Skip to comments.
The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed
FrontPageMagazine.com ^
| 5/11/04
| Laurie Mylroie
Posted on 05/11/2004 7:13:09 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed
By Laurie Mylroie FrontPageMagazine.com | May 11, 2004
Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."
That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a “Hamburg student.” The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a “Hamburg student” provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.
Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.
The Iraqi Plot against Radio Free Europe
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the Czechs were closely watching the Iraqi embassy. Al-Ani’s predecessor had defected to Britain in late 1998, and the Czechs (along with the British and Americans) learned that Baghdad had instructed him to bomb Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, after RFE had begun a Radio Free Iraq service earlier that year.
On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence (known as BIS), observed al-Ani meet with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Another informant in the Arab community reported that the man was a visiting student from Hamburg and that he was potentially dangerous.
The Czech Foreign Ministry demanded an explanation for al-Ani’s rendezvous with the Arab student from the head of the Iraqi mission in Prague. When no satisfactory account was forthcoming, the Czechs declared al-Ani persona non grata, and he was expelled from the Czech Republic on April 22, 2001.
Hyman Komineck was then Deputy Foreign Minister and had earlier headed the Czech Foreign Ministry’s Middle East Department. Now Prague’s ambassador to the United Nations, Komineck explained in June 2002, “He didn’t know [what al-Ani was up to.] He just didn’t know.” As Komineck told the Times of London in October 2001, "It is not a common thing for an Iraqi diplomat to meet a student from a neighboring country."
Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who had observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and told the BIS he believed that Atta was the man he had seen meeting with al-Ani. On September 14, BIS informed its CIA liaison that they had tentatively identified Atta as al-Ani’s contact.
So Many Errors: the Clinton Years
Opinion polls show that most Americans still believe Iraq had substantial ties to al Qaeda and even that it was involved in 9/11. Yet among the “elite,” there is tremendous opposition to this notion. A simple explanation exists for this dichotomy. The public is not personally vested in this issue, but the elite certainly are.
America’s leading lights, including those in government responsible for dealing with terrorism and with Iraq, made a mammoth blunder. They failed to recognize that starting with the first assault on New York’s World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States. This failure left the country vulnerable on September 11, 2001. Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is “no evidence.” What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented. I myself have experienced this many times, including in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, when as I responded to a Commissioner’s question, a fellow panelist repeatedly interrupted, screeching “That is not evidence,” even as C-SPAN broadcast the event to the entire country.
Former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke is a prime example of this phenomenon. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when President Bush asked him to look into the possibility of Iraq’s involvement, Clarke was “incredulous” (his word), treating the idea as if it were one of the most ridiculous things he had ever heard. On September 18, when Deputy National Security Adviser Steven Hadley asked him to take another look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, Clarke responded in a similar fashion.
Yet as we know now, thanks to Epstein’s work, Czech intelligence at that point had already informed their CIA liaison that they had tentatively identified Mohammed Atta as the Arab whom al-Ani had met on April 8, 2001.
Evidence is “something that indicates,” according to Webster’s. Proof is “conclusive demonstration.” The report of a well-regarded allied intelligence service that a 9/11 hijacker appeared to have met with an Iraqi intelligence agent a few months before the attacks is certainly evidence of an Iraqi connection.
Clarke’s adamant refusal to even consider the possibility of an Iraqi role in the 9/11 attacks represents an enormous blunder committed by the Clinton administration. Following the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, senior officials in New York FBI, the lead investigative agency, believed that Iraq was involved. When Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993, saying publicly that the strike was punishment for Saddam’s attempt to kill former President Bush when he visited Kuwait in April, Clinton believed that the attack would also take care of the terrorism in New York, if New York FBI was correct. It would deter Saddam from all future acts of terrorism.
Indeed, Clarke claims the strike did just that. The Clinton administration, Clarke explains in Against All Enemies, also sent “a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis saying, ‘If you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government.' It was a very chilling message. And apparently it worked.”
