Posted on 05/27/2004 11:37:06 AM PDT by SunStar
Hard Evidence Finally Links Saddam Hussein's Iraq to 9/11 - Game. Set. Match.
WSJ: Saddam's Files Show 'Direct' 9/11 Link
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
Newly uncovered files examined by U.S. military investigators in Baghdad show what is being described as "a direct link" between Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who attended a January 2000 al Qaida summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia where the 9/11 attacks were planned, is listed among the officers on three Fedayeen rosters reviewed by U.S. probers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
"Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel," the paper said.
In a post obtained through Saddam's Mukahbarrat intelligence service, Shakir was stationed at the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur at the time of the 9/11 planning session.
The Link Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
http://www.insightmag.com/news/477622.html
Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States...
Leitner says "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."
OK, Democrats, liberals and leftists worldwide... Time to eat crow once again. (I won't hold my breath.) You probably don't even know about this news story, though it should be the lead story on all American news outlets.
Striking, direct evidence now links Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the USA. The Wall Street Journal and Newsmax.com are the only one's reporting it. Drudge? Nowhere to be found. AP? Reuters? Please.
Yes, as it turns out, a "Lieutenant-Colonel" in Saddam Hussein's personal military unit, the Fedayeen, was present at the 9/11 planning sessions in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia! You know, the meeting where the only successful attacks on the mainland United States in 150 years was pre-planned by Al Q'aeda terrorists, including Flight 77 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, as well as Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the attacks.
Nevermind that Saddam Hussein boasted after the 9/11 attacks about having planned them. Nevermind that he had murals created to commemorate his successful attacks on the United States.
Nevermind that the Czech government confirms to this day that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Nevermind that a missing suspect in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing is a former Iraqi soldier who later secured a job at Boston's Logan Airport, where two of the 9-11 hijackers boarded planes they later commandeered and slammed into the World Trade Center.
Nevermind that it was the Fedayeen who setup Salmon Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad and that a U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled in 2002 that Salman Pak played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America.
No, forget about all these "unrelated" and "unproven" allegations against Iraq... Now we have real evidence.
Iraqi agents, working with Al Q'aeda terrorists, attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, killing over 3000 Americans.
Or, maybe not...
What a stupid comment. Why don't you tell everybody HOW Bush could have "struck back immediately after 9/11" when there were no forces available to do so?
Wave a magic wand? Throw some cruise missiles in Saddam's direction?
Anyone who understands military and political realities understands that Bush acted as soon as he could.
It hasn't. RATmedia has downplayed any links and will not publicize them now. Bush had to wait until there was sufficient proof positive that all of it could not be dismissed by the RATmedia.
In fact, I would be surprised if I didn't hear them.
I read a pretty good response to your question earlier today and wish I could remember who posted it to give proper credit. Although much more eloquently put, the "nutshell" answer: the Administration is concerned that lawyers and relatives of 9-11 victims will sue and damage even further the weak economy of Iraq.
BUMP! YEA! LET THE ROPE-A-DOPE BEGIN!!!
Subheading: "WOMEN AND MINORITIES HARDEST HIT"
Bump and a bookmark!
Blimp!!!
So what! It's a sure bet that Saddam, nor Osama, ever put a pair of panties on someone's head. Quit trying to deflect from the real issues. /sarcasm
Agree!!!
I wouldn't let out much if I was in charge and tracking the terrorist bastards. No need to let them know ahead of time we know the who, when, and where.
Long answer:
"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."
My theory has been all along that they were waiting to hand power over to the Iraqis before letting this info out due to possible lawsuits against Iraq. Maybe they reassessed the situation and feel comfortable releasing this now. Any lawyer that filed a suit now would be laughed out of court as the Iraqis were victims of Saddam themselves and cannot be held responsible for his past transgressions.
That is an excellent question. Insight Magazine attempts to answer it:
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991676/posts)
Insiders say the failure to assign responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks to Iraq, Afghanistan or any other nation-state is intentional. "The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). The WCPJ is coordinating a lawsuit on behalf of the family of John Patrick O'Neill Sr., a former top FBI counterterrorism official who had become director of security for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey shortly before Sept. 11, 2001. O'Neill was killed in the World Trade Center as a result of the attacks.
Leitner tells Insight, "This administration has been absolutely heroic in the war on terror and has done more than any other administration to fight terrorism, but they have been deliberately ambiguous" about Iraq's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. "The civil suits are a way of transferring power to the American people, to seek justice and to fight terrorism by depriving them of financial resources," Leitner says. The O'Neill lawsuit seeks more than $1 billion in damages from the Republic of Iraq and a host of other defendants ranging from the known members of al-Qaeda to those the lawsuit names as coconspirators in money laundering and as providers of support for terrorist operations, including the shadowy al-Taqwa group and Nada Management.
Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."
See #72...I posted the response there. I have been supporting this theory ever since that article came out in Sep '03.
"That ees naht mah dahg!"
It was ravingnutter's post I was referring to in my reply #64. Good answer, ravingnutter.
Fune?
Deed you say "Fune?"
You'er fast! I'll catch up soon, I hope. ;-)
Please, you'er = you're.
This is series....and hugh!!!!
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.