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

Skip to comments.

Iraq giving chemical weapons to al-Qaida: US thinks Iraq plotting with terrorists
World Tribune ^ | 7/15/02

Posted on 07/16/2002 6:37:16 AM PDT by truthandlife

The United States believes Iraq has distributed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Al Qaida and other Islamic militants.

"It is likely that chemical weapons, biological weapons in the possession of the Iraqis . . . are now being disseminated to terrorists," Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, said.

Pearle warned that Iraq is coordinating with Al Qaida on plans to attack the United States, Middle East Newsline reported.

"This evidence is very powerful," Perle said. "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear: We have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office." Perle, a former assistant defense secretary, chairs a group that advises the Pentagon on national security issues. He is regarded as a leading proponent of a U.S. military campaign against Baghdad.

U.S. officials said the Bush administration has been warned of the prospect that the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has issued biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida and its allies in an attempt to deter any military campaign by Washington. The officials said Iraq hopes that the weapons, obtained during the Cold War with help from the Soviet Union, will be sent from the Middle East to Western Europe and the United States.

In an interview on U.S. PBS network, Perle said the Saddam regime has launched cooperation with Al Qaida in planning WMD attacks against the United States. He criticized a State Department report released earlier this year that did not cite such cooperation.

U.S. officials said Iraq has been bolstering its biological and chemical weapons programs over the last two years. They cite new information from an Iraqi defector who has told the Defense Intelligence Agency of more than 30 biological weapons facilities in Iraq.

The officials said Israel as well as U.S. troops in the Middle East are under greatest threat of Iraqi WMD. The officials said Baghdad might have weaponized such agents as anthrax and botulinum poison.

But Perle said that with Al Qaida cooperation Iraq could launch biological or chemical weapons attacks in the United States. He said Iraq is also working on new unspecified means of WMD delivery.

"The target could be the United States," Perle said. "It could be Americans abroad; it could be American forces deployed now in the region, and it could the Israelis or the Saudis. He has the capacity to do great damage, and at any moment he may do so."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: alqaida; iraq; terrorism; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: traditionalist
There is a much more polictical risk to congress if they are asked for a declaration of war, and do not provide it.

My guess (but not my preference) is that the President will not request a declaration of war, but attack based on the what congress did pass just after the September 11th attack, the right to use all force necessary.

21 posted on 07/16/2002 10:49:19 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
I don't think we're moving as fast as we can in attacking Iraq. Why not bomb some suspected sites now? Why wait?
22 posted on 07/16/2002 11:27:13 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: michellcraig
They don't defend the constitution now...Besides the US might as well start using up some of its ICBM's...its a lot cheaper than paying for disposal...and it reduces the arsenal at the same time..its win win..
23 posted on 07/16/2002 2:26:10 PM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
I think we're ready to bomb Iraq right now. However, what we need first are our domestic defenses against the biological weapons that Iraq's Al-Qaida terrorists are going to unleash on this nation.
24 posted on 07/16/2002 2:56:12 PM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
..."this evidence is very powerful," Perle said. "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear: We have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office." Perle, a former assistant defense secretary, chairs a group that advises the Pentagon on national security issues. He is regarded as a leading proponent of a U.S. military campaign against Baghdad....

"...anyone saying different is the terrorists' friend", continued Perle. "Everyone's going to win, in this one. My buddies at Martin Marietta and McDonnell will sell more rockets and fighters than they ever dreamed. The president's poll figures will go back up over 70%, on day one. And you know what a war does for network ad revenues? Hey, bombs away!"

25 posted on 07/16/2002 4:41:51 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
...when Saddam thinks his demise is imminent, he will unleash everything in his arsenal....

Yeah. Those 1970s Sov technology Scuds. All three of 'em.

Hey, give my best to the boys 'round the water cooler at Langley, okay?

26 posted on 07/16/2002 4:45:03 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Seti 1
...Mr Blair was asked whether there was any evidence linking Saddam to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation.

"He replied: 'There, as far as I am aware, is not evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the actual attack on the 11th of September...

Right. So....what's the war for?

Or does that question make your head hurt, Mr President?

27 posted on 07/16/2002 4:48:05 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie

Yeah. Those 1970s Sov technology Scuds. All three of 'em.

Iraq’s Scuds

If interested, you may want to read this. Iraq has a few more than three scuds.

28 posted on 07/16/2002 4:55:10 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
...give me a break. After the initial shock of 9-11 started to wear off we were all on guard for Thanksgiving, then Christmas, then Memorial Day...then everyone knew the 4th of July would be the big one. Now in the middle of July we're waiting for the 1 yr anniversary to suffer our next attack....

