Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Document links Saddam, bin Laden
The Tennessean ^ | 07/11/03 | GILBERT S. MERRITT

Posted on 07/11/2003 10:31:01 AM PDT by FreeVietnam

Edited on 05/07/2004 9:20:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Through an unusual set of circumstances, I have been given documentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden. I am looking at the document as I write this story from my hotel room overlooking the Tigris River in Baghdad. One of the lawyers with whom I have been working for the past five weeks had come to me and asked me whether a list of the 600 people closest to Saddam Hussein would be of any value now to the Americans. I said, yes, of course. He said that the list contained not only the names of the 55 ''deck of cards'' players who have already been revealed, but also 550 others. When I began questioning him about the list, how he obtained it and what else it showed, he asked would it be of interest to the Americans to know that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden. I said yes, the Americans have, so far as I am aware, have never been able to prove that relationship, but the president and others have said that they believe it exists. He said, ''Well, judge, there is no doubt it exists, and I will bring you the proof tomorrow.'' So today he brought me the proof, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is right. The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.'' The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows. Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper. On the front page of the paper's four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ''Revolutionary Council,'' together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians. On the back page was a story headlined ''List of Honor.'' In a box below the headline was ''A list of men we publish for the public.'' The lead sentence refers to a list of ''regime persons'' with their names and positions. The list has 600 names and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam's family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ''deck of cards'' Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended. Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.'' (For more about the list, see accompanying article on this page.) The lawyer who brought the newspaper to me, Samir, and another lawyer with whom I have been working, Zuhair, translated the Arabic words and described what had happened in Baghdad the day it was published. Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it. The other lawyer, Zuhair, who was the counsel for the Arab League in Baghdad, did not receive delivery of his paper that day. He called his vendor, who told him that there would be no paper that day, a singular occurrence he could not explain. For the next 10 days, the paper was not published at all. Samir's newspaper was not confiscated and he retained it because it contained this interesting ''Honor Roll of 600'' of the people closest to the regime. The only explanation for this strange set of events, according to the Iraqi lawyers, is that Uday, an impulsive and somewhat unbalanced individual, decided to publish this honor roll at a time when the regime was under worldwide verbal attack in the press, especially by us. It would, he thought, make them more loyal and supportive of the regime. His father was furious, knowing that it revealed information about his supporters that should remain secret. For example, at the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days. That is the story of the ''Honor Roll of 600,'' and why I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him. It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States. But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts. Up until this time, I have been skeptical about these claims. Now I have changed my mind. There is, however, one big problem remaining: They are both still at large and the combined forces of the free world have been unable to find them. Until we find and capture them, they will remain a threat

(Excerpt) Read more at tennessean.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiraq; binladen; bushdoctrineunfold; saddam; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: JohnGalt
Apparently the Judge's original story was simply overlooked by the larger news organizations. After all, it's not like it was in a major newspaper.

The sudden burst of media attention by the NY Post, Boston Herald, etc. seems to have been generated by the fellow who runs Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, after he featured a link to the original article on his web site.

61 posted on 07/12/2003 10:24:08 AM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
...what you get is a Friday push (recall the Clinton tactics) of what looks to be good news for the administrations case.

You do recall though that the "Friday push" was used by the Clintons to release stories that were harmful to them, not the other way around. When the Clintons wanted to bury bad news they released it on Fridays.

62 posted on 07/12/2003 10:28:36 AM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Which reports?

You're kidding, right?

63 posted on 07/12/2003 12:53:53 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat (Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The Clintons released BAD news on Fridays, not good news.
64 posted on 07/12/2003 12:55:22 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat (Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
I was not trying to 'kid' anyone.

Which Sunday Telegraph reports? From last week or last January. I can't assume to know what you are talking about.

The Sunday Telegraph is a Hollinger paper correct? Which famous hawk sits on the board of Hollinger?
65 posted on 07/14/2003 5:19:32 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
Actually, that was the point of my post, if this was "good news" why put it out on Friday? Nothing new was added to the story just the administrations press release.

If you look at Condi's and Rummy's preformance on Sunday, it seems that the administrations goal was to cloudy the water. The administration is only conceding that the intelligence, 'which is correct, should not have been cleared for the State of the Union address because it did not pass certain bars.' Very confusing from where I am sitting.

66 posted on 07/14/2003 5:22:30 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

Justin has some interesting links that deconstruct Judge Merrit's sudden discovery. Worth a read, if only for the great links, hold the polemics.
67 posted on 07/14/2003 7:05:09 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FreeVietnam
bump
68 posted on 07/14/2003 7:17:56 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Justin has some interesting links that deconstruct Judge Merrit's sudden discovery. Worth a read, if only for the great links, hold the polemics.

He offers no links to anything at all that even remotely begins to credibly deconstruct the Merrit story. Along with the links to the original stories in The Tennessean and The Weekly Standard, Justin initially offers only rank speculation, opinon and his outright disbelief of the List of Honor story and the circumstances surrounding it.

Justin then proceeds to offer up two linked references to articles which he claims bolster his case against the validity of the Merritt story. One is a link to a story about a separate newspaper shutdown which lasted "for weeks" more than a year and a half earlier. (Hard to tell if Justin's arguing that this was the same shutdown or merely the genesis of Sahaf's "bad blood" with Uday.) And, incredibly, the second link actually serves more to support the Merritt story instead of debunking it. (Read the "List of Honour" paragraphs for yourself in this BBC news report about the newspaper shutdown from November 24, 2002 which Justin has linked to)

Justin is not a good writer, and so it's difficult to discern with any clarity just what his conclusion is about the List of Honor story. On one hand he argues that "The whole thing screams "phony,"" while on the other hand he links to a BBC article which actually confirms that such a list containing the damning Al-Qaeda connection was indeed published just prior to the order to suspend publication.

I frankly can't tell if Justin's claiming that there was no List of Honor published to begin with; or that the publication of the list and susequent newspaper shutdown (which he claims, without convincing substantiation, can be traced to bad blood between Sahaf and Uday)doesn't add up to evidence of anything significant in the way of an Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection. Not that it matters much, given that the references Justin cites do not support either conclusion to which he's clealry already jumped to before all the facts surrounding the Merritt story are fully known.

I don't have a complete judgement on the value of this info yet because I've not seen all the facts. However, one thing is becoming clearer: There are independent and contemporaneous news stories which report the publication of the List of Honor along with with the Al-Qaeda reference back in Novermber of 2002 in Uday's newspaper, just as Merritt has described.

69 posted on 07/14/2003 2:33:24 PM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Nothing new was added to the story just the administrations press release.

Are you referring to the Tenent statement, because I'm unaware of any administration press release on the specific Judge Merritt issue? And are you somehow suggesting that the sudden news coverage of the heretofore unnoticed Merritt story and some administration press release are somehow related to an obfuscation effort by the administration?

Have you read the complete text of the Tenet statement? If not, you really should, because he lays out the timeline and events surrounding the Niger State of the Untion reference in detail. It's a pretty persuasive case that this is much ado about not very much.

70 posted on 07/14/2003 2:39:17 PM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
I think Justin did a fine a job laying out the story behind the story which no one seems interested in telling. Of course, he tells it with the end already in mine, but most of the country's tabs ran with this story with almost zero documentation to back it up.

The Merrit story was run as a pure propoganda piece. You seem less the fascinated that a two week old story was considered front fold material.

We'll keep tabs on it. If the story has no legs, I will chalk it up as bunk.

71 posted on 07/14/2003 2:39:20 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
Tenet falling on his sword-- not the Tenet piece.

I thought the two pieces in juxtaposition served the administration's case so I was unclear why they waited until Friday to release it or push the two week old Judge Merit story.

Your analysis of the statement is fine, did not read, but I was more interested in how it was reported. What was the title to the story, what were the first paragraphs. It would be naive to think that these releases from this administration on this issue is anything but calculated spin control. That is not to say they are guilty, lying, or covering up, they are just very aware of how this issue is playing in the public's mind.
72 posted on 07/14/2003 2:44:24 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The Merrit story was run as a pure propoganda piece. You seem less the fascinated that a two week old story was considered front fold material.

And you seem more fascinated with the timing of the story than the content. As already described, the Merritt story broke in a small paper and was somehow ignored by the larger media until Instapundit published a link to it. This is no great mystery.

But the two week old publication date is less important than the fact that there are contemporaneous news accounts of the List of Honor story which were published last year, long before Judge Merritt or the Weekly Standard stories. These stories independently support Merritt's claim about the list's publication. That is a hard fact to ignore.

73 posted on 07/14/2003 2:57:33 PM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
Granted, different aspects of the story interest us both.

I have come to believe that in times of war, the first casualty is truth, thus I don't expect to ever know the 'real answer' except for maybe 15-50 years from now when FOIA folks get at the info. Thus, interpretations of 'intelligence' and 'news' is colored by the assumptions we bring to the table when interpreting current events.

You begin with the assumption that the administration is 'probably telling the truth' and timing of news releases is 'probably coincidental.' I begin with the opposite assumptions.
74 posted on 07/15/2003 5:27:17 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson