Hi UK Guardian/Lemonde readers- here's what you missed

The al-Quds document.

Recently, New York Times reporter Scott Shane interviewed me for an article concerning the release of Saddam Regime documents to the public. The article entitled Iraq Documents Are Put on Web, and Search Is On gave several generic quotes of intelligence officials stating that the new documents would reveal nothing. I can only assume that Scott Shane missed Condi Rice on the news commenting on the newly released documents that showed the Russian ambassador gave U.S. troop strength and our maneuver plans to Iraq. So “nothing new” is demonstrated to be incorrect.

As well he focused on a headline to one of my articles describing what I call the al-Quds document, IZSP-2003-00003336. In the article, I claimed that this document demonstrated that Saddam had planned to give anthrax to al-Quds, Palestinians living in Iraq and fighting for Saddam, and that they were to use it against Iraqis to implicate the U.S. in a WMD attack.

Scott did not provide any expert testimony specific to this document, or even one point of my analysis but dismissed it out of hand based no doubt on his vast experience working with documents captured in Iraq.
He says:

But the anthrax document that intrigued Mr. Robison, the Alabama blogger, does not seem to prove much. It is a message from the Quds Army, a regional militia created by Mr. Hussein, to Iraqi military intelligence that passes on reports picked up by troops, possibly from the radio,  since the information is labeled "open source" and "impaired broadcast." No anthrax was found in Iraq by American search teams.

First let me point out, Scott could not get one expert to dispute my finding so he substitutes his own conclusions. Aren’t journalists supposed to report and not make judgments in the articles? But more than that, he couches his own conclusion among the generic statements of intelligence officials to give the reader the impression that the conclusion is from an expert, not his own (conceding of course that he must be an expert since he quoted himself in the article).

Now far be it from me to challenge his obvious expertise in the field when I can only bring the expertise of 13 year army experience as an officer in the field artillery and signal corps, Gulf War and Kosovo operations and the year I spent working with the Iraq Survey Group analyzing and processing these documents, but I will try.
This is the al-Quds document translation that was posted by FMSO:

                                                                            Secret

                                                        To: the general military intelligence directorate
                                                        Subject: information
March 11, 2003

The al-Quds liberation army division supplied us with information (open source) (impaired broadcast) as follows

1.    The Iraqi government will distribute the same leaflets that the American forces are distributing but it will contain anthrax.
2.    Iraq imports uniforms resembling American forces uniforms for the purpose of killing Iraqi citizens because the American forces had killed the innocent sons of the Iraqi people.
3.    Dig trenches around the city of Baghdad and set up oil barrels and derivatives for the purpose of burning and causing mayhem the city of Baghdad as Iraq did in Kuwait.
4.    Diplomats are leaving Iraq and Russia says that it has already taken out its representatives from inside Iraq.
5.    There is a rumor that some of the children of ministers and high ranking commerce people left Iraq for Russia.

Request review…with regards

Director of the al-Quds Army Intelligence Organization.

Scott makes this point;
“that passes on reports picked up by troops, possibly from the radio, since the information is  labeled "open source" and "impaired broadcast."

Basically Scott (and others) has classified this as rumor reporting. These are not just rumors. This is a recitation of a plan. It is called a brief back in U.S. army operations and is usually done at a coordination meeting for an operation. How can I determine this?

Well Scott says the U.S. forces found no anthrax. So let’s use his logic to examine the document. If it is not a plan and is all rumors then there should be no evidence to support the other statements.

Line two talks of Iraqi soldiers dressing in U.S. uniforms and killing Iraqis. The obvious point of this would be to stage a U.S. massacre. So did it happen?

From The Heritage Foundation
Iraq’s Actions
Defense officials have received accounts of Special Republican Guard troops and Fedayeen forces dressing in U.S. military uniforms, accepting the surrender of other Iraqi forces, and then executing those soldiers that surrendered.

So it would appear that this “rumor” happened just as predicted.

Line three talks about digging trenches around Baghdad, filling them with oil and setting it on fire. This is to create the image of a city being burned to the ground to again implicate the U.S. in a massacre.

