Posted on 09/08/2002 7:36:33 AM PDT by 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.
"...Pentagon ( news - web sites) adviser Richard Perle, a driving force behind the campaign to overthrow Saddam, said on Saturday he saw no reason for Bush to seek support from the U.N. Security Council before pressing ahead with military action.
"The American president has a responsibility to defend the American people. Chirac has no responsibility to defend the American people," Perle said.
"If you go to the U.N. and it refuses, it creates a problem. You can't go unless you are sure you can get approval," he told reporters at a conference in Italy...."
Michael Ledeen, you know the Italian press. What do you know about this outfit?
To conceal our intentions.
Oh that's rich! To conceal our intentions?!? You must not have been paying attention over the past year. Bush Jr. has had a woody for Saddam ever since he got into office, everyone knows it.
Now they are leaking BS reports of collaboration between Atta and Saddam as justification. And they don't leak to the washington post or nytime who might actyually investigate and gather background. No, they leak so some third-world italian rag and the leaker is not a top-level official but several levels down on the totem pole. That way they have some plausible deniablity if anyone comes up with proof that Atta was never in Iraq.
I agree with all here that this is a tried and true tractic, but I disagree with anyone who finds this report credible. It is fun to watch, but only because most of you suckers that think you are so politically sophisticated just eat this up. Some here obviously have a clue, but most clearly don't.
That reads as if you were masturbating when you wrote it instead of thinking (or spelling). A release of pure conjecture, apparently motivated by a pent-up load of bitterness toward Bush and his supporters.
Of course we must not have anything on Saddam, and Bush is just exercising his "woody". There's no point in acting as if "there's no plan on his desk" and he's undecided, that couldn't possibly further our objectives. And there couldn't possibly be another explanation for not releasing this to your preferred source, "the washington post or nytime". After all, they're the first place Bush goes when he wants something released. Thank you for your input.
- Gin
I will be shocked if this is not precisely the case.
If the Atta-Saddam meeting were true, the story would not be first told to an Italian business daily. And it would not be Richard Perle doing the telling.
This is either a.) an accidental misreporting of Perle's remarks, as you suggest or b.) an intentional misreporting, so as to damage the credibility of whatever evidence the administration may subsequently produce on an al-Qaeda-Iraq tie.
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.
