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."
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Evidently the governments of France, Germany, and Russia were colluding with both.
Pretty amazing stuff they are turning up!
Regards, Ivan
"This will be a disaster. We'll lose. Saddam has all kinds of chemical weapons he'll use on us...and we have no right to invade anyway, because Blix says they don't have any chemical weapons..." (cut to two weeks later)
"Weeeeell....we never doubted that we'd WIN the war...it's all about whether there were any links to Al Queda..."(cut to two weeks later)
"OK. So they DID have training camps for Al Queda...so what? It's never been about that...it's about whether there were any WMD's in the first place..."
(Cut to the day WMD stockpiles are discovered)
"Uhhhh...well, we never doubted he had WMD's, but uhhhhhhh..it's more like uhhhhh...whether he would have used them....man."
________________________
It's important to hold these sniveling scumbags to their absolutely brain-dead statements, and mash their snouts in each one of their little lawn mines.
Yeah, that's what it is, Plan B. Thanks for the insight.
I wouldn't be sure about this. George Tenet and several others insisted that it was false, but according to numerous creditable news sources at the time, senior Czech intelligence officials continued to insist that it was true.
I don't trust George Tenet.
Yet another example of the intelligence of George W. Bush.
"This belief has been the driving force behind Washington's determination to seek 'regime change' in Baghdad"
Correct. The United States conquered Iraq in order to defend America. The American people faced a choice: they could fight in the Middle East, now, when they had an overwhelming military advantage, or in America, within a few years, when these adversaries were armed with nuclear weapons. President Bush wisely chose now and there.
Do not forget: The stated intention of these people is to kill Americans and overthrow the United States government, and they have already attacked the U.S.
It did not turn out to be false.
Some in Czech intelligence, and in our own CIA, tried to discredit the report that Atta met the Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Why? I believe Laurie Mylroie and others think it is because they are trying to cover up their own intelligence failures.
Last I heard, top democratically elected Czech officials continue to stand by the report.
arete: Don't you think that it is even a little odd [insert conspiracy theory here]
Well Ivan, don't let it get you down for a second. The answer to your question is a resounding YES.
Since when have any of us known liberal friends or Libertarian friends ever admit they were wrong? Must be hard living with the responsiblity of all that pretention.
That is exactly what you are asking me to believe if you actually think there are no WMD in Iraq.
Huge quantities of these weapons were there before. What do you think happened to them?
LOL -- there are plenty of low level officals that would flip in an instant if offered immunity and a couple of hundred dollars. Don't be sorry for me. You're the one being suckered by the propaganda machine.
Saddam, as most anyone sane admits, had become a master of concealment. No I'm not surprised that the weapons are difficult to find. Nor am I surprised that anti-war people are already complaining about the length of time to find the weapons, because no timescale was ever going to be good enough.
Well, why then did we expect the UN is find all those huge piles of WMD is a short period of time? We kept telling Blix, "They're right under your nose. You must be blind."
I suspect when they are found, you will next complain that it wasn't "enough" WMD to justify an invasion, and even if they are found in massive quantities, I am sure you will complain that these WMD weren't lethal enough in total to justify the invasion.
To tell you the truth, I don't think that you are very sure of anything or you wouldn't be trying so hard to make an as yet unproven and empty case.
Your position, to be sure, is not the product of any legitimate concerns or questions - it is an attempt to find some crack in the logic of taking out Iraq.
Find a crack!?! LOL The whole war on Iraq was sold on a false pretense. That's not a crack -- that's fly over country.
Every anti-war person should be utterly ashamed given what we've discovered just so far about this regime. The fact that you're not, and your premature crowing about WMD, indicates you are indeed anti-war no matter what, a position which has grown more pathetic and despciable over time.
I haven't learned a single thing about Saddam since the war began that I didn't already know. The guy was a two bit thug who ruled with an abusive iron fist. I am patiently waiting to learn with real, not fabricated evidence or FOX News, how he was a threat to me.
Richard W.
Quit lying. Seriously.
Our position, which remained unchanged, is that inspections would never work.
Your revisionist history is an insult to our intelligence.
Excuse me? I'm not the one who is adhering to the Stop the War Coalition's line on everything - saying no war in Iraq was ever justified. I have posted countless articles from a variety of newspapers, left, right, centre - from the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia. The weight of what they tell me about what Saddam has, and what his regime is, contradicts your far-left dogma.
Well, why then did we expect the UN is find all those huge piles of WMD is a short period of time? We kept telling Blix, "They're right under your nose. You must be blind."
We expected Blix to be more aggressive in his pursuit of those weapons. Second, there was a material breach given that the declaration given by the Iraqi regime in December was not complete.
To tell you the truth, I don't think that you are very sure of anything or you wouldn't be trying so hard to make an as yet unproven and empty case.
I can't begin to tell you how many articles I've posted that directly contradict you. Hundreds perhaps. All you are posting is your own opinion, which is adhering to the anti-war stance no matter what.
I am reacting strongly to you because I hate liars, and you are lying, perhaps to yourself, but definitely to me.
Find a crack!?! LOL The whole war on Iraq was sold on a false pretense. That's not a crack -- that's fly over country
A "false pretence" which you have not yet proven is false but are assuming is false. And you're the one calling me taken in by propaganda.
I haven't learned a single thing about Saddam since the war began that I didn't already know. The guy was a two bit thug who ruled with an abusive iron fist. I am patiently waiting to learn with real, not fabricated evidence or FOX News, how he was a threat to me.
Given your frame of mind and your attitude, I dare say no proof will ever be enough. After all, you're on a thread, one of several, that indicates that Al Qaeda and Iraq were working together. That has not penetrated your thick skull. Nor will anything, I dare imagine, that will shatter your smug, condescending attitude regarding the necessity of invading Iraq - which does have so many echoes of Scott Ritter.
Ivan
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.