Saddam’s Terrorist Links
Drip, drip, drip.
Drop by drop, isolated news stories and emerging documents erode the popular myth that Saddam Hussein was clueless about terrorism. These revelations undermine war critics’ efforts to whitewash Baghdad’s ancien regime – such as when Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared: “There was no terrorists in Iraq.” Likewise, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., describes a “nonexistent relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.”
Reid, Levin and others who dismiss the Baathist-terrorist nexus would struggle to do so if the Bush administration unveiled the evidence tying Saddam to Osama bin Laden and other extremists. President Bush immediately should release papers discussed in the Jan. 9 Newsweek and the Jan. 16 Weekly Standard.
A declassified 2002 Pentagon presentation obtained by Newsweek’s Mark Hosenball offers fresh details on a suspected April 2001 meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Station Chief Ahmed al-Ani. “No other intelligence reporting contradicts that (deleted) report,” the heavily redacted document states. It adds: “al-Ani ordered IIS finance officer to issue funds to Atta.” (For excerpts, see: msnbc.msn.com/id/10663343/site/newsweek.)
Another slide outlines numerous meetings among bin Laden, his deputies and top Iraqi officials. In 1999, the presentation says, “al-Qaida established operational training camp in northern Iraq; also reports of Iraq training terrorists at Salman Pak,” a military base near Baghdad. In 2000, “According to CIA ‘fragmentary reporting points to possible Iraqi involvement’ in bombing USS Cole in October.”
Among the document’s findings: “Some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with al-Qaida specifically related to 9/11.”
Is this all fabricated? How much is true? Releasing all 60 or so slides should sort this out.
What? Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorism? Iraqi ties to 9/11?
Sadly this will most likely be dismissed by the MSM as “old news” – - but I say, “Let the slide show begin.”
January 17, 2006 - 08:35 PM on January 17th, 2006
“Some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with al-Qaida specifically related to 9/11.â€
This seems very unsure, but I suppose that I will have to look out.
By the way, I would strongly advise checking out factcheck.org. It’s not only bipartisan (It tells when both sides lie), but it’s almost always true, it turned me into Kerry voter, and, it reveals the right lie more and more crazily (Kerry tried to shut down the military!?).
January 18, 2006 - 07:57 AM on January 18th, 2006
Arcane, Kerry lies often. Christmas in Cambodia, and his Winter Soldier lies to Congress are some of the best outside of his Medals fiasco.
January 18, 2006 - 09:51 AM on January 18th, 2006
How do you respond to this? The president himself said it!
Bush, Sept. 17, 2003: We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th . What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He’s a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.
Since the word “ties” can cover any connection, however weak, Bush was in fact stating the truth. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several “friendly contacts” between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a “safe haven,” which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan. But nothing substantial came of the contacts. The commission said: “The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.” So while Saddam Hussien must have mentally supported terrorism, he never physically helped them, bar a couple of safe havens.
January 18, 2006 - 10:37 AM on January 18th, 2006
Arcane. So on the basis of factcheck.org you changed to a Kerry voter? How pathetic is that? You really, really need to dig a little deeper and get some information and use your ole noggin to figure out the truth from the lies in all the information that is out there.
Personally, no matter what I would err on the side of caution. For me, sitting back for a whole 8 years of watching terrorists attacks (yes, even in our heartland, Oklahoma?) while Clinton did NOTHING just convinces me to believe in Bush that much more and certainly not in a man like Kerry who thinks we need to “pass a global test”. Screw him.
January 18, 2006 - 11:09 AM on January 18th, 2006
Just how many links to AL QUEDA did he have probibly plenty and BIN LADEN was probibly a pen pal of his:roll:
January 18, 2006 - 03:05 PM on January 18th, 2006
You think I decided to vote Kerry based only on factcheck? I must have used at least 10 other sites to confirm what I saw there, and every one of them I had to see attack both Democrats and Republicans.
As for Clinton doing nothing, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. In fact, I am reasonably sure that if Clinton was in office in 2001, the 9/11 attacks wouldn’t have happened. Here’s how, in the words of the 9/11 comission:
In the period between December 1999 and early January 2000, information about terrorism flowed widely and abundantly. The flow from the FBI was particularly remarkable because the FBI at other times shared almost no information. That from the intelligence community was also remarkable because some of it reached officials-local airport managers and local police departments-who had not seen such information before and would not see it again before 9/11, if then. And the terrorist threat, in the United States even more than abroad, engaged the frequent attention of high officials in the executive branch and leaders in both houses of congress.
Later they also said:
In the summer of 2001, DCI Tenet, the Counterterrorist Center, and the Counterterrorism Security Group did their utmost to sound an alarm, its basis being intelligence indicating that al Qaeda planned something big. But the Millenium phenomenon was not repeated. FBI field offices apparently saw no abnormal terrorist activity, and headquarters was not shaking them up.
So, as the comission’s report indicated, Clinton was much better as rousing up intelligence offices than Bush. Thus, any attack during the Clinton administration would have happened if Bush was president at that time, and likely more. Should I go into detail on how Clinton actually read his Presidental Daily Briefings?
By the way, Snowy Egret, you aren’t changing any minds, you’re wrong, and unlike Ann Coulter, you aren’t even funny.
January 18, 2006 - 03:47 PM on January 18th, 2006
But you are leaving out the fact that Clinton wouldn’t accept custody of Bin laden from the Sudan TWICE in 1996. You leave out alot of facts like all the terrorist attacks during the 90’s. Don’t they mean anything to you? Just because they happened in other countries. They were American interests. And what about World Trade 1993? No. There is absolutely NO WAY I would believe that there wouldn’t have been 9/11 if Clinton were Pres. It’s ludicrous. As for the commission….one name. Jamie Gorelick.
Factcheck this. End of January 2001 Bush became president. Democrats stalling on confirming his appointments. Plane down in China to deal with. LESS than 8 months into his presidency 9/11 occurred. No transition period because of election dispute.
He’s only one man fighting a huge fight with no help from people like you.
January 18, 2006 - 04:22 PM on January 18th, 2006
The 9/11 commission was flawed from the start. They succeeded chiefly in covering up for the malfeasnace and active damage done to intel capability during the Klinton admin. (e.g., Jamie Gorelic, as BonBon pointed out). So relying on quotes from their deeply flawed conclusion is a position built on quicksand.
Klinton was much better at rousing up intelligence offices as Bush? What? Bush had been in office less than 9 months when 9/11 hit. He was up to his eyeballs in critical issues like the economy, which was well into recession before Klinton left office. Cleaning up the Klinton intel mess was no doubt on the list, but how could he be expected to focus on it in just 9 months?
Sorry, but the disgraceful pathetic state of our National Security and the largely unchecked rise of terrorism is a permanent fixture in the Klinton legacy. If you can lay 9/11 on any one President, and realistically I don’t think it can be done, it would have to be Klintskum.
And the current Iran crisis? Two words: Jimmy Carter. On his watch, Iran went from a staunch ally to a blood enemy. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, stupid Demokrat asswipe.
Yep, them Demoscats have great legacies, don’t they?