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."
Finally reduced yourself to the level you feel most comfortable at I'd say. Not really surprising.
Richard W.
Now aren't you proud of yourself? Geez, you are so clever.
Richard W.
Many reasons I believe. WMD for one, (Yes I believe it's there), but also to facilitate our removal of troops from Saudi Arabia. Iraq's neighbors are delighted to see Hussein gone. You and I have no idea about the benefits behind the scenes to that aspect. And as far as North Korea, since China will be key in however that plays out, we are still in the diplomatic stages with them. Iraq squandered it's diplomatic opportunity, with the help of the French, Germans and Russians of course. You didn't answer my question about whether it's a good thing that we learned of the Euro/Russian treachery and UN corruptness out of all this. Prairie
That is a hard question to answer. I don't think that many people in the know weren't aware that France, Germany and Russia were all doing business with Iraq. It was one of those things that was never an issue until now. Let me give you an example. Congress has put a cap on the number of military personnel that we are allowed to have in Columbia. It is something like 200 or 400. In order to get around that, either the military or the CIA or whoever, simply hires mercenaries. Nobody is paying much attention to that now, but somewhere down the road, it may become an important issue. All of a sudden, people are going to be surprised about the Columbian program we have going on even thought the information has just been sitting there. Same with those people dealing with Iraq. Although some are surprised, I'm just one of those who took it as a given. As far as the UN and its use of the oil for food money. Hell, Iraq itself was yelling about it (the fraud) but of course, no one thought it important until now.
If you really want to stir up a hornets nest, just start a discussion about who is selling arms to whom or why Israel has a very active spy network operating in the US and what they do with that info. All a very dirty business filled with hidden agendas, big money and more than anything, deceit.
That's at least one of the reasons that I don't trust government information or leaked news reports. They are only going to tell you what they want you to hear.
Richard W.
Compared to you? Yes, in this case I would be forced to agree.
What I really wonder, is why you bother to post such transparently disengenuous statements? I mean, any nitwit who has even a clue about politics will see through your veneer of intelligence, and rapidly be forced to conclude you're a RINO. The excrement you spew, is recognized for what it is...
Go back to the DU. Tell them you failed.
Well, you're partially correct...
But only the first three words.
And let me guess- you voted at least once for Clinton, right??? RIGHT??? In other words, you're a person who doesn't bother to think, only to believe the propaganda from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC...
Typical.
You bush-bots really get all bent out of shape when your narrow "parrot back the party line" is challeged don't you? You can't silence everyone, no matter how hard you try, and you would be surprised at how many even here at FR disagree with you.
Richard W.
Ummm.... some expression involving a pot and a kettle, comes to mind...
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.