Did it happen? This is from a well known Iraqi blogger: Where is Raed
    Monday, March 24, 2003            
    4:30pm (day3)

half an hour ago the oil filled trenches were put on fire. First watching Al-jazeera they said that     these were the places that got hit by bombs from an air raid a few miniutes earlier bit when I went up to the roof to take a look I saw that there were too many of them, we heard only three  explosions. I took pictures of the nearest. My cousine came and told me he saw police cars standing by one and setting it on fire. Now you can see the columns of smoke all over the city.

And from a CNN transcript
        March 25th, 2003
        BROWN:  Just go back to the first one, the picture with the smoke.
        KAGAN:  All right.
        BROWN:  What is that?  Is that an oil trench burning?  Do we know what that is that's causing all that smoke?
        KAGAN: They're talking about oil fires ringing the city, talking about defense of incoming U.S. missiles and bombs. I think this is -- yes, the trenches that were dug around Baghdad.

Thus we have a second “rumor” that happened just as stated by the al-Quds intelligence document.

The fifth line is clearly labeled as rumor, which shows that a distinction has been made about that line from the other lines thereby demonstrating that the others are not rumor reporting.

Also released by the FMSO is another document translated by the Free Republic and described thusly:

In this Iraqi document ISGQ 2004-00224003 dated February 7 2001, there was a discussion in upper echelon of the Iraqi intelligence about mass graves in Southern Iraq and how to shift the blame to the Coalition forces and make it look like these mass graves as the results massacres committed by the Coalition forces back in 1991 during Desert Storm Operation.

When you read the translation it is clear that the mechanism of death was to be portrayed as radiation (undoubtedly a product of the ridiculous notion that Depleted Uranium would cause massive deaths) to implicate the U.S. in a WMD attack (radioactive) against Iraqis. This document demonstrates the exact modus operandi that is demonstrated in the al-Quds document.

Scott’s logic is also faulty because the “impaired broadcast” can easily be the mechanism of transmission of this report and not the way that the information was originally derived.
The “open source” is most likely a generic term to keep from stating who specifically was to carry out these acts. It is a subterfuge. If the information was obtained “open source” then there is no reason to make the document secret. Who are they keeping it secret from? It is already “open source”.

So to summarize, two of the three statements of fact stated as actions by “the Iraqi Government’ or “Iraq” are demonstrated to have been carried out. I don’t know about Scott, but my meager experience tells me that when you say certain events will happen in a secret document and those events happen two out of three times, I call that a plan, not a rumor. And that plan was for the Iraqi government to give foreign fighters anthrax. This is the exact scenario that President Bush warned about. I suspect that is Scott' true motivation for his pathetic attempt at analysis.

Make sure you visit the "Iraq Documents articles" under catagory to see what else is "nothing new".

UPDATE: Previously I posted an interview with intelligence analyst:

Ryan Mauro
Author, "Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq"
Analyst, Northeast Intelligence Network and Tactical Defense Concepts
Founder, WorldThreats.com

Brian has written me to lend support to my conclusions concerning the al-Quds documents. Now to anyone who has worked with an intel professional before, you know that getting them to make a declarative statement concerning an item of interest absent a full analysis from several sources is well, near impossible. So Ryan must feel confident as he has said:

"The document proves that the Al-Quds Army believed they were in possession of anthrax, and apparently planned to give out leaflets contaminated with the substance; leaflets identical to the ones American forces were handing out. Hopefully, documents due to come out in the near future will shed light on if the Iraqis successfully carried out this plan."

UPDATE: In the comments section, a reader told me that the translation provided by the FMSO was incorrect. I considered at the time that this might be true, but I decided to wait until I could talk to Sammi about it. Sammi agrees that the translation was bad and that it does change the analysis and the conclusions completely. Which is why I am really glad I said in the original article: "Unless we see a translation that is different".

With the new wording of "Radio Sawa" to replace "impaired broadcast" it becomes clear that the memo is about broadcasts from a radio station.

A bad translation is always possible but I reasoned that a translation that was used for a study (as I believe most of the early release documents were) would be vetted. It was not.

