1
   

Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:20 am
Synonymph wrote:
Tragedy.

All the servicemen and servicewomen who were killed or wounded for no legitimate reason, who really believed they were dying to protect their country in this war on Iraq. It's the ultimate betrayal and an unforgivable exploitation by that evildoer terrorist in the White House. The grieving parents and spouses, the fatherless or motherless children...
the blood is on the hands of that f*ucking tyrant "Already Done my Homework, Dad!!!" George Bush.


Slightly hyperbolic today, aren't you Synonymph?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:32 am
Tico
Copout. No need to go to the link. It is all there in the post.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:39 am
au1929 wrote:
Tico
Copout. No need to go to the link. It is all there in the post.


Why all the ellipsis points then? I count 7 of them. Maybe the deleted portions are not relevant, but if I'm going to respond to an article, I'd like to see the entire article.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:47 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:03 a.m. EDT

Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorists

In the wake of President Bush's speech to the nation Tuesday night, Democrats are complaining that he talked too much about 9/11, falsely implying that Iraq was a terrorist threat.

Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded.

According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:

• Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.

Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.

• Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.

• Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.

In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.

• Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.

• Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.

In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.

After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.


Another superficial essay that leaves out much information that undermines the general thrust of the argument that Saddam was a harborer of al-Quida or simply an old folks home for terrorists.

1. Abu Nidal.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml

Quote:




2. Abu Abbas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2952879.stm

Quote:
His capture in Baghdad in April 2003 was used by the United States as evidence that Iraq had been harbouring international terrorists, and his detention an example to others in the post-11 September, post-Saddam climate.

Turning a blind eye to anyone who has a record like his - and his group did murder an elderly, disabled man - was not an option for a US administration. But he was not quite the big catch in the the Americans were seeking for their "war on terror".

Abbas' arrest was not the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda that Washington had been seeking to establish. He came from a different era.

He ended up in Baghdad because there was nowhere else for this aging militant or terrorist leader to go. He and his kind have been partly overtaken by the new zealots from al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who are motivated by religion as well as nationalism.

Even Israel allowed him in and out of Gaza a few years ago as it accepted that he had given up violence and was supporting the Oslo peace process. Israel could not prosecute him under the terms of the Oslo accords anyway.



Quote:
Two times the Israeli government had the opportunity to arrest him, and Two times the U.S. and Italy could have asked for his extradition," Darshan-Leitner lamented. "I look at the stories [of Abbas' arrest] today. They say they have been looking for this terrorist for 18 years and I just laugh. He was in the Old City [of Jerusalem], at a cocktail party at Orient House [the former offices of the Palestinian Authority]. If the U.S. had wanted to get its hands on him, it could have done so long ago."


http://www.israellawcenter.org/news042503.shtml


3. Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the first WTC bombing),

Was imprisoned by Saddam between 1994 through at least 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml

4. Abu Musab al Zarqawi

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-musab-al-zarqawi/
Quote:
Zarqawi found shelter in Iran for a while, but Colin Powell didn't care. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in early 2002, and allegedly began associating with Ansar al-Islam, an impoverished group of 600 to 800 Iraqi Kurds whose stated goal was to secede from Saddam's Iraq so that its tiny, ethnically exclusive clan could go hide out in the mountains.

Of course, there's room for a different interpretation of Ansar's role. For instance, if you're Colin Powell and you're desperate to sell an Iraq invasion to the international community, you could argue that Ansar was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a nexus as "A means of connection; a link or tie." Whatever else Ansar was, it certainly wasn't a nexus.

Geographically stuck between Iran, Iraq and the mainstream Kurds, Ansar was not an effective force in the region. al Qaeda briefly cultivated a relationship with the group, because of its strategic location relative to Afghanistan. When bin Laden and his crew were forced to retreat to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, al Qaeda's interest in Asnar faded.

According to the U.S. pre-Iraq party line, Zarqawi used his "base" in Iraq to stage bombings and terrorist attacks in Turkey and Morocco. Powell told the U.N. that Zarqawi received medical treatment during a stay in Baghdad in May 2002. This was supposed to illustrate Saddam's alliance with al Qaeda. (No one ever talks about the fact that Ramzi Yousef received medical treatment from a hospital in New Jersey after a minor car accident in 1993. Did Bill Clinton personally fluff his pillow?).

As it turns out, the report of medical treatment wasn't even credible to begin with. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi had a leg amputated in Baghdad. Except that most sources now believe Zarqawi is equipped with two working legs. As Newsweek colorfully put in in early 2004, "The stark fact is that we don't even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq."

