Tag Archives: Wikileaks

Snowden granted 1-year asylum in Russia, leaves airport

Don’t know if he’s a hero or a traitor. I do know skippy can’t touch him know. Well of course there is always things that go bump in the night.


Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden


Published time: August 01, 2013 11:45
Edited time: August 01, 2013 14:08

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has been granted temporary asylum in Russia and is allowed to enter the country’s territory.
The whistleblower has been granted temporary political asylum in Russia, Snowden’s legal representative Anatoly Kucherena said, with his words later confirmed by Russia’s Federal Migration service.
“I have just handed over to him papers from the Russian Immigration Service. They are what he needs to leave the transit zone,” he added.
Kucherena showed a photocopy of the document to the press. According to it, Snowden is free to stay in Russia until at least July 31, 2014. His asylum status may be extended annually upon request.
With his newly-awarded legal status in Russia, Snowden cannot be handed over to the US authorities, even if Washington files an official request. He can now be transported to the United States only if he agrees to go voluntarily.
Snowden departed at around 15.30 Moscow time (11.30 GMT), airport sources said. His departure came some 30 minutes before his new refugee status was officially announced.
His present location has not been made public nor will it be disclosed, Kucherena said.
“He is the most wanted person on earth and his security will be a priority,” the attorney explained. “He will deal with personal security issues and lodging himself. I will just consult him as his lawyer.”
Snowden eventually intends to talk to the press in Russia, but needs at least one day of privacy, Kucherena said.
The whistleblower was unaccompanied when he left the airport in a regular taxi, Kucherena added.
However, WikiLeaks contradicted the lawyer, saying the organization’s activist Sarah Harrison
Russia is confident that the latest development in the Snowden case will not affect US President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to Moscow, presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said.
“We are aware of the atmosphere being created in the US over Snowden, but we didn’t get any signals [indicating a possible cancellation of the visit] from American authorities,” he told RIA Novosti.
Snowden, a former CIA employee and NSA contractor, came to international prominence after leaking several classified documents detailing massive electronic surveillance by the US government and foreign allies who collaborated with them.
Snowden was hiding out in a Hong Kong hotel when he first went public in May. Amidst mounting US pressure on both Beijing and local authorities in the former-British colony to hand the whistleblower over for prosecution, Snowden flew to Moscow on June 23.
Moscow was initially intended as a temporary stopover on his journey, as Snowden was believed to be headed to Ecuador via Cuba. However, he ended up getting stranded at Sheremetyevo Airport after the US government revoked his passport. Snowden could neither leave Russia nor enter it, forcing him to remain in the airport’s transit zone.
In July, Snowden applied for temporary asylum in Russia, a status that would allow him to live and work in the country for one year. Kucherena earlier said the fugitive whistleblower is considering securing permanent residency in Russia, where he will attempt to build a life.
~ Steve~

 
 
 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

99% of Philadelphia wards voted for Obama!

With tongue in cheek, I used to tell my students how one-party dictatorships are more democratic than the United States. Not only do one-party dictatorships like Nazi Germany and Communist China have elections, they have 100% voter turnout and the One Party gets all the votes!

Case in point:

Did you know that Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany after his National Socialist Party won only one-third of the votes in the election of 1932? (In the election’s first round of voting, the Nazi Party received 30.1% of total votes; in the second round, its take was 36.8%.)

The election of 1932 turned out to be the last competitive election in Germany until after the Second World War.

Two years later, in 1934, Hitler’s main opponent Paul von Hindenburg died. Hindenburg had become Germany’s President in 1932 when his Independent Party won an absolute majority of votes of 53%. Upon Hinderburg’s death, Hitler abolished the office of the presidency entirely, and replaced it with the new position of Führer und Reichskanzler (“Leader and Reich Chancellor”), thereby cementing his dictatorship.

But like all one-party dictatorships, Hitler went through the pretense of having a national plebiscite to let the German people approve or disapprove of his power consolidation.

On August 19, 1934, about 95% of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million votes of approval or 90% of the vote. Thus Adolf Hitler could claim he was Führer of the German nation by direct will of the people. Hitler now wielded absolute power in Germany, beyond that of any previous traditional head of state. He had become, in effect, the law unto himself. [Source]

The day after the national plebiscite, on August 20, 1934, mandatory loyalty oaths to Hitler were introduced throughout the Reich.