So moving forward, I hope and expect my readers will take the time to inform me of incorrect translations, or facts that I have wrong. If I had totally dismissed the readers objections, I would not have deferred the matter to Sammi. I do listen to what you all have to say and I appreciate informed comment much more than you may think. If you tell me something, refrain from embellishing other facts to make your point. The reader also told me that radio Sawa was a propagandist tool of the U.S.. Sammi says this is not accurate. This incorrect labelling of the radio station made it more difficult to understand the reader's reasoning based on the fact that the rumors would have been counterproductive to U.S. propaganda efforts.

I still have some questions about why these rumors were so accurate. It seems to me as I suggested yesterday, the al-Quds may have picked out the ones that they knew were accurate to report. But although this document is suggestive, it is not conclusive and certainly not the smoking gun.

As to Scott Shane, this does not absolve him from the low standard of ethical journalism he displayed by writing his conclusions in the article. It also does not excuse him of not bothering to give any of my reasoning (despite the fact we talked for almost an hour) or extensive background when he pitted me against anonymous intelligence professionals. But it does demonstrate sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. But Scott will find out the luck may win battles, but not wars. And the war to get the truth out based on the Iraqis own documents has just begun.

UPDATE: Reader Brett brought this article to my attention.

By Richard Whittle, The Dallas Morning News

Anti-Hussein messages, secret missions part of psychological warfare

excerpt

U.S. military planners assume that Iraq's Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard that protects President Saddam Hussein will fight. But based on the waves of regular Iraqi soldiers who surrendered during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they hope to induce as many as possible to do the same again.
"The leaflets, the broadcasts, are to try to get; if there is a conflict; to keep the worst case from happening," Gen. Myers said.
"Apparently they're having some effect," he added, "because we understand the Iraqi regime tells the populace that these leaflets are coated with chemicals and are actually out there picking them up with chemical suits on and gloves."

 

Comments

[The Liberal Avenger]

I was going to come here and tease you relentlessly - but then I saw that you had the additional authority of THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION backing you - and I knew that I'd lost the battle before it even started.

[Dr Victorino de la Vega]

Yet more lies fabricated by the Pentagon’s PR & Public Communication Department, and sheepishly relayed by the “Meekly Standard” of neo-independent journalism…

And as much as I have no sympathy for today’s MSM appeasers and other pinko obfuscators, I’m afraid the Neocon media still aren’t less parsimonious with the truth.

Take Fox News or the New York Sun for the sake of argument: the latter recently published yet another article purporting to “prove” the existence of secret links between the Iraqi Baath party and Al Qaeda- see link below:
“Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show”

However, reading the article in question only “reveals” that:
“The document has no official stamps or markers”
“The question of future cooperation [between Saddam and Bin Laden] is left an open question”
“New documents […] did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001”

Funny how after their Iraq debacle, the Neocons haven’t stopped peddling the tall tale of Saddam’s alleged “connections” with OBL: the Leninist thugs of Washington are decidedly obsessed with Saddam and the Baath party…even after they’ve been rendered inoffensive- assuming they ever posed a threat to America any other country.

Bush, Cheney & Co. have always lied about the nature of the Iraqi regime, repeatedly accusing Saddam Hussein of being an Islamic fundamentalist in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban: unfortunately, after having been bombarded with fabricated infomercials produced by Israeli “Middle-East experts”, the American public eventually came to believe exactly what the Neocon wanted: that Saddam was kind of a later days bloodthirsty Saracen, on the verge of conquering the Infidel pastures of Wyoming and Oklahoma!

Yet, as we now know, the truth is otherwise: there never were any “links” between the Baath party and Al Qaeda, no spooky “secret meetings” in Vienna or Prague or “somewhere in Eastern Europe” between “Saddam’s diplomatic envoy and Bin Laden’s righthand man” as Vice-President Dick Cheney had alleged on numerous occasions

In Fact, Saddam Hussein was a staunchly secular Arab nationalist, a disciple of professor Mitchell Aflaq, the French-educated Orthodox Christian philosopher. And, if anything, Christian minorities and women were generally overrepresented in Saddam’s government: Vice-President Tareq Hanna Aziz was actually Catholic and so were Saddam’s Chief of Staff and many of the senior civil servants working at the presidential palace.