The remainder of Powell's claims about Iraq were less than airtight, as we all know by now. There is virtually no evidence to support claims that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together. bin Laden openly advocated the overthrow of Hussein before the U.S. decided to invade. There may well have been al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad, but there were also al Qaeda operatives in New York, Madrid, Cairo, Fort Lauderdale and Norman, Oklahoma.

…… Despite all the laborious U.S. efforts to prove a link, most independent experts believe Zarqawi is not operating on behalf of al Qaeda, a conclusion which the U.S. military reluctantly conceded in early 2004.

In recent media interviews with captured Ansar al-Islam operatives, the terrorists said they never laid eyes on Zarqawi (the interviewees provided other verifiable information on Ansar activities). Ansar itself has been more or less made obsolete by the U.S. invasion, which spurred an influx of thousands of foreign fighters into Iraq (some al Qaeda-linked, but others not).



So, Abu Nidal was murdered by Saddam.

So, Abu Abbas was free to travel to Israeli held Palestine where the Israeli and American and Italian governments could have captured him, but none did.

So, Abdul Rahman Yasin was a prisoner in Saddam's jails.

So, Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq, but not a part of the country actually under the control of the Iraqi government, and in fact was operating to help Kurdish nationalists overthrow Saddam.

And just how many legs does Zarqawi have anyway?


Btw: In effort to be entirely honest, and let others make up their own mind, the Hudson report referenced in the above post is linked here.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uL_9rgykFKgJ:www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf+Khala+Khadar+al-Salahat&hl=en
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 10:52 am
Nice to see you, Kuv

The speech has not bumped Bush's stats at all. Hadley came on PBS news last night. Watching him avoid any question of significance (events in Afghanistan, Bush's low poll numbers, etc )was too hilarious. One talking point emerged quite clearly...American citizen's confusion (if polls are down, they are confused, axiomatically) is a consequence only of the President's business on other matters and thus he wasn't able to share all the good news about everything with citizens. I suppose that means we are in for a lot of sharing.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 12:00 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Synonymph wrote:
Tragedy.

All the servicemen and servicewomen who were killed or wounded for no legitimate reason, who really believed they were dying to protect their country in this war on Iraq. It's the ultimate betrayal and an unforgivable exploitation by that evildoer terrorist in the White House. The grieving parents and spouses, the fatherless or motherless children...
the blood is on the hands of that f*ucking tyrant "Already Done my Homework, Dad!!!" George Bush.


Slightly hyperbolic today, aren't you Synonymph?

Slightly, and only as a reminder for the devoted followers of the Cretin Warrior:

How many brave individuals have died in the useless and open-ended war on Iraq? The numbers are bad enough, but stop and consider for a moment that each one of those numbers represents a human being struck down in the name of a war being waged deceptively. How are their deaths "worth it" again?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:10 pm
Quote:
Body of Evidence
A CNN anchor gets Iraq and al Qaeda wrong. But will the network issue a correction?
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/30/2005 12:00:00 AM

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda."

So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.

Hayes politely challenged her claim. "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't."

CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. "And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.

But such claims are, sadly, representative of the broad media misunderstanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what he calls fabricated or "fictive" links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush administration for perpetuating the "myth" of such links. "Sixty Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: "There was no connection."

Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.

There have been several recent developments. One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."

One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium attacks from Iraq.)

Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19." When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable."

In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's Intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA has assessed those documents as authentic. In 1999, a CIA Counterterrorism Center analysis reported on April 13 that four intelligence reports indicate Saddam Hussein has given bin Laden a standing offer of safe haven in Iraq. The CTC report is included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's review on prewar intelligence.

In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.

Can CNN stand by its claim that "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda?"
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:30 pm
Ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:32 pm
Rubbish
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:42 pm
redundant ?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:45 pm
Remarkable.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 03:57 pm
They deny the findings of the 911 Commission.

Interesting.

Pathetic.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 04:00 pm
Expected.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 05:45 pm
You mean these incredibly silly people are still buying the "Saddam luvs al-Qaeda" nonsense?

Good God. What does it take for these people to recognize reality?

Ahem. Ahem. The Commission found "no collaborative relationship".

Got that? No collaboration. No working together. No buddy-buddy.

Get the picture?

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Jun 16 [2004](IPS) - In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the special bipartisan commission investigating the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found ''no credible evidence'' of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
While the commission, which has had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those appeals were ignored.

Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan ''do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship'', according to the commission's report, which was released Wednesday morning.

[/b]
Source

Do you people finally have it together NOW?

bin Laden several times asked for aid, and Saddam Hussein told him to go screw. Got it?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 06:04 pm
To repeat: Iraq is a battleground against terrorists only because BUSH made it so.

We were supposed to go into Iraq to avenge September 11, even though it had nothing to do with it. We were supposed to go and clean out the WMD's with which Saddam could threaten us and the region, and it turns out he didn't have any.

Lies, lies, lies and the soldiers keep coming back in body bags.

How much longer are the American people supposed to put up with it?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 06:06 pm
On the previous page, the facts uncovered by the 911 Commission are being refuted.

There was a relationship between them. There was a connection.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 06:22 pm
And it wasn't collaberative. The U.S. had a connection to Osama Bin Laden too. We trained the piece of ****. And that connection has actually been proven, unlike yours, which is all based on circumstantial evidence and your biased and acrobatic extrapolation and manipulation of data.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 06:27 pm
Its based on the 911 report.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 06:35 pm
What, you mean the part about it not being collaberative? Yeah, you're right.

Finally we're agreeing!

Gotta go.

later
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:31 pm
The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said no evidence exists that al-Qeada had strong ties to Saddam Hussein.

The battle over adjectives appears silly especially when there is a quantum difference between what are the implications of such ties. Those who screech about a cabal between al Qeada and Iraq are making silk out of a sow's ear. Their underlying implication is that any dealings between al Qeada and Saddam's Iraq is prima fascia evidence that they were in cahoots and had an organized plan to destroy America, and therefore was sufficient cause to attack Iraq.

Sadly for those who feel that way, no such thing is evident.

Desperately weaving together a narrative of disparate items that are mostly unverified and at best second hand accounts is an exercise in passionate, but subjective idiocy or the work of loony Laurie Malroie aficionados.

In fact, it is more objectively confirmable that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who visited Baghdad and who smilingly shook hands with Saddam Hussein had stronger connections with Saddam Hussein than did bin Laden.

http://hn.vnexpress.net/Vietnam/The-gioi/Tu-lieu/2004/12/3B9D9B10/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg2.jpg

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.

But this misdirection of equating Iraq with al Qeada is par for the rabid Right who conveniently drop down the Memory Hole the paramount reason stated by the Busheviks for attacking Iraq.

WMDs.

Don't believe me, check out the actual 911 Commission report instead of relying on distortions from paid propagandistas for the Bushevik cabal. It is available in either pdf or html form

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm


Report by the National Commission on terrorisat attacks upon the United States

Chapter 2 The Foundation of the New Terrorism

Quote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. (ref 53)

53. CIA analytic report,"Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa'ida's Ally in Northeastern Iraq," CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003.


Quote:
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy. (ref 54)

54. Ibid.; Intelligence report, al Qaeda and Iraq, Aug. 1, 1997.



Quote:
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. (ref 55)

55. Intelligence reports, interrogations of detainee, May 22, 2003; May 24, 2003. At least one of these reports dates the meeting to 1994, but other evidence indicates the meeting may have occurred in February 1995. Greg interview (June 25, 2004).

Two CIA memoranda of information from a foreign government report that the chief of Iraq's intelligence service and a military expert in bomb making met with Bin Ladin at his farm outside Khartoum on July 30, 1996. The source claimed that Bin Ladin asked for and received assistance from the bomb-making expert, who remained there giving training until September 1996, which is when the information was passed to the United States. See Intelligence reports made available to the Commission.The information is puzzling, since Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, and there is no evidence he ventured back there (or anywhere else) for a visit. In examining the source material, the reports note that the information was received "third hand," passed from the foreign government service that "does not meet directly with the ultimate source of the information, but obtains the information from him through two unidentified intermediaries, one of whom merely delivers the information to the Service." The same source claims that the bomb-making expert had been seen in the area of Bin Ladin's Sudan farm in December 1995.



Quote:
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. (ref 74)

74. Intelligence report, unsuccessful Bin Ladin probes for contact with Iraq, July 24, 1998; Intelligence report, Saddam Hussein's efforts to repair relations with Saudi government, 2001
.