But if the entire 1991 Gulf War did not deter Saddam for long, why should one cruise missile strike accomplish that aim? Indeed, the Iraqi plot against Radio Free Europe—the existence of which is confirmed by RFE officials—is clear demonstration that the June 1993 cruise missile strike did not permanently deter Saddam.
Bush 41: A War Left Unfinished
The claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is also strongly opposed by some senior figures in Bush 41. They include former National Security Council Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, who wrote in the summer of 2002, “There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.”
Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks carries serious implications for judgments about the way that Bush 41 ended the 1991 war. As will be recalled, after 100 hours of a ground war, with Saddam still in power and Republican Guard units escaping across the Euphrates, Bush called for a cease-fire. Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed for that decision, and Scowcroft backed him, although it was totally unnecessary, and many Arab members of the coalition were astounded at the decision.
To err is human. And if one errs, one should correct the mistake and move on. The prevailing ethos, however, is quite different, even when serious national security issues are involved. Extraordinarily rare is a figure like Dick Cheney, who as Secretary of Defense, supported the decision to end the 1991 war with Saddam still in power, but after the 9/11 attacks was prepared to recognize the evidence suggesting an Iraqi role in those attacks and memorably remarked that it was rare in history to be able to correct a mistake like that.
Why we are at war: Iraq’s Involvement in 9/11
Never before in this country’s history has a president ordered American soldiers into battle, without fully explaining why they are asked to risk life and limb. One would never know from the administration’s public stance that senior officials, including the President, believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Iraq was indeed involved in those assaults. There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public.
We are now engaged in the most difficult military conflict this country has fought in thirty years. Even before the fiasco at Abu Ghraib became widely known, both the American public and international opinion were increasingly skeptical of U.S. war aims.
In taking on and eliminating the Iraqi regime, Bush corrected a policy blunder of historic proportions. His decision for war was both courageous and necessary. Now, he needs to make it clear just why that decision was made.
Laurie Mylroie was adviser on Iraq to the 1992 campaign of Bill Clinton and is the author of Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department tried to Stop the War on Terror. (HarperCollins) She can be reached through www.benadorassociates.com.
TOPICS: Front Page News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; 911commission; alani; alqaedaandiraq; atta; bis; bush2004; clarke; clintonfailures; clintonlegacy; czech; embassy; epstein; hamburg; hussein; komineck; mylroie; prague; rfe; scowcroft; sept11; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-74 next last
To: TrebleRebel
ping
2
posted on
05/11/2004 7:35:14 AM PDT
by
chmst
To: TrebleRebel
We know Saddam worked with the PLO and other terrorists, he funded them. He at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
(Link below)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1 List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1 Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts The AQ connection (excellent):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2 Western Nightmare:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html Saddam's link to OBL:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts Document linking them:
http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297 Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp A federal judge rules there are links:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts Iraq and Iran contact OBL:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts More evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml Saddam's AQ connection:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts Further connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097521/posts?page=1 Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/ The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125899/posts Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016 Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2 Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987075/posts Free Republic Thread that mentions so me books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/977221/posts?page=8 The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237332.stm Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746225/posts The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741676/posts Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts Freeper list of links between AQ and Iraq:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850346/posts Salman Pak (Aviation Weekly)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865435/posts
3
posted on
05/11/2004 7:38:55 AM PDT
by
Peach
To: Peach
Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student." Is that the best they have, a notation in an appointment book? Not exactly a smoking gun. I would suggest that Laurie Mylroie review some of the far better info that you have posted rather than relying on "Hamburg Student" on which to rest her case.
No, I did not read the rest of her article. To be honest, the opening was so weak, that I felt it not worth further consideration.
4
posted on
05/11/2004 7:56:53 AM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
('The weakest link in American security is the political link' - Thomas Sowell)
To: Peach
Fascinating links. Thanks.
