Posted on 08/12/2007 10:49:14 AM PDT by Renfield
For those counting, this is at least the sixth confirmation of this. ABC News led the way with three reports from captured AQ and captured IIS guys immediately after the invasion. (h/t Amy Proctor)
The political rhetoric says that these camps were not in Saddam's Iraq but in the Kurdish north. What that ignores is that the camps were certainly not at all allied with the Kurds, but against them, and were acting with Saddam's help.
Politicians often try to point to Senate Intelligence Committee reports claiming there were no ties etc., but these reports are:
1. Political reports not intelligence reports.
2. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not an intelligence agency any more than Feith's Office of Special Plans was an intelligence agency
3. The claims of no ties in the Senate Intelligence Committee reports were based on a single interim DIA officer's testimony-not an intelligence investigation and subsequent conclusions
4. believe it or not....there has NEVER been a conclusive investigation done by ANY of the 16 intel agencies into whether or not there were AQ camps in Iraq prior to the invasion (read the political reports carefully, and you'll see this)
For a complete listing of the govt reports on AQ ties to Saddam's regime, please read this
My point here is that no one has really looked into this matter, but politicians have been happy to cherry pick it and push a false idea until it's accepted.
Every few months there's more and more evidence leaking out that Saddam's regime had closer ties with Al Queda than the Germans and Italians did with the Japanese (think about it, were there Japanese training camps in Bavaria and Tuscany? Were German and Italian troops in training camps in Japanese held Indochina?
By and large the news media let the world down by not adequately looking into either the Bush Administrations or the UN claims about WMD in Saddam's Iraq, and now they're doing it again by not (FIVE YEARS LATER) examining a question that's only been reported on by politicians and not by intelligence agents. So the American people and the world are left to look at the videos themselves as ABC, NBC, CBS, even Fox just won't report on the connection and adequately describe it. We're letting politicians, (professional lawyers; trained, professional liars and spinmeisters) tell us what is real and what is not depending more on their political needs than on what is fact. Why does the media parrot the political distortions rather than the truth?
Thank you and BTTT
bump for later review
It is amazing to me that Al Qaeda was at a coordinating conference with Iraq & Iran 7 months BEFORE 9/11, that it was reported by the daughter of Ted Koppel, and that it has NEVER been mentioned, but what we have been told, instead, is that there were no ties. Am I stupid, or is there something in this picture that doesn't make sense????
Anti-U.S., anti-Israeli groups meet in Beirut, U.S. says
February 12, 2001
Web posted at: 5:23 p.m. EST (2223 GMT)
From CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials are eyeing the January meeting of several anti-Israeli and anti-American militant groups in Beirut, U.S. sources told CNN.
A number of groups that U.S. officials consider the most dangerous were represented at the Beirut conference, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization; Hamas; Hezbollah; and the Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said.
All of the groups have claimed responsibility in the past for attacks on American and Israeli targets.
One State Department official called the Beirut meeting a "cause for concern" but cautioned it "doesn't indicate that we (the United States) should expect a rash of coordinated activity."
Another reason for concern, officials say, was the presence of representatives from Iran and Iraq.
Since the Palestinian intifada began last September, Iran in particular has "stepped up its terrorist activity ... and stepped up its planning" for terrorist attacks," explained one U.S. official.
U.S. officials indicate that Iran is not only providing money, weaponry and training to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, but they said there has also been a "marked increase" in Iranian support for terrorist activity in Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza.
One administration source said the terrorist meeting in Beirut and Iran's stepped-up activity confirm the administration's fears about the potential for the Mideast peace process to "come off the rails." Another administration source said Iran is "trying to capitalize" on sentiment within the Arab world that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was a mistake.
"They sense an opportunity ... to create a bloc of 'rejectionist' states to oppose the U.S., Israel and moderate Arab states," the official said.
Perhaps most worrisome to the Bush administration is the fact that the meeting took place at the same time that the peace process is effectively on ice.
Following last week's election of the conservative Likud party leader Ariel Sharon as Israel's next prime minister, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powellhave urged regional leaders to show restraint. Sharon has made no secret of his desire to get tougher with the Palestinians than his predecessor, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Powell plans to discuss this and other issues when he travels to the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Brussels, Belgium, later this month.