Quote:
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. (ref 75)

75. Intelligence report, Iraq approach to Bin Ladin, Mar. 16, 1999.



Quote:
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. 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. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (ref 76)

76. CIA analytic report,"Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa'ida's Ally in Northeastern Iraq," CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003. See also DIA analytic report,"Special Analysis: Iraq's Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida," July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,"Old School Ties," Mar. 10, 2003.We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 con-tacts.They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 (cited in CIA letter, response to Douglas Feith memorandum,"Requested Modifications to 'Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq-al Qaida Contacts (1990-2003),'" Dec. 10, 2003, p. 5).


Chapter 4 Responses to Al Qaeda's Initial Assaults

Quote:
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement." Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq (ref 110) This language about al Qaeda's "understanding" with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.

110. NSC email, Clarke to Berger, Nov. 4, 1998. Evidence on Iraqi ties to al Qaeda is summarized in chapter 2.



Chapter 7 The Attack Looms

Quote:
The Hamburg operatives paid for their flight training primarily with funds wired from Dubai by KSM's nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Between June 29 and September 17, 2000,Ali sent Shehhi and Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000.Ali relied on the unremarkable nature of his transactions, which were essentially invisible amid the billions of dollars flowing daily across the globe.48 Ali was not required to provide identification in sending this money and the aliases he used were not questioned. (ref 49)

49. CIA cable,"Efforts to Locate al-Midhar," Jan. 13, 2000.We now know that two other al Qaeda operatives flew to Bangkok to meet Khallad to pass him money. See chapter 8.That was not known at the time. Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect.They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar. See CIA briefing by CTC specialists (June 22, 2004);Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen,"Al Qaeda Link to Iraq May Be Confusion over Names," Washington Post, June 22, 2004, p. A13.



Quote:
While Jarrah took his personal trips, Atta traveled to Germany in early January 2001 for a progress meeting with Ramzi Binalshibh. Binalshibh says Atta told him to report to the al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan that the three Hamburg pilots had completed their flight training and were awaiting orders. Atta also disclosed that a fourth pilot, Hanjour, had joined Hazmi. Upon returning to Florida, Atta wired Binalshibh travel money. Binalshibh proceeded to Afghanistan, made his report, and spent the next several months there and in Pakistan. (ref 67)

67. For Atta's trip to Germany and meeting with Binalshibh, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of Binalshibh, Sept. 24, 2002; Dec. 10, 2002; FBI Penttbom timeline briefing (Dec. 10-11, 2003). For Atta giving money to Binalshibh, see ibid. For Atta returning to Florida, see FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (Jan. 10, 2001, entry citing INS NIIS report; 265A-NY-280350-302, serial 7134). For Binalshibh's trip to Afghanistan, see FBI Penttbom timeline briefing (Dec. 10-11, 2003).


Quote:
When Atta returned to Florida, Shehhi left for Morocco, traveling to Casablanca in mid-January. Shehhi's family, concerned about not having heard from him, reported him missing to the UAE government. The UAE embassy in turn contacted the Hamburg police and a UAE representative tried to find him in Germany, visiting mosques and Shehhi's last address in Hamburg. After learning that his family was looking for him, Shehhi telephoned them on January 20 and said he was still living and studying in Hamburg. The UAE government then told the Hamburg police they could call off the search. (ref 68)

68. For Shehhi's trip, see FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (Jan. 11 and 12, 2001, entries citing 265A-NY-280350-TP, serials 11182, 11183; 265A-NY-280350-OUT, serials 2248, 2256, Intelligence report).We do not have information on what Shehhi did in Morocco.Atta's cell phone was used on January 2 to call the Moroccan embassy in Washington, D.C. before Shehhi left. FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (citing cellular telephone records). Shehhi's trip occurred at a time when Abdelghani Mzoudi, one of the Hamburg cell associates, was also in Morocco. Mzoudi claims he went home to Morocco to get married but could not because he was injured in a car accident there. German BKA report, investigative summary re Mzoudi, Jan. 13, 2003, p. 43. He denies having met with Shehhi, and neither German nor U.S. investigators have uncovered evidence of a meeting. See Federal Prosecutor General (Germany), response to Commission letter, June 25, 2004. For Shehhi's family contacting the UAE embassy, which contacted Hamburg police, and the UAE official's search, see German BKA report, investigative summary re Shehhi, July 9, 2002, p. 23. For Shehhi's call home, see FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (citing 265A-NY-280350-BN-98). For the search being called off, see German BKA report, investigative summary re Shehhi, July 9, 2002, p. 24.