5
posted on
05/11/2004 8:02:24 AM PDT
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Peach
Great Links Post!!
BMP for later.
6
posted on
05/11/2004 8:08:00 AM PDT
by
FlashBack
(USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA..USA...USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
To: Michael.SF.
Is that the best they have, a notation in an appointment book? Not exactly a smoking gun. It's called "evidence". Most evidence for something falls short of a "smoking gun". The idea that one always needs a "smoking gun" to prove something, is at best misleading, at worst a total red herring.
If I see you walking down the street in the opposite direction from the grocery store with a grocery bag from that grocery store in your hands, it's an entirely reasonable inference to say "you just went shopping". However, there's still no "smoking gun" (maybe it's just a coincidence? you brought the bag from home to the gym, it has your swimsuit and towel in it, and the gym just happens to be on the same street as the store? etc). But I don't care that there's no "smoking gun", I'm going to draw the most reasonable conclusion, that's how humans work, you see.
In this case, what we have is (1) Czech intelligence saying that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, with corroboration, and (2) absolutely NO contradictory information whatsoever. Seriously, the FBI has issued a lot of pseudeo-denials ("we can't confirm it") but NOTHING which actually contradicts Prague's claim. The most reasonable inference to draw therefore is that Atta indeed met with Iraqi intelligence, unless/until we get information to the contrary. The most reasonable inference to draw from that, given that Atta was the 9/11 ringleader and was a nobody outside of his 9/11 plans, is that the meeting had something to do with 9/11 (what were they discussing? soccer? recipes?). Again, this is the most reasonable thing to conclude from this fact-set, unless/until some contradictory inference surfaces.
It's not a "smoking gun", but there rarely is such a thing, particularly in intelligence about secret things. If we waited for "smoking guns" before drawing conclusions about anything, we'd be paralyzed.
There's no "smoking gun" that Michael Jackson is a pedophile, does that mean you'd allow him to babysit your children?
To: Michael.SF.
Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student." Is that the best they have, a notation in an appointment book? Not exactly a smoking gun. I would suggest that Laurie Mylroie review some of the far better info that you have posted rather than relying on "Hamburg Student" on which to rest her case.
The above corroborates the eyewitness testimony that Atta (Hamburg student) met with Iraqi officials. See following:
In April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence (known as BIS), observed al-Ani meet with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Another informant in the Arab community reported that the man was a visiting student from Hamburg and that he was potentially dangerous.
To: Peach; Grampa Dave; backhoe; blam
Good stuff!
9
posted on
05/11/2004 8:20:43 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
To: TrebleRebel; BOBTHENAILER; NormsRevenge; Dog; Dog Gone; Cap Huff; Libertarianize the GOP; ...
saddam was connected bump!
10
posted on
05/11/2004 8:23:02 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
To: Michael.SF.
Is that the best they have, a notation in an appointment book?What would you like to see...video tape of the meeting? Digital pics?
Are you a lawyer?
Any lawyers out there...is a notation in an appointment book good enough evidence for an indictment/conviction?
To: TrebleRebel
"Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is "no evidence." What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented."
While a direct connection to 9/11 may be more problematic to prove, the fact that the media is also dismissing any links between Saddam and AQ is disturbing. What's so amazing about this is that the media, itself, was making these very connections before the Bush administration took office. Mylroie's right when she says the media now has a vested interest in ignoring any proof of a connection. Not only will it indict their favorite president...it will indict them and their incompetence.
12
posted on
05/11/2004 8:38:10 AM PDT
by
cwb
(Liberals: Always fighting for social justice in all the wrong places.)
To: TrebleRebel; Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: cwb; Grampa Dave
Mylroie's right when she says the media now has a vested interest in ignoring any proof of a connection. Not only will it indict their favorite president...it will indict them and their incompetence. Right!
