Posted on 06/02/2004 11:41:36 AM PDT by Eurotwit
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades.
terrorism as just cause ping
this paper is most likely a fabrication, furthermore Nidal was possibly killed by Saddam's people. The reason for this is not clear.
Do not put too much in the fact that Allawi thought this document was genuine, many had this opinion a year ago.
Well, I don't think him saying this a year ago makes him a liar, necessarily. I doubt it was checked out to any extensive degree at that point. He may really have thought that it was genuine.
My question to you and everyone that writes off the Habboush al Tikriti memo as a forgery: Where is the conclusive debunking of this memo?
I don't want to hear about how it is "too convenient" that Niger is mentioned or any other slippery and meaningless logic.
If this was a forgery then it could be established by analysis of the ink, the paper, the handwriting, etc. Where is this analysis?
I can't find it on any Google search I have tried.
I'd say the memo should stand at its face value until it is conclusively disproven.
Great reasoning that only an intellectualy-honest person could put forth. Right on!
Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
What is notable about this story is:
1. The writers had never seen the memo or even a copy of it.
2. The writers allege that Atta was accounted for "most of the time" during the three-day period when he was supposed to have been in Iraq. But this is based on a reconstruction of travels from tickets, phone calls, motel receipts all in his own name. The problem with this is that anyone could have been travelling as Atta to provide him cover. We know that he had several false identities. He could have fairly easily travelled to Iraq surreptitiously while someone else created a legend for him in Las Vegas.
3. To reach the conclusion that the memo is not authentic, and Atta did not travel to Baghdad in May or June 2001, you have to assume that Atta did not make use of any of his tradecraft, that he was operating is "stupid" mode. And for the first time, too, since he was not operating in "stupid" mode during his travels to the Czech Republic in 2000 and 2001.
In short, the Issikoff article does nothing to cast doubt on the al-Tikriti memo and in fact adds to its credibility.
This memo needs to be authenticated or debunked conclusively by scientific methods of analysis once and for all. And not by the likes of Michael Issikoff.
Yes, indeed. Roger that.
You know, it's not too late for Bush and Company to make this Case (the "Anti-Terrorist" Case that they should have made, or at least should have made MUCH LOUDER than the largely-mythical "WMD" Case, two years ago)...
All they have to do, in my opinion, is play the "Doe-Eyed Innocents" to the Cameras and pretend that, "Golly Gee -- we knew that Saddam had Terrorist Links, but we had no idea that it was *this bad*!!" (by this, they defuse the criticism that they didn't make a big deal of Salman Pak and Abu Nidal before the War, and are now "switching rationales" from the WMD case).
"My fellow Americans:
Two Years Ago, when we began calling Saddam Hussein to account for his multiple violations of UN resolutions, at the forefront of our National Security concerns was the terrible possibility that Hussein would develop Links to world-wide Anti-American Terrorist Organizations, and provide those Organizations with the means to acquire and deploy Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States." (passing reference to the WMD Case) "We previously had intelligence of Iraqi training of Airliner Hijacking Teams at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp south of Baghdad," (passing reference to 9-11) "...and reports provided by Czech intelligence of meetings in Prague between Iraqi government officials and members of the Al-Queda organization involved in the planning and execution of the 9-11 atrocities." (second reference to 9-11, drive the point home)
"We now know, due to the diligent work of the new Iraqi Coalition Government," (nod of support to the New Iraqi Government) "...that Hussein's contacts, training, and support of the most dangerous Anti-American Terrorists in the world was far more advanced and imminent in threat than we had previously feared." (The word "imminent" has been used against Bush repeatedly, even though he didn't say it. Ahh, but he can use it NOW, and cast it back in his critic's teeth). "Documents provided by the Iraqi Coalition Government clearly establish the training and support provided by Hussein's regime to the 9-11 Hijackers, as well as Hussein's determination to continue development of WMD capability".
"I have previously outlined My Administration's determination to prosecute Our War on Terror along three fronts -- punishment of those responsible, punishment of those Dictatorial Regimes which gave aid and comfort to the Terrorists, and prevention of the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction into Terrorist hands."
