Skip to comments.
US Government - Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development
New York Times, Facts on File World News Digest
| Novemeber 1998
| BENJAMIN WEISER
Posted on 09/19/2003 3:03:29 PM PDT by tallhappy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
Breaking news from 1998!
Feel free to move from this, Admin.
The point is, though, clear.
Why has this been so polticized. The US Federal Government unequivocably outlined cooperation between Saddam/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda in 1998.
No proof? No evidence?
This is only one of many reports but it is official US document and assertion, not a report in the press.
1
posted on
09/19/2003 3:03:30 PM PDT
by
tallhappy
To: tallhappy
Amazing find. Good work tallhappy! You are correct we will only see it HERE on FR. Eventually we (FR) will be the last bastion of conservatism if the Media has it's way.
2
posted on
09/19/2003 3:06:25 PM PDT
by
PISANO
To: tallhappy
Apparently the President, Rice and Rumsfeld don't agree with you or New York Times and Facts on File. They state flatly that they have no such evidence.
--Raoul
To: Ragtime Cowgirl; nuconvert
Proof ping.
4
posted on
09/19/2003 3:11:32 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
To: tallhappy; Admin Moderator
AM please leave this in Breaking so others can see it .....a nice piece of research TH.
5
posted on
09/19/2003 3:12:08 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: RDangerfield
"Apparently the President, Rice and Rumsfeld don't agree with you or New York Times and Facts on File. They state flatly that they have no such evidence."
Nope. They stated that there is no direct evidence that Saddam Hussain aided al Qaeda to attack us on 9-11. They have often said that Saddam Hussain had ties to terrorism and to al Qaeda. However, there is no evidence that Hussain participated in the 9-11 attacks.
That does not undercut Bush's reason for getting rid of Hussain. He always linked that to Iraq *genreral* ties with terrorism, not the specific incidents that occurred on 9-11. And, yes, unlike, say Libya, Iraq had active terrorist groups inside its borders following 9-11, and would not let us remove them.
6
posted on
09/19/2003 3:13:41 PM PDT
by
No Truce With Kings
(The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
To: Shermy; seamole; William McKinley; Miss Marple; section9
The indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.Smoking gun?
7
posted on
09/19/2003 3:15:11 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: tallhappy; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Grampa Dave; FairOpinion; Cronos
We knew it in 1998. Why don't "we" (i.e., the dems, some freepers, and others) know it now?
8
posted on
09/19/2003 3:15:31 PM PDT
by
MizSterious
(Support whirled peas!)
To: RDangerfield
They state flatly that they have no such evidence. Wrong. They 'state flatly' that they don't see any evidence of Saddam playing a role in 9/11. None of them have denied a link between Saddam and bin Laden/Al-Qaeda.
9
posted on
09/19/2003 3:16:29 PM PDT
by
StriperSniper
(The slippery slope is getting steeper.)
To: MizSterious; Peach; cyncooper; prairiebreeze; deport
This is damning of the Clinton Administration........they had a detailed warning of an attack and did nothing about it....
Kenya Embassy Warning Confirmed-- U.S. intelligence officials had received a detailed warning about the Nairobi embassy attack nine months before it occurred, the New York Times reported October 23, citing unidentified U.S and Kenyan officials. In November 1997, Mustafa Mahmoud Said Ahmed, an Egyptian who stood accused of participating in the Dar es Salaam bombing, went to the Nairobi embassy and warned officials of a planned attack on the building. According to U.S. officials, Ahmed reportedly said that a group of Islamic radicals would detonate a truck filled with explosives inside the building's underground parking garage--which is what happened in the August bombing.
The Times article reported that in a separate interrogation by Kenyan intelligence officials, Ahmed had said that he had taken surveillance photographs of the embassy in preparation for the attack.
The U.S. State Department had officially denied since the bombings that it had received specific threats regarding the attacks. However, an unidentified official late October 22 said that the State Department had received from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) two reports about Ahmed, according to the Times article. The official said that the reports resulted in several weeks of heightened security at the embassy, but because there was no attack, the extra security precautions were removed.
10
posted on
09/19/2003 3:19:41 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: RDangerfield
Are you saying that the AQ terrorist training camp in northern Iraq was not evidence of AQ-Saddam collaboration?
To: No Truce With Kings; RDangerfield
I think what needs to happen is that conservative politicians and writers and others need to cite this specific indictment to shut up the Dems.
In 1998 US Government stated Al Qaeda and Iraq were working together.
I think, as well, the document is available and may even have been posted here.
To: tallhappy
Excellent archival work!
13
posted on
09/19/2003 3:26:03 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Why did DemocRATS allow a perjuring rapist to remain in the Oval Office?)
To: RDangerfield
Apparently the President, Rice and Rumsfeld don't agree with you or New York Times and Facts on File. They state flatly that they have no such evidence.The fact is that all of the above, President Bush, VP Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld all agree that al Qaeda and Iraq forged an alliance.
You are confusing that with their statements that they do not have evidence that Saddam helped plan the 9/11 attacks.
President Bush and VP Cheney both stated this very week that the relationship was there.
14
posted on
09/19/2003 3:30:53 PM PDT
by
cyncooper
(I believe VP Cheney)
To: Dog
Not only did nothing about it then (we all knew that), but now they're lying through their teeth about it.
15
posted on
09/19/2003 3:31:09 PM PDT
by
MizSterious
(Support whirled peas!)
To: tallhappy
Good work TAllhappy.
16
posted on
09/19/2003 3:31:15 PM PDT
by
q_an_a
To: tallhappy
Very good.
Let the record be clear: This administration knows that Saddam was helping al Qaeda. What they do not go so far to assert is Iraq's involvement in 9/11, though they have not ruled it out.
What is galling is that the previous "administration" is the one promoting the lie that the two entities would never have anything to do with each other, when the evidence was plain during that time and they know it.....they now sing a different tune for only one reason: To undermine President Bush. And the country be damned. (And those in the media who sympathize with the clintons obviously ignore the state of the record and willingly put forth the false talking points)
17
posted on
09/19/2003 3:34:33 PM PDT
by
cyncooper
(I believe VP Cheney)
To: cyncooper
btt
18
posted on
09/19/2003 3:35:38 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: tallhappy
You missed the applicable principle. If a Democrat administration says Bin Laden is allied with Iraq, the fact is taken as established. If a Republican administration asserts the same thing, there is "no proof."
19
posted on
09/19/2003 3:36:12 PM PDT
by
colorado tanker
(USA - taking out the world's trash since 1776)
To: RDangerfield
20
posted on
09/19/2003 3:41:26 PM PDT
by
cyncooper
(I believe VP Cheney)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson