as opposed to Clinton’s appeasement policies? (see Iran and North Korea).
UN appeasement policies? (see: entire world.
It’s precisely these head in the sand attitudes that have caused terrorism. We’ve had DECADES of this “multilateralist” BS, which is just anothr term for inertia.
According to Int’l Inst for Strategic Studies, terorism abated in 2004, not increased.
I don’t think that the US is above criticism at all; but I do thing engagement beats inertia.
from Italy’s AKI…
Baghdad, 23 May - (Aki) - ?Al-Qaeda?s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to participate in the ?Ninth Islamic People?s Congress?“: revealed former Iraqi Premier, Iyyad Allawi, to the Arab daily, ?Al-Hayat”. The Shiite political figure supplied to the newspaper certain information discovered by the Iraqi Secret Service in the archives of the previous regime which clarify the ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations. ?Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri,? said Allawi, ?[who at the time] was vice president of the Council of the Direction of the Revolution, in order to participate in the congress along with 150 Islamic authorities coming from 50 Islamic countries.?
According to Allawi important information was also gathered about the presence of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi[?s presence] in the country. ?The Jordanian Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi secretly entered Iraq in the same period,? he affirmed, ?and began to form a terrorist cell, although the [Iraqi Secret] Service did not have precise information about his entry into the country.?
These revelations were released only following those made by the Jordanian king, Abdallah II (also to ?Al-Hayat,") concerning the refusal on the part of Saddam to transfer Zarqawi to authorities in Amman. Regarding those revelations, Allawi said: ?The words of the Jordanian king are precise and important. We have proven [the fact of] the Zawahiri?s visit to Iraq, but we do not have the exact date of Zarqawi? entry into the country, even though it probably took place during the same period.?
According to the ex-Iraqi premier, Saddam?s government would have thus sponsored the birth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as coordinating other terrorist groups, be they Islamic or Arab. ?The Iraqi Secret Service had communications with these groups through someone named Faruq Hajizi,? Allawi continued, ?who was the ambassador to Turkey and was then arrested after the fall of Saddam?s regime while trying to sneak into Iraq. The Iraqi Secret Services were helping the terrorists enter Iraq and taking them to the Ansar Al-Islam camps in the Halbija. area.? In sum, the ex-premier maintains that Saddam?s government also tried to involve Abu Nidal in its terrorist network, and his refusal to cooperate with the Islamist groups became his death sentence, which was carried out in the summer of 2002?
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
What Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance? There was no Al Qaeda-Iraq connection before the US invaded Iraq.
Come on, you can’t just make stuff up. People might notice.
[/quote]
Al-Queda does not rely on one country for support or intelligence. Iraq was one of many. Just becasue the NYT’s doesn’t write about doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were others. The Saudi’s are now behaving becasue we went into Iraq w/o their support and against their counsel.
Open your mind and try and put your hate for Bush aside. Inaction breeds contempt everywhere in the world.
and more:
Saddam Hussein?s Habitual Support for Terrorists
Both supporters and opponents of Islamic terror have provided abundant evidence of Hussein?s support for a wide array of terrorists. Consider the following.
? Hussein paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.
?President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,? Iraq?s former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later.[5]
Mahmoud Besharat, who the White House says disbursed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said, ?You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.?[6]
Such largesse poured forth until the eve of the Iraq war.
As Knight-Ridder?s Carol Rosenberg reported from Gaza City last March 13: In a graduation-style ceremony Wednesday, the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting Israelis received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation, and a kiss on each cheek?compliments of Iraq?s Saddam Hussein.? She added: ?The certificates declared the gift from President Saddam Hussein; the checks were cut at a branch of the Cairo-Amman bank.?
This festivity, attended by some 400 people and organized by the then-Baghdad-backed Arab Liberation Front, occurred March 12, just eight days before American-led troops crossed the Iraqi frontier.[7]
Hussein?s patronage of Palestinian terror proved fatally fruitful. Between the March 11, 2002, increase in cash incentives to $25,000 and the March 20, 2003, launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including 12 Americans.[8]
? According to the U.S. State Department?s May 21, 2002, report on Patterns of Global Terrorism,[9] the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers? Party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the Palestine Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein?s Iraq. Hussein?s hospitality toward these mass murderers directly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe haven to or otherwise sponsoring terrorists.
? Key terrorists enjoyed Hussein?s warmth, some so recently that Coalition forces subsequently found them alive and well and living in Iraq. Among them:
o U.S. Special Forces nabbed Abu Abbas last April 14 just outside Baghdad. Abbas masterminded the October 7?9, 1985, Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in which Abbas?s men shot passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year old Manhattan retiree, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Abbas briefly was in Italian custody at the time, but was released that October 12 because he possessed an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Since 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam Hussein?s protection.[10]
o Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of the ANO, surrendered to the First Marine Division in Baghdad on April 18. As the Sunday Times of London reported on August 25, 2002, a Palestinian source said that al Salahat and Nidal had furnished Libyan agents the Semtex bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground. The 189 Americans murdered on the sabotaged Boeing 747 included 35 Syracuse University students who had spent the fall semester in Scotland and were heading home for the holidays.[11]
o Before fatally shooting himself in the head with four bullets on August 16, 2002, as straight-faced Baathist officials claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (born Sabri al Banna) had lived in Iraq since at least 1999. As the Associated Press?s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the ANO said that he entered Iraq ?with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.?[12] Nidal?s attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 more. Among other atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people on board.[13]
? Coalition troops have shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq, including a base approximately 15 miles southeast of Baghdad, called Salman Pak.[14] Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors had said that the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills.[15]
?There have been several confirmed sightings of Islamic fundamentalists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf states being trained in terror tactics at the Iraqi intelligence camp at Salman Pak,? said Khidir Hamza, Iraq?s former nuclear-weapons chief, in sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002. ?The training involved assassination, explosions, and hijacking.?[16]
?This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world,? former Iraqi army captain Sabah Khodada told PBS?s Frontline TV program in an October 14, 2001 interview.[17] Khodada, who worked at Salman Pak, said, ?Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities . . . how to prepare for suicidal operations.? Khodada added, ?We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes. . . . They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.? A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for Frontline closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.[18]
These facts clearly disprove the above-quoted statements by Senator Kennedy and the Los Angeles Times and similar claims made by others. The Bush administration could advance American interests by busing a few dozen foreign correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of Baghdad?s Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour. Network news footage of that might open a few eyes.
