Newly Declassified Iraqi Testimony Shows Why Saddam Had to Be Removed (There you go, Bush was right)

Recently declassified documents focusing on the testimony of Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s deputy prime minister, reminds us why Saddam had to be removed from power.

September 11, 2001, taught us that it is too costly to allow a leader with a history of aggression and stated intent to harm the U.S. to maintain links to terrorist groups and acquire weapons capabilities to act upon that sentiment. Newly declassified documents about the testimony of Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s deputy prime minister, reminds us why Saddam had to be removed from power.

Contradicting Saddam Hussein’s testimony where he claimed he actually wanted an alliance with the U.S. against Iran, Tariq Aziz describes Saddam as an “anti-American” who was “delighted” when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The documents do not mention Saddam’s private reaction to 9/11, but we know that his public reaction was to be possibly the only leader to refuse to condemn the attacks, as well as the only leader to openly praise them. His sons and the state-controlled press did the same. This is a critical fact that is often forgotten: Saddam’s regime was the only one to publicly hail the 9/11 hijackers and not hide its desire to see such attacks happen again.

Aziz confirms that Saddam’s regime supported terrorists like Abu Abbas, the notorious mastermind of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, providing him with a farm for fundraising for Palestinian terrorists and for use as a training center. They even gave him the AK-47s he needed. We also know that Abu Ibrahim, called “the most dangerous bomb maker in the world bar none during my time as a CIA officer” by former CIA case officer Robert Baer, operated a network from his home in Baghdad. The Duelfer Report confirmed that Iraqi intelligence trained terrorists from around the Arab world, including at the Salman Pak facility known to house a Boeing airliner that defectors said was used to simulate hijackings. We don’t know if these terrorists were al-Qaeda members or not, but that doesn’t change the fact that Saddam not only praised 9/11 but trained jihadists in the tactics necessary to repeat it.

Aziz says that he only heard Saddam speak negatively about Osama Bin Laden as he “did not trust Islamists” and viewed them as “opportunists” and “hypocrites,” and therefore did not want to work with them. At the same time, though, Saddam viewed al-Qaeda as “effective” and respected their capabilities. And for a man as unprincipled as Saddam, that’s all that’s necessary to do business together. He did, after all, support Hamas, an Islamist group close to his Iranian enemies.

The Iraqi Perspectives Project, which reviewed over 600,000 Iraqi documents, did not find any evidence of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but it did show that Saddam actively helped those seeking to carry out those attacks he was so “delighted” over. The study concluded that “the regime was willing to co-opt or support organization it knew to be a part of al-Qaeda as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term ‘vision.’” The Project found that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda … or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”

What this means is that the debate over whether Iraq supported al-Qaeda or not before the invasion is flawed because of a misunderstanding of what al-Qaeda actually is. A direct link between Saddam and Bin Laden or his inner circle cannot be proven. However, a link to the regional groups that shared Bin Laden’s ideology and operated as affiliates of al-Qaeda can be established. Those that say no link has been proven either are unaware of these findings or define “al-Qaeda” so narrowly that it downplays the breath of the organization’s reach.

Critics of the removal of Saddam Hussein will focus on the testimony of Ahmed Samir al-Ani, the consul at the Iraqi embassy in Prague once alleged to have met Mohammed Atta, the ringerleader of the 9/11 hijackers, whose testimony was declassified along with Tariq Aziz’s. The Czechs were initially confident in their reporting and stood by it under heavy pressure, but then some Czech officials expressed doubt and so it is unclear where they officially stand on the issue. The 9/11 Commission expressed doubt about the intelligence but could not rule it out either.

Intelligence expert and investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein notes that Atta’s visa application stated he was a “Hamburg student” and that al-Ani’s seized calendar listed a meeting with a “Hamburg student” in April 2001 — the same month the Czechs’ reporting alleged he met with Atta. In another interesting coincidence, two suspected Iraqi spies were arrested in Germany in February 2001. The Arab press reported that they were arrested after Iraqi intelligence “had drawn up a plan to strike at U.S. interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.” The German authorities were reportedly investigating groups connected to al-Qaeda when they discovered the two Iraqi spies.

Al-Ani denies that the meeting happened, saying it was “ludicrous” to believe Iraq would have anything to do with al-Qaeda or specifically Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Whatever the truth is regarding his alleged meeting with Atta, al-Ani’s testimony simply isn’t credible, as he makes the laughable assertion that he had never even heard of Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Iraq had previously been accused of supporting Bin Laden by the Clinton administration, something that Al-Ani, as an Iraqi government official, surely would have known about. Best-selling books had been written on Bin Laden and he had carried out high-profile attacks.

Thanks to Tariq Aziz’s testimony, we know that Saddam’s attitude towards terrorism against the U.S. was the same in private as it was in public. He may not have been willing to directly engineer a plot like 9/11, but he certainly was willing to help terrorists do it for themselves. And as I’ve previously written, it is now known that Saddam’s regime also had been working on plans to actualize three of the most horrifying scenarios that the West fears the most: the smuggling of chemical and biological weapons into the West, a dramatic attack against Israel that could spark a regional war, and the destabilization of the Saudi royal family, with one 2002 document indicating Saddam actually suggested working with Ayman al-Zawahiri towards this end.

