Mohammed Atta met Saddam prior to September 11: US official

Agence France-Presse | September 8, 2002

[HAL9000]

MILAN, Sept 8 (AFP) - Mohammed Atta consulted Saddam Hussein prior to leading the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, according to Richard Perle, an advisor to the US defense secretary.

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday," Perle told Italy's business daily "Il Sole 24 Ore".

"The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq," added Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board and consultant to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of an attack on Iraq.

"The main objective of the American administration is to avoid weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands," said Perle.

[financeprof]

But do we have an affidavit signed by both Atta and Saddam, duly witnessed by independent third parties, that such a meeting took place? Absent such how can we possibly believe that there is a credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? How can we act until we are metaphysically certain that Saddam told Atta what to do? \sarcasm Some people (Euroweenies, Senate Dims, etc.) are beyond convincing. They will bleat "you haven't made the case" ad nauseum--a clever formulation that conveniently shifts the blame to Bush and hence allows them to avoid making the hard judgments and gives them maximum flexibility to revise their "positions" as circumstances change.

Bush has to go to Congress in the next month to force these people to put up or shut up. Each member of Congress owes his constituents an up or down vote before the next election. It is their duty--a word that I am sure most of them have no conception of--to state their views and vote accordingly on the most important issue of the time before facing the voters in November. That is the purpose of elections--to hold our representatives accountable. Bush should force them to account, and not let them weasel out as they so desperately want to do.

[RippleFire]

Link?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It could well be a matter of protecting sources and "methods". Intelligence (as in the institution) is rightfully paranoid about giving away what it knows. It makes our enemy's counter-espionage that much more effective -- to, in effect, know what we know about them. The first major break in being able to counter enemy intelligence is to know what they know about you.

If Sadaam knows the details about how much we know about his meeting with Atta, he then has a relatively good starting blueprint for where and how we got that information. Thus, our sources and "methods" become endangered.

This is one reason why Bush has been so closed about information up until now, and why Congressmen like Leaky Leahy are so dangerous to our nation's intelligence assets around the world. Now that we have to produce what we know in order to satisfy the appeasers and the faint-of-heart, our sources better damn well head underground in a really big hurry and hope like hell we don't delay in bringing the hammer down. Their lives are in the greatest danger -- and it gets more dangerous for them with every little iota of information that we release.

This game was pretty well understood in the Cold War, but apparently that is now too long ago for the memory of the press, at least.

[EternalVigilance]

If this report is true, and Perle said this, then we have all the pretext we need for going in and kicking Hussein's butt from here to 'paradise'.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. It has been more than obvious for some time that the Administration possesses more info than we are privy to...info that will fully implicate the Iraqis in 9-11, plus firm confirmation of their possessing the means to introduce WMD's to the equation.

The President and his advisors are pushing the Daschle Gang into a corner from which they can only emerge when they vote 'Aye' on the war.

The Presidency truly is a 'bully' pulpit. Hehehe..

[AAABEST]

Gee we went from "we don't need no steenkin' nexus" between Iraq and 911 to having Atta the nobody meeting personally with the Saddam himself?

This is bull$h!t. If it were so they would have been milking it in public for all it's worth. Just a few days ago when they were contending that there hadn't been any other big shoes dropping and none were really needed to justify an invasion.

[Rome2000]

These cretins look friggin miserable from having to stare at that mustachioed moron Saddams face since 1979.

We will be doing these primitive SOB's a favor by taking him out and introducing Budweiser and Hooters to the pathetic looking creatures.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Rome2000]

This is bull$h!t. If it were so they would have been milking it in public for all it's worth.

The leftists attempt to prevent us from protecting our citizens is whats bull$h!t.

[EternalVigilance]

If it were so they would have been milking it in public for all it's worth.

Nah. A good card player doesn't show everything in his hand before it is put up or shut up time.

The President is a very good card player...he's patient. That's what is so beautiful...his opponents generally aren't, and constantly overplay their hand.

It's fun to watch, actually.

[Fitzcarraldo]

If it were so they would have been milking it in public for all it's worth.

Agreed. Watching for Perle's denial. I think our "friends" in Europe with the Iraqi economic interests are making up stories that will be discredited.

By the way, I think the best time to invade Iraq would have been 9-12-2001.

[Wright is right!]

"This game was pretty well understood in the Cold War, but apparently that is now too long ago for the memory of the press, at least."

I think Rummy should re-instate the press-reporting rules from WWII. If you want to cover the war, you may do so as soon as you join the military and complete basic training. Once you are active military, you may cover the war.

I'd LOVE to see some of the liberal media flacks try to get thru basic with their makeup and hairdos intact. It would make for some VERY compelling television.

Journalists understood very well back then that if the stories they wrote gave aid and comfort to the enemy, it was very clear evidence of TREASON. And, yes, they've forgotten.

Michael

[EternalVigilance]

Great plan---I like it.

[Mixer]

Say goodbye Saddam!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Hey...sounds like an idea for a new reality-based TV show.

Geraldo, George Stepanofulus (or however the hell you spell his name), and info babes galore get down and muddy in: Press Corp Boot Camp! See who survives! The winner gets a paid vacation to...Baghdad!

[elfman2]

"If this is truth, why doesn't Bush just get on the air and make this public? Why does it have to be leaked to Ile Sole which is in turn quoted by AFP?"

To conceal our intentions.

[elfman2]

"If this is the case, we should've started the build up the day after we found out."

We did.

[Fitzcarraldo]

To conceal our intentions.

Everyone knows what Bush intends to do (aside from specifics)!

[gunshy]

And it took a year to find this out. This is just more propoganda to support invading Iraq. Another Gulf of Tonken.

[Fitzcarraldo]

And it took a year to find this out.

These are not reliable sources - watch for the Perle denial.

[gunshy]

You want to protect your fellow countrymen? Then you get on the phone and you tell your buddy Bush to close the damn borders. Deport all the illegals and get rid of non-citizen undesireables. That is not a leftist idea, it is only common sense. During the time bush has been talking about invading Iraq, Saddam could have had an army cross our borders because there is no one to stop them. Bush is really protecting us.

[pepsionice]

The Germans and the French just lost their say in the matter. They can stand out in the open and neutral if they want...but they better not say a word about US aggression. If Saddam had anything to do with the episode, then he gets what he deserves.