14
posted on
05/11/2004 8:41:57 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
To: muleskinner
Any lawyers out there...is a notation in an appointment book good enough evidence for an indictment/conviction? I'm no lawyer, but I watch them on TV! I wouldn't ask if it were enough to convict, because one circumstantial item would not be a preponderance of evidence. It might be enough to obtain a sarch warrant, though.
15
posted on
05/11/2004 8:50:42 AM PDT
by
webheart
To: Dr. Frank fan
I'm also sick of the "smoking gun" requirement.
2 + 2 = 4 even without a smoking gun.
To: Michael.SF.; Peach
Michael, try reading 2 or 3 of the links provided, and see if you still think the evidence is weak.
17
posted on
05/11/2004 8:56:49 AM PDT
by
YepYep
To: TrebleRebel
BAM!
BAM! BAM! BAM!
BAM!
18
posted on
05/11/2004 9:03:30 AM PDT
by
Enduring Freedom
(Jean Fidel Qaerry - Vietnam Veterans Against The War On Terrorism)
To: YepYep
You totally misunderstood what I said.
I said that the evidence of the notation in the appointment book was "weak" and that the evidence supplied by Peach was "far better."
19
posted on
05/11/2004 9:28:04 AM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
('The weakest link in American security is the political link' - Thomas Sowell)
To: Dr. Frank fan; The_Victor; muleskinner
I am well aware that the proverbial 'smoking gun' (a term we should update by the way, perhaps to: 'stained dress') is not to be found in cases such as this. But read the headline again: "9/11 link confirmed"
Now read the "confirmation": 'A Hamburg Student'
Gentlemen, that is weak. That may be another bit of evidence, but it is not confirmation. BTW, I am not denying that there is a link, Peach states an excellent case, one which I agree with.
Had the headline said: 'Evidence of 9/11 link to Iraq continues to mount'
I would have had no problem. But the headline is misleading, which was my point.
20
posted on
05/11/2004 9:37:14 AM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
('The weakest link in American security is the political link' - Thomas Sowell)
To: Michael.SF.
Yes, understood.
My point is simply that the appointment calendar notation along with other evidence (especially Woolsey's report and the financial link between Iraq and the person responsible for "93 WTC attack) is overwhelming of the link between AQ and Iraq. At least there was notable measures of cooperation, which put America in direct danger.
21
posted on
05/11/2004 9:43:04 AM PDT
by
YepYep
To: Peach
bookmark!
22
posted on
05/11/2004 9:46:04 AM PDT
by
CJ Wolf
To: Dr. Frank fan
Evidence is objective, whereas proof is subjective.
I, and my friends in the Special Ops. community have long thought there is/was a connection between al-Quida and Iraq. Saddam was well aware of the Answar al-Islam base (al-Quida) in northern Iraq. The heads in the sand clowns always respond, "But that was in the no fly-zone." True, but Saddam still controlled many areas in those zones with ground troops. Additionally, client states supporting terrorist/guerrilla organizations purposely keep their contact with said groups at a distance.
23
posted on
05/11/2004 10:00:22 AM PDT
by
GarySpFc
(Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
To: muleskinner; Michael.SF.
I am a lawyer. No, a notation saying that someone had a meeting with a "Hamburg student" isn't enough.
How many students are there in Hamburg? It's a big city.
To: YepYep
I don't disagree with the evidence. I dispute that the notation in tha appointment book is "confirmation". I think that is an overstatement, as explained in my post above.
25
posted on
05/11/2004 10:04:56 AM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
('The weakest link in American security is the political link' - Thomas Sowell)
To: YepYep
Don't forget that Woolsey, a lawyer, represents Chalabi, the Man Who Would Be President of Iraq, the Iraqi ex-pat who fed the CIA a lot of the bullshit about Saddam's WMD.
Chalabi and his fellow Iraqi expats wanted the US to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, and got their wish. Unfortunately for them, the Iraqi people dislike Chalabi, they think he's dishonest.