And check out this article for a fascinating firsthand description of Saddam’s Tickrit “spider hole” hideout:
“Pinned to the outside wall of the hut was a cardboard box depicting biblical scenes such as the Last Supper and the Madonna and child with the English inscription "God bless our home." Inside the bedroom was a 2003 calendar in Arabic with a colorful depiction of Noah's Ark. Soldiers were surprised at the Christian decorations”

Yes these US soldiers were “surprised” after having been brainwashed about Saddam’s penchant for Islamic fundamentalism…which turned out to be just another lie churned out by Washington’s Neo-Conmintern propaganda factory.

Like him or not, Saddam Hussein was a truly modernist, Westernized Arab head of state who protected women’s rights and enforced affirmative action programs in favor of Iraq’s tiny Christian minority. “Old Europe’s” foreign policy establishment viewed the Iraqi Baath party essentially as a strong bulwark against both Persian-Khomeinist fundamentalism and Wahhabi-Afghan terrorism.

The Israelis and Washington’s Neocons thought otherwise: now we have to deal with the strictures of Sharia Law in Afghanistan, the rise of Hamas and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which they have deliberately brought to power…

[lilbitthunder]

Did you not see the mass graves in Iraq? Is that not enough reason to take Saddam out of power. Not a threat to anyone? At the very least he was a threat to his own people...but I guess that was ok, after all, he had women in his Baath Party. And let us not forget his son's....very cruel men. Oh yes....they were Christians....riiight. Do you not remember Saddam celebrating the attack of 9-11, the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans? Doesn't it make sense that two leaders that hate the US would join together to try to defeat us? OBL wanted everyone to know he did it, and Saddam had the capital but wanted to keep silent about it, so he could deny it for political reasons.

[Ray Robison]

Dr V said "Bush, Cheney & Co. have always lied about the nature of the Iraqi regime, repeatedly accusing Saddam Hussein of being an Islamic fundamentalist"

This has never happened, or else prove it with a citation. Nobody in the administration calls Saddam an Islamic fundamentalist. The argument is that Saddam would use these fundamentalists outside of Iraq as they would use Saddam for assistance. Saddams only Islamic credintials are to appeal to pan-Arab supporters in time of need, a lie like everything else he did.

But nice job defending the Hitler of our time. Joseph Gerbals would be proud of you.

[swamp6]

Ah I was wondering when LA would show up. I kinda prefer his snide, bit generally short and seeminly good natured comments to the inane rantings of the other libs that have showed up to comment.

"Aren’t journalists supposed to report and not make judgments in the articles? "
That is what I thought too, apparently Scott from NYTimes has different understanding of what he is supposed to be doing. That is not surprising since he does work for the NYTimes.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” H. G. Wells

Keep up the good work Ray

[Scott Malensek]

“Our missiles could not reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike.”
-Saddam Hussein 9/3/98 (3 months before the 911 plot was set in motion)

"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001
hmmm, when did the anthrax attacks begin?

[David M]

UK Guardian readers also appear to have missed the messages our host deleted from yesterday - specifically the ones where I contested his faulty interpretation of the mixed reporting. (If you are going to invite comments, Ray, then you should expect your assertions to be tested.)

Mr Robinson claims that Iraq was actually planning to execute what the communique distinctly regards as scuttlebutt.

Ask yourselves this question: Why would the Iraqis include in a planning document reporting that they clearly regard as propaganda (line 2) and rumour (line 5)?

Ray, can you also answer the following questions for me please?

1. What was the nature of your work with the ISG? Were you a weapons inspector or just a librarian?

2. Do you actually have any transcribing skills?

Thanks.

[swamp6]

Good stuff Scott. I am definately going to buy your book now, I would like to know more facts like these.

[upyernoz]

um, why no link to the original arabic document?

[Ray Robison]

DM said: Ray, can you also answer the following questions for me please?

1. What was the nature of your work with the ISG? Were you a weapons inspector or just a librarian? I analyzed and archived captured documents from Iraq.

2. Do you actually have any transcribing skills? I assume you mean translation and no, I am not and have never claimed to be a linguist. Which is why I quote from translations.

upyernoz, because the link is in the posting below the new one.