The point I was making to my students was to be suspicious of any politician (or party) who garners votes of incredibly high percentages, such as Hitler’s 90% in 1934.

Why?

Because human beings are naturally disagreeable and contentious and, thus, for 90-100% of us to agree on anything is the height of improbability, which suggests the vote’s been rigged.

Flash forward 78 years to the 2012 Election in the U.S.A.

Did you know that in 2008 Barry Soetoro Obama got a remarkable 85% of the vote in Philadelphia? But in 2012, he did even better! On November 6, 2012, B. S. Obama got – GASP! — 99% or more of the votes cast in 13 of Philadelphia’s wards!!!!!!!!

What an astonishing miraculous accomplishment! As Kris Zane of The Western Center for Journalism puts it, that accomplishment is especially amazing considering Philadelphia’s record unemployment, record homicide rate, and an Obama-induced economy that has literally bankrupted the city!

Zane reminds us: “As reported in the Wikileaks Stratfor email dump earlier this year, the Obama campaign was engaged in massive ballot stuffing in Philadelphia and Ohio, more than likely by sabotaging voting machines and then having ’emergency’ ballots ready to switch with backup paper ballots.”

Zane points out that “The mainstream media tried to downplay the massive amount of voting machines problems, but there were reported problems from coast to coast.”

So did Obama do the same thing on a nationwide scale as the vote-rigging in Philadelphia?

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hmNQy6EFm7M]

See also FOTM’s other posts on the 2012 Democrat election fraud:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Wikileaks Confirms North American Union Conspiracy. Obama Signs Trucking Agreement w/ Mexico

An effective way to combat an opposing group, belief, or opinion is to characterize it as a “conspiracy theory.” That term immediately conjures in the mind images of tinfoil-hat wearing kooks.

But when we examine the dictionary definition for “conspiracy” — any secret agreement between two or more persons to undertake an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act — then the notion that there are conspiracies is not so far-fetched. For that matter, the very existence of a federal law called RICO — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — is an acknowledgment that conspiracies exist!

The plain fact is that not all conspiracies are imaginary. There are at least 30 conspiracy theories that turn out to be true, including the Mafia, the CIA’s MK-ULTRA, asbestos, Watergate, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and the 1944 conspiracy to assassinate Hitler.

Now, a Wikileaks document confirms that the North American Union agenda to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a single monetary and political body is not some kooky fringe “conspiracy theory,” but a real conspiracy. Robert Hilz reports for Canada’s National Post, June 2, 2011:

The integration of North America’s economies would best be achieved through an “incremental” approach, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable.

The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.

“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.” […]

In the cable, U.S. diplomats focused on a number of key areas to move forward with continental integration, including a possible common currency, labour markets, international trade and the borders of the three countries.

H/t Prison Planet

Photo credit: Christian Science Monitor

The North American Union conspiracy is proceeding according to plan. A week ago, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement allowing trucks from each nation to travel on the other country’s highways – a key provision of NAFTA.

Howard LaFranchi reports for The Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 2011, that under the agreement, the US will reinstate a pilot program for Mexican truck certification that was introduced under the Bush administration – and defunded by an angry Congress in 2009. Mexico, in turn, will immediately drop half of the tariffs on about 100 US products, with the rest to be removed when Mexican trucks actually start rolling across the border. The accord requires all Mexican trucks operating in the US to comply with US safety standards, and it mandates the installation of monitoring devices to track truck usage and compliance with service requirements.

The Obama administration’s US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood signed the agreement despite fears of unsafe Mexican trucks barreling along US highways, driven by unprofessional Mexican truckers, and in spite of growing resistance, especially in the US Congress, to free-trade provisions with Mexico.

H/t beloved fellow Tina.

Here’s an image of the rumored North American Federation currency:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Why Hillary Recalled Ambassadors to D.C. Meeting

On February 7, the ModernSurvivalBlog asserted that “In an unprecedented move…nearly all U.S. Ambassadors to all nations have been called back to Washington for a summit conference this week,” but we don’t know why.
Veteran D.C.-based investigative reporter Wayne Madsen has an exclusive-to-subscribers report on this. Below are excerpts from his exclusive Wayne Madsen Report.  
~Eowyn