"We now know that our worst fears of Saddam Hussein's connections to Al-Queda Terrorism have been confirmed, and that it was right -- indeed, necessary -- to act against him when we did. With Hussein in custody, he will no longer be providing Training and Support to the Terrorist Organizations which murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11, 2001 -- nor will he be developing the capability to pass along to them Weapons of a far more terrible nature." (Re-Visit the "Anti-Terrorism" Case once again, with a passing nod to WMD's in final review)
ETC, etc, et cetera....
Hussein's capture may have been a "gold mine" of Popularity for Bush, but it's played out now six months after the fact. These new Iraqi revelations can at least be a "silver mine", if he's willing to "turn the ship around" and re-prosecute the Anti-Terrorist Case as it should have been prosecuted in the first place.
Granted, it's a bit like trying to turn a Battleship around, but Bush should try it (IMHO). Re-Prosecute the Anti-Terrorist Case, and run it for all it's worth.
JMHO, OP
Incidentally, if you were to UPDATE the same provision in the constitution that gives the Congress the authority to declare war, what would you claim a "letter of reprisal" to mean in our day and age. (Since we're told that the Constitution is the "living" document, let's let it breathe new life into the "letter of reprisal."
I'd say that a reprisal is a "payback." A letter of reprisal is an authorization to pay back someone who has committed an act of such damage to you, that you authorize all necessary WARTIME action for a specific purpose.
This sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like the "Authorization" granted Pres. Bush by Congress to pursue ANYONE who aided/abetted/harbored any terrorist who acted on 9/11 and any other terrorist group connected to world terrorism.
We don't need NO STINKIN' declaration of War.
We have a "Letter of Reprisal."
It does indeed.
The point of my #47 is that Bush should Re-State his Case, and Re-Formulate it in those terms. Those terms exactly.
When you bet on Two Horses ("WMD" and "Anti-Terrorism"), and your Second Horse ("Anti-Terrorism") wins the Race... it's not too late to point out to the Naysayers that you did, in fact, bet on the Second Horse (even when the First Horse barely even Showed).
Among the contents of this memo is a statement by Habboush to Hussein that Atta: "displayed extraordinary effort" and had demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The phrase "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy" clearly implies more than mere association between Hussein and al Qaeda, it implies at a minimum tacit assent and approval, and in the context of Atta's continuing contacts with Iraqi Intelligence, can be taken as evidence of Iraqi control of the operation.
The US government has consistently atributed 9-11 to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, and this attribution need not be subject to radical revision. But it is looking all the more likely that while al Qaeda provided the manpower, Saddam Hussein provided at least part of the funding as well as overall direction, using the assets of al Qaeda to attack a mutul enemy - the USA.
It certainly puts Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi intelligence service at the center of the entire enterprise and provide a context for understanding the contact between Atta and al Ani in Prague going back a year.
This entire picture is crying out to be explained graphically and in detail by the President to the American people, much along the lines just suggested.
Mossad did a great job planting data that lead Saddam's son to believe Nidal was an Israeli double agent.
I just listened to O'Reilly's last segment with Stephen Hayes, author of a book about the Connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He did an excellent, rational job of presenting the case. Tons of evidence that the media glitterati ignore or demean.
O'Reilly seemed perplexed as to why the Bush Administration isn't pushing this Terrorism angle.
He also stated that there'd be a major story in this area breaking tomorrow. (I don't know if he's just building up his show, or if something's afoot. Perhaps this very story of this very thread is what he's going to put front and center.)
The racetrack is where I spent a lot of my youth with my dad, a Baptist who was also a great lover of horses. (He wasn't much of a gambler....if he spent $12 in a day, that was a lot....to include parking and entrance.)
In any case, if you bet a horse to place or to show and it wins, then you get paid. If you bet it to win, and it doesn't, then you start looking at the Racing Form to the horses in the next race.