[upyernoz]

hey ray,

i hate to disappoint you, but you've mistranslated the words "impaired broadcast." the original arabic words are: "idha'a sawa"

"idha'a" means "broadcast" but it's more commonly used as the word for "radio"

a more likely translation is that the al-quds brigade was reporting what it heard broadcast on radio sawa. radio sawa, of course, is the u.s. financed propoganda station in the middle east. it first started broadcasting in 2002 and, as of the date of the memo, was passing on all kinds of now discredited allegations about iraq's WMD capabilities.

it seems to me those facts give the document a completely different spin, don't you think?

[David M]

What analytical skills do you possess? Critical thinking is a necessary required asset. I see no evidence here that you were qualified for such a job.

[The Liberal Avenger]

I analyzed and archived captured documents from Iraq.

We civilians call that "light filing work." Now that you're out of the service, you can call yourself a "filing clerk."

Did you come across a lot of secret Iraqi documents when you were working artillery in Kosovo?

[The Liberal Avenger]

Nice sleuthing, uz.

Given:

A. That there were no anthrax-impregnated fliers let loose upon the population

B. Occam's Razor

What conclusion would you draw from the document?

[Ray Robison]

upyernoz, to state again, I am not a translator so the correct assertion would be that the person who produced the translation for the government did an incorrect interpretation. Now that I have cleared that up, you note the word for broadcast might as well mean "radio". The problem with you assumption?
1. If it was on the public radio then it wouldn't need a secret document would it?
2. Radio can also be a reference to a tactical miliatry radio which is the common military usage in most armys. We call them "radios", so even if you are correct, it does not change the analysis. Thanks for your thoughtful comments however, it is a nice change from the normal fair that gets spewed by contrarianists.

[The Liberal Avenger]

fair = fare

- Roy's Editor

[Ray Robison]

LA's editor
Disabled vet= joke material

[upyernoz]

1. If it was on the public radio then it wouldn't need a secret document would it?

then why does the document call the information "open source", in your translation, if the information was secret? what do you think "open source" means?

in any case, the words you have translated as "open source" is "masaadir 'aliniyya." "masaadir" means "origins" "'aliniyya" means something like "announcement" (but it's an adjective modifying "masaadir") the words you call "open source" clearly are describing the origins of the information

but to answer your question more directly, a lot of information in secret documents comes from public sources. with all your alleged experience in these kinds of things, i thought you would know that. it seems to me that if the al-quds brigade hears a broadcast saying that they have anthrax, they might send a secret cable to HQ to find out what the deal is with that.

of course, i'm just guessing, but my guess, i think, is more plausible than your interpretation under the circumstances.

2. Radio can also be a reference to a tactical miliatry radio which is the common military usage in most armys. We call them "radios", so even if you are correct, it does not change the analysis. Thanks for your thoughtful comments however, it is a nice change from the normal fair that gets spewed by contrarianists.

first, just because the military refers to tactical military radios as "radio" in english doesn't mean that an iraqi unit would use the word "idha'a" to refer to their own tactical military radio

second, if they were referring to a secret military radio band, then why was it "open source" (see above)?

third, your explanation doesn't account for the word "sawa."

finally, do you honestly think saddam's military wasn't monitoring and reporting what radio sawa was broadcast in the days before war broke out? if they did, how were they supposed to tell the difference between reports about "idha'a sawa" (meaning radio sawa) and reports in which the same term meant their private military frequency? your explanation simply doesn't make sense

[The Liberal Avenger]

So I'm having trouble following this, Roy...

Who was supposed to impregnate the fliers with anthrax? The Americans? The Palestinians? The Iraqi Secret Police posing as Americans? Was al-Qaeda involved?

Where were they going to drop them and who were they going to try to infect with anthrax by doing so?

What happened with this operation? Is the MSM covering up all the anthrax deaths that took place in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003?

