Interesting article on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection

[Arles]

First, this is from a right-leaning publication (Weekly Standard). So, keep that in mind. That said, it offers some new information on potential interaction between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's fairly long, so I will just post the front page and give the link for those interested. It's a decent read and brings to light many things I had no idea were known/occuring:

FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

But this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case.

John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Lehman's caution was prescient. A year later, we still cannot begin
to offer a "definitive" picture of the relationships entered into by Saddam Hussein's operatives, but much more has already been learned from documents uncovered after the Iraq war. The evidence we present below, compiled from revelations in recent months, suggests an acute case of denial on the part of those who dismiss the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.

There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

Rest of the article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...yqqnr.asp?pg=2

[Airhog]

Personally I don't believe that the ties between Iraq and Al-quida were all that great. It seems that they already had plenty of support from the Taliban, so why would they need more support for Iraq?

[Chubby]

and yet none of those points has anything to do with a Saddam-Al Queda connection.

To try and make the jump from a former Iraqi milatry person being a member of Al Queda to Saddam hearts Osama is just as stupid as saying since there have been American members of Al Queda than obviously Clinton and Bush are in cahoots with Osama as well...

[clintl]

The people looking for a Saddam-Al Qaeda tie are getting pretty desperate if that's the best evidence they can come up with.

[BrianD]

Didn't the 9/11 Commission report indicate that Saddam was trying to get into bed with OBL but there was no evidence that he was successful?

[jeff061]

I wouldn't say The Weekly Standard simply "leans" .

Didn't the 9/11 Commission report indicate that Saddam was trying to get into bed with OBL but there was no evidence that he was successful?

I thought I remembered reading it the other way around. Bin Laden was trying to get in with Saddam, but Saddam was afraid of the consequences(go figure). Can't remember where I read that though, it was awhile ago.

[JW]

Originally Posted by clintl

The people looking for a Saddam-Al Qaeda tie are getting pretty desperate if that's the best evidence they can come up with.

Try this then. But of course people will believe what they choose to believe. People's minds are long made up on this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

[flere-imsaho]

Nice semantics, Arles:

Originally Posted by Arles

That said, it offers some new information on potential interaction between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Guess what, based on similar intelligence, we can also say there were "potential interactions" between:

King Fahd's (or Prince Abdallah's) Saudi Arabia & Al Qaeda
General Musharraf's Pakistan & Al Qaeda
President Yudhoyono's Indonesia & Al Qaeda
President Mubarak's Egypt & Al Qaeda
etc....

In fact, based on this logic, one could even say there were "potential interactions" between:

President Bush's United States & Al Qaeda (remember John Walker?)
Prime Minister Blair's UK & Al Qaeda
President Schroeder's Germany & Al Qaeda
President Chirac's France & Al Qaeda


We've hashed & rehashed the Saddam-Al Qaeda issue many times, including threads in the past two weeks. You've never adequately countered our "no link" claims in those threads, and so this is just another way of trying to make something true by repeating it.

There were no WMDs.
Saddam wasn't working with Al Qaeda.

Deal with it.

[clintl]

Sorry, but I find the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission a lot more credible than an editorial writer from The National Review.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

Try this then. But of course people will believe what they choose to believe. People's minds are long made up on this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

McCarthy's article is, he says, largely based on Stephen Hayes' book The Connection which has been, in turn, often dismantled by other, more objective, journalists.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JW

Try this then. But of course people will believe what they choose to believe. People's minds are long made up on this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

If you read closely, there aren't too many facts in that article -- most are assumptions or assertions, most of which have since been underminded by new evidence.

Flere makes a valid point -- linking an Hussein to al qaeeda through an Iraqi who joined the Taliban is almost as silly as linking Bush to al qaeeda through John Walker Lindh.

But in the end, does it really matter? The people who opposed the President's logic and plan for war won't change their mind, and the people who agree with him still think Hussein was dangerous and needed to go. Trying to prove a link in this manner after the fact smacks of desperation and insecurity.

[flere-imsaho]

Arguably, given the Bush family ties to important families in Saudi Arabia (including the bin Ladens), one could argue, along the same lines, that George Bush himself had ties to bin Laden.

In fact, isn't this exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 was all about? Seems to me Hayes & McCarthy are simply practicing the same flight of fancy they derided not so recently in the past.

