Saddam and the Next 9/11

The Wall Street Journal | 14 February 2003 | Editorial Board

[Petronski]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Saddam and the Next 9/11

America is on orange alert, Osama bin Laden is issuing new threats, and already the opponents of military action against Iraq are preparing to blame the next terror attack on U.S. policy. By threatening Iraq, which has nothing to do with al Qaeda, the U.S. is said to be inviting Saddam Hussein to become another bin Laden.

This argument manages to ignore the detail that we were attacked the first time without any provocation. But more importantly it ignores the shared anti-American purpose that has long united both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Certainly bin Laden's latest taped threat shows he understands this mutual purpose. Bin Laden refers to "our mujahideen brothers" inside Iraq and stresses "the importance of martyrdom operations against the enemy, these attacks that have scared Americans and Israelis like never before." Iraq may be run by Baath Party "infidels," he adds, but "it does no harm in these circumstances that the interests of Muslims and socialists crisscross in the fighting against the Crusaders."

What our readers should understand is that the rulers in Iraq have also long admired the methods of bin Laden and other anti-American terrorists, going back before September 11, 2001. This is clear simply from reading the Iraqi press, which is of course government controlled. We sort through some of that evidence below, and we reprint Iraqi magazine covers that give the most graphic indication of how much Saddam admires bin Laden's 9/11 handiwork.

* * *

As long ago as the bombing of the U.S. military offices in Riyadh in 1995, a November 14 Agence France Presse report from Baghdad quoted an official Iraq newspaper as saying, "The Tigers of the Gulf have shaken the Saudi throne and made Washington tremble." It praised the emergence of a "secret Saudi opposition movement" and predicted "dramatic events" in the country. A core bin Laden goal is of course to oust the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and topple its monarchy.

More recently, and eerily, a July 21, 2001, commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praised bin Laden: "In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it."

The article recounts bin Laden's attacks on U.S. targets and U.S. efforts "to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them bin Laden, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

The commentary is ominously prescient, especially since it could never have appeared without official sanction. "Bin Laden is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit," it continues, speaking about his goal to "drive off the Marines" from Arabia. Most eerily of all, the writer adds that those Marines "will be going away because the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man . . . will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Did Saddam know what would happen two months later?

This convergence of Iraq and al Qaeda interests appeared again in the Iraqi press after September 11, this time in a commentary by Saddam Hussein's son, Uday. Writing in Babil on September 20, Uday sketches the scenarios for the war in Afghanistan he expects to come. Iraq should merely be "the spectator" at first, he writes, because "if we do anything Iraq will be attacked . . . perhaps like the attack of 1991."

The Americans will join the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban, but will then "sink into the Afghan quagmire" -- a point that could have been stolen at the time from the New York Times. But then the son of Saddam adds, "In this scenario, there is nothing wrong with Iraq turning from a spectator to an active player on its territory to restore the north, which has been out of its control since 1991." So Iraq's interests are again furthered by bin Laden's terror.

Uday continues: "At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything. The attack might not necessarily be launched by the Islamists. It might be done by the Zionists or any other party through an agent. The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it." We now know that the first U.S. anthrax letters were sent on September 18.

Saddam himself got into the biological game a month later, in a rambling October 29, 2001, "open letter" carried by Baghdad Radio. He ridicules reports "that American officials think that the source of anthrax is probably the U.S. itself. Is this conclusion or information just a tactic to divert the attention of those who were terrorized to hear that bin Laden is the source of anthrax, and to hear insinuations to other accusations, that many Americans think that they should not persist in harming the people he cares for, because that would push him to a stronger reaction in this way or by other means?"

Neither Saddam nor his son are admitting here that they are the source of the anthrax. But the news is that both of them clearly believe in its utility to achieve their political goals. Saddam goes so far as to assert that U.S. officials are lying about anthrax because if frightened Americans thought the source was bin Laden they'd force the Bush Administration to stop hunting him down.

Another anthrax clue also deserves to be more widely known: In October 2002, the Iraqi embassy in Stockholm made an official request of the Swedish Foreign Ministry to provide "appropriate" means for "the early detection of anthrax." The request was also for "protection methods from anthrax and types of methods, procedures and equipment to be used for decontamination." Iraq made a similar request at the time to the Japanese and Finns.

The question is, what was Iraq's point? It's doubtful Saddam believes the U.S. would use anthrax. But was he trying to send a warning that he could and would use it against us? Or does he want to know more about how to protect his own troops if he uses it against U.S. forces?