Peering through the shroud of global corruption: Hillary’s “all hands” meeting and bribery and kickbacks
Wayne Madsen Exclusive Special Report, Feb. 9-10, 2011
Amid a major FBI and Department of Justice criminal investigation of a hacktivist group known as “Anonymous,” which has hacked into public and private computer systems in retaliation for actions taken against Wikileaks for its release of over 250,000 classified State Department cables, WMR has been contacted by a source close to Anonymous to set the record straight on the group’s intentions and convey a road map of its future plans…. It should be noted that Anonymous is not connected to Assange or Wikileaks.
It is the penetration of the State Department’s communications networks by Anonymnous that prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to call all of America’s ambassadors, consuls general, and special envoys to Washington for an unprecedented diplomatic “all hands” meeting. WMR has learned that Clinton briefed the envoys on the State Department’s security problems and that information sent over channels thought to be safe was no longer guaranteed to be secure. Other means of communicating sensitive information from overseas posts to Washington were apparently discussed. In addition, the fallout from bigger and more damaging leaks of classified cables matched with off-shore banking information and emails was also discussed with the envoys. The fallout includes the spread of Tunisia- and Egypt-style popular revolts around the world and the need by the diplomats to be prepared for a surge in anti-American attitudes globally.
Anonymous, which uses the Guy Fawkes mask-wearing character “V” in the film “V for Vendetta” as a role model, first came on to the media radar screen in 2008 when the loose-knit association of bloggers took on the Church of Scientology by subjecting the cult to a series of denial of service attacks after the “church” had YouTube pull an interview with actor Tom Cruise over copyright violations.
However, the group now finds itself as a target of a major FBI investigation with FBI agents confiscating computer equipment and cell phones at gun point. A federal grand jury in San Jose, California is now empaneled to hear evidence against suspected members of Anonymous. The group hacked into PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, and the UK’s Moneybookers in retaliation against the blocking of donations to Wikileaks. Anonymous also retaliated against the computer security firm, HBGary Federal, after an official of the company threatened to publicly expose the leaders of Anonymous.
Anonymous…is currently conducting data matching and fusion of information contained in the State Department cables and banking data and hacked email it has obtained from around the world. The picture that Anonymous is painting is one of the State Department being part and parcel of a global “pay-to-play” operation for foreign and U.S. defense contracts and the siphoning of kickbacks by world leaders to numbered bank accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, and elsewhere. From the information gleaned from multiple sources by Anonymous, it is clear that the CIA facilitates America’s “play-to-pay” system of corruption and contract fraud.
…The global payola scam also involved top French government officials who benefited from sweetheart rendition and defense contract deals with Tunisia and Egypt…. What Anonymous has discovered is a global pattern of such kickbacks in return for lucrative contracts and the world’s elites growing wealthier as a result. The graft and corruption globally is sweeping, with details of pay-offs to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his ministers by BP in return for releasing accused Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison to Libya in return for lucrative Libyan oil concessions and  a defense contract with Sri Lanka during the Bush administration that permitted that nation’s government to commit a genocidal campaign against ethnic Tamils being just the tip of the iceberg.
State Department cables previously leaked and those that have to be revealed show that U.S. diplomats are the prime facilitators of U.S. graft and corruption, with member companies of the US Chamber of Commerce and top Pentagon contractors reaping a financial whirlwind as a result.
Anonymous plans to release 40 more videos outlining the connections between U.S. political leaders and top-level bribery and kickbacks, including a deal worked out by then-President George W. Bush between Saudi Arabia and Boeing that saw Boeing receive a major Saudi Air Force contract in return for the King of Saudi Arabia receiving a plane similar to the Boeing 747 used as Air Force One. In the deal, Bush pocketed a “handling fee” that ended up in a Bush numbered account from a Saudi numbered account in an off-shore bank. And the trove of fused data from the cables and financial and email data show that Bush and Rove are not alone in receiving payola from his fronting for U.S. firms: the recipients of bribes and kickbacks include Hillary and Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Vice President Joe Biden, and President Obama. Anonymous has uncovered details of Obama personally lobbying overseas for Boeing, with the now “accepted” practice of kickbacks ending up in the president’s off-shore accounts. Boeing is headquartered in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. And when it comes to this level of corruption, America can always count on its political police force, the FBI, to protect the criminals and attack the sources of the information, as the G-men are now doing to Anonymous.
“Bigger and badder” than Wikileaks: “Anonymous” analyzes and fuses hacked data and cable information and reveals that President Obama not only shills for Chicago-based Boeing but gets kickbacks from defense deals overseas. George W. Bush also shilled for Boeing and received similar sweetheart financial deals.
…The “V” fans who make up Anonymous also want it known that it is they who originally obtained the 250,000 State Department cables, which have the highest classification of Secret and came from the Defense Department’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). Access to the cables did not come from hacking into the network but from individuals who had legitimate access and clearances. It was Anonymous that provided the cables to Wikileaks. And Anonymous is planning on conducting leaks of more enhanced information, the combination of cable information with financial banking information to expose leaders around the world as corrupt. Anonymous did not give Wikileaks the “entire store.” In addition to the Secret cable traffic from SIPRNet, Anonymous claims to have cables with classifications higher than Secret, traffic that sheds more light on the overriding role that “neocons and Zionists” play in shaping American foreign policy.
…The word on the street is that the world’s “military-industrial-political” complex is worried about further releases of sensitive information and is bracing itself for a global rebellion when the true nature of the world’s elites is revealed around the world. Anonymous has an ultimate target based on what it has managed to obtain from computers and networks around the world: the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family. It is now obvious why Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) wants an Internet “kill switch” to be thrown by the president of the United States. Their futures depend on it….

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Wikileaks and Net Censorship

About Wikileaks, has anyone wondered:

  • Why and how, with all of our spying technology and cybersecurity, WikiLeaks.org mastermind Julian Assange could have gotten away with pilfering thousands of secret government documents and diplomatic cables?, or
  • Why and how Assange’s source, an enlisted soldier in the US Army managed not only to access those secret documents and diplomatic cables, but also download and photocopy them? (The UK’s Telegraph reports that Private First Class Bradley Manning was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and is being detained by U.S. authorities) or
  • Who/what is really behind Wikileaks? Did our government engineer the Wikileaks document disclosures in order to use it as a perfect excuse to censor or shut down the Internet?

H/t beloved fellow Joseph for the article below.
~Eowyn

H/t Tina



 
Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It’s your choice

Western political elites obfuscate, lie and bluster – and when the veil of secrecy is lifted, they try to kill the messenger

By John Naughton – Guardian – December 6, 2010
‘Never waste a good crisis” used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks revelations.
The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing.
And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal suddenly “discovering” that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy and about the future of the net.
There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down.
Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. “Information has never been so free,” declared Clinton. “Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.” She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, Barack Obama had “defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity.” Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.
One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been deceiving their electorates.
The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too.
The problem is that they cannot face their electorates – who also happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly – and tell them this. The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam.
The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its allies see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable state, let alone a functioning democracy. They show that there is no light at the end of this tunnel. But the political establishments in Washington, London and Brussels cannot bring themselves to admit this.
Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam was. The only differences are that the war is now being fought by non-conscripted troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians.
The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which enable you to rent “virtual” computers – again located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which they provide both “free” and paid-for services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud computing – one day it will rain on your parade.
Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic Compute Cloud the moment the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who suffers from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be “asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information”. This led the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson to ask whether “Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can call in the company running the New Yorker’s printing presses when we are preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell it to stop us”.
What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger.
As Simon Jenkins put it recently in the Guardian, “Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can only default to disclosure.” What we are hearing from the enraged officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net.
Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. The political elites of western democracies have discovered that the internet can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, but in their sides too. It has been comical watching them and their agencies stomp about the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying to whack a mole. It has been deeply worrying to watch terrified internet companies – with the exception of Twitter, so far – bending to their will.
But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking approach won’t work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology. Thousands of copies of those secret cables – and probably of much else besides – are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like BitTorrent. Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future behaviour; or they shut down the internet. Over to them.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

WikiLeaks: US Did find WMDs in Iraq


Last Friday, Oct. 22, the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks released another trove of classified reports that it said documented at least 109,000 deaths in the Iraq war, more than the United States previously has acknowledged, as well as what it described as cases of torture and other abuses by Iraqi and coalition forces.
What is less publicized, if at all, by the MSM is this: The latest WikiLeaks also show that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq!
Noah Shachtman of Wired’s Danger Room reports on October 23, 2010:  

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”
Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.
But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were led to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.
The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.
But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.
That same month, then “chemical weapons specialists” were apprehended in Balad. These “foreigners” were there specifically “to support the chemical weapons operations.” The following month, an intelligence report refers to a “chemical weapons expert” that “provided assistance with the gas weapons.” What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.

H/t CommieBlaster.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0