Skip to comments.
Kay Briefs Lawmakers on Iraq WMD
Reuters via Yahoo ^
| 10/2/03
| Rueters
Posted on 10/02/2003 12:01:11 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-109 next last
To: alpowolf
I have no idea what you're talking about.
61
posted on
10/02/2003 2:03:52 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach
you live in another era and your wilfull disregard for the facts is a sorry thing to witness.You mean an era when we actually held politicians of all parties to the same standards instead of the partisan sickness that applies now?
Where are the facts of the huge amounts of WMDs? The 'tons and liters', the 'munitions', not the excuses flying from the current talking heads of this administration. Not flowery speeches by W, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, or Blair. No cute catch phrases by Democrats 6 years ago that had no data behind them either. You do know what those are don't you? Something the PNAC left behind long ago as evidenced by their disregard for the actual terrorists in Saudi Arabia and their indifference towards N Korea until just recently. You remember N Korea don't you? They actually have and admit to having WMDs.
62
posted on
10/02/2003 2:08:16 PM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: cookcounty
If they didn't find anything, why would it be classified...let alone, "highly" classified?They don't want you to know exactly what wasn't found.
63
posted on
10/02/2003 2:10:16 PM PDT
by
kevao
(Fuques France!)
To: Peach
I'm referring to the statement that Bush made that there is no evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11. You didn't hear it?
64
posted on
10/02/2003 2:11:46 PM PDT
by
alpowolf
To: billbears
hahahaha
Guess you forgot Iraq "admitted" to WMD, too.
You STILL have not admitted or acknowledged that every single country on the UN Security Council acknowledged that Iraq had WMD (at the time of the votes). There were how many resolutions which detailed those liters you keep mentioning? Do you know the facts? It is quite obvious you do not.
Have you ever even read one UN resolution that details the WMD? Do you know what UNSCOMB uncovered? I think the answers are quite obvious in your posts.
Go read a little and educate yourself. It might help you make your point in the future.
65
posted on
10/02/2003 2:12:51 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: alpowolf
I never have alluded to the fact that Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. He never did allude to that fact.
I still have no idea why you are posing the question. I posted links between Iraq/AQ, not Iraq/911. Are you confused?
66
posted on
10/02/2003 2:14:50 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: alpowolf
they just don't have any direct evidence of an Iraq tie to 9-11. It doesn't mean there wasn't one
To: Peach
Not at all.
Read how even the liberal press believes in the Iraq/AQ connection and also quite probably a 9/11 connection.
My point is that Bush doesn't seem to be going along. You suggested that another poster was out of touch for not going along, and I found that (on that particular point)amusing. Don't read too much into it.
68
posted on
10/02/2003 2:20:10 PM PDT
by
alpowolf
To: petercooper
True enough. But I, for one, won't believe it without the evidence. If some nation proposed to go to war with the U.S. over such an allegation, would we not demand proof? I know I would.
69
posted on
10/02/2003 2:21:25 PM PDT
by
alpowolf
To: Peach
Thank you for the links. I haven't had time to read them all because I'm at work, but I did skim them. The WSJ article clearly states that "none of this proves" a link between Saddam and al Qaeda, but we can't be sure there isn't one. That I would certainly not consider exquisite evidence. The WSJ won't even stand by it.
I skimmed some of the paragraphs in the lawsuit, and I saw his statements, but nothing to back them up. And I'm sure the plaintiff is not objective in this process.
The Guardian? Enough said.
I will go through the Front Page stuff later. But aren't there numerous threads today going on about how the press distorts, and has a liberal bias, and they can't be believed, etc, what with all the Joe Wilson, Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwartzenegger stuff today. Nobody wants to believe what the press is saying on those matters, but we should believe the press when it fits our agenda?
As far as I know, the administration has said they have no evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11, and maybe some tenuous links between Saddam and al Qaeda, but they still have no proof. And thank you for all the links, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider "exquisite" proof. But I will read them more thoroughly when I get home.
70
posted on
10/02/2003 2:25:44 PM PDT
by
halfdome
To: halfdome
I just randomly chose a few links and will send one more. I've read every book I could find on Iraq and think the best is The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack, one by Judith Miller was also extremely well documented.
Today on the way home, in a different context, I heard a lawyer talking about absolute proof. There are few matters upon which can provide absolute proof. It is a fact upon which lawyers overly rely.
You will have to read many articles and books and make up your own mind.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html
71
posted on
10/02/2003 2:35:13 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: halfdome
72
posted on
10/02/2003 2:36:24 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: halfdome
NB: Ed Epstein, distinguished author on intelligence issues, remarked on
the Wash Post article below, which first explains that a strong majority of
Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, before
attempting to explain why all those people are slightly delusional.
Epstein noted that the artcile includes the paragraph:
"In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was 'pretty well confirmed'
that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence
official. Speaking on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' Cheney was referring to a
meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That
allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11
attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, 'The
CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or
entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias.'"
Epstein then observed, "But although that makes the Washington Post's point,
it is not what the CIA actually said. What CIA Director George Tenet
testified before the Joint Inquiry Into Terrorists Attacks was: 'Atta
allegedly traveled outside the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet with an
Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague; we are still working to confirm or
deny this allegation. It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown
alias since we have been unable to establish that Atta left the U.S. or
entered Europe in April 2001 under his true name or any known aliases.'
"So the CIA said it could neither confirm or deny the Czech intelligence.
The Washington Post, citing a misleading summary to make its point and
ignoring the testimony itself, again demonstrates the true art of
journalism: Finding news that fits the story"
73
posted on
10/02/2003 2:37:41 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: halfdome
74
posted on
10/02/2003 2:39:08 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: halfdome
75
posted on
10/02/2003 2:40:12 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: halfdome
76
posted on
10/02/2003 2:41:02 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: halfdome
One last post regarding the matter: (and it's called the preponderance of the evidence of contacts and linkages between AQ and Iraq):
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")
* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.
* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.
*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.
* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."
* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.
* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."
* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.
Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.
In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.
The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.
Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.
So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."
77
posted on
10/02/2003 2:42:51 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: So Cal Rocket
But critics have questioned whether the Bush administration exaggerated the threat to get support for the war because no such weapons have been found since U.S. forces invaded Iraq. Dr. Kay made clear he considered missiles to be included in the category of weapons of mass destruction, which have been found -- with much more to come.
I was getting concerned that I had worried for nought all those years that the Soviet Union, China and North Korea were building and testing their ICBMs that could someday be hazardous to our health. I never thought their missiles were harmless. Of course, I realize that some will always argue that it is the bullet, not the gun, which is the weapon.
However, apparently Dr. Kay also thinks Saddam's missiles -- carrying whatever his warhead du jour -- could cause massive destruction -- and could reach several cities in the region. I look forward to Dr. Kay's final report, when ready, on the rest of the WMD problem.
78
posted on
10/02/2003 3:00:05 PM PDT
by
OESY
To: Peach
That reminds me of Wilson: Saddam doesn't have WMD and if we attack him, he'll use the WMD against us. LOL!
79
posted on
10/02/2003 3:03:47 PM PDT
by
alnick
(The truth shall set you free.)
To: alpowolf
"President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans." (CNN.com, 09/17/2003) I guess Gee Dubya is wilfully disregarding the facts too.Since they aren't arguing about whether Iraq was involved in 9/11, what are you talking about?
80
posted on
10/02/2003 3:05:33 PM PDT
by
lasereye
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-109 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