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."
Nope, I think that for whatever reason probably only known to Saddam himself, he actually did destroy whatever he had. There was an interesting report by a top Iraqi biotech/chem weapons scientist that actually stated that. The report may have been flim flam or it may have been substantive -- I don't know. Anyway, the report was immediatley spiked and has been pulled from the web without a trace. As alien as it is to many, Iraq just may not have had the weapons that we claimed they did.
Richard W.
It is all based on hate for the opposing view. Look at how the RATS rose up to defend that dirtbag Clinton. They knew in their hearts that he was a scumsucking con artist, but the liberal fanatics had to defend him to prevent the right from winning. Politicans not only play on this polarization they encourage it in the exteme. No matter what crimes they commit, they can count on the fanatics and bots at the core to defend them. Divide and conquer while the sheep cheer and boo. Kinda of like World Championship Wrestling, isn't it?
Richard W.
After all, I will not go to bed tonight marvelling at my intellectual prowess, nor will I go to bed tonight wailing about the injustice of being disregarded. How about you?
Can someone shed some light on this?
Or shall you disappear - like most of your cowardly dis-integretous friends. I know that isn't a word - but so is the likes of you - mothufrikkuuhh...heh-heh-heh- I knows your worthless type.....
Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is plain.
--Aubrey T. DeVera
A prejudice is a vagrant opinion without any visible means of support.
--Ambrose Bierce
The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions.
--James Russell Lowell
I felt this last quote was most apt, given arete's head-in-the-sand mentality...
Be well.
Wellllll........ Let's see, Iraq reported having 8300 LITERS of concentrated Anthrax spores, enough to kill every person on the planet three times over...
They reported this at the end of 1991. The anthrax has since disappeared.
It DOES count as a WMD... So now we go back to your statement, " The administration set up a fabricated WMD story..."
simply put, arete,
You lie about the facts. You lie about life... You lie to yourself, believing that you're quite clever, when in reality you're deluding yourself into thinking anyone will actually be as stupid as you are....
As my mother told me (several times), I've little tolerance of fools.
Get outta' here, kid... Ya' bug me....
I'm not the one who is content with a Stalinist regime in Iraq. You are. By being content with it, you have all the moral credibility of Pontius Pilate. Sometimes it's necessary to make such judgements: it was necessary to tell the Nazis they were monsters, tell the Communists they were evil, and now tell the Ba'athists that it's "nailed to the wall time". And that goes for their tacit supporters as well. You, by being anti-war, indicated your preference for that regime remaining in power - whether you like it or not. And that is morally unacceptable. You are no more worthy of polite consideration than a Nazi or Communist.
You're not a literary person are you? -- as I expected. LOL
Curiouser is the accepted spelling. I'm sorry that being an insufferable jackass is more important to you. The fact that you cannot even acknowledge this indicates you have some personal problem which entails you cannot ever acknowledge error.
Ivan
WRONG!...
FEBRUARY 24, 2003 : (CZECH AMBASSADOR TO UN, KMONICEK AFFIRMS THAT THE MEETING BETWEEN ATTA AND IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AL ANI DID TAKE PLACE) A new affirmation by the Czech government that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plotters, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ibrahim al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001 .... in a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government 'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status [the usual euphemism for spying]'. Investigating judge Baltasar Garzon's indictment says Yusef Galan was part of a cell which organized bank robberies on behalf of al-Qaeda, and which had supported the group around Atta financially and logistically - "Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad," by David Rose, The Observer , see UK Guardian , Sunday March 16, 2003 What's more...
MARCH 2003 : (REPORTS SURFACE THAT 911 CONSPIRATOR GALAN WAS INVITED TO PARTY BY IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO SPAIN) An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators. Yusuf Galan, who was photographed being trained at a camp run by Osama bin Laden, is now in jail, awaiting trial in Madrid. The indictment against him, drawn up by investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, claims he was 'directly involved with the preparation and carrying out of the attacks ... by the suicide pilots on 11 September'. Evidence of Galan's links with Iraqi government officials came to light only recently, as investigators pored through more than 40,000 pages of documents seized in raids at the homes of Galan and seven alleged co-conspirators. - "Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad," by David Rose, The Observer , see UK Guardian , Sunday March 16, 2003
The only folks who have ever said the meeting between al Ani and Atta did not take place are "unnamed sources." The one time a source was named - by the NY Times, if my memory serves me- it turned out the 'journalist' had lied. Blatantly. The source made it known immediately that the paper was wrong.
Those who say it did take place are NAMED sources, and there's more than one of them.
I'm sorry that being an insufferable jackass is more important to you. The fact that you cannot even acknowledge this indicates you have some personal problem which entails you cannot ever acknowledge error.
Yo Ivan, get yourself into therapy asap -- maybe an anger management group would help. You can't go around telling others how or what to think and believe. Those voices from inside your head probably aren't real. They have wonderful new medications that can help you. Hiltler really isn't hiding under your bed so just relax until you see the doctor.
Richard W.
First of all, no one said there would be "huge piles." No one. Indeed, it would be entirely out of character for Iraq to store its materials in one place - and out of character for them to even store the stuff entirely within their own country. They didn't do it in the past and I don't know why anyone would expect them to do it now. If you take note, they don't even store their small stuff all in one place, or even a few places. They spread it everywhere to lessen the chance of us noticeing any big fat targets.
Years ago, Iraq stored some of its equipment in the Jordanian desert to escape detection. Obviously U-2 flights over Iraq weren't going to find that. It took detective work to find that, not casual fly-by's.
Years before that, in the first Gulf War, Iraq stored its aircraft in Iran of all places, and its biochem equipment and teams in neighboring countries and even in Sudan.
We didn't expect Blix to find anything- that was the whole point- Blix was considered inept the first time he was involved, and the organization was compromised. UN inspectors were being bribed and blackmailed left and right, not unlike certain outspoken antiwar figures who we now know were on the Iraqi dole. We knew nothing was going to be dug up when Blix was put back again and the ever nonobejective Egyptian nuke inspector was installed. In the old UNSCOM days every time we reported the suspect locations to the UN, Iraq would get the intel almost the same time the inspectors did. The inspections didn't catch much of anything until they cut out the French from the intel chain and really tightened down their security. There was no way in heck that Blix was ever going to keep things that secure.
Yet Blix did indeed find, if only by bungling into them by accident, Iraqi warheads loaded with chemical weapons, and he did indeed find Iraq had illegal missiles, and he did indeed find that Iraq was in violation over the drones, though he buried that little detail in his wrtten report and didn't mention it at all when he was live on camera. And that was just this year in his recent half-hearted inspection tours. He also pretty much left some poor Iraqi go to his death by handing him over to Iraqi security, since he threw out arbitrarily the demand that Iraqi scientists be questioned offshore and with their families. But for a UN bureaucrat that's small potatoes- they usually get more than one person killed at a time.
There wasn't going to be any way in heck Blix was going to find anything without being able to interview scientists. And we have to find these scientists- if they are still alive and haven't been executed and dumped in a hole somewhere - before we're going to have too much luck ourselves.
Of course, Blix brushed the chemical weapons warheads he found off by buying the line that they were "missed" in the disposal process. The press went along with it without any analysis, preferring instead to analyse the Dixie Chicks and Freedom Fries. Oopsie... either Iraq had so many chemical warheads that it was inevitable they would miss a few... or they only had a few stored here and there and were hiding them in a place no one would look too closely, where they had some deniability if discovered. If you only had to destroy a few of those things, you wouldn't overlook any of them considering the stakes. Yet they did.
Then Blix didn't even find the underground complexes. Didn't search a single one...And it's going to take us a while to get to the over 2000 sites. It would take Blix 2000 years at his rate. We've laready found mobile labs that Blix couldn't find, and talked to people Blix wasn't able to talk with. But it isn't going to be easy rounding this stuff up and no one, least of all us, ever said it would be.
There are idiots who claim that Iraq should have been subject to years of inspections even though Iraq has already been caught multiple times violationg its cease fire- suddenly getting upset because we are taking more than a week, all while simulataneously fighting terrorists, Syrian & Iranian agents, and assorted holdouts, keeping the peace, rebuilding infrastructure, feeding people, providing them with emergency healthcare and destroying enormous stockpiles of Russian weapons, all while having France and Russia giving intel to the Iraqis on what we're doing.
Under the conditions the inspectors have been working, they couldn't even clean a block of houses of small weapons, much less a country the size of California of things like liter bottles of anthrax or small vials of other pathogens, or 50 gallon or 5 gallong barrels of chemical precursors, which people would discount anyway as "everyone knows you should store your Iraqi equivalents of Weed-Be-Gone, Chlordane and Malathion in your military camps right where the farmers can make best use of it, right? Or were they doing that to prevent land-abusing Iraqi farmers from violating the Clean Air & Water Act of that great environmentalist, Saddam Hussein? It's perfectly normal to rush to dump chemicals in a river moments before Americans arrive, to prevent them from discovering you were hoarding large quantities of Raid... they might sick Blix on you again.
Right, so if the sky is blue, and you say it's green, I'm supposed to just say you're right rather than call you a lunatic or a liar? Give it a rest.
They have wonderful new medications that can help you. Hiltler really isn't hiding under your bed so just relax until you see the doctor.
The arrogance in your posts deserves nothing less than a reply using the rude version of "go forth and multiply".
Ivan
I hereby do so. What are you going to do about it? Come up with more daft insults in reply?
Ivan
Like I said earlier -- you are trying why to hard to put down opposing views by simply making stuff up and name calling. Very juvenile and shows a lack of deep thought and intellect on your part. You have been fun for me to toy with, but now I have become tired of you since you seem to have little new to offer. Seriously though, consider getting yourself into therapy for your own good. LOL
Richard W.
YOU ARE LYING
Is that clear enough for you? Is that spelled out enough for you? You are lying - now whether you are lying to yourself is one issue, but everything you are saying as a riposte is based on a lie. Thus an honest debate is not possible with you, because you are not being honest. You're not being honest about the WMD's, you're not being honest with yourself or anyone else about how awful this regime is, you're not being honest regarding the regime's links to Al Qaeda. You haven't even come up with any supporting material for your position. You've decided to adhere to anti-war lies at all costs, even though their track record is terrible.
What is more is the snotty, disgusting way you dismiss anything that exists outside your world view, a world view, again, which has been thoroughly disproven. It's one thing to be wrong, in other words, it's another to be wrong and act like a prat.
To conclude, it's not I who needs therapy. It's you who need to start actually thinking and observing what is going on, rather than clinging to the anti-war rhetoric at all costs.
Now, if I have one fault, it's that liars make me angry. It's why I despise Bill Clinton, despise Saddam Hussein, and why I think you are beneath contempt. Laugh it off if you like, but if this thread is any indication, more posters regard you as being lower than pond scum than think otherwise. And right they are. But laugh all you want. Pretty shortly, you'll be laughing all by yourself.
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.