PDA

View Full Version : Saddam's Terror Links


speechlesstx
Mar 25, 2008, 03:11 PM
So Saddam was no threat, had no links to Islamic terrorists and such, eh? The Wall Street Journal says otherwise (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=googlenews_wsj).


Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it's getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study's revelations float by. But that doesn't make the facts any less notable or true.
[Saddam Hussein]

The redacted version of "Saddam and Terrorism" is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.

"The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power," the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat's private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose "emir" was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden's second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.

At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly "secular" Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia," where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained Sudanese fighters in Iraq.

The Pentagon report cites this as "a tactical example" of their cooperation. When Saddam "was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing." Saddam took an interest in "far-flung terrorist groups . . . to locate any organization whose services he might use in the future." The Harmony documents "reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term version."

For 20 years, such "support" included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis "directly associated" with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to "a state-directed program of significant scale." In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, "is under the wings of bin Laden."

It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e. a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation. Supposedly this vindicates the view that Iraq's liberation was launched on false premises. But the Administration was always cautious, with Colin Powell alleging merely a "sinister nexus" in his 2003 U.N. speech. If anything, sinister is an understatement. The main Iraq intelligence failure was over WMD, but the report indicates that the CIA also underestimated Saddam's ties to global terror cartels.

The Administration has always maintained that Iraq is just one front in the war on terror; and the report offers "evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West." In 2002, an IIS memo explained to Saddam that Iraqi embassies were stockpiling weapons, while many of the terrorists trained in Fedayeen camps were dispatched to London with counterfeit documents, where they circulated throughout Europe.

Around the same time, the IIS began to manufacture better improvised explosive devices "designed to be used in civilian areas," and the regime bureaucratized suicide operations, with local Baath Party leaders competing to provide recruits for Saddam as part of a "Martyrdom Project."

All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S. The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one -- which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum. It isn't the first time the White House has ceded the Iraq debate to its opponents.

Let the spin begin...

tomder55
Mar 26, 2008, 05:06 AM
The Pentagon report that was released ;that the press spun a tale claiming it proved Saddam had no ties with AlQaeda ;was loaded with evidence showing Saddam's link to terrorism. The report was based on captured Iraqi documents that have finally been translated . The evidence of his ongoing cooperation with terrorist is overwhelming . The spin will be that there was no proven link between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding 9-11 ;which is besides the point . The President never claimed there was (although I am pretty convinced there was at least some degree of cooperation ) .

excon
Mar 26, 2008, 06:04 AM
Hello:

Spin?? Spin you say?? Looks like that's exactly what YOU'RE doing.

If you are saying that even though George Bush was wrong in the terrorist connections HE attributed to Saddam, that since the WSJ uncovered some different connections 5 years later, that this excuses Bush??

Huh?

If I whacked you because I thought you did something to my sister, and you didn't, it wouldn't be OK that I whacked you even though I find out later that you did something to somebody else's sister.

excon

tomder55
Mar 26, 2008, 06:23 AM
I was not saying the President was wrong. He never linked Saddam directly to alQaeda or to 9-11 although there is ample evidence to make a connection.

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

Ayman al Zawahiri was the contact person between Saddam and BinLaden .The Pentagon report alludes to the growing cooperation between Saddam and Egyptian Islamic Jihad ;which Zawahiri was the leader at the time. He of course is OBLs # 2 today.

speechlesstx
Mar 26, 2008, 07:26 AM
Ex,

The WSJ didn't uncover the connections, but they are talking about them, as is The National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjYyMTFkMjA2M2M4ZDUwNDM1MTYxMTlhN2EyOWFhNGU=) and a few others. Others in the MSM have reported the connections, too, under headlines such as No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMrbOB26rqC1rDocYemjluC58zaA) and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda refuted (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddams-links-to-alqaeda-refuted/2008/03/11/1205125909785.html).

Whether any of this justifies the invasion I'm just ready for the media to fess up.

excon
Mar 26, 2008, 07:35 AM
Hello again, Steve:

The only time Bush was ever right was when he declared victory. He should have brought everybody home then. But, then he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory... and here we are.

So, why haven't we won now? What the hell IS victory, anyway? They have a democracy. They're not killing each other. If our enemy is Al Quaida, and we left, who are they going to fight? They weren't there when we started. Maybe they won't be there if we leave. Maybe they'll go to Afghanastan and fight us there if they hate us so much. That'll be cool with me.

excon

Galveston1
Mar 26, 2008, 02:23 PM
Lots of "maybe's" there Ex.

Skell
Mar 26, 2008, 04:27 PM
But as Ex said what is victory. According to the right everything in Iraq is now pretty rosy. They have their democracy and Sadam is dead. Is that victory? If not what is?

