Skip to comments.New 9/11 Probe Could Spotlight Iraq Link
Posted on 08/27/2005 2:52:10 PM PDT by wagglebee
Congressional hearings coming this fall into revelations by the military intelligence group Able Danger could spotlight other evidence overlooked by the 9/11 Commission: including a March 2001 report suggesting that Osama bin Laden was working with Iraqi intelligence operatives in Germany at a time when Mohamed Atta and two other 9/11 hijack team leaders were living in Hamburg.
On March 16, 2001, the Paris-based newspaper Al Watan al Arabi reported: "Two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties."
Al Watan said that German intelligence was investigating "serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin.* The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies."
The pre-9/11 Al Watan report continued:
"German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin."
The Weekly Standard, which covered the quotes this week based on a report by Captain's Quarter's blogger Ed Morrissey," noted:
"Despite this contemporaneous report about the nature of the German arrests and the involvement of American counterintelligence officials in the investigation, not a word of the affair appears in the 9/11 Commission's final report."
This fall's hearings will undoubtedly begin with questions about why both the 9/11 Commission and the Clinton administration dismissed Able Danger's stunning identification of Mohamed Atta inside the U.S.
But any congressional investigation that doesn't explore other possible bombshells that were overlooked - including indications of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks - will leave even more important questions unanswered.
* Al Watan spelling
CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST!
They tried to whitewash it, they tried to cover a lot of things up or just bury them, they've now attempted to CYA, but I have a feeling that the roof is about to be blown off.
(( ping ))
We at Free Republic can take care the the SCHADENFREUDE FEST!
Yeah, but I'm a broken-glass Republican.
How hard is it to give a point-by-point synopsis on the Iraq/terror links ... and the banned chemicals that have been found?
A communications expert I'm not, but I agree that it shouldn't be hard. The deal is, not only has the Administration not done it, neither has anyone else done it in a way that would earn an A in a communications class--i.e., clear, concise, and dumbed down to a 6th grade level on the order of THE DOG IS BROWN.
Thanks Southack. Good post.
Without hyperbole or facetiousness, I express my desire that those staffers who are working with Rep. Weldon be placed under protective custody. I'm gravely serious.
Weldon has too much light on him, so he's fairly safe for now.
"Able Danger"... Sounds like a keyword... Similar to "Deep Throat"...
I don't think I agree. The democrats are not trusted with national security and that comes from decades of being anti-military, anti-weapon production and spending, anti-nuke, anti-anything related to military. They fought Ronald Reagan at every turn and they have earned that reputation. They simply do not have the credibility in national security issues to march to a press conference and change national politics 'in a heartbeat'. The public would be skeptical to say the least. A tiger will always be a tiger, or in this case a dove will always be a dove. Even if the public would be willing to listen, a big if, the democrats are too far under the sheets in bed with the far left to be able to make such a sharp turn to the right.
How quickly you've forgotten the Clinton Administration going to war in Kosovo in 1999.
Democrats are a heartbeat away from becoming a War Party. It's in the blood of Leftists.
Black Panthers. Weather Underground. Animal Liberation Front. Black Bloc. Anarchists. Earth First! Castro. Che Gueverra. Lenin. Stalin. Pol Pot. Hugo Chavez...
He also refused to use ground troops because he new he could not take casualties and keep his base satisfied. Yes, technically, he went to war but far from all out war.
I get really tired of the "Bush lied!" crapola the left continues to spew, and the White House could shut these little pukes up if they had an ounce of communications skills. I've seen folks here on FR do a better job defending Bush's policies on the war on terror and the relationship btw the WOT and Iraq than I've seen the White House do.
Dittos. It's tedious defending an Adminisration that fails to defend itself.
Stephen Hayes did a credible job showing the links between Saddam's regime and terrorism, especially al Qaeda, yet the MSM's response to his book was the sound of crickets. And the left is allowed to continue to lie that "there was no connection between Saddam and terrorism." I'm surprised that no enterprising journalist has written a book on Saddam's WMD program. I started putting together a summary of the articles I've collected over the past 3 years on Saddam's WMDs, and frankly, the information is compelling. Well, if I can put together a good case for the fact that Saddam was up to his goofy hat in WMDs, why can't the Administration? I don't get it.
BTW, I'm a Broken-Glass Republican as well, and despite my frustrations with Geo. W. Bush's White House on some issues, I'd work to elect him a third time if it were possible.
Bush better get off his butt and go after the Clintons for the sake of his party.
They already are a "War Party". They wage intellectual, economic, philosophical war on pro-truth, pro-freedom, pro-life individuals every day.
Added to my list; thanks for the ping or I'd have missed this for sure.
Able Danger may just unmask everything we've been waiting for.
Any clue as to why Specter...is wanting to hold a hearing?
There may be a thread where it is discussed, I just haven't come across it as of yet.
Spectre shouldn't be the one in charge of hearings. It should be the Intelligence Committee, imo.
What a great graphic!
But we must still try - the young media is new but powerful. Don't forget the Dan Rather story on Bush's National Guard service. I watched how the new media unraveled that story in a matter of hours.
Amen to that!
Who will be the leaders conducting these hearings?
Who will be the leaders conducting these hearings?
The truth will out.
We've witnessed Washington covering up garbage for decades and we've rolled right along letting them continue business as usual.
Even on FreeRepublic the truth continues to slip by. Let's talk about something right in the middle of Clinton's reign.
Jayna Davis in the THIRD TERRORIST documented that there were EIGHT IRAQI defectors involved in that terrorist attack. She documented that where the eight "worked" they had MILLIONS OF $$, and documented that it was from a rich UNCLE IN BAGDAD.
You don't have to look really hard to understand that Iraq was in the terroism business to punish the United States for Bush I.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, prevented YOU AND I from knowing this. If you look at the witnesses from the terror attacks in the 90's you'll see a very CLEAR story. IF you look at the government investigations, you'll see confusion and lies.
The 9/11 commission was to simply continue the lies and the coverup. Dick Morris has said that Bill Clinton's first instinct when faced with a crises was to do nothing. That's exactly what he did, nothing except LIE. There were no foreign terrorists in these events per Presidential Edict. That would have forced Bill Clinton to go to war before his re-election.
Jamie Gorelick as Assistant Attorney General was involved with the "filtering" of these stories in the 90's. Jack Cashill has detailed this in several of his stories the last few years.
And of course, Gorelick continued filtering on the 9/11 Commission. And Sandy Berger stuffed TOP SECRET documents in his shorts.
Of course, nobody believes they could get away with lies of this magnitude, but if you believe nothing else, believe Bill Clinton never saw a lie that was too big for him.
He did it, and Clinton would have got away with it except for 9/11.
Those who don't understand the lessons of history are bound to repeat them. We did on 9/11 because Clinton not only didn't deal with it, his lies were to cover it up which crippled our intelligence organizations.
It's hard to cover up the damage from 4 airliners crashing into buildings. But it was made possible by Clinton himself!
I have absolutely no argument with anything in this post. Since I've heard nothing but silence from the Republicans (except for Weldon), the only outcome I can foresee is business as usual.
The ruling class will have its want.