Bush boxed his bets, but, in my opinion, his WIN money was INITIALLY & ALWAYS placed on those who aided/abetted/harbored terrorists. WMDs was his show horse. It's fighting its way down the stretch, but it looks like, with the sarin bomb, precurser chemicals, and wmd programs, that it's gonna come in at least in the show position.
Bush wins on both bets.
Not bad for a dyslexic Texic Cowboy.
OR ... Saddam saw Nidal as a threat for the 9/11 attack being tied back into Baghdad and Nidal conveniently committed sideways by shooting himself several times. Take your pick. I favor the former, but there is 'stuff' floating about to tilt the latter also. Perhaps the 'Nidal as Israeli double agent' is what has lead the Arab press to accuse Israel of the 9/11 attack, as that would satisfy their irrational hatred of Israel and America.
Excellent post, JV.
Let's hope the president makes this case. It is a real case.
The anti-american alphabet media will decry no "proof" (meaning a vidotape recording of Saddam meeting with Osama saying, "Let's work together to kill Americans and plan attacks against them." To this Osama must reply, "Absolutely....how about blowing up the WTC?" This video episode must have been witnessed live by a minimum of a thousand reporters of the Wash Post, NYT, and the French and German dailies. That will constitute "proof" to them.
Tons of sightings, intercepts, documents, witnesses, etc. will be of no account to these folks.
Therefore, the President must seek a forum to go OVER their heads.
I would suggest a presidential news conference. The revelation of the connection must be made as his opening statement.
He must then ask questions of only new media reporters. The Old Tabloid journalists must give way to the new.
Interpretations, interpretations.
Which Horse was bet to win?
"WMD"s were fronted as the Big, Scary "War Admiral" which was intended to Win the day -- and the Big Horse barely even Showed.
Fortunately, the almost-forgotten "Sea Biscuit" Nag -- the barely-mentioned "Anti-Terrorism" Case -- not only paid back it's status as a "hedged bet", it's proving Day after Day to be the one, legitimate, incontestable FACT of this whole operation which is First Across the Finish Line.
It's a very American story, really -- always bet on the Underdog.
The Neo-Cons played their "War Admiral" WMD Case to the Brink ("Smoking Gun a Mushroom Cloud"? "Thousands of Barrels of Poison Gas"? "Able to strike in 45 minutes"? don't make me laugh!), and frankly -- they failed Our President, and they look like fools...
But coming down the home-stretch, here comes "SeaBiscuit" -- the oft-neglected "Anti-Terrorist" Case -- and it's all true. Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, Mohammed Atta... it's all true, and SeaBiscuit clears the Finish Line!!
Which just goes to prove... SeaBiscuit should've always been our first bet -- Simple, Anti-Terrorist Justice before any UN complications and Messianic Nation-Building -- and after Abu Ghraib, the Neo-Cons should be retired to pasture.
best, OP
Thanks. This was exactly the one I had in mind.
Funny how all these bogus "debunkings" seem to involve Isikoff eh?
1. The writers had never seen the memo or even a copy of it.
It's not only that the writers hadn't seen the memo - it's weirder than that: the "leading Iraqi document expert" (Hassan Mneimneh) they cite as saying the document is "probably a forgery" hadn't even seen it. His expertise, bizarrely, is brought into the article to dismiss it for "other reasons", which are all fallacious if you ask me (mostly versions of "lots of other documents are forged" and "it's just too convenient!"). Like I said, it's as if they're trying to fan the flames of a conspiracy/coverup theory....
2. The writers allege that Atta was accounted for "most of the time" during the three-day period when he was supposed to have been in Iraq. But this is based on a reconstruction of travels from tickets, phone calls, motel receipts all in his own name. The problem with this is that anyone could have been travelling as Atta to provide him cover. We know that he had several false identities. He could have fairly easily travelled to Iraq surreptitiously while someone else created a legend for him in Las Vegas.
True, that. I always wonder if our FBI is really so incompetent as to think that Terrorist A can't possibly hand his ATM card + PIN, and cell phone, to Terrorist B.