The methods can be debated, but Saddam’s regime fit every criteria of a regime that had to go.

Some disaster. Read any newspapers lately?

Either you a strangely perverse view of what disaster means or you haven't "read" anything about the imposition of Sharia law (with active U.S. support) in previously secular Iraq. If the latter is the case, see here. Either you don't care about the systematic cleansing of ancient Iraq's Christian population by the Shi'te regime since the fall of Saddam or haven't "read" about it. If the latter is the case, see here.

Some disaster. Read any newspapers lately?

Either you have a strangely perverse view of what disaster means or you haven't "read" anything about the imposition of Sharia law (with active U.S. support) in previously secular Iraq. If the latter is the case, see here. Either you don't care about the systematic cleansing of ancient Iraq's Christian population by the Shi'te regime since the fall of Saddam or haven't "read" about it. If the latter is the case, see here.

Either you a strangely perverse view of what disaster means or you haven't "read" anything about the imposition of Sharia law (with active U.S. support) in previously secular Iraq.

Spreading your Code Pink talking points again? Tell it to ronpaulforums. They probably have a few who are gullible enough to believe that pap.

Iraq has established Islam as its official religion (and I oppose that, but nobody asked me), but they have not imposed sharia law. Read it from the Constitution of Iraq:

"Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans."

No country that imposes sharia law would have alcohol being legal (to include nightclubs and bars), a westernized family court system, no dress codes for women and women in government positions of authority.

So, while Iraq does name Islam as its official religion, and there is strong evidence that the Mullahcracy in Iran wants to impose that garbage on Iraq, it has not happened.

Get your facts straight before you pull MSNBC stunts using false information to make your Code Pink points, please.

Spreading your Code Pink talking points again? Tell it to ronpaulforums. They probably have a few who are gullible enough to believe that pap.

Iraq has established Islam as its official religion (and I oppose that, but nobody asked me), but they have not imposed sharia law. Read it from the Constitution of Iraq

LOL. You quote the Constitution of Iraq to prove that Sharia law is not imposed in Iraq! That's like quoting to the American consitution to prove that we still have gun rights and property rights in the U.S. The reality is much different.

Sharia law is indeed being "imposed" on the unwilling. See here (courtesy of that pro "Code Pink" site, Jihad Watch).

Baghdad (AsiaNews) -For the past ten days, no one has been able to drink or buy alcoholic beverages in Najaf because of a bylaw adopted by local authorities. The decision comes as the latest in a series, suggesting that Sharia is being slowly implemented in Iraq, and that it also applies to non-Muslims.

Najaf is considered a holy city for Shia Muslims because the first Shia imam and fourth caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib, is buried there. Because of the city's special nature as a Shia holy city, the provincial council ruled unanimously that "drinking, selling or transporting alcohol of any kind in whatever quantity" was inappropriate since such activities are incompatible with Islam. Violators, even if they belong to another religion, face the possibility of being sued before a court. The ruling applies to the city of Najaf and its province and includes a ban on advertising.

LOL. You quote the Constitution of Iraq to prove that Sharia law is not imposed in Iraq!

LOL - and YOU quote the media - a year-old article at that - to try to tell someone who has been here for six and a half years what the "reality" is.

We all know your agenda, CK. You've made it abundantly clear in the past and you continue to do so at every opportunity.

You're entertaining (to a point), though.

This article doesn’t even prove your point. You said the Iraqi regime “established Sharia law in that country.” But the piece you linked to only says sharia law is “slowly advancing”...in two Iraqi cities. It says nothing about it being clamped down on the whole nation. There’s a world of difference between the two.

Basra is the second largest city of Iraq!! The imposition of Sharia law there was only made possible by the new pro-Sharia constitution. Ditto for Najif which has over 500K people. The article used these two cities as major examples of a larger trend. It didn't make the claim that Sharia was limited to them! Where the heck did you get that idea?

A trend? You said the regime “established the secular law of Saddam with Sharia law” and “established Sharia law in that country.” You didn’t argue for a trend. You said it was implemented by the regime. The article says it was the local authorities in those cities that made it happen. Furthermore, the Iraqi constitution “guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.” If anything, they’re doing it in violation of the constitution, not because of it. Your description of it as pro-Sharia is invalid.

Furthermore, the Iraqi constitution “guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.” If anything, they’re doing it in violation of the constitution, not because of it. Your description of it as pro-Sharia is invalid.

The people of Basra, Najif and other cities are suffering under the boot of Sharia, and you rationalize and excuse it. Why don't you condemn it ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU HAVEN'T DENIED THAT THIS IS THE CASE?! As to your habit of quoting the Iraqi Consitution, it is somewhat comparable to the commies who thought they had a knock down argument when they quoted Stalin's 1936 constitution which explicitly guaranteed religious and press freedom. As the suffering people of Basra as well as Stalin's USSR could attest, their paper constitutional guarantees are a joke. Let me repeat, do you condemn the imposition of Sharia law in these and other bastions of Iraq's Shi'ite government? If so, what do you intend to do about it?

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.