Sadaam-Osama link

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
An article in today's New York Post

November 15, 2003 -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave terror lord Osama bin Laden's thugs financial and logistical support, offering al Qaeda money, training and haven for more than a decade, it was reported yesterday.

Their deadly collaboration - which may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks - is revealed in a 16-page memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies compiled by multiple sources, The Weekly Standard reports.

Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

Two men were involved with the collaboration almost from its start.

Mamdouh Mahmud Salim - who's described as the terror lord's "best friend" - was involved in planning the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

Another terrorist, Hassan al-Turabi, was said by an Iraqi defector to be "instrumental" in the relationship.

Iraq "sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors," a top-level Iraqi defector has told U.S. intelligence.



The bombshell report says bin Laden visited Baghdad in January 1998 and met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

"The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan," the memo says.

Though the bombing of the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000 was an al Qaeda job, the secret memo says the CIA believes "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."

The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued to grow in the aftermath of the Cole attack when two al Qaeda terrorists were deployed to Iraq to be trained in weapons of mass destruction and to obtain information on "poisons and gases."

CIA reporting shows the Saudi National Guard went on a "kingdom-wide state of alert in late December 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia," the memo says.

And the report contains new information about alleged meetings between 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta and former Iraqi intelligence chief Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani in the Czech Republic.

Even some Bush administration officials have been skeptical about a purported meeting in April 2001.

But the secret memo says Atta met two other times in Prague with al Ani, in December 1994 and June 2000. It was during one of these meetings that al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office," the memo says.

The memo says the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden went forward even after 9/11.

Both sides allegedly reached a "secret deal" last year in which Iraq would provide "money and weapons" and obtain 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda members.

Al Qaeda associate Abu Maseb al Zarqwari also helped set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad starting in October 2002.

The memo was sent to Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
Stephan Hayes wrote a far more extensive story on this memo in the Weekly Standard...here is a piece of that story.


"There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Gore's recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new "evidence" that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really?

One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive."
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Q. What's the Saddam-Washington link?
A. We supplied him with weapons to slaughter the Iranians wiht.

Q. What's the BinLaden-Washington link?
A. The Bush family, yes including your elf hero GWB, has several finanical ties with the Bin Ladens. In fact, some of the Bin Laden family was in Manhattan during the attacks and were privately flown back to Saudi (despite the terrorist acts, FAA groundings, and flat-out common sense that should have prevented anyone from wasting time/resources to accommodate this family during 9/11).

Wow, 6 months to get a Saddam/Bin Laden link and only 30 seconds for one of our own.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Q. What's the Saddam-Washington link?
A. We supplied him with weapons to slaughter the Iranians wiht.

Q. What's the BinLaden-Washington link?
A. The Bush family, yes including your elf hero GWB, has several finanical ties with the Bin Ladens. In fact, some of the Bin Laden family was in Manhattan during the attacks and were privately flown back to Saudi (despite the terrorist acts, FAA groundings, and flat-out common sense that should have prevented anyone from wasting time/resources to accommodate this family during 9/11).

Wow, 6 months to get a Saddam/Bin Laden link and only 30 seconds for one of our own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bin Laden pulled off this attack knowing that his relatives were in the city being attacked? Sounds a bit like some of my family. Here's an AP story regarding the Bin Laden "evacuation": in your view should the US had ignored the personal request of King Fahd?

NEW YORK (AP) - Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, according to the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

One of bin Laden's brothers frantically called the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington looking for protection, Prince Bandar bin Sultan told The New York Times. The brother was sent to a room in the Watergate Hotel and was told not to open the door.

Most of bin Laden's relatives were attending high school and college. The young members of the bin Laden family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret place in Texas and then to Washington, The Times reported Sunday. They left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks.

King Fahd, the ailing Saudi ruler, sent an urgent message to his embassy in Washington pointing out that there were ``bin Laden children all over America'' and ordered, ``Take measures to protect the innocents,'' the ambassador said.

Osama bin Laden is one of more than 50 children of a Yemeni-born migrant who made a vast fortune building roads and palaces in Saudi Arabia and his extended family spans the globe. Many have been educated in the United States and the family has donated millions of dollars to several American universities.

Bin Laden is estranged from his family and from Saudi Arabia, which revoked his citizenship in the early 1990s after he was caught smuggling weapons from Yemen.The young members of the bin Laden family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret place in Texas and then to Washington, The Times reported Sunday. They left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
I could care less what King Fahd requested.

Is this the King Fahd that reigns of the 15 Saudi hijackers? I think protecting rich little Bin Laden businessmen should have been America's LOWEST priority on that fateful day.

JMHO.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Hayes' piece from the Weekly Standard(read it here) showcases all of the allegations which are allegedly featured in the DoD memo. What comes to the front of my mind is, why was none of this proof offered during the run-up to war?

Perhaps some of it shares the quality of being non-factual, as this portion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.

The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This story has been utterly discredited. Even President Bush has amended this story, in a somewhat embarrassing incident where Vice President Cheney was citing it as a reason to link Hussein to the 9/11 terrorist attacks months after the story had been discredited.

Bush will correct his own right-hand man publicly, but the story still stands as "proof?"


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
Phae,

I imagine much of this information is coming from Iraqi files recovered after the war. From the Weekly Standard:

"One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process."



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps some of it shares the quality of being non-factual, as this portion:
And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This story has been utterly discredited. Even President Bush has http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?0cv=KA01 this story, in a somewhat embarrassing incident where Vice President Cheney was citing it as a reason to link Hussein to the 9/11 terrorist attacks months after the story had been discredited.

Bush will correct his own right-hand man publicly, but the story still stands as "proof?"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't buy your premise that the Atta/Czech story is utterly discredited. As far as I know, the Czech intelligence agency still thinks the meetings took place (they believe he was planning on bombing Radio Free Europe). The US says there is no proof that it happened. Those two stories aren't mutually exclusive.

Even so, there are 50 separate contacts, many varified by multiple sources, show a pretty strong link between Iraq and Bin Laden.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
First off, let me be clear on just what my premises are:

1) I do not believe that there is a meaningful link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

2) ObL and Hussein are/were, on the other hand, politicians, so if their years of openly antagonistic behaviour towards one another were to prove to be a smoke screen covering a working relationship, this would not suprise me, as it is no different from what goes on in political cricles around the world on a continuing basis.

But regarding the specific issue of the Prague incident, however, the reasons why I feel that the claims are discredited are numerous:

1) Atta is documented to have made one trip to Prague prior to moving to the United States. He is documented to have made two trips out of the country after moving here, once to Madrid and once to Zurich, neither of which coincide with the timeframe of the alleged Prague meeting. Atta clearly was not even bothering to attempt to hide his travel from anyone in any of these incidents, and given the level of visa activity which is documented on him it is unlikely that he would have gone out of his way for that particular meeting (see here for additional information on Atta's travel habits.)

2) The Czech Interior Minister's comments regarding the veracity of the numerous claims made sound suspiciously like a politician toeing the line and not someone making a well-reasearched case:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
At present I don't have the slightest information that the reports I received from the intelligence service were not in order. I believe the intelligence services more than journalists.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the only official support of which I am aware that exists within the Czech government for this story (source here)

3. Senior Czech officials have in fact retraced the story (see here)

4. Most importantly, the person with whom Atta was alleged to have met, former Iraqi envoy to the Czech Republic Ahmad al-Ani, has been in U.S. custody for months. One would think that if there was a shred of credibility to the story, that Cheney and other Iraq Hawks would be going after a firm interrogation of al-Ani. (see story here)

As I said, while I do not believe that there is a link between ObL and Hussein, I do not dismiss it as impossible. But I think that the Prague issue is very much a dead one, and the very fact that it is nonetheless included in the DoD memo detracts from its credibility from the start.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
But regarding the specific issue of the Prague incident, however, the reasons why I feel that the claims are discredited are numerous:


This is the only official support of which I am aware that exists within the Czech government for this story (source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/1961668.stm)

3. Senior Czech officials have in fact retraced the story (see http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021020-092811-8185r)

4. Most importantly, the person with whom Atta was alleged to have met, former Iraqi envoy to the Czech Republic Ahmad al-Ani, has been in U.S. custody for months. One would think that if there was a shred of credibility to the story, that Cheney and other Iraq Hawks would be going after a firm interrogation of al-Ani. (see story http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=1958)

As I said, while I do not believe that there is a link between ObL and Hussein, I do not dismiss it as impossible. But I think that the Prague issue is very much a dead one, and the very fact that it is nonetheless included in the DoD memo detracts from its credibility from the start.


Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the links Phaedrus...good stuff. Regarding your #4 point...we are hearing very little what is going on regarding interrogation of captured terrorists. For example, the Ron Jeremy look-alike that controlled the money for Bin Laden; after a few days of stories on the importance of this capture we haven't heard a word about him. The same is true for the leaders of the old Iraqi regime...very little is being made public what is being said during the interrogations.

On point #3; Czech officials aren't speaking with one voice on these Atta reports. The Prague Post (dated a month after the UPI said an anonymous Czech official retracted the Atta link), quotes the Czech UN representative as confirming the Atta/Iraq meeting took place. www.praguepost.com/P02/2002/20605/news1a.php. In case the link fails, here's a portion of the article:

"In recent weeks, unnamed U.S. law enforcement and intelligence sources have been quoted as saying the Czechs may have made up the encounter or at the very least confused the dates.

Although Atta flew from Prague to the United States in June 2000, the sources said that the Czech intelligence apparatus, the Security Information Service (BIS), had failed to convince them Atta and al-Ani ever came face to face.

The Newsweek report hinted that the Czech government might actually have retracted the allegation and apologized to the United States for making the error.

But Kmonicek, a government official with top security clearance, was adamant that al-Ani and Atta met in April 2001, as Czech officials have stated repeatedly.

"At the time [of the meeting] I was in Prague," he said. "It's not like they [the Czech government] sent me a cable saying, 'Say this because you are our ambassador.' It's not like that. I was the person who had to [expel] al-Ani."

Last October, in an interview with The Times of London, Kmonicek raised alarm bells about the possible significance of the meeting. "It is not a common thing for an Iraqi diplomat to meet a student from a neighboring country," he said. He made similar remarks to Newsweek, which apparently did not seek him out when it reported the recent U.S. rebuttals.

Atta was an architecture student and draftsman in Hamburg, Germany, during the 1990s. He is believed to have visited Prague at least twice in 2000 and 2001.

One senior Czech official familiar with details of the Atta/al-Ani matter and who requested anonymity speculated that the media reports dismissing the meeting were the result of a "guided leak."

This source said officials determined to influence President George W. Bush away from entering into renewed conflict with Iraq could have provided such a leak."



To me nothing is proven nor disproven regarding this meeting. It doesn't really matter now, but the inclusion of the story by no way detracts from the rest of the information included in the memo.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Hm. This too. Suprised that it didn't occur to me to look at the source first.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, from Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the department to provide the reports from the intelligence community to which he referred in his testimony before the committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the intelligence community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From DefenseLink, the DoD's official press office.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Why is it you don't hear a peep or a fart about this from the "mainstream" media????

Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 12:54 p.m. EST
Woolsey: Iraq-al Qaeda Link a 'Slam Dunk'

Former CIA director James Woolsey said over the weekend that there's no question Iraq and al Qaeda worked together to plan attacks against U.S. interests during the decade leading up to 9/11, describing the evidence of an operational relationship as "a slam dunk."

Commenting on a memo issued by the Defense Department to the Senate Intelligence Committee and revealed by the Weekly Standard late Friday, Woolsey told CNN's "Late Edition," "Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s, they can only say that if they're illiterate."

"This is a slam dunk," the Clinton-era CIA chief contended, noting that his successor, George Tenet, had said the same thing in briefings last year.

"George Tenet ... said there'd been a relationship going back a decade. Training in – by Iraqi intelligence of al Qaeda in, quote, 'poisons, gases and explosives,'" the ex-CIA chief recalled, adding, "This memo expands on that."

What about the memo's most explosive claim, reports from Czech intelligence that Saddam helped bankroll lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta?

"It's a different question whether Iraqi intelligence had something to do with 9/11," said Woolsey. But he added, "That is certainly arguable."

The day before Woolsey offered his assessment of the Iraq-al Qaeda memo, the Defense Department issued a statement that described the memo as "inaccurate." The statement did not, however, say which of the 50 contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda as detailed by the memo were false.

Editor's note:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Interesting piece on this from the Asia Times ... I didn't realise that the Pentagon's veiled condemnation of the leak ("deplorable and could be illegal") would so quickly lead to demands by both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA for an investigation and prosecution.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The truth leaks out
By Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON - This week's blockbuster leak of a secret memorandum from a senior Pentagon official to the US Senate Intelligence Committee has spurred speculation that neo- conservative hawks in the Bush administration are on the defensive and growing more desperate.

Both the committee and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation of the leak, which took the form of an article published Monday by the influential neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard.

Committee chairman Pat Roberts characterized the leak as ''egregious'', noting that it might have compromised ''highly classified information'' on intelligence sources and methods of collecting information, as well as ongoing investigations. He also said he did not believe the leak came from his committee or its staff. The Pentagon issued an unusual press statement declaring that the leak was ''deplorable and may be illegal''.

The Weekly Standard article, "Case Closed", is a summary of a lengthy memo sent to the committee October 27 by Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith. He had been asked by the senators to provide support for his assertion in a closed hearing in July that US intelligence agencies had established a long-standing operational link between the al-Qaeda terrorist group and Baghdad.

That, and similar assertions by senior Bush officials before the war, have long been considered questionable, more so after the war when the administration - as with its pre-war contentions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - failed to come up with evidence to back its case.

Investigative reporters and Iraq war critics have accused Feith's office of having manipulated or ''cherry-picked'' the intelligence on Iraq's purported ties to al-Qaeda and WMD programs before the war to persuade Bush and the public that Saddam posed a serious threat to the United States.

The leaked memo consists mainly of 50 excerpts culled from raw intelligence reports by four US intelligence agencies about alleged al-Qaeda-Iraqi contacts from 1990 to 2003. Some of the reports include brief analysis, but most cite accounts by unnamed sources, such as ''a contact with good access'', ''a well placed source'', ''a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer'', a ''regular and reliable source'', ''sensitive CIA reporting'', and ''a foreign government service''.

Although the article's author, Weekly Standard correspondent Stephen Hayes, concludes that much of the evidence is ''detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources'', the only example of real corroboration is with respect to several reports regarding contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi agents in Afghanistan in 1999.

Most of the excerpts deal instead with alleged meetings or less direct contacts in which sources claim that al-Qaeda agents are requesting certain kinds of assistance, such as a safe haven, training or, in one case, WMD.

While supporters of the war in Iraq, such as the New York Times' William Safire, have jumped on the Hayes article as proof of what the administration had alleged, retired intelligence officers have criticized it, both because of the security breach of the leak itself and because its contents are anything but ''conclusive'' of an operational relationship.

W Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the Defence Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post the article amounted to a ''listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship''. At the same time, he added, it raises the question: ''If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?”

Other retired officers stressed that, to the extent that virtually all of the excerpts consist of raw intelligence unvetted by professional analysts, the article appeared to prove precisely what critics had been saying: Feith's office simply picked those items in raw intelligence that tended to confirm their pre-existing views that a relationship must have existed, without subjecting the evidence to the kind of rigorous analysis that intelligence agencies would apply.

''This is made to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated,'' Greg Thielmann, a veteran of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) who retired in 2002, told Inter Press Service. ''It begs the question, 'Is this the best they can do?' If you're going to expose this stuff, you'd better have something more than this,'' he said, adding, ''My inclination is to interpret this as probably a very good example of cherry-picking and the selective use of intelligence that was so obvious in the lead-up to the war.''

Melvin Goodman, a former top CIA analyst, said the leak is a sign of desperation. ''To me, they had to leak something like this, because the neo-conservatives (in the administration) have nothing to stand on. They're trying to get the idea out there that, 'Hey, there was a case for war', and they have 'useful idiots' like Safire who say they're right.''


The notion that the leak was ''friendly'' or ''authorized'' by hawks in the Pentagon or their allies in Vice President Dick Cheney's office - as opposed to an unauthorized leak designed to embarrass the author - is widely accepted in Washington.