I agree with ex that Afghanistan is the priority. Was to begin with and should have stayed that way. Things are getting wrose there and have been for a while now.

tomder55
Mar 26, 2008, 05:29 PM
Always moving the goal post . The big difference at this point between Afghanistan and Iraq franky is that Afghanistan has become a NATO operation.. . you know allies and all that stuff. Problem is that half the NATO forces there don't think their job is to actually fight the enemy. The U.S. the U.K. and Canada has done the bulk of the combat work. And apparently the French have elected a true leader and he recently said he is willing to send French troops into the fight. Nicolas Sarkozy is expected to commit as many as 1,000 extra troops to serve under either NATO or US command, depending on their location in southeast Afghanistan.

And of course to show we can walk and chew gum at the same time ,the US is increasing our presence there... a surge if you will.

To tell you the truth the threat in Afghanistan has not changed all that much. Every spring the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces come out of the goat caves for the annual "offensive" .They get their butts handed to them and then they retreat back to their goat caves to lick their wounds.

The good news since the MSM has buried it is that the Afghan regular Army doubled in size over the winter and it is ready to assume much of the fighting that the EU troops aren't up to .The Afghan government is committed to doing it's share in the fight and has asked the alliance to concentrat on training and equipting Afghan soldiers ;the “Afghanization” of security.
DefenseLink News Article: Afghan Forces to Assume ‘Leading Role’ Against Enemy, General Says (http://www.defenselink.mil//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49374)

Victory in Iraq is similar to victory in Afghanistan when their nascent democracies are able to stand on their own then victory will have been achieved. Perhaps with stable free nations in the heart of the ummah we will have reshaped the history of the Middle East ; giving its people a chance to decide freedom over the tyranny from totalitarian fascist leaders or Islamo-fascist Mullahs . We've bashed al-Qaida severely, killing key leaders and demoralizing the followers.The leaders of the region now question the utility of terror and the people seeing it up close are rejecting the appeal of the OBLs . We've helped make the threat of nuclear annihilation by rogue states a focus of international diplomacy .Allies who had ignored the threat see it in more realistic terms now .

A quick retreat like the Dems favor (but most likely will renage on once in power ) would be a disaster and they know it . So they posture and pander to their base .

Skell
Mar 26, 2008, 05:47 PM
McCain calls for Guantanamo close - US Election - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/mccain-calls-for-guantanamo-close/2008/03/27/1206207240495.html)

McCain outlines his idea of victory in this article. You talk about Obama and his fairytales. But he did go up a little in my book with his positions outlined in the beginning of the article.

tomder55
Mar 27, 2008, 02:11 AM
Yeah he has seized the center which probably enhances his electoral prospects.

I generally agree with him on his definition of "victory ".

As I have said he was not my first choice for Republican... actually of the group in the field he was only better than the Huckster and Ron Paul ;but he is the best of the rest and God help us.

The article does not address his rational for closing GITMO but I know that he wants to move the prisoners into US mainland detention which is a bad move in my book . It appears he is more concerned about our image. He talks like Kerry regarding this lie about going it alone which was never the case. The US showed leadership and our allies are slowly beginning to get it.

tomder55
Mar 27, 2008, 05:11 AM
Just read text of his speech . I find myself fully in agreement with this part :

"We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests,"

I say go for it ! WE can use the funding currently going to the UN to set it up !

excon
Mar 27, 2008, 06:01 AM
Hello tom:

I only heard him say one thing yesterday that got my attention. He said if he was president, we're not going to torture...

Hmmmm. I wonder why he'd say that if we're not torturing now... But, HE knows - even if you think I don't.

excon

speechlesstx
Mar 27, 2008, 07:57 AM
Besides this proposed league of Democracies he said several things that got my attention...


We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.

I guess he doesn't see what Bush saw in Putin's eyes.


I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.

I can't wait to see Chavez' reaction.


We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?

Good question.

tomder55
Mar 27, 2008, 08:21 AM
Chavez already made a statement about McCain and you don't really need to read it to guess the content.

MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Chavez condemns 'warlike' McCain (http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21214/0/)

Iraq has been trasformed from a rogue state to an ally of the US. Strengthening our alliances ;which we know are strained because the Bush critics tell us they are so ,would mean continuing to support Iraq I would think.

Of course the weakest part of his speech was that clap trap nonsense about global warming .

speechlesstx
Mar 27, 2008, 09:38 AM
Iraq has been trasformed from a rogue state to an ally of the US. Strengthening our alliances ;which we know are strained because the Bush critics tell us they are so ,would mean continuing to support Iraq I would think.

I would think, you would think, the Dems may even think that even though they aren't really saying as much (publicly), but it is after all about gaining power to them. In my opinion of course.


Of course the weakest part of his speech was that clap trap nonsense about global warming .

Sigh...

Skell
Mar 27, 2008, 02:56 PM
Hello tom:

I only heard him say one thing yesterday that got my attention. He said if he was president, we're not gonna torture.........

Hmmmm. I wonder why he'd say that if we're not torturing now.... But, HE knows - even if you think I don't.

excon

Does that mean stopping the torture that is the death penalty too? I hope so. It's a despicable act.