GW, it is NOT a corny website. It is CNN's own website. It is their own article. It is one of their leading journalists. (The link is in the title...did you notice the different color?) In any case here it is again: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/12/terror.meeting/index.html
How in the world can you just simply dismiss this?
There are a couple of arguments going around:
1. There were no Saddam/bin Laden ties.
2. There were no Saddam/Al Qaeda ties.
3. There were no Iraq/Al Qaeda ties.
You've got to admit that this proves that #3 is definitely wrong. Especially so, since Iraq knowingly harbored Zarqawi at the Salmon Pak training/poison/wmd center.
It's hard to imagine that Saddam didn't know his own agents were coordinating with Al Qaeda at the Beirut Conference, so #2 is suspect.
How likely is it that Saddam & Bin Laden communicated? Who knows. But I do know that #1 is worthy of discussion given that #2 is suspect and #3 is proven false.
“I think at certain point they decided not to belabor the point because it was useless - the media and Democrats would simply keep repeating their “Big Lie” line.”
I think you may be right. I also think that was a huge blunder. By not having defended their credibility on the one hand they have lost it for all other such situations on the other. I would also argue that they were not only sacrificing their (the Bush administration’s) credibility, they sacrificed that of all Republicans, conservatives, you and me.
How can you govern when every time you attempt to do something our adversaries whip up the great whine — “How can we believe you when you were so wrong about Iraq?”
Can anybody find this being reported at a more recognized/traditional source?
GW, it was a Feb 2001 article. It was BEFORE 9/11.
The connection was made in the article by the common sense that prevails when one sees folks walking into a coordinating conference together.
It is obvious that #3 is falsified. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Did you go to CNN’s website to see the article? I posted the link to CNN itself. Did you see that it is not some “kooky” website?
I don’t grasp why you think a CNN article based on what CNN’s State Department beat reporter, Koppel, is somehow more important than all the official statements made by the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, National Security Adviser, Bush/Powell/Rice, etc. The article is just a CNN write-up of a routine Foggy Bottom press conference.
Why? because journalists are entitled to be, and motivated to be - and consequently are - "professional liars and spinmeisters." And everything you have ever heard to the contrary was and is baseless propaganda.
This article is not referenced, cited, or explained by anyone. It is a write-up of a conference held in Beirut in early 2001.
It CLEARLY shows Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same room in a coordinating conference roughly 7 months BEFORE 9/11.
It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to claim they had no ties.
If General Motors, FOMOCO, the UAW, the AFL/CIO, and the Labor Relations Board, all had a conference, would you accept the notion that GM has absolutly ZERO ties to the AFL/CIO?
CNN's article which you cite as some kind of proof actually denies the interpretation you place on it. If you search the archives of transcripts at the State Department website, perhaps you can find more. I checked a bunch in January and up through February 12 when CNN published their article. I didn't find anything yet.
A number of groups that U.S. officials consider the most dangerous were represented at the Beirut conference, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization; Hamas; Hezbollah; and the Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said.All of the groups have claimed responsibility in the past for attacks on American and Israeli targets.
One State Department official called the Beirut meeting a "cause for concern" but cautioned it "doesn't indicate that we (the United States) should expect a rash of coordinated activity."
Another reason for concern, officials say, was the presence of representatives from Iran and Iraq.
Since the Palestinian intifada began last September, Iran in particular has "stepped up its terrorist activity ... and stepped up its planning" for terrorist attacks," explained one U.S. official.
U.S. officials indicate that Iran is not only providing money, weaponry and training to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, but they said there has also been a "marked increase" in Iranian support for terrorist activity in Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza.
One administration source said the terrorist meeting in Beirut and Iran's stepped-up activity confirm the administration's fears about the potential for the Mideast peace process to "come off the rails." Another administration source said Iran is "trying to capitalize" on sentiment within the Arab world that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was a mistake.
Correct. It was the deliberate strategy of Democrats since the beginning of Bush presidency to deny him moral authority and destroy his credibility, in part to neutralize real Clinton’s legacy, and as a way to undermine presidential authority and put Bush and his administration and, by extension, entire Republican party and advocates of conservative philosophy on the defensive.
I don’t care if Al Qaeda and Iraq met at the same conference to discuss new rules for Chinese Checkers. The point remains that the meeting itself is obvious proof of ties between the two. Maybe “tie” (singular) between the two, but it doesn’t matter.
They could discuss anything — holocaust, oil, hot cars, cold women, pastrami on rye — but they would be together in the same space at the same time.
Tie.
Ties.
I do think that at least some Casus Bellis did exist prior to the US Invasion of Iraq:
Now: What did I think was NOT a Casus Belli? UN Resolutions and possession of Chemical Weapons. I don't care of France or Israel possesses Nuclear Weapons, for that matter; as long as a Country does not use WMD's against us, the mere possession thereof is NOT a Casus Belli. And I don't think we should EVER go to war to enforce UN resolutions, even if and when they do align with our own National Security interests, if any; in fact, I think that we should always make it painstakingly clear that US foreign policy is conducted according to United States National Security interests and NOT the interests of any overarching supra-national organization.
So I did NOT agree with the stated reasons we went to war (or "police action", since Ron Paul's resolution to Constitutionally Declare War was ignored).
But I do think that there were several at-least-arguable Casus Bellis prior to the 2003 Invasion. That being said, a Casus Belli provides a justification for War, not a requirement for War -- according to Christian Just War theory, even when a legitimate Casus Belli exists, War should always be a Last Resort. Perhaps a targeted assassination of Hussein and his sons, leaving some wary Baathist hierarch in charge of the remaining Iraqi government (Baghdad Bob?), always looking over his shoulder; or even an Afghanistan style Proxy War, giving money, ammunition, and US Air support to every anti-Saddam faction within Iraq... these options might also have worked to acheive "regime change" (and if not, well... there's always War as a last resort).
ALL that being said (sorry, running long-winded again), I do think that a Case could be made for War in 2003 (though I don't believe it should have been our first choice, one could at least make a case for it). My problem has never been primarily with the War, but with the now over 4-year long Occupation -- something I hoped we would avoid from Day 1. Someone else said it best...
I never, in my wildest dreams, imagined that we would see patriotic FReepers arguing that our nation's continued existence, indeed even that of the entire Christian West, utterly depended upon the US Federal Government giving virtually-unlimited military and financial support to an Anti-Christian Iraqi Thug Regime run by self-confessed, and even Convicted, Al-Dawa Terrorist Scumbags like Nouri Al-Maliki and Jamal Jafaar Mohammed (Prime Minister and Member of Parliament, respectively; former head of the Al-Dawa Terrorist Jihad Office in Damascus, and former member of the "Dawa 17" who blew up the US Embassy in Kuwait). It's... Bizarro World, man. I just can't get my mind around it.
I'm wary of the US sticking it's foot into the snake-pit of the Middle East to begin with; but I guess if you can stomp down quick enough and hard enough to crush one serpent's head, I can't complain. But I do NOT think it's a good idea to leave your foot in the snake pit long enough for the other vipers to slither up your trousers and bite you in the arse. I'm just not seeing the wisdom, there (and neither did Ronald Reagan).
I have no problem with your analysis of staying in Iraq. As you posted, I have for a long time believed our best course was to strike, clean the government’s clock, look for and destroy Iraq’s means to PROJECT POWER, and then depart with a threat to return if they try the same stunts again.
I do wish you’d read my #65. In it, I clearly state that coordinated effort between Saddam & bin Laden is not proven by the 2001 Beirut Conference. On the other hand, I also clearly state that the Beirut conference clearly does demonstrate TIE(S) between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no idea how anyone can conclude otherwise.
These are essentially the major terrorist states meeting with the major terrorist organizations. They weren’t there just to sit in rooms with not a single soul uttering a single word.
You make my case, actually, when you point out all the terrorist organizations harbored by Saddam — one run by Zarqawi, head of an aiding and abetting group to Al Qaeda. (According to the Sep 19 2001 Congressional Resolution, that alone gave Pres. Bush authorization to attack both Saddam and Zarqawi. The resolution said ANY nation or group aiding or abetting the attackers (al qaeda) on 9/11.)
Let me repeat my point so it is not misunderstood. “The meeting of these groups and nations at the Jan 2001 Beirut Conference means that Iraq and Al Qaeda had tie(s).
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.