[Scott Malensek]

"Would you speak to the Inspectors privately?" I asked Dr Taha. "No I do not trust them. It is better to have witnesses," she replied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm
2/9/03

-----

Duelfer Report vol III
"Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi offi cial until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_bw-03.htm
-----

GREAT REPORT ON DR GERM and the NON-WMD threat of Saddam perception that so many cling to even today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340765/

-----

EVEN MORE on the ANTHRAX Saddam claimed he had, then said he didn't (anyone believe that little boy who cried Wolf after he lied a half dozen times-like Saddam?)
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html

-----

FACTS ARE THIS:
Saddam claimed he had no anthrax. Then he got caught with anthrax, and admitted to having it. Then inspectors were kicked out, and in 2002, he claimed that even though inspectors had been kicked out, he took it upon himself to have anthrax destroyed. UN asked for evidence and suggested at the very least to present a detailed report of how the anthrax was destroyed. None was offered-even the Iraqis themselves admit the 12/02 declaration had nothing new in it. So, US invades, finds no anthrax. Saddam is captured, the Dr in charge of the anthrax explains that inspections never would have resolved the anthrax issue because she personally destroyed it with no witnesses, evidence, or documentation, but she did so close to a palace Saddam was staying at, and she claims she was afraid to admit it because she thought Saddam might see it as an assassination attempt and have her familiy tortured and killed in front of her (the guy so commonly described as "a bad man" by the war's opponents was a little bit more than just "bad"). Still, the ISG interrogates her and others and finds the story not-credible.

SO, if someone has evidence that the anthrax was destroyed (pics, documents, witnesses) please....let us know. Otherwise, there is actually more evidence and witnesses claiming that Saddam hid (true to his pattern of hiding wmd) his anthrax and that it was shipped out by Russians to Syria.

Evidence of anthrax destruction: only one report, and that's not credible

Evidence of anthrax hidden and moved pre-war: a dozen good sources with corroborating stories backed up by electronic monitoring of traffic, MSM news reports corroborating the scenario and details of it, and the logic that if it can't be proven destroyed...then it must still exist.

My point is this: the remaining WMD issues listed on pg 56+ of vol III of the Duelfer Report (issues listed there are those presented by UN-not US btw), should not be dismissed out of hand. Those that HAVE been resolved, can be dismissed, but those that have not been resolved cannot be dismissed.

Man, you don't even wan to get me started on Saddam's Ties to Al Queda....

[upyernoz]

"Man, you don't even wan to get me started on Saddam's Ties to Al Queda...."

you're right about that!

[Ray Robison]

upyernoz, "open source" this is where context comes in. This is a week before the attack that the al-Quds are well aware is about to happen. It is quite likely they know that secret documents may be captured. If they are given this information by say, Saddam's sons, they are not going to attribute that right in the document for the world to see. That is deception which anybody who has studied the Iraq regime knows is integral to daily operations.

"announcement" could very well be the al-Quds intelligence officer "announcing" to the intelligence headquarters the orders he has received.

"i think, is more plausible than your interpretation under the circumstances"
Based on what? The fact that two of the three action items in the statement did in fact happen? You deduce from that fact that this is a rumor? I question your judgement about what is a straightforward logical deduction. If they say it is going to happen and it happens 2 out of 3 times, then it is an "announcement" of a plan and not rumor collection. Or else why is the 5th line specifically designated a rumor and not the first three.
Yes, everybody calls a radio, a radio, because a military tactical radio is a radio.

I have had others tell me (and my opinion as well) is that "impaired broadcast" refers to the quality of the signal on the tactical radio, thus warning that parts of the message were hard to make out.
I have looked up Sawa and it also is defined as "together". So if that is the literal translation then it could very well mean "radio together impaired" or "all radios impaired" which would make sense considering we were almost surely jamming their radios at that point.

[David M]

For the record, Iraq only ever managed to produce poorly refined liquid bulk anthrax with a limited shelf life.

Naturally, pouring that stuff over leaflets would have about the same effect as pouring water over a piece of paper!

[The Liberal Avenger]

Man - so even the Russians and the Syrians were involved. Wow.

If you can drag the Iranians into this, too, then you'll have hit a grand-slam homerun!

[sgo]

so Ray... if you have such a solid background in this stuff and you claim to have such a clear and correct grasp on the contents of these documents (documents that the US Govt. has already looked at and dind't find as you do).... why oh why oh why are you not working for the Govt. and getting this information out officially?

~