to these guys...

Are those photos by any chance the incident where the good old freedom loving US supplied the intel and Sat. images for the targetting ?:oops:

Or do you prefer to try and forget that Saddam was your buddy when he was using WMDs .~:doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Or do you prefer to try and forget that Saddam was your buddy when he was using WMDs .~:doh:

---

"Buddy" is, I assume, an exageration for humorous purposes? Saddam was seen as a counterweight to Iran, yes, but its pretty clear that was about interests and not affection.

As been mentioned, even Bush has admitted that he was wrong on the WMD "intel". I bet my money on it though, that in the event that WMDs are uncovered after all, it won't stop him or Bliar from saying "told ya so".

Prior to the invasion we had "we'll give you a smoking gun in a few weeks time" and from there it went to "we know where the WMD are, but we can't tell you right now because we'd risk our intelligence" and after the invasion it suddenly had turned into "well we can't find them right now, please be patient"
And long after that, we had neocons making excuses that the war was justified even without the WMD argument while simultaniously claiming that Saddam shipped his weapons to Syria, or possibly sold them on Ebay.

Personally I think that Bush, Bliar and the bunch were convinced that Saddam had WMD but could produce not evidence of it, but were confident that they would turn up after the war and justify the whole effort.

But the difficulty is when countries one moment are quietly undertaking realpolitik with the enemy's enemy is my friend, to then after the threat is taken away to apparenty say "look! There's this complete bastard in Iraq - let's get him!" And evidence to state that other countries propped him up, trained and armed him at this point are of course tasteless and unpatriotic.

One or the other please. Both is just too cynical.

~:smoking:

"Buddy" is, I assume, an exageration for humorous purposes?
No it is a reminder to dave that he should try and look at reality before he posts rubbish .
In that case not only were they supplying targeting information to good old Saddam , they tried to blame the Iranians for the gassing of the Kurds .
Soooo......
Tell that to these guys...
http://www.intelmessages.org/images/Kurds01.jpg
http://www.democraticunderground.com...8_gassing2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

"Buddy" is, I assume, an exageration for humorous purposes?

---

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it is a reminder to dave that he should try and look at reality before he posts rubbish .
In that case not only were they supplying targeting information to good old Saddam , they tried to blame the Iranians for the gassing of the Kurds .
Soooo......
Tell that to these guys...
http://www.intelmessages.org/images/Kurds01.jpg
http://www.democraticunderground.com...8_gassing2.jpg

---

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. George Orwell

Whereas if performed by socialists, they are not atrocities but are activities for the good of the people they are being inflicted on.

A handshake means buddy... what a lovely simple existence you must lead!!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Whereas if performed by socialists, they are not atrocities but are activities for the good of the people they are being inflicted on.

~:smoking:

---

If you're referring to Orwell here, you obviously don't know all that much of the man.

Quote:

---

If you're referring to Orwell here, you obviously don't know all that much of the man.

---

I think hes reffering to Idaho.

Well, that's why it's in conditional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Whereas if performed by socialists, they are not atrocities but are activities for the good of the people they are being inflicted on.

A handshake means buddy... what a lovely simple existence you must lead!!

~:smoking:

---

The first witicism I would agree with.

The second is misdirection. Rumsfeld claimed he never remembered meeting Saddam Hussein. :laugh4: Yeah right. You might be a busy man with a range of jobs here and there. But there is no way you would forget going to Iraq to negotiate oil for arms deals with the dictator of that country.

Quote:

---

The second is misdirection. Rumsfeld claimed he never remembered meeting Saddam Hussein. Yeah right. You might be a busy man with a range of jobs here and there. But there is no way you would forget going to Iraq to negotiate oil for arms deals with the dictator of that country.

---

The misdirection is yours posting that tired old picture.

Now heres a president showing far more affection for a terrorist.

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/phot...ton_arafat.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

You filthy American partisan politics are no concern of mine. :beadyeyes: Now shoo, I'm going to sip some red wine to go with good cheese while listening Vivaldi. :beatnik2:

---

We're not Chirac. :laugh4:

Nah, it won't matter. The left will say we fabricated them. Which would be true if this was the Clinton Administration. What he would have done was strapped a nuke on a camel's back and put a kid in a turban next to it (Kudos to Louis Black).

God I hate Clinton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

God I hate Clinton.

---

I'm tired of this. I never agreed with very much of his policy, but he's been out of office for more than a term. Can you please just let him head for history's dustbin without bringing him back up all the time?

Quote:

---

Can you please just let him head for history's dustbin without bringing him back up all the time?

---

Kind of hard to do when he and his wife are constantly in the News. He certainly has plans to move back into the Whitehouse. Oh that he would only head for history's dustbin .

Politicians have a remarkable way of remembering faults in other politicians for up to 3 generations, but sadly tend to forget terrorists they themselves met / sold arms to etc etc.

Margaret Thatcher met one terrorist who very recently had blown up 50 Russian children in Afghanastan. I'm sure there was some reason for this, but even so her meeting the murderer was Realpolitik gone mad.

I think that Clinton was no better and no worse than many previous Presidents.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The misdirection is yours posting that tired old picture.

Now heres a president showing far more affection for a terrorist.

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/phot...ton_arafat.jpg

---

Er.. great. What does that have to do with me Gawain? Unless you are just generally dissing US politicians. You are so stuck in your little bipartisan world you can't see that I really don't give a sh*t about Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. They are/were all corrupt stooges :laugh4:

Gwain, I thought Clinton has been described as one of the best Republican presidents in recent history...

A politician can show compasion with someone, then run off and have them / their son executed and still see nothing amiss.

A politician hith honour has not been seen for many years.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Er.. great. What does that have to do with me Gawain? Unless you are just generally dissing US politicians. You are so stuck in your little bipartisan world you can't see that I really don't give a sh*t about Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. They are/were all corrupt stooges

---

It has to do with that silly picture you posted. Just because a diplomat shakes hands with the head of a state doesnt mean their pals. It probably means as you say their countries are working together. Its called diplomacy. And yes its a dirty rotten bussiness.

It probably means as you say their countries are working together. Its called diplomacy.
Ah I see , so helping Saddam when he was using WMDs on the Kurds and then trying to blame the Iranians is diplomacy .
You are right Gawain.....its a dirty rotten bussiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

It has to do with that silly picture you posted. Just because a diplomat shakes hands with the head of a state doesnt mean their pals. It probably means as you say their countries are working together. Its called diplomacy. And yes its a dirty rotten bussiness.

---

So why deny it happened? Why claim no such meeting, deal, etc was ever done. And why do you continue to make excuses for these people?

Quote:

---

So why deny it happened? Why claim no such meeting, deal, etc was ever done. And why do you continue to make excuses for these people?

---

I didnt I said its a dirty rotten buissness and thats just what I meant. Giving Stalin half of Europe wasnt such a good thing to do either but it was politically expedient. Things arent so simple. I make no excuses. I live in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Kind of hard to do when he and his wife are constantly in the News. He certainly has plans to move back into the Whitehouse. Oh that he would only head for history's dustbin .

---

I hear you, G-man, but I truly believe that with his wife's negatives, all the GOP candidate has to do is advance a positive conservative theme a la Ronaldus Magnus -- with a good plan for the border -- and she's then consigned to fade-away zone. Going after her like she's a pit bull would play into her hands too well. After that, the world can either acclaim Clinton as the next SecGen or not, he'd still be outta our hair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think that Clinton was no better and no worse than many previous Presidents.

---

Some truth to that Rory, the number of Presidents who'd be candidates for sainthood is pretty small, but remember that impeachment has only happened twice (three if you count RMN) -- you really have to be uniquely good at ticking people off to achieve that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I didnt I said its a dirty rotten buissness and thats just what I meant. Giving Stalin half of Europe wasnt such a good thing to do either but it was politically expedient. Things arent so simple. I make no excuses. I live in the real world.

---

Ok - so you agree that the current administration are liars, warmongerers and hypocrits. Excellent. That was easier than I thought.

Quote:

---

Ok - so you agree that the current administration are liars, warmongerers and hypocrits. Excellent. That was easier than I thought.

---

This applies to all governments and politicians. I hate them all. Some more than others however. Like diplomacy government is a nessicary evil.

I assume, Idaho, that you are of similar opinion about FDR as you are about Rumsfeld. (sp?) After all, that man gave Eastern Europe away, and gave arms to Stalin.

Crazed Rabbit

Gave East Europe away? Are you insane??? There the Russian army had crushed 40 divisions of the Germans, and the USSR HAD the land! What were the allies to do? Fight for it all? A fight they had neither the arms or the will to do.

He gave arms to Stalin to fight Hitler - did you forget this? Without Stalin, the Allies would have lost the war! (Whether that is a bad thing or not long term is a different point).

If FDR was more cynical, he would have agreed to German demands for a unilateral peace and turn against the Russians as allies across Europe - arguably a very good idea.

Similarly, if FDR was more cynical, aid would have petered off to the USSR to allow them not to fail, but not prosper - bleeding the Germans and the Russians dry. Sadly he was a honorable man, and did not see the deviousness in Stalin until it was too late. Churchill was more aware of the true facts of the alliance, but was definitely the junior partner in the alliance.

~:smoking:

I've been told old Winston's health was seriously failing at the time, which would make it debatable how well aware in general he was of what was going on. That'd certainly help explain why Stalin looks so damn smug in those old Yalta photos...

Quote:

---

Gave East Europe away? Are you insane??? There the Russian army had crushed 40 divisions of the Germans, and the USSR HAD the land! What were the allies to do? Fight for it all? A fight they had neither the arms or the will to do.

---

Your only making my point. They dont do what right but whats expedient at the time. Or do you think giving half of europe to Stalin was the right thing to do?

Wha? I wasn't saying otherwise!

I firmly believe that realpolitik is the way the world works. I don't like it, but then I am a man of few principles, as they are man made creations and have no place in the heartless universe we live in.

FDR was as far as I am aware an honest man - hence why he did so badly against Stalin.

~:smoking:

FDR was a savvy politician, but he was dying at the time of the last conference and was not at the top of his game.

Churchill was the one who failed to push hard enough for Poland and Czechoslovakia -- countries with whom the UK had made pre-war agreements of support -- but nothing would have kept the Baltic states, Moldavia, Rumania or Poland East of the 1939 partition line out of Soviet hands (their troops were already standing on the ground). Stopping them short of the Elbe would have required the Soviets to believe that we would A) have fought them if they didn't stop, and B) that the nukes would have been used as an equalizer.

I'm not sure either Churchill or FDR (even at his best) were quite that cold-blooded. Truman actually may have been, but was handed the ball only after the defeat of Germany was an accomplished fact and Poland already overrun.

Russian troops were in Germany and were either in or would be in Chekoslovakia. It was a fait accompli. Churchill had wanted to push to Berlin, but the Americans seemed happy to let the Russians take more of Europe. Churchill had also wanted a second front in the Balklands so that more of Europe would be in the Allied camp. Again this didn't happen as Stalin could see the danger in this.

Stalin was aware that nukes although powerful were small in number, and "knew" that the allies wouldn't nuke Europe. He also knew he could easily out fight the other powers any day of the week. Allies tanks were utter rubbish compared to Soviet and German models. And OK, so we ruled the seas... So what? USSR is predominantly a land based empire.

Churchill not cold blooded? He gave Stalin a map of Europe, drew a line down it, and Stalin agreed. With one exception it became where the Iron Curtain fell (Greece was "saved" by the use of Secret Services).

~:smoking:

(Greece was "saved" by the use of Secret Services).

I thought it involved a large military deployment , that wasn't quite large enough so it had to be reinforced .
You see its quite hard for a few secret service agents to convince a guerilla group that controlled 2/3 of the country that it must give up its guns and let the pro-fascist guerillas take over .