Document IZSP-2003-00003336 has been wrongly understood by many. The document is sent by an Iraqi intelligence officer to his boss asking him to review a report of what a radio station called SAWA (It is a Pro-US station) has been broadcasting which is that the Iraqi Army is going to use leaflets that contain Anthrax and that some Iraqi army units were going to wear US military uniform and commit massacre against the Iraqis and accuse the US troops of doing it.
The misunderstanding going around is that this document was an order to the Iraqi army to do such things where it was simply a report about a broadcast from radio SAWA.
If you open this document you notice that Page 2 is an English translation that was part of the original document, and it makes an inaccurate translation of Radio SAWA and called it (impaired broadcast). I think this has caused some confusion and many thought this document is an order to the Iraqi Army.
For an ACCURATE translation the first line of the translation should read the following:
“ The Missan division in the Al Quds army provided us with information (Public Sources) (Radio SAWA) that says the following:”
The remaining of the original translation in English is correct.
**************************** AN EXCERPT**********************************
THE NEW YORK TIMES today joined the debate about Iraqi documents with a front-page news article and an op-ed by Peter Bergen. It's been nearly two weeks since the first documents were released, but a belated acknowledgement of the news is better than nothing. One might have expected such a longtime champion of open government as the Times to have aggressively led the effort to have these once-secret documents released. Not this time.
The front-page story seeks to dismiss the importance of the documents while the op-ed by Bergen seems to find them only significant enough to warrant an attempted deconstruction. Both of these efforts fail badly. Reading the two pieces together, one gets the unmistakable impression that the Times doesn't want to know more about the documents, their contents and what they tell us about prewar Iraq. The Times, it seems, has chosen ignorance.
The news piece deserves little in the way of a response. Reporter Scott Shane casts the story as a battle between diehard supporters of the Bush administration and the truth, noting most helpfully that in other Internet projects "volunteers have tested software, scanned chemical compounds for useful drugs and even searched radiotelescope data for signals from extraterrestrial life."
Shane ignores the mostly-thoughtful commentary and analysis of the documents and chooses to quote an exuberant conservative blogger proclaiming that one document shows that Iraq had WMD and connections to terrorism, only to knock that claim down later. "The anthrax document . . . does not seem < to prove much," Shane writes. And he liberally sprinkles his piece with quotes from anonymous intelligence officials who downplay the significance of the document release. (In one case, Shane names the intelligence official, Michael Scheuer, but neglects to include any mention of Scheuer's self-contradictory analysis of Iraq and terrorism or any reminder that Scheuer might not be a disinterested party.)
Lost on Shane, it seems, is that these documents were released in large part so that we would no longer have to rely on the opinions of anonymous intelligence officials who, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report, knew very little about Iraq before the war. It should hardly be surprising that the U.S. intelligence community would seek to downplay the significance of these documents after paying them little attention for three years. In any case, the release of the documents allows the debate to move from speculation to fact. It is a development one would expect the Times to welcome.