NationStates Jolt Archive


9-11 Commission Confirms Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

New Auburnland
02-08-2004, 05:45
With the release of the September 11 Commission report, some media outlets may ignore or mischaracterize the fact that the report offers more confirmation of Iraq-al Qaeda ties. It is especially noteworthy, however, that the previous staff report’s finding of no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda has been significantly modified. While the commission found no evidence of a “collaborative operational relationship” for “carrying out attacks against the United States,” they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: “any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.”

According to the September 11 report:

- With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with 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 ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

- 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. (p.66)

- 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. (p.66)

In addition, two other recent accounts have shed more light on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. A June 25, 2004 New York Times article, “Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says,” reported on the contents of a mid-1990s Iraqi intelligence document believed to be authentic. According to the article,

- bin Laden “had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative.”
- the Iraqi regime agreed to bin Laden’s request to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda.
- bin Laden “requested joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. had a strong troop presence in Saudi Arabia at the time.
- following bin Laden’s departure from Sudan, Iraq intelligence began “seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship.”
- the Iraqi Intelligence service believed “cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement.”
- a Sudanese official in 1994 told Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

And, on July 7, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported:

- That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: “There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda’s overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden’s operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability.”
- That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, “the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda’s enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq.”
- That the Iraqi regime ‘certainly’ had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi – described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as “a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner” – was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 05:46
I'll let Steph and Incertonia handle this one, since I believe they both have actual copies of the report.

Suffice it to say, regardless of interest, there were no actual collaborative ties between the two. Nuff said.

Also, quoting without citing is bad mojo, m'kay.
Monkeypimp
02-08-2004, 05:48
Isn't the fact that they met each other a few times well known?

Might have helped if Osama and Saddam didn't hate each other.
Neusia2
02-08-2004, 05:50
I'll let Steph and Incertonia handle this one, since I believe they both have actual copies of the report.

Suffice it to say, regardless of interest, there were no actual collaborative ties between the two. Nuff said.

Also, quoting without citing is bad mojo, m'kay.

Unfortunately, we didn't know what they were talking about. We didn't have a little spy camera in there recording what was going on.

That said, it was only a matter of time before both parties got desperate enough to put aside differences and work together.
Roach-Busters
02-08-2004, 05:52
Isn't the fact that they met each other a few times well known?

Might have helped if Osama and Saddam didn't hate each other.

They hate each other? I didn't know that.
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 05:53
Unfortunately, we didn't know what they were talking about. We didn't have a little spy camera in there recording what was going on.

That said, it was only a matter of time before both parties got desperate enough to put aside differences and work together.

Based on what provocation? You're suggesting an alliance that would be tantamount to Osama or Saddam approaching Bush and asking him to team up against the other.

No collaboration. No ties. No thanks.
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 05:54
They hate each other? I didn't know that.

Osama hated Saddam because Iraq was a secular government. Saddam hated Osama because he was a threat to his power.
New Auburnland
02-08-2004, 05:54
Based on what provocation? You're suggesting an alliance that would be tantamount to Osama or Saddam approaching Bush and asking him to team up against the other.

No collaboration. No ties. No thanks.
read my post please...

thanks
Roach-Busters
02-08-2004, 05:55
Osama hated Saddam because Iraq was a secular government. Saddam hated Osama because he was a threat to his power.

Thanks! :)
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 05:58
9/11 commission concluded that Saddam's people and bin Laden's people had meetings a few times but Saddam turned bin Laden down. There were no operational ties. Now, if you want to talk operational ties.. whoah, you should see the ones the USA and Iraq had in the 80's ;)
Whittier-
02-08-2004, 06:00
I'll let Steph and Incertonia handle this one, since I believe they both have actual copies of the report.

Suffice it to say, regardless of interest, there were no actual collaborative ties between the two. Nuff said.

Also, quoting without citing is bad mojo, m'kay.
Yes yes, we all know your conspiracy theory. Bush crashed remote controlled planes in the world trade center.
Bin Laden and Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was all the evil Bush's doing.
He controlled the planes with a remote and he had the people on them brainwashed so they would die just to carry out his evil deeds.
hmph. Conspiracy theorists.
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 06:01
New Auburnland can you please provide a link to your source of where you copied that from please? Thanks :)
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 06:01
read my post please...

thanks

Yeah, I did. I also read it when it when Daniel McKivergan wrote it on 7/22/04.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/354tdeij.asp

Didn't like it then. Don't like it now.
Neusia2
02-08-2004, 06:01
9/11 commission concluded that Saddam's people and bin Laden's people had meetings a few times but Saddam turned bin Laden down. There were no operational ties. Now, if you want to talk operational ties.. whoah, you should see the ones the USA and Iraq had in the 80's ;)

When Iraq was fighting Iran, which was the greater threat at the time.

International politics isn't as cut and dry as you liberals would like it to be.
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 06:02
New Auburnland can you please provide a link to your source of where you copied that from please? Thanks :)

Done!

Plagarism is bad, m'kay.
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 06:30
When Iraq was fighting Iran, which was the greater threat at the time.

International politics isn't as cut and dry as you liberals would like it to be.


Guess you don't recall Iran/Contra.. Americans were supporting bothsides.. :eek:
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 06:32
Done!

Plagarism is bad, m'kay.

Uh, the Weekly Standard as in the same Weekly Standard that is owned by Ruppert Murdoch who just happens to own Fox News.. Gawd.. :rolleyes:
Friends of Bill
02-08-2004, 06:34
Guess you don't recall Iran/Contra.. Americans were supporting bothsides.. :eek:Guess you don't exactly know what happened during the Iran/Contra scandal. Arms were sold to Iran for the purpose of achieving hostage release in Lebanon, not to support Iran against Iraq.
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 06:35
Guess you don't exactly know what happened during the Iran/Contra scandal. Arms were sold to Iran for the purpose of achieving hostage release in Lebanon, not to support Iran against Iraq.


This matters? strawman!
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 06:36
Uh, the Weekly Standard as in the same Weekly Standard that is owned by Ruppert Murdoch who just happens to own Fox News.. Gawd.. :rolleyes:

Yep. One and the same. And guess what?

Daniel McKivergan is the deputy director of PNAC.

Oh what tangled webs we weave.
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 06:41
Yep. One and the same. And guess what?

Daniel McKivergan is the deputy director of PNAC.

Oh what tangled webs we weave.

I would love to say I'm surprised.. but.. nope, just can't do it cause I'm not.

At any rate for future knowledge.. the 9/11 commission did say that Saddam's people and OBL's people did meet on a few occasions, but that no operational ties ever happened. Also, yes, they did hate each other and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't exactly work for religious fundamentalists.
Communist Mississippi
02-08-2004, 06:46
The extent of relations between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were a few meetings in the Sudan in the mid 90s between Iraqi intelligence operatives and Al-Qaeda members.

It basically was

(Al Qaeda) "Please help us."
(Iraqi) "No."
(Al Qaeda) "Oh well, take care, maybe we can talk later."
(Iraq) "Maybe."




I hardly call that a connection.

We must remember that Saddam is a staunch Stalinist and Bin Laden is a staunch anti-soviet, anti-stalin, anti-communist. He fought the soviets when the invaded Afghanistan and he hated them because he regarded them as atheists.



First we went into Iraq for WMDs (Which by the way Israel has the largest stockpile of WMDs in the middle east) But it's okay for them to have nuclear weapons, and it's okay that the obtained the material for the weapons by stealing it from the USA. It's also okay that they've declared "We will use nuclear weapons if the security of israel is every seriously threatened."
But Iraq cannot have a few WMDs, no need to mention we gave them about enough precursor chemical for them to make about 5 million gallons of mustard gas. We also sold them nerve agent precursors, and we gave them botulinum, plague, anthrax samples so they could cultivate them.

That was all during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.



So now that the WMD theory has fallen apart like a chinese motorcyle, we've suddenly been there to "Bring liberty to the iraqi people". Well I can tell you one thing, Iraq is a land divided, a yugoslavia x 10, a basket case, they're going to fall into a civil war.


But then we went because Iraq and Al-Qaeda were buddies, but they were not at all. It's a fact, they hated each other.
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 06:54
I would love to say I'm surprised.. but.. nope, just can't do it cause I'm not.

Yep, McKivergan is one wrasscally wabbit that I've had my eye on for awhile, that's why I thought it was hilarious that NA was quoting him here without giving a cite.
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 06:57
Yep, McKivergan is one wrasscally wabbit that I've had my eye on for awhile, that's why I thought it was hilarious that NA was quoting him here without giving a cite.

Do ya think maybe NA not citing his source might not of been a fluke ;)
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 07:03
Yes yes, we all know your conspiracy theory. Bush crashed remote controlled planes in the world trade center.
Bin Laden and Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was all the evil Bush's doing.
He controlled the planes with a remote and he had the people on them brainwashed so they would die just to carry out his evil deeds.
hmph. Conspiracy theorists.

Actually, no, I don't believe that at all and if you look back at my posts, you'll see I've never believed that Bush "allowed" 9/11 to happen or planned it in any way. Took advantage of it? Sure. Orchestrated it? Hardly.

I also don't believe that Osama and Saddam met one day for a smart cocktail at a trendy nightspot in downtown Baghdad and had a conversation such as:

Saddam: Sigh, I'm so bored with this town. What should we do?
Osama: Mm, I've got an idea. Let's crash airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House!
Saddam: Oooo, that'll be a scream! I just love it when you're naughty.

There was no collaborative relationship between the two. Osama did what he did on his own, through his own planning and with his own men and most certainly didn't involve Saddam Hussein in the process.
New Auburnland
02-08-2004, 07:03
New Auburnland can you please provide a link to your source of where you copied that from please? Thanks :)


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040722.htm

no prob.
Communist Mississippi
02-08-2004, 07:05
Yes yes, we all know your conspiracy theory. Bush crashed remote controlled planes in the world trade center.
Bin Laden and Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was all the evil Bush's doing.
He controlled the planes with a remote and he had the people on them brainwashed so they would die just to carry out his evil deeds.
hmph. Conspiracy theorists.



The Pentagon was not hit by a plane though, the damage shows no evidence of wings clipping into the building. The pentagon was hit by a truck bomb.

Also the plane in Pennsylvania, it was shot down by the air force.
Berkylvania
02-08-2004, 07:06
Do ya think maybe NA not citing his source might not of been a fluke ;)

Dunno. Might be. I've posted stuff on this forum that was the gist of what another writer or journalist said, but never quoted someone word for word unless I gave credit. If I have, I'm not aware of it and humbly apologize.

Point is, though, this is old news from an obviously biased source.
Stephistan
02-08-2004, 07:06
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040722.htm

no prob.

Ack a link to the PNAC site.. My eyes, my eyes.. they're burning.. HELP! :headbang:
New Auburnland
02-08-2004, 07:15
Ack a link to the PNAC site.. My eyes, my eyes.. they're burning.. HELP! :headbang:

I have seen it posted a few other places, but I know how deep your love is for PNAC

lol!
BackwoodsSquatches
02-08-2004, 07:38
The Important question here is:

So Frickin What?

So they met a couple of times.

Big Deal.

There is no proof, whatsoever that anything was agreed upon, enacted upon, or even planned.

There isnt even any proof that these meeting actually happened, all this is mere speculation, and hearsay.

This isnt proof that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to 9/11.

There still was absolutely no justification for Bush to invade Iraq.

The only Justification Bush needed was money.
His inner circle, and his "base" are personally profiting from this war, and if you dont think that that wasnt his primary reason for invading...

...You are buying into his line of bullshit.

This is yet another Red Herring.