[chinaski]

Schiavos parents write for the weekly standard?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In fact, isn't this exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 was all about?

Yes, everything in this world that is bad is the Republicans fault. Everything that is good is because of Democrats. We get it already.

[Lidstrom]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yes, everything in this world that is bad is the Republicans fault. Everything that is good is because of Democrats. We get it already.

of course those are the only choices

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yes, everything in this world that is good is the Republicans fault. Everything that is bad is because of Democrats.

We get it already.

[Lidstrom]

this seems...oddly...circular

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

We get it already.

Not quite. Everything the terrorists do is bad and everything America does is good. Let's get my side of the argument straight!

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Not quite. Everything the terrorists do is bad and everything America does is good. Let's get my side of the argument straight!

in other words you mean, anything not in agreement with your side is pro-terrorist and anti-american. now we got it straight

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lidstrom

this seems...oddly...circular

Heya, Nick!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

in other words you mean, anything not in agreement with your side is pro-terrorist and anti-american. now we got it straight

Well, my side is pro-American and anti-terrorist...so...yeah!

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCarthy's article is, he says, largely based on Stephen Hayes' book The Connection which has been, in turn, often dismantled by other, more objective, journalists.

As I've said, people have made up their minds. And objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. It is an easy word to throw around. If 1/4 of what is in the reference is accurate, and some of it is and has been verified, that is still a connection.

I believe there were definite connections between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda, based on many things I've read and heard over the years, even before 9/11, the date when some people seem to believe the war by Islamic fundamentalist radicals against the West began.

I believe those connections were very loose and based on having a mutual enemy, in fact, two enemies working very loosely against another enemy. There was never any formal connection. I think it is quite amusing to hear people argue that there were NO connections.

However, the other points made in this thread are quite good. The web of Al Qaeda is quite expansive, with tenuous connections in many directions. I also believe it is one thing to say Saddam and A Qaeda had some loose ties. It is quite another to say that this justified in any way the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But like I said at the start, everyone's mind is made up. No one looks at the evidence objectively.

[Lidstrom]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Heya, Nick!

hey, ummm, person!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, my side is pro-American and anti-terrorist...so...yeah!

So is mine.

[Warhammer]

Actually, the stuff Arles posted doesn't do the article justice. The link he provides does highlight ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, the stuff Arles posted doesn't do the article justice. The link he provides does highlight ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

the same ties one could make between the US and Al Qaeda. in other words, none.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

the same ties one could make between the US and Al Qaeda. in other words, none.

No, read the article. We haven't hosted the Islamic Jihadist Summit in Washington D.C. yet. Nor have we been trying to get Al Qaeda operatives jobs at airlines and giving them their schedule, etc.

Now is any of these links a smoking gun that points to Iraq being involved in 9/11? No. These are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq where they were working together over a 10 year time frame, 1993-2003.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

No, read the article. We haven't hosted the Islamic Jihadist Summit in Washington D.C. yet. Nor have we been trying to get Al Qaeda operatives jobs at airlines and giving them their schedule, etc.

Now is any of these links a smoking gun that points to Iraq being involved in 9/11? No. These are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq where they were working together over a 10 year time frame, 1993-2003.

You're right, we were simply in bed with Osama a decade ago. Just as we were with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq grudge match.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You're right, we were simply in bed with Osama a decade ago. Just as we were with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq grudge match.

Good point, 2 points for you. However, I think the whole point that Arles was trying to make is that there was an ongoing working relationship between OBL and Iraq, which the 9/11 commission turned a blind eye to.

[Arles]

The 9/11 commission turned a blind eye on this because it was not the emphasis of their investigation. If you recall, their statement on an Iraqi-Al Qaeda relationship was focused primarily on 9-11. However, they left the door open on prior activities and relationships between Saddam's forces and Al Qaeda though as that determination was not part of their investigation into 9/11.

What happened, though, is that the media took the commission's statement that "Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda on 9/11" to mean "Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda". That is what some of the commission members (like Lehman) have taken issue with, as they did not do much investigating outside the scope of the 9/11 attacks.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Arles

The 9/11 commission turned a blind eye on this because it was not the emphasis of their investigation. If you recall, their statement on an Iraqi-Al Qaeda relationship was focused primarily on 9-11. However, they left the door open on prior activities and relationships between Saddam's forces and Al Qaeda though as that determination was not part of their investigation into 9/11.

