Saddam and al Qaeda the link we've all missed

David Rose | December 9, 2002 | David Rose

[swarthyguy]

Thanks for the link. Useful reminder tha the American people were not told the truth about the Saudis.

A country like that should not be coddled by the USA.

Amazing, over a year old.

Let's see if, after Iraq, Bush breaks with his family and their extensive dealings with Saudi money and takes the battle to the Saudis.

Until we confront the Saudis and Pakistanis, the terror will never stop.

[Angelus Errare]

I've always seen al-Qaeda as being more in favor with the Turki faction in Saudi Arabia than with Crown Prince Abdullah's, given the plausible argument that Prince Turki himself is a member of the organization. He was headed of Saudi intelligence for years and this could easily explain why al-Qaeda cells have only recently been disrupted in the Kingdom as well as the lack of Saudi cooperation following the Riyadh and Khobar Towers bombing.

Another argument against bin Laden being in cahoots with Abdullah is that fatwas were published in al-Hayat during the Arab League summit in Beirut calling for Abdullah's death.

[NeoCaveman]

Iraq/Al Queda ping

Nothing you and I didn't know a year ago

[Fred Mertz]

Thanks for your interesting comments and summaries in #61.

[okie01]

"Remember this: The Reagan administration supported BOTH sides [Iran and Iraq] in this war."

So that, hopefully, as one Reagan administration source remarked, they would both lose.

"Saddam was a de facto ally prior to 1990."

In the same way that Iran was an "ally". Which is to say, not really.

"Do you recall any attacks on U.S. interests by Iraq in 1988, 89 or 1990?"

In August, 1990, Iraq occupied Kuwait. Which was definitely not in America's national interest.

[okie01]

"binLaden and Saddam will become allies as soon as the war begins, however. OBL's pet peeve is American infidels on arab soil. Althopugh he has no love for Saddam, as soon as we occupy Bagdad, he will join the Iraquis against the US."

Obviously, then, you believe bin Laden is still alive.

How did you come to this conclusion?

[okie01]

"I did read that one reason we are slower on them [the Saudis] doesn't just have to do with oil, but because of the great wealth they have invested in this country. That if the Saudi's only pulled out 1/3 of their wealth, it would destroy the stock market."

There is another vital reason, a controlling reason.

The Saudis became the sovereigns of Saudi Arabia, because they are also the annointed "Protectors of the Holy Places of Islam" (Mecca and Medina). It is their religious role that protects them from any overt attack by us, which would be seen as an attack on Islam itself.

Consequently, we must move carefully. The first option, I believe, is to give their regime every possible chance to reform itself. But, once in Iraq, we will be in a position to move against them a.) economically and b.) covertly, while c.) making arrangements (perhaps, with the Hashemite king of Jordan) to provide an alternate protectorate.

The Saudis, I suspect, understand their situation rather acutely. Thus, it is they who have taken the lead in trying to get Saddam to step down into exile -- hoping to forestall our occupation of Iraq.

In my view, Gulf War II and the occupation of Iraq is critical for two purposes. First, to allay the threat of WMD in such unstable and malignant hands. And, second, to bring pressure to bear on the source of terrorist funding -- Saudi Arabia.

In other words, between Bush and the Saudis, it's not all "milk & cookies"...

[carton253]

Thanks for your insight... I appreciate it.

[Mitchell]

As for the cropduster thing, I suspect the that was just Atta's attempt to jerk our collective chains from beyond the grave.

Johnelle Bryant found him serious enough (not that she's the best judge of character around).

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Thanks for the ping, there has been quite a bit of info added since this was first posted.

[okie01]

"alQueda was formed to drive westerners from Arab lands- the result of an Iraqi invasion will be the same."

Invading Iraq changes nothing. al-Qaeda is an enemy now. And will remain an enemy after we invade Iraq.

Afghanistan was first. Iraq will be second. We'll see who's next.

And, in due time, there will eventually be no al-Qaeda worth hunting down.

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

Thanks I missed this one.

[hobbes1]

Odd, how it takes the rest of the world a year to catch up with people that really give a F*** ...!!!!

[WhiskeyPapa]

"Saddam was a de facto ally prior to 1990."

In the same way that Iran was an "ally". Which is to say, not really.

No.

Iraq was an ally. They tried to take over Kuwait. We whooped 'em, and Saddam tried to kill G. Bush Sr. Even people who are NOT your de facto allies don't do that.

Think.

Walt

[apokatastasis]

Is there a "Turki faction" distinct from the "Abdullah faction"? In the article above, Wurmser places them on the same side. "Since the mid 1990s, Turki had anchored the Abdallah faction, and under his leadership Saudi intelligence had become difficult to distinguish from al Qaeda."

Reverting to the game of Compare The Terror Pundits... Wurmser says the Khobar bombing was made possible by Abdullah's decision to let Syrian intelligence operate within Saudi Arabia. Bodansky agrees, but (as before with Mylroie), where Wurmser names Iraq as Syria's strategic ally, Bodansky names Iran. For what it's worth, I also see a resemblance between Wurmser's notion of a "Wahhabi/Abdallah-Syria-Iraq-PLO strategic bloc" and Angelo Codevilla's focus on Syria, Iraq and the PLO.

Were the anti-Abdullah fatwas issued by anyone of consequence? And did they say, kill him for proposing to recognize Israel, or kill him if he actually does so?

I have yet to find the definitive account of clandestine Saudi politics, but I'll say one thing: Saudi Arabia is a militarily weak country with many stronger neighbors. If any Saudi leader was in on a plot to eject US forces via terrorism, he'd have to have an alternative protector in mind.