Quote:
Mohamed Atta is known to have been in Prague on two occasions: in December 1994, when he stayed one night at a transit hotel, and in June 2000, when he was en route to the United States. On the latter occasion, he arrived by bus from Germany, on June 2, and departed for Newark the following day. (ref 69)

69. Reports that Atta was in the Prague airport on May 30-31, 2000, and that he was turned back because he lacked a visa appear to be a case of mistaken identity: a Pakistani traveler with a name similar to Atta's attempted to enter the Czech Republic from Saudi Arabia via Germany but was forced to return to Germany because he lacked a valid Czech visa. CIA cable, report re traveler to Prague, Dec. 8, 2001.


Quote:
The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting. (ref 70)

70. For Czech source reporting and credibility assessment, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Eliska T. interview (May 20, 2004). For the information being reported to CIA, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004). For the leak and the ministers' statements, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Shirley interview (Apr. 29, 2004). On April 4, 2001, Atta cashed an $8,000 check at a bank in Virginia Beach; he appears on a bank surveillance tape. For FBI evidence of Atta being in Virginia Beach, see FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (Apr. 4, 2001, entry citing 265A-NY-280350-302-615, 688, 896, 898). For FBI evidence of Atta being in Coral Springs, see ibid. (Apr. 11, 2001, entries citing 265A-NY-280350-302, serial 381; 265A-NY-280350-MM, serials 3817, 5214). For Czech government finding no evidence of Atta's presence and having evidence that Ani was not in Prague, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004). Aside from scrutinizing various official records, the Czech government also reviewed surveillance photos taken outside the Iraqi embassy. CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Shirley interview (Apr. 29, 2004). None of the people photographed that day resembled Atta, although the surveillance only operated from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. CIA cable, review of surveillance photos, Feb. 27, 2002. For Ani's denials of any meetings and request to superiors, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Intelligence report, interrogation of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, Oct. 1, 2003. For KSM's denial of the meeting, see Shirley interview (Apr. 29, 2004). Binalshibh has stated that Atta and he were so close that Atta probably would have told him of a meeting with an Iraqi official. Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Oct. 2, 2002. Binalshibh also stated that Bin Ladin was upset with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein for committing atrocities against Iraqi Muslims, and that Bin Ladin would never have approved such a meeting. Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Oct. 4, 2002. For Atta not using an alias during his July 2001 trip, see FBI memo, Penttbom investigation, Jan. 14, 2002.


Chapter 10 Wartime

Quote:
President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an enemy of the United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations. As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon. He told us he recalled Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide terrorists as well. Speculating about other possible states that could be involved, the President told us he also thought about Iran. (ref 59)

59. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). On Iran, see Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004.


Quote:
Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way." (ref 60)

60. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, 2004), p. 32. According to Clarke, he responded that "al Qaeda did this."When the President pressed Clarke to check if Saddam was involved and said that he wanted to learn of any shred of evidence, Clarke promised to look at the question again, but added that the NSC and the intelligence community had looked in the past for linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq and never found any real linkages. Ibid.


Quote:
While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq. (ref 61)

61. President Bush told us that Clarke had mischaracterized this exchange. On the evening of September 12, the President was at the Pentagon and then went to the White House residence. He dismissed the idea that he had been wandering around the Situation Room alone, saying,"I don't do that." He said that he did not think that any president would roam around looking for something to do.While Clarke said he had found the President's tone "very intimidating," ("Clarke's Take on Terror," CBSnews.com, Mar. 21, 2004, online at www.cbsnews.com/stories /2004/03/19/60minutes/printable607356.shtml), President Bush doubted that anyone would have found his manner intimidating. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). Roger Cressey, Clarke's deputy, recalls this exchange with the President and Clarke concerning Iraq shortly after 9/11, but did not believe the Pres-ident's manner was intimidating. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004)
.

Quote:
Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons. (ref 62)

62. NSC memo, Kurtz to Rice, Survey of Intelligence Information on any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks, Sept. 18, 2001. On 60 Minutes (CBS, Mar. 21, 2004), Clarke said that the first draft of this memo was returned by the NSC Front Office because it did not find a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda; Rice and Hadley deny that they asked to have the memo redone for this reason.


Quote:
Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined "Preventing More Events," he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were "far more" than 1 in 10, citing Saddam's praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. (ref 73)

73. DOD memo, Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, "Preventing More Events," Sept. 17, 2001. We review contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in chapter 2.We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories.


In total, based upon the Commission's report, Hussein's Iraq and al Qeada were not in cahoots, and there is no factual evidence that they were partners in international terrorism.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 07:07:53