Why, you....questioning the Fear Campaign. Do you care about the time and effort invested by media and government in scaring the pants off everyone? How hard they have worked, on the anthrax/smallpox/ suitcase nukes/cyanide in the water scares, just over the last couple of months alone? No, you don't. You guys always want more, more, more. Bigger, bigger, bigger. Alright. Since YOU asked for it...here's what Saddam and Al-Qaeda have been working on this week:

STAY HOME, GROUNDHOG DAY 2007!!!

29 posted on 07/16/2002 4:58:56 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
..if interested, you may want to read this. Iraq has a few more than three scuds...

I'm interested, and thank you. The article says that Iraq has between six and sixteen of these totally obsolete missiles. When the full might of the US military is brought to bear they'll be about as helpful as a wooden leg in a bushfire.

30 posted on 07/16/2002 5:06:03 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
I very much hope you are correct, however, I do not believe anyone in range of these missiles would want to trust on luck, that A. They don't work, or B. Saddam does not fire them, or C. He does not put Chemical or Biological warheads on them.

Since we can not be 100% sure, it is only prudent steps be taken to neuralize them.

I haven't a clue what those steps may be, but I am certain we have been on a scud hunt for months.

I believe these missiles will be on the top of any target list being made up.

31 posted on 07/16/2002 5:23:22 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
Interesting. Can you expand on your point? Thanks.
32 posted on 07/17/2002 7:07:58 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
My guess (but not my preference) is that the President will not request a declaration of war, but attack based on the what congress did pass just after the September 11th attack, the right to use all force necessary.

That won't work. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the WTC and Pentagon attacks, and the congressional authorization was only to go after those responsible for these two attacks.

33 posted on 07/17/2002 7:15:27 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Deterrence of what?

The aiding and abbetting those who would attack us.

There is no negotiating with a whacko like Hussein.

What's there to negotiate? My only claim is that a wiser course of action would be to put Saddam on notice that if he tries anything against us he's history. Otherwise we let him alone. Saddam is not a wacko. He would not have survived in power this long if he were. He's a cold, brutal, calculating dictator, but certainly not an irrational one. He knows that if we wanted to we could topple him before you can say Baghdad.

34 posted on 07/17/2002 7:19:38 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seti 1; Byron_the_Aussie
"Richard Perle must have information that Tony Blair lacks."

You know, it might not be information, but the willingness to talk about it. Why does the FBI and Mayor of LA say that the July 4th shooting at LAX was an isolated incident and not related to terrorism? They discredit themselves with this kind of nonsense.

The Czech government from the Prime Minister to their Intelligence Chief say that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence Al-Ani at the Prague Airport. They stand by that information, inspite of the CIA and US Gov trying to discredit it. I guess Al-Ani was just an old Atta family friend.

35 posted on 07/17/2002 7:28:19 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
I disagree. War is not the same as crime. I believe the administration knows more than it is telling. Either way, waiting for Saddam to do something (when that something could cause a large number of American casualities) is no longer an option.

Like it or not, their are some in the middle east who have declared war against us. Saddam may or may not have had direct hand in WTC, but he is providing financing for terrorist groups.

Not doing anything (other than warning him) will not stop terrorism against this country. Taking out the source of finacial aid, and base for operations will.

36 posted on 07/17/2002 7:32:40 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
Either way, waiting for Saddam to do something (when that something could cause a large number of American casualities) is no longer an option.

So by that logic, we have to take out every regime that has the capacity of harming us. Good luck.

Saddam may or may not have had direct hand in WTC, but he is providing financing for terrorist groups.

I have not seen any reports or evidence that he's financing Al Qaeda. He finances homicide bombers in Israel, but that's Israel's problem, not ours. If you have any evidence that he's financing anti-American terrorists, I'd love to see it.

Not doing anything (other than warning him) will not stop terrorism against this country.

Whoever said it would? It would stop him from attacking us because he knows he would be history if he ever did it.

Taking out the source of finacial aid, and base for operations will.

If you think taking out Saddam is going to stop terrorism, I've got a bridge to sell you.

37 posted on 07/17/2002 7:41:29 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
My only claim is that a wiser course of action would be to put Saddam on notice that if he tries anything against us he's history.

Sit back and wait to be struck with weapons of mass destruction by a WHACKO. "Wise" is not the four-letter word I would use to describe your chosen COA.

38 posted on 07/17/2002 7:55:47 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
By your logic we do nothing until they kill us all.

Sorry, but I am sure the truth is somewhere in between killing everyone that "may" harm us, and doing nothing until it is too late.

One reason we have a government is so they can make these types of descisions.

If you do not see the difference, then you do not want to see the difference.

39 posted on 07/17/2002 9:37:12 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
No...y'think!? [rolling eyes]
40 posted on 07/17/2002 9:38:42 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 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.

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