Based on how poorly his intelligence has panned out, I think they're right. So I disbelieve anything from Chalabi or his paid agent, Woolsey.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Peach found these:
Saddam at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
(Link below)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts
Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts
More evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097521/posts?page=1
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125899/posts
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987075/posts
Free Republic Thread that mentions so me books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/977221/posts?page=8
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237332.stm
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746225/posts
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741676/posts
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
27
posted on
05/11/2004 10:11:12 AM PDT
by
backhoe
(--30--)
To: muleskinner
Any lawyers out there...is a notation in an appointment book good enough evidence for an indictment/conviction? Just for the record, that shouldn't matter. This is not a court of law nor are we discussing jurisprudence. The standard of evidence for drawing conclusions, should be lower than "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt".
To: Michael.SF.
But read the headline again: "9/11 link confirmed" Now read the "confirmation": 'A Hamburg Student' The problem being?
Note that the title does not read, "Saddam connection to 9/11 mathematically proven". Just that a "link" is "confirmed".
To spell it out in more detail, the "link" is the evidence of an Atta-Prague meeting which we already knew about (that is evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, you see), and the "confirmation" (of that evidence) is the record of the appointment.
Again, I'd agree that this falls short of mathematical proof, but that is a red herring.
Gentlemen, that is weak.
So it's weak evidence, despite the confirmation. Ok. Not sure why you think that contradicts what's being said.
That may be another bit of evidence, but it is not confirmation.
???
It's confirmation of the evidence. I think we are using these words differently. You seem to be using "confirmation" as the same thing as "mathematical proof of the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11". I think you're right that this is not m.p.o.t.c.t.S.w.b.9/11 but I'm not sure who was saying that.
There was a Saddam link to 9/11 that we already knew of (the eyewitness account of the Atta-Prague meeting) and now we have further confirmation of that link.
Had the headline said: 'Evidence of 9/11 link to Iraq continues to mount' I would have had no problem.
In effect, it does say that, with different words.
But the headline is misleading, which was my point.
Well, clearly you understood it differently than I did, so point taken.
To: CobaltBlue
I am a lawyer. No, a notation saying that someone had a meeting with a "Hamburg student" isn't enough. Right. It's not enough for a conviction in a court of law under our standards of jurisprudence.
That's irrelevant, of course.
To: Peach
keep adding to your list. this is a great one!
31
posted on
05/11/2004 10:37:24 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: Dr. Frank fan
For those who want to believe that somehow, a meeting between Mohammed Atta and a member of Iraqi intelligence proves that Saddam was behind 9/11, the level of evidence is irrelevant.
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that there was, indeed, one meeting. Let's say the men met, had tea, talked about what they had in common.
To extrapolate from this meeting that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 is ludicrous. Just plain ludicrous.
To: AFPhys
Thanks! I'll keep adding as I find them.
33
posted on
05/11/2004 10:50:00 AM PDT
by
Peach
To: CobaltBlue
For those who want to believe that somehow, a meeting between Mohammed Atta and a member of Iraqi intelligence proves that Saddam was behind 9/11 Straw man. I don't "want" to believe, nor do I even think the meeting "proves" Saddam was "behind" 9/11. It represents a link between his regime, and 9/11. There are lots of ways in which Saddam's intelligence service could have been linked to 9/11 without having been "behind" it. Frankly all things considered at this point, if I had to guess, I'd say I don't think Saddam Hussein was "behind" 9/11, but I do think he was linked to it, by virtue of using AQ as a proxy army and funding/aiding their projects. In other words, "linked".
To imply that Saddam had to have been "behind" 9/11 before Americans have the right to care, raises the bar awfully high and I reject that.
One thing people often need to be reminded of is that 9/11 was not the only attack on our soil in 2001, there was also the anthrax. That Atta was given anthrax by Iraq (the weaponized variety sent to Daschle), either at the Prague meeting or just promised delivery at that meeting, is another reasonable inference to be drawn from the fact set (and another reason to be interested in the Atta-Prague meeting). That doesn't require Saddam to have been "behind" 9/11 either. But does that mean we shouldn't care?
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that there was, indeed, one meeting. Let's say the men met, had tea, talked about what they had in common.
Which was what, pray tell?
To extrapolate from this meeting that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 is ludicrous. Just plain ludicrous.
Yes I reckon it is. It's also a BIG FAT STRAW MAN.
I am not saying that such a meeting proves that Saddam was "the mastermind behind 9/11". Just that he was "linked" to it, get it? Good grief.
I'm not even sure that Osama Bin Laden was "the mastermind behind 9/11" in the sense of being heavily involved in its conception, planning, and timing; that was "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed"; Osama knew *something* was in the works (indeed probably said to KSM "go do some big attack"), may have selected WTC as the target, but not necessarily known much about the attack's nature or planned timing in any detail. So does Osama get a clean bill of health too then, because he wasn't "the mastermind behind" 9/11?
This raises the bar to an absurd level.
To: Dr. Frank fan
If you go back and re-read what I wrote, I did not accuse you of anything. I spoke about "those who want to believe."
To: CobaltBlue
I spoke about "those who want to believe." That's swell. Let me know if/when you identify any such people, and then your comments may gain some relevance to something, if not (strangely, considering you wrote them in response to me) to anything I wrote.
To: CobaltBlue
Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's No Spin Zones.
To: Dr. Frank fan
Don't worry, I won't write to you again. You don't know how to have a dialogue about anything other than yourself, apparently.
To: CobaltBlue
You don't know how to have a dialogue about anything other than yourself, apparently. Nice try but "not appreciating straw-men invented out of thin air" and "not knowing how to have a dialogue about anything other than myself" are not the same thing (unless all dialogues about things other than myself must necessarily involve straw-men?). I said explicitly and overtly that if you identify people who hold the views you characterized, we could discuss them. What more do you want?
Do you know how to have a dialogue which doesn't involve straw-men?
To: Peach
bookmarking
40
posted on
05/11/2004 11:23:34 AM PDT
by
BJClinton
(If Sudafed is outlawed, odly oudlas wid had Zudaved.~04/29/2004 2:02:26 PM CDT by George Smiley)
To: Dr. Frank fan
***I don't think Saddam Hussein was "behind" 9/11, but I do think he was linked to it***
Please, do keep thinking.
To: Binti Jua
Please, do keep thinking. You're clever and I'm very impressed.
To: CobaltBlue
No, a notation saying that someone had a meeting with a "Hamburg student" isn't enough. Preacher,
Thanks,
Choir member
43
posted on
05/11/2004 11:55:58 AM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
('The weakest link in American security is the political link' - Thomas Sowell)
To: Dr. Frank fan
The Saddam - 9/11 link was officially confirmed today.
U.S. to Turn Over Saddam to Iraq by July
The United States has pledged to hand over Saddam Hussein and about 100 other former regime prisoners to Iraqi authorities.
To: Binti Jua
The Saddam - 9/11 link was officially confirmed today. No, it wasn't.
To: Peach; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Beautiful summation. Thanks for the flag EatB
46
posted on
05/11/2004 2:02:44 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do, but we're gonna getcha)
To: TrebleRebel
bttt
To: Peach; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Beautiful summation. Thanks for the flag EatB
48
posted on
05/11/2004 2:08:10 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do, but we're gonna getcha)
To: CobaltBlue
Why else would the U. S. authorities want to hand over Saddam to the Iraqis?
Laurie Mylroie's confirmed link Saddam-9/11 made them do so. Saddam deserves a swift justice from the hands of the people of Iraq for his role in the destruction of Pentagon and WTC.
Thank to Front Page Magazine and Laurie Mylroie with her brilliant investigative skills it now became clearer than ever.
FRegards,
B.J.
To: Binti Jua
I hope you're being sarcastic. Saddam is being handed over to the Iraqi government for prosecution for violation of Iraqi law.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson