Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[Beckwith]

ABC World News Now. April 27, 2004

In an interview broadcast by ABC's World News Now, the leader of the Al Qaeda cell organizing the explosive and chemical attack on the Jordanian security headquarters and the American Embassy in Jordan stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

[BigSkyFreeper]

All these findings prove that Saddam wasn't just a casual observer to the WOT, he was an active participant, and we had every right to take him out, because we're fighting a War On Terror, not finishing up "daddy's unfinished war".

[Cronos]

What do you expect as proof, nothing less than bin Laden's fingerprints on Hussein's bedroom door?

What you're putting forward as proof is as flimsy as the slamonazis trying to blame israel for 9/11 -- there's no proof, just hearsay.

[Cronos]

Exactly. By trying to rustle up some idea of a proof between Saddy and alQ, we weaken our case. Saddy was a terroist and had to go. Let's not waste time on this but stick to our guns that he was an evil dictator and had to go. That's all the evidence we needed.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Galt, your citations are misleading, to say the least. The first article is titled Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link , making it seems as if Bush is making a conclusive denial of any link. But read the second paragraph of that article:

Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.

So Bush doesn't deny AQ links or WMD. Not then, not now, especially with this Jordanian episode. You misrepresent his and the entire administration's views, and you misconstrue statements that are perfectly true and documentable to make them sound like deceptions, condtradictions or failures of judgment. Same tactics that the lefties use.

[piasa]

Experts point out that Saddam, a secular Iraqi nationalist who refuses to rule by the Muslim religious law of Sharia, is a natural enemy of Osama bin Laden.

"Muslims' doctrine and banner should be clear in fighting for the sake of God. He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God's sake. Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists. "- Bin Laden, al Qaeda tape

[Peach]

Amazing that if OBL and Saddam weren't working together, OBL let Saddam in on his plans for 9/11, wouldn't you think?

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”.

Two 9/11 families were awarded over $100 million last May by US District Court Judge Harold Baer based on this and other evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

[Peach]

During the 1990's, dozens of mainstream newspapers and magazines wrote extensively about the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam. Even the NYT and Newsweek.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

[piasa]

* Hassan al-Turabi : Sudanese strongman, leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front.

* National Islamic Front : al Qaeda-affiliateed group led by Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi

1994 : (IRAQ'S SADDAM HUSSEIN SENDS FARUQ HIJAZI aka FAROUK HIJAZI TO SUDAN TO MEET WITH BIN LADEN ; MEETINGS WERE BROKERED BY AL-TOURABI) Desperate for allies after the Gulf War, Saddam sent Faruq Hijazi, his secret service director, to Sudan in 1994, where bin Laden then had his headquarters. The meetings were brokered by Hassan al-Tourabi, the Sudanese Muslim leader, who was bin Laden’s protector. The Sudanese belatedly offered to show the CIA all they knew about bin Laden and his visits, to ingratiate themselves back into the international fold, but the Americans scorned the approach. - "Hijacker 'given anthrax flask by Iraqi agent'," by DANIEL MCGRORY, The London Times, SATURDAY OCTOBER 27 2001

1998 : (IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY FAROUK HIJAZI MEETS WITH BIN LADEN IN AFGHANISTAN) While serving as Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, Hijazi traveled to Afghanistan in 1998 and met with terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. - "COWED SYRIA YIELDS SADDAM'S SPY BOSS," by NILES LATHEM, New York Post, 4/26/03

Imagine that- an islamic fundamentalist helping out secular Iraq...

As for Hijazi, he was also ambassador to Tunisia & Turkey...he was turned over to the US by Syria and was taken in along ith another Iraqi intelligence officer who was unnamed and described as having the "American portfolio."

[alnick]

Where did the chemicals come from?

[JohnGalt]

LOL.

Don't let the tin foil get to tight--see tagline.

[alnick]

The Weekly Standard and National Review are not magazines I would consider part of the media.

Oh, so you didn't even bother to look at the list.

Are the following what you would consider "part of the media?" The following lists some of the media outlets that reported the link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s that Peach was referring to:

The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999
The Observer. December 19, 1999
United Press International. November 3, 1999
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999
National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999
The Observer. December 19, 1999
United Press International. November 3, 1999
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999
National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999
The Observer. December 19, 1999
United Press International. November 3, 1999
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999
National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999
The Observer. December 19, 1999
United Press International. November 3, 1999
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999
National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999

Now, if you want to read the actual quotes taken from the above listed media outlets, just take a look at my home page.

[alnick]

Isn't ABC "biased" against Bush?

Yes, they are, which explains why they're playing dumb to the obvious connection between AQ and Iraq shown in this story.

[alnick]

By the way, I've seen a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. What conclusions should I draw from that?

That he was being polite to a leader of another country decades ago before that leader became our enemy.

Is there some new rule that we may not go to war with any country led by someone who once shook hands with our current SOD?

Oh, I think we've stumbled upon the answer to world peace. Just have all world leaders shake hands with each other.

[JohnGalt]

I corrected your point of contention in the post right after when I stated Bush has made it clear there is no link between Saddam and 9/11; Bush has been somewhat ambiguous in describing what he sees as the relationship between Saddam's government and Ansar al-Islam.

However if you are honestly stating to me you see no concerted effort to link Saddam with 9/11 in the public mind then all I can say is you are naive, and see the tagline. The fact remains that there are no WMDs, no links between Saddam and 9/11, and at best a loose relationship between Ansar al-Islam and the Saddam government, though other intelligence sources indicate that relationship was meaningless and non-operational. While the War in Iraq may well have arguable national security benefits to the United States, these silly hysterical proclamations in the echo chamber of believers do not serve your countrymen well and frankly makes the propagators as guilty as the men who used Chalabi's bogus stories to propogate political support for the war. Recent polls suggest that Americans do believe Saddam had WMDs (he does not) and Saddam was linked to 9/11 (he wasn't.) Certain men in power loved their agenda so much, and yet hated their fellow countrymen who they feared might not be able to see the 'brilliance' of the agenda, they were willing to choose any means to get their end.

As we saw on this thread, the partisan, i.e. the ideological or "leftwing" adherents to the policy don't really know much about the situation on the ground or basic geography of Iraq. This is not the level of serious discourse conservatives traditionally pursue.

Also, several of the people I am posting with believe in a tinfoil conspiracy theory propagated by Laurie Mylroie whose chief sources, which she does not deny, are from the Chalabi camp. IMO, Mylroie should be tried under dusted off Un-American Activities laws from the 50s for her fraud and either put in prison or at the least, have her government pension stripped.

Furthermore, the complete refusal of the hawks to acknowledge that the stated goal of the Iraq policy is "global democratic revolution," a concept rooted in the left and particularly the Trotsky Left represents intellectual denialism at its most egregious. While I appreciate the need for supporters of this current policy to continue the charade of finding a rightwing spin on the war (i.e. the nation in threatened)they sacrifice reason and their countrymen in pursuit of an abstract agenda.

[alnick]

The President has made clear there is no link between Saddam and 9.11.

Let's refine it a bit more. The president has made clear that there was no "hard evidence" of a link between Saddam and 9/11. This does not rule out raw intelligence making such a link, nor does it rule out anything that may come out subsequent to the president making that comment.

[JohnGalt]

LOL

The disastrous Clinton effect on our language continues unabated...

[Peach]

The trolls don't read, they just spout! LOL

[Peach]

Is there some new rule that we may not go to war with any country led by someone who once shook hands with our current SOD?

Great response!

[Peach]

Don't feed the trolls unless you are just having fun for yourself.

[sheltonmac]

Is there some new rule that we may not go to war with any country led by someone who once shook hands with our current SOD?

I think you're missing my point. All of the evidence that has been presented for a direct link between al Qaeda and Iraq has been circumstantial: someone associated with al Qaeda may have met with someone from Iraq, terrorists may have trained somewhere within the borders of Iraq, etc. Even Bush has admitted that there is no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists.

What doees that mean? That even the slightest association is tantamount to a direct link? If so, then the U.S. can be linked to terrorists. After all, we actively supported Saddam Hussein. We sided with Muslim fanatics in the Balkans. What if another country looked at that "evidence" and concluded that we were supporters of terrorism?