* * *

The U.S. homeland may again be hit by terrorism, and if it is the point to understand is that the sources will be at root the same ones who attacked us on September 11. Saddam Hussein is probably too clever to get caught openly canoodling with Osama bin Laden, but the evidence above shows that they share the same evil purposes. When it comes to the uses of terror and antipathy to America, Saddam and bin Laden are brothers under the skin.

Updated February 14, 2003 12:32 a.m. EST

[genefromjersey]

I've been reading a new book : CELL ( 3 authors listed, non-fiction, "New Books" section of library ), and there is mention of Iraqi and AlQaeda terrorists sharing the same training camps. There is also some indication of peripheral Iraqi involvement in the 1st WTC bombing, and in 9-11; however, the known involvement of Iraqis appears to be less than the involvement of our own Black Muslim splinter groups.

I stress the word " appears " because there are huge gaps in what the government knows; and no way for us, who only get to see such bits and pieces of "the elephant" as the government and the media want , to have hard evidence to judge.

[aristeides]

For the WSJ editorial staff, it's personal. They knew a lot of people who were killed on 9/11.

[Petronski]

Unlike France, which seems to be uniformly perfidious in their devotion to Saddamatry, there is some hope in Germany.

If you like the WSJ item you've just read, you'll love this WSJ Europe item about the CDU leader's brutal criticism of Schröder's foolishness.

[iceskater]

bump

[Peach]

Great book recommendation; I'll check it out. We need to start a book reading club at FR.

[Fred Mertz]

Saddam goes so far as to assert that U.S. officials are lying about anthrax because if frightened Americans thought the source was bin Laden they'd force the Bush Administration to stop hunting him down.

That's a plausible deduction.

[Fred Mertz]

Saddam goes so far as to assert that U.S. officials are lying about anthrax because if frightened Americans thought the source was bin Laden they'd force the Bush Administration to stop hunting him down.

That's a plausible deduction.

[FairWitness]

What our readers should understand is that the rulers in Iraq have also long admired the methods of bin Laden and other anti-American terrorists, going back before September 11, 2001.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - I have never been convinced by the folks who say that Iraq and Bin Laden can't cooperate because of religious differences.

[The Great Satan]

Saddam goes so far as to assert that U.S. officials are lying about anthrax because if frightened Americans thought the source was bin Laden they'd force the Bush Administration to stop hunting him down.

[Your comment] That's a plausible deduction.

Except for one thing. We went after bin Laden with all guns blazing. It's Iraq that we haven't hit, eighteen months after the attacks on New York and Washington, even though Bush and Cheney clearly believe Saddam was the ultimate author of those attacks (see, for instance, these collected quotes from Bush at War). But bin Laden never was that important -- he was just a guy who made recruitment videos. For both the United States and Iraq, the über-terrorist Osama Bin Laden is a convenient myth, a myth which is perfectly symbolized by the fiction of his James Bond-style mountain fortress.

Do you see the game both sides are playing here? It's the same game.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Wolfstar]

The WSJ editorial claims: "We now know that the first U.S. anthrax letters were sent on September 18."

I don't know how the WSJ can make such a declarative statement. The first anthrax letter was the one sent to American Media in Florida. It was never recovered, having been discarded before anyone began showing symptoms. For this reason, when it was sent cannot be known.

Recall those horrible days and weeks immediately after 9/11 when the entire nation expected to be hit again at any moment. My personal reaction during that time was to focus like a laser on the then-developing anthrax attacks. I collected every article I could and began building a timeline of the attacks with the intention of posting it here on FR. But anthrax news was breaking almost every day back then, so I kept delaying the posting of information I collected, which was stored on my PC at work, an older machine that was due to be swapped out early in 2002. Unfortunately, I waited too long: the hard drive on that PC crashed. By that time, there was no way to recover all the info I had collected about the anthrax timeline without buying a Lexis-Nexis subscription.

My point is this: the early reporting on the anthrax attacks is burned into my memory. I cannot emphasize enough the fact that AT THE TIME, when their memories were most fresh as to details, American Media personnel said the peculiar letter with the strange brownish-white powder arrived the week of September 8, 2001. (In that year, September 8 was a Saturday.)

In plain English: Based on best evidence, which is contemporaneous statements by the people involved — who, at the time, had every reason to be as accurate as possible in every detail since they believed their own lives were in danger — the first anthrax attack letter was mailed a few days before the September 11, 2001 hijackings. Best evidence also indicates it was mailed in South Florida, since some local postal facilities were contaminated.

Also in plain English: Real, substantive evidence places Atta and several other hijackers in the same vicinity as the American Media building in the build-up period prior to the attacks. Real, substantive evidence has two of Atta's gang being treated for severe skin problems: one for a lesion the doctor who treated him later said was cutaneous anthrax. Real, substantive evidence has Atta checking out crop dusters in the same vicinity. Real, substantive evidence has one or more hijackers taking flying lessons in the same vicinity.

If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it sure as hell isn't the all-too-convenient mad scientist stereotype of ancient Hollywood melodramas!!!!

I understand the cat-and-mouse game the Administration has played over the past 17 months. What I don't get — and may I say what is beginning to infuriate me — is why so many in the Democrat Party, in our media, as well as supposed allies like France and Germany, insist on pretending that the Administration is nothing but a bunch of wild-eyed warmongers. These people would have us believe that Saddam Hussein is a pussycat, while Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others of their stature are the real danger. Oh, and just in case Hussein is not a pussycat, but a tiger, they want you, and me, and hundreds of millions of Americans, Brits, Australians, and other hated "infidels" to rely on "containment."

CONTAINMENT!!! [screeching here at the top of my lungs; this morning's UN dog-and-pony show was about it for me] Containment...containment: this in a time when poisons that can kill millions can be smuggled in a two-inch vial or an ordinary aerosol can.

[Allan]

More names. My apologies to those already pinged.

[swarthyguy]

>Is it practical?

Completely practical. But hasn't been done since Afghanistan was secured last year. For political reasons.

This issue is, is the population there only 50% for him, or over 90%? It'd be a a long messy affair, either way.

[tallhappy]

Thanks for pinging me. I heard about this article and wanted to read it.

[Nita Nuprez]

Do you see the game both sides are playing here? It's the same game.

No, I don't, and I don't have time to read the whole thread to figure out what you're talking about. Be a peach and give us the version, will you? I won't be back until tomorrow or Sunday, so just ping me if you make a post between now and then that gives the Cliffs Notes summary instead of ending with one of those irritating "Don't-you-see-it?" questions.

If I didn't think your opinion was interesting and well worth reading, I wouldn't have asked, so don't get mad. If you don't feel like summarizing, I'm sure you won't. :-)

[Nita Nuprez]

Or more succinctly...

The blonde doesn't get it. You have to spell it out for her.

[The Great Satan]

Iraq is blackmailing the US with its anthrax. The blackmail says: point the finger for 9-11, and you will have no choice but war -- and if you go to war, we will hurt you like you have never been hurt before. This situation is essentially a reprise of 1991, but played out on an intercontinental scale, for even higher stakes.

In his open letter, Saddam claims the United States made up the story about domestic source for the anthrax because, if we confronted the truth that it came from the 9-11 terrorists, our leaders would have to admit being too frightened to retaliate. This is a true statement. The rightwing domestic terrorist theory is patently a cover story -- it was floated by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post ten days after an NSC meeting in which Cheney and Tenet agreed that (a) the anthrax came from 9-11's state sponsor, (b) we weren't ready to do anything about it, and (c) this assessment had to be kept from the public (click on my profile for details). So Saddam is taunting the US here. Obviously, he's not going to say openly that he was behind the anthrax -- "Bin Laden" is the code word that his Arab audience understand perfectly well. And of course, Al-Qaeda doesn't have the anthrax -- if they did, they wouldn't be sending shoe bombers to hit us, that's for sure.

But, just as Saddam can only hint at his authorship of 9-11 and his successful intimidation of the West with his WMD, Bush can only hint at Iraq's role in 9-11. As soon as Bush makes it "official" that Iraq was the author of 9-11, it becomes perfectly clear to everyone that we are being deterred by Saddam's anthrax, and that, sooner or later, this is likely to end in a terrible war, fought with WMDs. So Bush talks up this mythical uber-terrorist, Osama bin Laden (in reality, bin Laden was actually little more than an informercial host) and he keeps the role of Saddam ambiguous while he tries to lead us all out of this fix.

If bin Laden didn't exist, both sides in this conflict -- blackmailer and victim -- would have to invent him. And, in a sense, that's just what they did.

[bonfire]

satan, you need to copy this so you don't have to rewrite it countless times each day!

[Lion's Cub]

fyi

[Allan]

satan, you need to copy this so you don't have to rewrite it countless times each day

Ah! But he does rewrite it countless times each day!