Posted on 03/17/2002 11:01:06 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
A report set to hit newsstands Monday documenting ties between Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence service and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization is being called "a blockbuster" by former CIA Director James Woolsey.
The New Yorker magazine report details cooperation between al Qaeda agents in Northern Iraq and intelligence operatives working for Saddam Hussein, Woolsey told CNN's "Late Edition," including:
*Details of the ten-year-long working relationship between al Qaeda and Mukhabarat agents in attacks on the Kurdish minority.
*Evidence that the Mukhabarat smuggled weapons into Afghanistan to help al Qaeda forces.
*Accounts of al Qaeda refugees being brought into Iraq.
The New Yorker report also quotes Kurdish sources as saying the CIA had no interest the Mukhabarat-al Qaeda links, prompting this reaction from ex-Director Woolsey:
"The CIA has over recent years not been real enthusiastic about the Iraqi resistance and I think that's a shame. If they got beat on this story by the New Yorker and (its reporter) Jeff Goldberg, three cheers for the fourth estate."
"In think (the New Yorker) piece is a blockbuster," added Woolsey.
| The Washington Times April 24, 2001 Saddam´s revenge by Joe Lauria Saddam Hussein has vowed revenge for air strikes near Baghdad earlier this year. Conventional Washington wisdom says he´s sufficiently boxed in by sanctions and the no-fly zone to hit back. But the Iraqi leader has called on Arabs outside Iraq to strike U.S. interests in the region. That, according to Iraq expert Laurie Mylroie, fits Saddam Hussein´s pattern of revenge since the 1991 Gulf War: masterminding terrorism through Arab fundamentalists who are left holding the bag. In "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein´s Unfinished War against America," Miss Mylroie argues that the Clinton administration erred by prosecuting such individuals in Justice Department-led criminal trials, rather than conducting national security investigations that would have fingered Saddam Hussein. Miss Mylroie, who co-wrote the 1991 bestseller "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf," sees his fingerprints on four terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the 1995 bombing of the U.S. training mission for Saudi troops in Riyadh; the 1996 attack against the U.S. base in al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen; and the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa. Saddam Hussein´s motive is not in doubt: Continue the Gulf War through other means. Proving it is more difficult. The author sets out an intriguing case for Iraq´s involvement in the World Trade Center blast based on circumstantial evidence. There is no smoking bomb, but the late head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York, James Fox was convinced that Iraq was behind the WTC attack. Washington ignored him, believing a "loose network" of Islamic radicals intended to topple the twin towers onto one another with their bomb, releasing a cloud of cyanide gas to maximize the killing. Miss Mylroie´s evidence mostly phone, airline and passport records entered into the trial appears to show that mastermind Ramzi Yousef, now serving life, was an Iraqi agent who traveled to New York on an Iraq passport to direct dupes who were intended to be caught, to deflect attention from Saddam Hussein. Another indicted suspect who fled New York a day after the bombing is living under Saddam Hussein´s protection in Baghdad, she says. Miss Mylroie argues that Bill Clinton purposely ignored these leads because he didn´t want to deal with Baghdad. Indeed, the middle chapters form one of the clearest expositions of how the Clinton White House undermined United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq: "Official silence is undoubtedly the most dangerous possible response to a terrorist adversary," writes Miss Mylroie. "It is, quite simply the opposite of a policy of deterrence; instead of holding out the threat of retaliation, the silence holds forth the promise of a blind eye, if a convenient cover story is provided." Such as, it was all the work of "Muslim extremists." Miss Mylroie says the Riyadh bombing that killed five Americans was likely Saddam Hussein´s response to a negative U.N. weapons inspectors´ report and was aimed at U.S. troops still in the region from the Gulf War. She quotes an unnamed senior Saudi official: "Of course that was Iraq. That was a professional bomb. It was not made by a bunch of Saudis sitting in a tent." She admits: "There is no proof Iraq was behind the Riyadh bombing. Yet Iraq should have been considered a prime candidate, and it was not." The al-Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia seven months later killed 19 U.S. servicemen who had helped enforce the Iraq no-fly zone. Miss Mylroie constructs a scenario in which Iraqi agents in Khartoum worked with Osama bin Laden to plan the attack. She quotes Israeli counterintelligence sources and Saudi officials who believed Saddam Hussein was behind that bomb, too. Likewise, Miss Mylroie believes Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa on August 7, 1998, two days after Saddam Hussein formally suspended U.N. weapons inspections. In May, Baghdad warned of "dire consequences" if U.N. sanctions were not lifted. Because U.S. intelligence never investigated the possible links to Saddam Hussein, there is no proof, Miss Mylroie says. Instead, the U.S. indictment stops at bin Laden and his gang. Mr. Clinton´s secretary of defense, William Cohen, spoke of a "grave new world of terrorism" in which "traditional notions of deterrence and counter-response no longer apply." Miss Mylroie swims against this stream. "According to the Clinton administration, a new terrorist threat has come into being, represented by loose networks of Muslim extremists," she writes. "It is truer to say that the Clinton administration´s handling of terrorist episodes and its refusal to address the question of state sponsorship have encouraged further terrorist attacks." We may never know if Iraq was behind these terrorist attacks, but if the Bush administration wants to lead a more robust policy against Baghdad, it might be wise for it to find out. Joe Lauria has covered Iraqi issues at the United Nations for the Daily Telegraph (London), the Boston Globe and other publications. |
I'll withhold my judgment until more unfolds and try not to make any assumptions.
LOLOL! Now I've got to clean the coffee off my monitor. Thanks a lot :-))
I can't wait to hear how the Iraqis were responsible for all the chads in Florida.
This article makes sense to me. Saddam realizes that direct military confrontation would be disastrous, and he's not dared to take that route since the war, but he's not the type to just sit around and make no effort to avenge his humiliating defeat in the Gulf War.
Notwithstanding his ideological differences with Muslim extremists, it would make perfect sense for him to covertly support their efforts against us in any way he might.
That may be, but sometimes mutual hatred gets into the same bed, as long as it serves both parties well.
You are not correct on this matter. Hussein is still a Muslim. He share with Muslim extremists the hatred toward U.S. and Israel. Hussein has large military and hardwares which can be useful. Why turning on him now when he has what they need ? They can take care of them later. Even the Prophet Mohammad advised his followers to be pragmatic in this kind of matter, that is, advancing the cause of "Jihad".
Saddam hates Muslims, If Taliban fighters fleed to Iraq, there would be mass executions.
If Bin Laden showed up outside one of Saddams palaces looking for a place to crash, Saddam would probably shoot him personally.
Saddam is a Stalinist, not an islamic fanatic
Predictably, after his defeat in the Gulf War and with the star of secular Arab national socialism fading, Saddam has turned to Islamism to bolster his personality cult (Iraq builds 'Mother of all Battles' mosque in praise of Saddam). Meanwhile, bin Laden's religiosity is mostly for public consumption -- his own kids get to watch TV and play with computers. But the religious crap certainly makes a good recruiting tool.
The alliance between Saddam and Osama is no more suprising than the alliance between Hitler and Tojo, or the one between Roosevelt and Stalin for that matter. The benefits flow both ways. Osama couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, but he makes great recruitment videos, and he's willing to do the "ascetic in a cave" thing the Arabs love. So, Osama provides the kamikaze killers, and puts out the talking points. Saddam's end is money, organization, intelligence, and advanced weaponry (i.e. anthrax). What a team they make!
Saddam masacares these clowns, he hates them and fears them, this is a guy who doesn't give his military enough bullets or jet fuel because he is worried his army will launch a coup and his airforce will defect given the oppertunity.
he isn't about to pull a Reagan and start arming islamic terrorists, because he knows they would use them on his infidelic ass
Saddam masacares these clowns, he hates them and fears them, this is a guy who doesn't give his military enough bullets or jet fuel because he is worried his army will launch a coup and his airforce will defect given the oppertunity.
he isn't about to pull a Reagan and start arming islamic terrorists, because he knows they would use them on his infidelic ass
here's another story from today
Predictably, after his defeat in the Gulf War and with the star of secular Arab national socialism fading, Saddam has turned to Islamism to bolster his personality cult (Iraq builds 'Mother of all Battles' mosque in praise of Saddam). Meanwhile, bin Laden's religiosity is mostly for public consumption -- his own kids get to watch TV and play with computers. But the religious crap certainly makes a good recruiting tool.
The alliance between Saddam and Osama is no more suprising than the alliance between Hitler and Tojo, or the one between Roosevelt and Stalin for that matter. The benefits flow both ways. Osama couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, but he makes great recruitment videos, and he's willing to do the "ascetic in a cave" thing the Arabs love. So, Osama provides the kamikaze killers, and puts out the talking points. Saddam's end is money, organization, intelligence, and advanced weaponry (i.e. anthrax). What a team they make!
Saddam masacares these clowns, he hates them and fears them, this is a guy who doesn't give his military enough bullets or jet fuel because he is worried his army will launch a coup and his airforce will defect given the oppertunity.
he isn't about to pull a Reagan and start arming islamic terrorists, because he knows they would use them on his infidelic ass
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.