But one more thing deserves mention: this "most of the time" when they (think they) can account for Atta's movements, is, in Isikoff/Hosenball's words, "when the trip presumably would have taken place". Presumably?? Later on in the article they give the only details we're going to get: they think they have Atta pinned down in the U.S. "during the last few days in June—when the presumed Iraq trip would appear to have occurred". Reading further this means: from June 27th to July 1st (the date of the memo) and some time beyond (which is irrelevant to the memo).
But who ever said that the trip was namely between June 27th and July 1st? All the article says is "The document... doesn't say exactly when Atta was supposed to have actually flown to Baghdad" and "Coughlin himself places the trip as the summer of 2001".
Since when does "summer of 2001" necessarily mean "June 27 - July 1, 2001"??? Why couldn't Atta's alleged trip to Baghdad have been before June 27th? Isikoff doesn't say and doesn't seem all that curious.
In short, they pretend the trip could have only occurred between June 27 and July 1, they say we know where Atta was during this time, so they dismiss the possibility of the trip. The ineptitude of the logic here is breathtaking, unless they're (a) being used to funnel disinformation or (b) intentionally trying to make it *appear* as if they're funneling disinformation, for who knows what reason... :-)
In short, the Issikoff article does nothing to cast doubt on the al-Tikriti memo and in fact adds to its credibility.
I'll agree that it does nothing to cast doubt on it. It adds to its credibility only in the sense that the attempted debunking is so obviously inept and laughable. There may be some other explanation for this that doesn't involve the memo being genuine, but it would have to be a highly strange one, IMHO.
This memo needs to be authenticated or debunked conclusively by scientific methods of analysis once and for all. And not by the likes of Michael Issikoff.
I'll second that. By this point, if I see an Isikoff article saying "our FBI sources say the sky is blue", I'm double-checking.
I would be highly interested in hearing your basis for saying so.
Not to be picky but "The Neo-Cons" never said this 45 minutes thing. As far as I understand the 45 minutes claim derives from something that Tony Blair or someone in the Tony Blair government said to his British subjects during the time when Britain was contemplating or planning to join us in the war. I wouldn't really know because I wasn't paying attention and never heard that claim originally, not being a British subject and all. This is something that's between the Blair government and their subjects; but to Americans, the veracity of this "45 minutes" thing is irrelevant either way. Bush never said it, "The Neo-Cons" never said it.
Which just goes to prove... SeaBiscuit should've always been our first bet
Fair enough but one thing to keep in mind is that, in a sense, it was our "first bet", or at least, our first bet did *involve* a healthy does of the anti-terrorist case.
The only reason "WMD" ever gained such prominence was because we were trying to get UN cover for our actions. We had the possibility of bringing Saddam up on "charges" before the UN, but those "charges" had to involve "WMD", not "he is linked to terror" (which, let's face it, many many countries in the UN are).
The effort at the UN failed anyway. So it's like we were going after Al Capone, the FBI got convinced that he need to be taken down (because of all the murdering and gangsterism), but to take him down on federal charges, they had to focus the "case" on charges of... tax evasion. The fact that (in Saddam's case) the "charges" we brought against him haven't panned out as expected, doesn't mean the initial decision to go after him was wrong, any more than if Capone hadn't been a tax evader it would have been wrong for the FBI to go after him.
, Anti-Terrorist Justice before any UN complications and Messianic Nation-Building
I tend to agree with you that the (Powell-inspired) decision to try to get UN cover for our actions was probably, on balance, misguided at best. We seem to have done it because Tony Blair required it to be on board, but I'm not sure those benefits outweighed the costs in the end.
I have no idea what "Messianic Nation-Building" is supposed to mean.
after Abu Ghraib, the Neo-Cons should be retired to pasture.
What exactly "the Neo-Cons" have to do with anything that happened at Abu Ghraib is beyond me.
Well, you may be getting a blue ribbon. I just saw a "ticker" saying an Arab paper says that assistant of chalabi's fled to Iran two days after the assassination.
bump for more research...
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.