SADDAM PERSONALLY ORDERED CHEMICAL ATTACK ON KURDS

The Scotsman reports on a key piece of evidence that ties Saddam Hussein directly to the disgusting genocide of Kurds in Halabja almost twenty years ago. Memos from his personal secretary to military leaders make clear that Saddam wanted to use chemical weapons on Kurdish positions in 1987:

SADDAM Hussein ordered plans to be drawn up for a chemical weapons attack on Kurdish guerrilla bases in northern Iraq in 1987, according to a letter signed by his personal secretary. ...

The planned attack appears to have been part of the 1987-88 campaign that left more than 180,000 Kurds dead and demolished hundreds of Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. In the most notorious incident, the town of Halabja was bombed with mustard and nerve gas in 1988, killing 5,000 residents.

In the papers released by the US, a report from Iraq's military intelligence details the bases of Kurdish rebels, led by Ibrahim Barzani, and Iranian troops.

Saddam's secretary replies, saying, "The leader Mr President has ordered that your department study with experts a surprise attack with special ammunition in the areas of Barzani's gangs and the [former Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini Guards."

"Special ammunition" is the phrase used throughout Saddam's regime for chemical weapons. Later documents mention specifically the nerve agent sarin and mustard gas.

One wonders how Saddam would respond to this. Regarding Dujail, he has claimed that the processes used to massacre the residents of the small town as a reprisal for an assassination attempt were legal under Iraqi law, a claim that has done little to slow his prosecution. For Halabja, observers widely predicted that his defense would claim ignorance of the attack until after it had already taken place -- a sort of reverse Nazi defense of "I didn't give the orders". This new evidence clearly shows that he gave those orders before, and probably on many other occasions, against the Iranians during their eight-year war as well as against his own people.

It's fashionable these days to claim that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than after his liberation, given the civilian death toll from the fight against the insurgents. Some claim that over 100,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion, although the methodology for those calculations has been highly suspect. In two years, Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds just for being Kurds, and destroyed their homes, forcing them to live in the hills to survive -- and that doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs, Shi'a, and even Sunnis who died either in droves in reprisals for suspected disloyalty or individually as Saddam and his henchmen desired. This letter reminds us that Iraqis and the world have all benefitted from the removal of this sick, twisted dictator.

A CHRISTIAN ON TRIAL

By Michelle Malkin

This story deserves much more attention than it's getting. Via VOA News (hat tip: Doug at Below the Beltway):

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws. And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

Here, via the Middle East Times, is the "evidence" against Rahman that may lead to his execution:

Supreme court judge Mawlavizada on March 19 holds a Bible that belongs to Abdul Rahman, who converted from Islam to Christianity. (REUTERS)

What do Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush have to say about the monstrous possibility that Rahman may be executed for professing faith in Jesus Christ and possessing a Bible?

So far, nothing.

SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA

To this day, liberals like to tell us that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, and thus no reason for the Bush administration to invade Iraq. But as time goes on, there is more evidence to the contrary. More proof came yesterday of a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

The Pentagon posted a document [pdf] online that was a letter from somebody at Saddam's intelligence agency indicating not only Al-Qaeda was cozy with Saddam, but also the Taliban. But it gets better.

The letter says Osama Bin Laden was in contact with Baghdad, and even mentions he may have visited. The documents also make mention and show a picture of our good buddy Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leading Al-Qaeda terrorist in Baghdad.

So what does all of this prove? What some have said all along: there was an active link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Oh, and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, too. Of course, Osama Bin Laden could be captured in Iraq and Democrats still would never concede Bush was right to invade.

REPUBLICAN STRATEGY FOR 2006

Change the Subject The Republican strategy for 2006. by Fred Barnes 03/27/2006, Volume 011, Issue 26 POLITICS IS PRETTY SIMPLE. If the debate in an upcoming election puts your party at a disadvantage, it makes sense to try to change the debate. At the moment, the 2006 midterm election is framed as a referendum on the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, putting Republican candidates on the defensive. Party strategists, led by chairman Ken Mehlman, want to rejigger the debate so it's about a choice between candidates, putting Democratic candidates on the defensive as well. In short, they want it to be a choice election, not a referendum election. This is not a new idea. Republicans brought about a choice election in 2004. Democrats believed they were a cinch to win a referendum on President Bush's first term, and Republicans worried they were right. But Republicans were able to make Democrat John Kerry at least as much of an issue as Bush was, especially on national security. For 2006, the Republican National Committee, the White House, and most Senate and House Republicans are on board with the choice strategy. In fact, some members of Congress are already repeating a phrase first used by Bush in meetings with congressional allies. It's an assertion that Democrats would "raise your taxes and raise the white flag" in Iraq. There's another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues. House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion. Two pollsters consulted by Mehlman on the choice strategy said it would be counterproductive for Republican candidates to concentrate on highlighting their differences with Bush or congressional Republicans. Of course this is not exactly disinterested advice. Mehlman and company all want to help the president, who stands to lose most from Republicans' adopting an "I'm not like Bush" strategy. Dave Sackett of the Tarrance Group said, in a memo to Mehlman, that distancing oneself from the president is a "flawed strategy" and would not protect a Republican candidate "from the generic backlash against the administration or the congressional leadership." Rather, it would turn the campaign into "a national referendum on President Bush and the policies of the administration and the congressional leadership"--just what Republicans fear in 2006. Jan van Lohuizen of Voter/Consumer Research said a campaign that becomes a referendum on Bush could also chill Republican voter turnout. "Anything we do to depress turnout, by not running as a unified party, for instance, could very well lead to serious consequences in November." Republicans have done little to hide their strategy. At the Southern Republican Leadership conference in Memphis recently, Mehlman spoke repeatedly about "choice" in the 2006 election. Voters, he said, "can see the difference between leaders committed to winning this war [on terror] and politicians who will say anything to win the next election. The war on terror is not the only area where we face an urgent choice in 2006." Mehlman asked, rhetorically, if voters "want the chairman of the tax-writing committee in the House to be someone who said that tax increases would spur the economy. Do you want the speaker of the House to be someone who said, less than a year after 9/11, 'I don't really consider ourselves at war.'" That, Mehlman said, "is the choice we will make in 242 days." Mehlman is convinced the emphasis on choice will work. "The ultimate referendum election is a presidential reelection," he says. "If you can make that into a choice election, you can make a midterm election into a choice election." Some Republicans insist it doesn't matter whether Democrats finally offer a party agenda. "The question is not what they promise," Mehlman told me. "It's what they are going to do" that is important. Blunt, however, wants to force Democrats to present an agenda. Contrasted with Democratic plans, "our ideas always look better," he says. "Their best day will be the day before they release their agenda. Suddenly [Republican] policies will look like the policies that would work best in the future." A White House official says the choice strategy "is the means to go on offense," instead of merely defending the controversial or unpopular actions of the Bush administration. There are numerous "luscious targets" offered by Democrats, including the fact that two-thirds of House Democrats voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and three-fourths of congressional Democrats opposed the president's tax cuts. One issue that needs to be developed is the economy, according to Blunt. "People take a strong economy for granted. We have to show that this didn't just happen," but is the result of Republican policies like tax cuts. Republican candidates will argue that if Democratic policies had been followed, a strong economic recovery would not have occurred. And job creation--243,000 in February--would have been weaker. Mehlman's confidence notwithstanding, will Republican efforts to keep the election debate from focusing on Bush really work? The media undoubtedly won't play along. Some Republicans are bound to trash Bush, figuring that it will give them the best chance of winning. Worse, if Bush falters badly, a referendum on him may be unavoidable. Still, is there a better strategy for Republicans in what looks like an unfriendly year for them? If there is, I haven't heard of it. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and author of Rebel-in-Chief (Crown Forum).

MSM WANT TO DISCREDIT IRAQI DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING RELEASED

DISCLAIM THIS

By Michelle Malkin ·

So, the MSM is slowly picking up on the historic release of thousands of documents from Saddam Hussein's archives. But not without making a concerted effort to downplay and undermine the story. Readers are calling attention to the disclaimers included in this ABC News story. (Hat tip: Michael, Daniel, Lynne, and Coin.) Example:

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

Will we see that helpful disclaimer--"this document is of limited evidentiary value"--the next time ABC News or Newsweek or the NYTimes or the Washington Post uses unnamed, uncorroborated informants?

Hmm?

Reader Craig L.:

Ya gotta wonder if such a careful regard for authentication and "evidentiary value" would be present if this were a document damaging to Dubya or his administration.

We certainly know CBS's standards.

Yup.

Bob Owens weighs in with a reminder about the Downing Street Memos.

***

Meanwhile, the blogosphere's Army of Translators--mother of all hat tips to Glenn Reynolds--is busy with Project Docex.

IraqtheModel has another translation. (Hat tip: Roger L. Simon)

Stay tuned to Pajamas Media:

Let the Pajamas folks know if you have posted translations/analysis of any of the Docex docs. Lots of work to do.

HERE ARE CAPTURED DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW BIN LADEN WAS IN WITH IRAQ

AN ARMY OF TRANSLATORS NEEDED

By Michelle Malkin

***scroll for updates...translations coming in***

If you read nothing else today, make sure to go to this site.

There will be a press conference about the documents today at 1:30pm EST:

TODAY, Thursday, March 16, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, and Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will comment on the release of Iraqi documents, including photos and tapes, that today have been made publicly accessible to the world. Senator Santorum and Congressman Hoekstra have worked aggressively to get the trove of documents seized from the Saddam Hussein and Taliban regimes released so the world can see for itself what those regimes stood for. Both congressional leaders believe that these documents are not only of historical significance but can help remind the world that we are fighting a global war on terror. Senator Santorum and Congressman Hoekstra both offered legislation requiring the release of the captured documents and photos. These documents come from a collection of some 2 million exploitable items captured in post-war Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has had these documents for four years. They have not been publicly available during this time.

How about an Army of Davids to translate and process the info?

Debate at RedState.

Flashback: AJStrata - Unleash the blogosphere

Flashback: Pajamas Media documentarian Andrew Marcus interviews Rep. Hoekstra Feb. 16 about the docs: "They ought to be put on the Internet...unleash the power of the 'net on these 55,000 boxes of documents to see exactly what went on...Let the blogosphere go!"

***

No translation needed for this photo found in the document trove (hat tip: Bluto):

Hint.

And an Army of Freepers has started to dig through the docs. Jveritas provides a translation of a document linking Iraq and Osama bin Laden CMPC-2003-001488 (hat tip: Jawa Report):

In the Name of God the Merciful

Presidency of the Republic

Intelligence Apparatus

To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

Subject: Information

Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.

Please view… Yours… With regards

Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001

Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission

Signature:………….

John Hinderaker starts digging into the new document trove here.

***

Background:

Steve Hayes, who got the ball rolling here.

Michael Barone, Why Do Democrats Fear the Al-Qaida/Saddam Relationship?

Power Line, here, here, and here.

***

Previous:

Saddam's terror training camps