The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 5/11/04 | Laurie Mylroie

[YepYep]

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.

[CJ Wolf]

bookmark!

[GarySpFc]

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.

[CobaltBlue]

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.

[Michael.SF.]

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.

[CobaltBlue]

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.

[backhoe]

Peach found these:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133186/posts

The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 11, 2004 | Laurie Mylroie

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

 

 

[Dr. Frank fan]

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".

[Dr. Frank fan]

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.

[Dr. Frank fan]

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.

[AFPhys]

keep adding to your list. this is a great one!

[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, 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.

[Peach]

Thanks! I'll keep adding as I find them.

[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

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.

[CobaltBlue]

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."

[Dr. Frank fan]

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.

[Binti Jua]

Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's No Spin Zones.

[CobaltBlue]

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.

[Dr. Frank fan]

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?

[BJClinton]

bookmarking