The Standard, particularly Hayes and executive editor William Kristol, have acted as a mouthpiece for administration hawks like Feith, his immediate boss, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and their friends in Cheney's office, particularly his powerful chief of staff, I Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, since even before the administration declared its ''war on terror'' in September 2001.

But at the same time it raises serious questions about the judgment of those responsible for the leak. Not only does the intelligence contained in the article fall embarrassingly short of ''closing the case'' on Iraq-al-Qaeda links, the leak itself of such highly classified material might fuel the impression that the neo-conservatives, if they were indeed the source, are willing to sacrifice the country's secrets to retain power.

''It shows a cavalier and almost contemptuous regard for the national security rationale for keeping information classified,'' according to Thielmann. ''The objective of silencing the critics is so overwhelming that you have to throw national security secrets to the wind.''

Both he and Goodman noted striking similarities between this latest case and the leak in July of the identity of retired ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer. Wilson had just embarrassed the administration by disclosing his trip on behalf of the CIA to Niger to check out a report that Iraq had bought uranium ''yellowcake''. He charged that Bush's assertion about the yellowcake in his 2003 State of the Union address was false and that the White House knew it or should have known it at the time.

The evident purpose of the leak to the Washington Post was to discredit Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Niger was suggested by his wife. In fact, the leak provoked enormous anger in the intelligence community as a major security breach that effectively ended Plame's career as a covert officer, and potentially endangered her life and those of people who had worked with her abroad. The FBI is currently running a criminal investigation into the matter.

''It's obvious that if you cared about the real national security interests of this country, you wouldn't reveal an asset,'' said Goodman. ''That shows this is a venal and desperate group who are not considering the real national-security interests of this country.''
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(emphasis added by myself)

While I believe that people can gain all sorts of varied knowledge in the course of their lives, in my personal intellectual hierarchy I am more inclined to listen to intelligence experts than agenda-driven journalists when it comes to interpreting the significance and implications (or lack thereof) of leaked memos.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
9/11 Panel Disputes Iraq Link to Attacks

by Curt Anderson
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein. In hair-raising detail, the commission said the terror network had envisioned a much larger attack and is working hard to strike again.

Although Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.

Al-Qaida is actively trying to replicate the destruction of that day, the report said, though the terrorist network has been weakened by losing its sanctuary in Afghanistan and many leaders to U.S. strikes and arrests. The terror organization also is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and is "extremely interested" in chemical, radiological and biological attacks, including the use of anthrax, it said.

"The trend toward attacks intended to cause ever-higher casualties will continue," the report said.

The commission staff said that Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed initially outlined an attack involving 10 aircraft targeting both U.S. coasts. Mohammed proposed that he pilot one of the planes, kill all the male passengers, land the plane at a U.S. airport and make a "speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East before releasing all the women and children," the report said.

Bin Laden rejected that plan as too complex, deciding instead on four aircraft piloted by handpicked suicide operatives. The report said the targets were chosen based on symbolism: the Pentagon, which represented the U.S. military; the World Trade Center, a symbol of American economic strength; the Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. support for Israel, and the White House. Training for the attacks began in 1999.

The attacks were planned for as early as May 2001, but they were pushed back to September, partly because al-Qaida sought to strike when Congress would be at the Capitol. A second wave of hijackings never materialized because Mohammed was too busy planning the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the report.

Under questioning, John Pistole, the FBI's top counterterrorism official, told the commission that the government "has probably prevented a few aviation attacks" in the United States since Sept. 11 but that some operatives in those plots are still at large.

The findings were released as the commission began its final two days of hearings on the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The second day will focus on the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. air defenses. The commission's final report is due July 26.

The first day lacked the electricity of past sessions featuring appearances by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top officials. Like previous hearings, the audience included family members of people killed in the attacks, many bearing photographs of lost loved ones.

Commission member Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, expressed exasperation that the government did not act with greater urgency against bin Laden, given what was known about al-Qaida before 2001.

"I believe that we missed a tremendous opportunity very early in this game to inform the Congress, inform the American people who bin Laden was, what he was doing, what he had done and as a consequence I think we simply didn't rally until it was too late," Kerrey said.

The conclusions that al-Qaida and Iraq had no cooperative relationship run counter to repeated assertions by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials. The claims that bin Laden and Saddam were in league were central to the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq.

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi president "had long-established ties with al-Qaida." And last fall he cited what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, met in Prague, Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks.

The commission concluded no such meeting occurred.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said the report's findings were evidence the "administration misled America and the administration reached too far."

"They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions." he said on Detroit radio station WDET.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, asked about the commission report, said the administration stands by its assertions that there were links between al-Qaida and Iraq.

"I think we have said, and it is clear, that there is a connection, and we have seen these connections between al-Qaida and the regime of Saddam Hussein and we stick with that," Powell said in an interview on the al-Jazeera television network. "We have not said it was related to 9/11."

The commission report said that bin Laden, then in Sudan, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 to request space for al-Qaida training camps and assistance in obtaining weapons, "but Iraq apparently never responded." The meeting occurred even though bin Laden opposed Saddam's secular government and had sponsored anti-Saddam operatives in Iraq's Kurdish region.

The camps that were established in Afghanistan after bin Laden moved there in 1996 produced as many as 20,000 al-Qaida operatives and encouraged trainees to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," the report said.

Some of the ideas included taking over a missile launcher and forcing Russians to fire a nuclear device at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iran, releasing poison gas into a building ventilation system — and "last, but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city."

The Sept. 11 plot gradually evolved from Mohammed's original vision but was hardly a seamless operation, the commission report said. Mohammed, who is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed overseas location, wanted up to 26 operatives for the four-plane plot, but at least 10 were prevented from entering the United States because of visa problems, family objections and other reasons.

There was disagreement between Mohammed, bin Laden and Atta about whether the Capitol or White House should be targeted, a question the report says apparently never was resolved. Bin Laden also had to overcome objections to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who was under pressure from his Pakistani supporters to contain al-Qaida.

Omar, like bin Laden, has eluded U.S. capture since the attacks.

___

On the Net:

Sept. 11 panel: http://www.9-11commission.gov

Text of the reports is available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/911/040616staff15.pdf

http://wid.ap.org/documents/911/040616staff16.pdf
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
Bin Laden certainly seemed concerned about US attacks on Iraq when he declared war on us in 1998:

World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Shotgun


Would you not agree that lumping in the relationship between America and Iraq in a long-winded hateful political missive signed off on by five jihad junkies, which includes bin Laden, is substantially removed from Iraqi participation or support in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
_Shotgun_


Would you not agree that lumping in the relationship between America and Iraq in a long-winded hateful political missive signed off on by five jihad junkies, which includes bin Laden, is substantially removed from Iraqi participation or support in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?


Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure...I'll buy that argument (though I don't agree with how you downplay the Jihad declaration). But the connection didn't just sprout up because the bloodthirsty, child-killing Bush wanted to get Iraq's oil.

NY Times, Nov 5 1998
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10910F73D5A0C768CDDA80994D0494D81

The Guardian, 1999
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

There may not be a smoking gun, but there is plenty of smoke indicating that a Saddam/Al Queda link had occurred or was likely to occur in the near future. The tone I get from leftists is that Saddam was only terrorizing his own people; that is incredibly far from the truth.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,477
Tokens
The right wing religious nuts are getting desperate. In a few months Bush and his cronies will be gone.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by Shotgun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Would you not agree that lumping in the relationship between America and Iraq in a long-winded hateful political missive signed off on by five jihad junkies, which includes bin Laden, is substantially removed from Iraqi participation or support in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure...I'll buy that argument (though I don't agree with how you downplay the Jihad declaration). But the connection didn't just sprout up because the bloodthirsty, child-killing Bush wanted to get Iraq's oil.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well face it, the only ways in which the jihad has been successful thus far is to alienate Westerners from their governments ... and as far as the Bush/oil nonsense goes, you have me mistaken for another poster. We started brewing these problems decades ago; as I have said numerous times here and elsewhere I find the idea that we went to war with Iraq for oil puerile.


Phaedrus
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
844
Tokens
blltna.jpg.jpg
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,244
Messages
13,565,890
Members
100,774
Latest member
carlottakrajcik44
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com