Posted on 04/26/2003 4:20:20 PM PDT by MadIvan
The revelation that Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs were seeking to establish links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network is the first concrete proof that the dictator was colluding with the world's most ruthless terrorist operation.
The documents discovered yesterday by The Telegraph in the former headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, will also reopen the debate about whether Saddam was directly involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
The issue of Saddam's involvement has been a long-standing source of contention between London and Washington. In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. "He probably was behind this in the end," he said.
In his State of Union speech in January, Mr Bush made the case for confronting Iraq, saying: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'eda."
This belief has been the driving force behind Washington's determination to seek "regime change" in Baghdad, particularly after Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated in February that he had received intelligence reports that al-Qa'eda operatives had approached Iraq about co-operating on chemical and biological weapons.
Washington's insistence that Saddam had links with bin Laden was not reciprocated in London, where Tony Blair, acting on the advice he received from British intelligence, was more circumspect about the links.
During his appearance before a Commons select committee in January, Mr Blair said that while "there is some intelligence about loose links between al-Qa'eda and various people in Iraq", he was unaware of any evidence linking Saddam to September 11.
Until now, most of the evidence presented by Washington to prove the link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda has been inconclusive. In the weeks immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was keen to draw attention to a report issued by the Czech Republic's interior ministry claiming that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year. The report later turned out to be false.
Washington was similarly frustrated earlier this year when it claimed that an al-Qa'eda cell called al-Ansar al-Islam was operating in Iraq. It later transpired that the group was active in a region beyond Saddam's control.
The new documentation uncovered by The Telegraph, however, is the first concrete evidence to emerge to back up claims made by Mr Powell during his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. He said Iraqi intelligence had funded a number of terrorist training camps in Sudan in the 1990s which were used by al-Qa'eda.
During his presentation, Mr Powell said that al-Qa'eda had been working with Baghdad since the early 1990s after reaching an understanding that bin Laden would stop targeting Saddam's regime. "Ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence contacts," he said.
"We know members of both organisations have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996 . . . bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."
US officials also claimed that Saddam was particularly impressed by al-Qa'eda's 1998 terrorist attacks against the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and sent Iraqi intelligence officers to help train al-Qa'eda fighters in Afghanistan after bin Laden was forced to move his base there from Sudan.
The documents also give the lie to those who said that al-Qa'eda, the Islamic zealots, would have nothing to do with the brutally secular regime of Saddam. It appears that their shared hatreds - of America, of Saudi Arabia, of the West - outweighed such considerations.
"This discovery backs up everything we have heard about Baghdad's dealings with bin Laden," a Western intelligence official said last night. "It shows that Iraqi intelligence was desperate to form an alliance with al-Qa'eda. And if Saddam was working with bin Laden from the mid-1990s, that raises the question of whether he was involved in the 9/11 attacks."
Saddam himself always rigorously denied having any links with al-Qa'eda. During an interview with Tony Benn, the Left-wing former MP, in early January, Saddam said: "We have no relationship with al-Qa'eda." He added: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship, we would not be ashamed to admit it."
I have chosen truth over government propaganda and misinformation. I have heard nothing from the administration that indicates they were truthful about the real motivation for war. Just like I hated the last administration because of its dishonesty, I have yet to see any evidence that the current administration isn't following the same flawed path.
I really hope you are able to accept the truth when it becomes undeniable. You call clinton a dirtbag (he certainly is) yet you align yourself with the dirtbags. Expect clinton's foul name to turn up in these documents that the Saddam regime couldn't keep enough of.
I reject all dirtbags from both the left and right. If you are going to war and getting American sons and daugthers killed, you had better have the necessary proof in hand. That didn't happen here. The war had to be sold like a broken down used car. The freaking war is over and they still can't prove anything. That tells me all I need to know about the administration's reckless use of its powers and (lack of) respect for its own citizens. As far as who's names turn up, I'd be careful what you ask for on that one. Until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam (including his use of chemical weopons on Iranians) was OUR dictator. We didn't really care how abusive and inhumane he was of what abuses he visited upon his own people. It is important not to forget that along with our own visits and meetings with Saddam when he was still our guy.
As to Blix. It is becoming clear that the French tipped off the Saddam regime where the inspectors were heading next which stymied the inspection process. Blix and the inspectors were not called idiots or told it was under their nose by the administration. They were told the Iraqi regime was not cooperating. And they weren't. I wonder if you can comprehend the difference.
I thought it was the Russians who were tipping off Saddam. Next week, it will be space aliens. One lead ballon after another -- anything to avoid accountability. I have to admit, the stories are getting funnier though. Almost like dumb and dumber meet the British press. This lastest one has me rolling on the floor. A UK reporter who just happens to be let loose to rummage around in an Iraqi intelligence building finds a file on the floor with OBL's name whited out on it implicating the French in providing Saddam with info on secret American plans. Was that the story? I was laughing too hard to hear all the details. Oh brother, they must be getting desperate with that one. Maybe Saddam just couldn't turn on CNN to find out what our plans were. Dah LOL!
Richard W.
You are really grabbing at straws. I'm very flexable and actually don't care how curiousor or curiouser is spelled. I've seen it spelled both ways but I wasn't the one who used my particular spelling as a basis to discredit me. One the other hand to say that something has nothing to do with the main topic but then in the same sentence say that it weakens my argument is ridiculous. That is part of the larger problem though. When people become obsessed with the all consuming need to be right, they are apt to say some pretty silly stuff.
Richard W.
The more I read about all these events, and the people involved, and who they knew, and who they were related to, and various motivations and means, its like working a big jigsaw puzzle. And when the pieces come together they'll form a picture of Saddam Hussein.
This is not grabbing at straws. People tend to act consistently in similar circumstances. Your willingness to argue from such slender premises and your attempt to justify an egregious error by citing to a doubtful (and erroneous) source rather than the original sheds a good deal of light on your modus operandi. If you'll do that to try to cover up a mere spelling error, what does that say about your willingness to cover up more important things?
Often times, truth is something that you have to work at. You won't find much of it watching Fox News or listening to the dept. of information management.
You obviously feel the need to point your finger at the French for doing something just about everyone else was doing at our request. It isn't going to fly. Just another lead ballon to cover up for, and duck the accountability for the flim flam justification for going to war. If you believe that we actually shared our top secret war plans with the French and that they in turn passed them on to Saddam, then you will undoubtedly believe just about anything. LOL
Richard W.
Richard W.
That is true. You should try it.
As to the french---huh? Your ability to draw conclusions is flawed, which explains your previous posts which betray the inability to perceive and process information.
Oh man, you are a gas! Ever try writing for a comedy sitcom? You'd be a natural. ROTFL
Richard W.
What color is the sky in your world?
WMD discoveries have not been officially announced, but that doesn't mean they haven't been made. I think there are a lot of things happening that we know nothing or very little about at this point.
I can't even dignify another "Iraq was a threat" post with an appropriate response. It is just such an empty "beaten for all its worth" issue. Everyone else has moved on to Plan B again which is the "it's France's fault" ballon.
What color is the sky in your world?
Super blue in Dixieland.
Richard W.
Richard W.
Alright, I'm done...obviously, you have not researched this subject past the CNN ticker tape.
Anyone that doesn't think that Iran, Kuwait, and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia, felt that Iraq was a threat, is either dumb, dumber or dumbest.
BTW, I bet our ALLY Israel felt the heat when scuds were raining down on them.
ZOT
You know, I notice you sign some of your posts "Richard W."
You don't go by the nickname Dick, do you???
Somehow, given the vacuous nature of your posts (reminiscent of Whore-aldo Rivera, as he defended Bubba shamelessly), your inability to acknowledge reality and the obvious belief that you are the ONLY one with more then three grey cells firing together....
Such arrogance and ignorance make this a natural name for you...
JMHO.
C.E.
As in "Dick Weed"?
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.