Posted on 09/25/2002 6:00:43 PM PDT by HAL9000
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's national security adviser on Wednesday accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime of sheltering members of the al-Qaida terrorist network in Baghdad and helping Osama bin Laden's operatives in developing chemical weapons.Condoleezza Rice's comments -- by far the strongest statements yet from the U.S. government alleging al-Qaida contacts with the Iraqi government -- were aired Thursday on PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.''
Her accusations came as the Bush administration continues to make its case to a skeptical world that Saddam should be removed from power, by force if necessary. The charges also came as the White House sought to fend off accusations from Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that Bush was playing politics with the debate over war in Iraq.
"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time,'' Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development.''
Previously, the widely held view has been that while Saddam and bin Laden both oppose the United States, their motivations are too different for them to work together. Saddam seeks secular power; bin Laden's drive comes from religious motivations and his opposition to the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world.
But Rice said, "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here.''
She suggested that details of the contacts will be released later.
Previously, U.S. intelligence officials have said that some al-Qaida members have been detected in Iraq, but that they appeared to simply be crossing the country after fleeing Afghanistan for their native countries on the Arabian peninsula or in North Africa. U.S. intelligence has also received information that some al-Qaida leaders are hiding in Iran, and the U.S. government is looking into reports that al-Qaida operatives are conducting training just over the Iranian border from Afghanistan.
Rice said that much of the information is coming from al-Qaida operatives captured since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. This includes several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges organized terrorist attacks.
"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more,'' Rice said.
"And there are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad,'' Rice said.
Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made a vague reference to Iraq-al Qaida links during a NATO meeting in Warsaw, Poland, but didn't offer details.
Administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Rice's disclosure was significant because it marked the first time that the White House claimed that al-Qaida operated in Saddam-controlled Baghdad. It was an effort to counter suggestions that al-Qaida operatives were solely in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, which he doesn't control. The disclosure is part of an effort to strengthen the case against Saddam, the officials said.
Previously, it's been known that Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic extremist group in northern Iraq, sent about a dozen of its members to bin Laden's camps. The group is largely composed of ethnic Kurds and had experimented with biological weapons, U.S. officials have said. But any links to Saddam's government were dubious.
Bin Laden has sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for a decade, U.S. intelligence officials have said. His followers are believed to have experimented with rudimentary chemical and biological weapons, but they lacked the sophistication to use them in a way that would kill large numbers of people.
Saddam's military used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and on rebelling Iraqi Kurds. He has also researched biological and nuclear weapons -- previously, the key complaint of the Bush administration against Saddam.
Saddam's government denies having any of these weapons.
After Sept. 11, officials in the Czech Republic said that chief hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, which some viewed as a link between Iraq and the attacks. But U.S. officials have since said they doubt the meeting took place.
The Iraqi government has been linked to other groups labeled terrorist by the United States -- primarily those that oppose Iran and Israel.
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Heehhheeeeee
I think the administration is still waiting, gearing up, letting the dems hang themselves. Trust GW, he knows what he is doing.
What do you make of the recent tendency of history shows to present Russia much more valiant in WW2 than previously ever discussed?
While not completely convinced, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know of any "mainstream" media analysts that take this position, except Andrew Sullivan and possibly Stan Kurtz at NRO. But I think this is what's likely going on.
Assuming this is true, why the elevated Iraq talk now? If Bush is genuinely open to not moving against Saddam for another year, the current Administration campaign to increase the attention on him doesn't seem to make sense. How can, for example, Bush make another SOU Address without there having been any visible move against the "Axis of Evil"?
I think, for whatever reason, Bush has decided to move against Iraq very soon, and is going to try to ride out the possible terrorist counterattack. Perhaps because the intelligence is clear that Saddam is not going to allow us to root out his deterrent that is already in position in America, or that he might even be able to augment it. And what civil defense measures can prevent - rather than just mitigate - a massive bioterror attack anyway? We know we're not going to see sealed borders or mass deportations. We won't find the caches, or at least all of them - and it seems reasonable that if this plan has been building for 10 years there's more than enough in place as a contingency.
I think we're looking at an attack on Iraq, and poised internal security ready to pounce on terrorist perpetrators in the act. This would mitigate, hopefully, the worst damage from the attack. But it sure won't prevent massive civilian deaths.
Bastards.
I've been fooled before, and you're getting fooled right now -- these things take much longer to play out than you think. Talk now is necessary to keep up the Big Mo, after a summer of saying nothing. If I had a dollar for every post I've seen over the last year predicting an attack on the next full moon....
Militarily, nothing is going to happen until the new year. It will be jaw-jaw in Congress and the UN for the next few months. Bush's opening position is he wants an answer in "weeks" -- but you know how opening positions work. My guess is we'll get congessional authorizations and a UN resolution towards the end of this year, and we'll dick around with Iraq over the resolution for a few months.
In the face of Iraqi "intransigence," Bush will launch a military camapign next spring. There will be token strikes on alleged WMD facilities, but the main push will probably be on the periphery of Iraq. My guess is that the military strategy will be a mixture of what we've seen put into play against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Arafat in Ramallah. We'll slowly and methodically isolate Hussein, while we work with local opposition to gradually take over the country. Again, I would guess we are going to put him in a vice, tearing off the territory under the Northern and Southern no-fly zones, where his ability to project power is already limited. We'll set up interim governments and forward bases as we conquer the territory.
All this will be the work of 2003 and 2004. It will amply fill the time we need to build up our civil defenses. Bush will look strong. Saddam will look weak, just like Arafat does now, as his dominion shrinks to a strip of land around Baghdad. At the same time, he'll still have an incentive to stay in the game. If he doesn't take exile by late 2004, that's when I'd push it to the brink, assuming we have our defenses in place domestically. If necessary, he could be flushed at that time by the simple expedient of parking a B52 nuclear bomber over Baghdad and going public on the anthrax. That will clear the place out in no time. Game over.
I sincerely hope that all the hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals in Ann Arbor, who submit their weekly whiney-mouth anti-war/anti-Bush editorials to the local paper and preach "diplomatic negotiations" with Saddam Hussein, sit up and take notice. You can't even negotiate a marshmallow roast with this psychotic liar.
I sincerely hope that all the hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals in Ann Arbor, who submit their weekly whiney-mouth anti-war/anti-Bush editorials to the local paper and preach "diplomatic negotiations" with Saddam Hussein, sit up and take notice. You can't even negotiate a marshmallow roast with this psychotic liar.
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.