What happened, though, is that the media took the commission's statement that "Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda on 9/11" to mean "Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda". That is what some of the commission members (like Lehman) have taken issue with, as they did not do much investigating outside the scope of the 9/11 attacks.

Good points. I think there is significant evidence of Iraq-AQ connections, even if some people here want to take the totality of what has been presented here and dismiss because some of it is in dispute. The only argument I would see is just how substantial those connections were, not whether they existed or not, and whether or not those connections were substantial enough to be a justification for war.

[flere-imsaho]

This thread is merely an exercise in a new form of discourse brought to us by the Bush Administration: Truth Through Repetition.

If you repeat something enough people will not only begin to believe it's true, but will begin to see supporting "evidence" in a light that convinces them the original premise is true.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This thread is merely an exerecise in a new form of discourse brought to us by the Bush Administration: Truth Through Repetition.

If you repeat something enough people will not only begin to believe it's true, but will begin to see supporting "evidence" in a light that convinces them the original premise is true.

Just as you see things through your own prism. You are no more objective than those you criticize.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

Just as you see things through your own prism. You are no more objective than those you criticize.

The difference, critically, is that I'm not making stuff up.

[Arles]

Flere, I suggest you read the above article in its entirety instead of dismissing it and chastising those of us intrigued by it sight unseen.

[Blackadar]

*chuckle*

*giggle*

*guffaw*

LMAO!!!

Arles, this is the best you can do?

Too funny!

It doesn't even deserve a critical response, because it's total crap. It's like reading the six degrees of Kevin Bacon applied to Iraq.

What's even funnier is that you somehow thought this was something to be "intrigued" by. Geez, you have sunk to a new low of absurdity. Congratulations!





BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[Swaggs]

I think my position on this matter is, "Why does it matter now?"

We invaded Iraq to stop their WMD program (which were either not there, inoperable, or very well hidden). Then we did it to out the evil dictator. Now you are hoping/praying that some strong ties to Al-Qaeda can be found, two years after the fact?

It doesn't matter. We're there. The majority of folks who took the time to vote, elected to retain the leader who made the call (after the facts seemed to indicate it was not for the reasons he gave), so apparently Americans are okay with it.

So why are we still looking for approval?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Flere, I suggest you read the above article in its entirety instead of dismissing it and chastising those of us intrigued by it sight unseen.

Arles, I refer you to my previous post on the subject: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...5&postcount=10

For the record, I'm not chastising you for finding it intriguing. Heck I find it intriguing. I'm chastising you for, shall I say, naively giving it a considerable amount of credence.

If that's not what you've been doing, then I apologize.

[Warhammer]

A little OT, but I found this to be a much better article, but one that the leftists will all dismiss out of hand.

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?ID...cial%2Fxyz.php

It touches on a couple of subjects brought up here.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A little OT, but I found this to be a much better article, but one that the leftists will all dismiss out of hand.

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?ID...cial%2Fxyz.php

It touches on a couple of subjects brought up here.

For what it's worth, his critiques are shorter than the quoted stuff he was trying to analyze. Also, his MO seems to be "find a liberal who agrees with administration policy to prove that the administration policy was right." If he could beef up the analysis of his supporting material for his arguments, then I would take him more seriously.

Edit: Nothing in that article is really too controversial, just debunking obvious overreaches by the leftist die-hards while offering the defense of questionable administration policy thinking in the manner described above...

[chinaski]

that 'article' (if you can call a blog entry by a right winger, who has no journalistic experience, college education, and has 'The fall of the WCW' on his amazon wish list) ahem, like a i was saying.... that 'article' offers zero information, its everything we've already heard from any other right winger on this board. typically, he fails to leave out every single piece of information that could/would support the counter arguement. For instance, when talking of the supposed ties between Saddam and 9/11, heres his answer - a quote by Bush... "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." Viola, end of story?

[Arles]

I want to make sure I am clear here. I do not (nor does the article I cite) think that Saddam has anything even remotely to do with 9/11. It was simply regarding the similar goals both the Iraqi military (under Saddam) and Al Qaeda had on numerous occasions. Does this somehow justify a war? That's a debatable topic and my opinion is that it is not enough when taken in a vaccum. Still, it was interesting to learn about many different terrorism projects and/or meetings that involved both representatives from Al Qaeda and the Iraqi military. If people want to use this as support for the Iraqi war - so be it. But that was not my intent. My intent on posting this was to provide more information on how often this groups work together and get something out I didn't think many had looked into.

But, again, this will (and has been) be morphed into "Arles thinks this article shows Saddam was involved with 9/11" and be quickly dismissed. Such is life, I guess.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The difference, critically, is that I'm not making stuff up.

You continue to prove my point. You believe what you want to believe and accept no other position. Are you saying categorically that there was no connection whatsoever between Al Qaeda and Saddam? None? Period? I want to be clear on that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

You continue to prove my point. You believe what you want to believe and accept no other position.

I'll accept a position as soon as it has some evidence behind it that isn't hearsay and circumstantial.

Are you saying categorically that there was no connection whatsoever between Al Qaeda and Saddam? None? Period? I want to be clear on that.

Re-read what I wrote. My position is clear. You are the one misconstruing my opinion.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Re-read what I wrote. My position is clear. You are the one misconstruing my opinion.

Make it clear for me, since I obviously have trouble understanding things. Are you saying categorically that there was no connection whatsoever between Al Qaeda and Saddam? None? Period? Please answer me so that I will understand these things better.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

I want to make sure I am clear here. I do not (nor does the article I cite) think that Saddam has anything even remotely to do with 9/11. It was simply regarding the similar goals both the Iraqi military (under Saddam) and Al Qaeda had on numerous occasions. Does this somehow justify a war? That's a debatable topic and my opinion is that it is not enough when taken in a vaccum. Still, it was interesting to learn about many different terrorism projects and/or meetings that involved both representatives from Al Qaeda and the Iraqi military. If people want to use this as support for the Iraqi war - so be it. But that was not my intent. My intent on posting this was to provide more information on how often this groups work together and get something out I didn't think many had looked into.

But, again, this will (and has been) be morphed into "Arles thinks this article shows Saddam was involved with 9/11" and be quickly dismissed. Such is life, I guess.

And yet your thread title would imply otherwise...

[TwinCitiesFan]

Yes, there was a connection between Iraq and the Taliban!

And I also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy!!!!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, again, this will (and has been) be morphed into "Arles thinks this article shows Saddam was involved with 9/11" and be quickly dismissed.

Originally Posted by Chubby

And yet your thread title would imply otherwise...

At some point it would be nice if people could distinguish between Iraq having ties to Al Qaeda with certain projects and Iraq being involved in 9/11. Just because the former may have existed does NOT mean the latter had to as well.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

At some point it would be nice if people could distinguish between Iraq having ties to Al Qaeda with certain projects and Iraq being involved in 9/11. Just because the former may have existed does NOT mean the latter had to as well.

Please point out where I tried to say you think Saddam was connected to 9/11.

Joe Schmuck in the Iraqi army being a member of Al Qaeda does NOT mean Saddam was in cahoots with Osama. You seem to want to make that connection that isn't there. But if you want to maintain that, then feel free to tout any random American's involvement with Al Qaeda as proof of our government being in bed with them as well.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Please point out where I tried to say you think Saddam was connected to 9/11.

OK:

Originally Posted by Arles

But, again, this will (and has been) be morphed into "Arles thinks this article shows Saddam was involved with 9/11" and be quickly dismissed."

Originally Posted by Chubby

And yet your thread title would imply otherwise..

Thread title: Interesting article on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection

The thread title had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did the story it referenced.

Originally Posted by Chubby

Joe Schmuck in the Iraqi army being a member of Al Qaeda does NOT mean Saddam was in cahoots with Osama. You seem to want to make that connection that isn't there. But if you want to maintain that, then feel free to tout any random American's involvement with Al Qaeda as proof of our government being in bed with them as well.

If you read the article you would see that there are many members of Saddam's military that aided and joined Al Qaeda on missions and cooperative efforts. I don't know of any armed US military Lieutenants, Colonials or special forces operatives that hung out with Al Qaeda - but maybe I am missing something.

Another interesting irony here is when some random idiot guard at Abu Ghraib tortures a prisoner to get his jollys - it's "Bush and Rumsfeld were behind it". Yet, when high level members of the Iraqi military are found cooperating with Al Qaeda it's "well, Saddam doesn't know what goes on with all of his guys". Certainly an interesting way to look at these two situations ....