Saddam Hussein?s al Qaeda Connections
As for Hussein?s supposedly imaginary ties to al Qaeda, consider these disturbing facts:
? The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq?s Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell phone records indicate that the Iraqi diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after their al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf?s nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the Christian Science Monitor last February 26, those phone records bolster Sali?s claim in a November 2002 TV interview that the Iraqi diplomat had offered these Muslim extremists Baghdad?s help with joint missions.[19]
? The Weekly Standard?s intrepid reporter Stephen F. Hayes noted in the magazine?s July 11, 2003, issue that the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper published by Hussein?s eldest son, Uday, had revealed a terrorist connection in what it called a ?List of Honor? published a few months earlier.[20] The paper?s November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis and included the following passage: ?Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.? That name, Hayes wrote, ?matches that of Iraq?s then-ambassador to Islamabad.?
Carter-appointed federal appeals judge Gilbert S. Merritt discovered this document in Baghdad while helping rebuild Iraq?s legal system. He wrote in the June 25 issue of the Tennessean that two of his Iraqi colleagues remember secret police agents removing that embarrassing edition from newsstands and confiscating copies of it from private homes.[21] The paper was not published for the next 10 days. Judge Merritt theorized that the ?impulsive and somewhat unbalanced? Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to ?make them more loyal and supportive of the regime? as war loomed.
? Abu Musab al Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened an Ansar al Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.
? Although Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center (WTC) bombing plot, fled the United States on a Pakistani passport, he came to America on an Iraqi passport.
? As Richard Miniter, author of this year?s bestseller Losing bin Laden, reported on September 25, 2003, on the Tech Central Station webpage, ?U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam?s hometown, which shows Iraq gave [al Qaeda member] Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.? The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042 individuals.[22] Indicted by federal prosecutors as a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin is on the FBI?s Most-Wanted Terrorists list.[23] ABC News confirmed, on July 27, 1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled freely and visited his father?s home almost daily.[24]
? Near Iraq?s border with Syria last April 25, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Hussein?s former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison between Iraq and al Qaeda. Under interrogation, Stephen Hayes reports, Hijazi ?admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam?s behest in 1994.?[25]
? While sifting through the Mukhabarat?s bombed ruins last April 26, the Toronto Star?s Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph?s Inigo Gilmore, and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service?s accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998, and marked ?Top Secret and Urgent,? the document said that the agency would pay ?all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.? The memo?s three references to bin Laden were obscured crudely with correction fluid.[26]
These facts directly refute the claims of Senator Rockefeller and Secretary Albright mentioned at the top of this article. The ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are clear and compelling.
Saddam Hussein?s Ties to the September 11 Conspiracy
Despite the White House?s inexplicable insistence to the contrary, tantalizing clues suggest that Saddam Hussein?s jaw might not have dropped to the floor when fireballs erupted from the Twin Towers two years ago.
? His Salman Pak terror camp taught terrorists how to hijack passenger jets with cutlery, as noted earlier.
? On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir?an Iraqi VIP facilitator reportedly dispatched from Baghdad?s embassy in Malaysia?greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur?s airport, where he worked. He then escorted them to a local hotel, where these September 11 hijackers met with 9-11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. Soon after he was apprehended, authorities discovered documents on Shakir?s person and in his apartment connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and ?Operation Bojinka,? al Qaeda?s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific.[27]
? Although the Bush administration has expressed doubts, the Czech government stands by its claim that September 11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al Ani, an Iraqi diplomat/intelligence agent. In a February 24 letter to James Beasley Jr., a Philadelphia lawyer who represents the families of two Twin Towers casualties, Czech UN Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek embraced an October 26, 2001, statement by Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross: ?In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad [sic] Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status.?[28] Al Ani was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe?s Prague headquarters. That building also happened to house America?s anti-Baathist station, Radio Free Iraq. The Czech government continues to claim, in short, that the 9-11 mastermind Atta met with at least one Iraqi intelligence official in the months during which the attacks were orchestrated.
? A Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge, Harold Baer, ordered Hussein, his ousted regime, Osama bin Laden, and others to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas (clients of Beasley, the aforementioned attorney), both of whom were killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,750 others. ?I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ?by evidence satisfactory to the court? that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda,? Baer ruled. An airtight case? Perhaps not, but the court found that there was sufficient evidence to tie Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks and secure a May 7 federal judgment against him.[29]
If one takes the time to connect these dots?as is the professional duty of journalists and politicians who address this matter?a clear portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as a sugar daddy to global terrorists including al Qaeda and even the 9-11 conspirators. As Americans grow increasingly restless about Washington?s continuing military presence in Iraq, to say nothing of what people think overseas, the administration ought to paint this picture. So why won?t they?
Bush Administration Needs to Educate the World on Hussein and Terror
One Bush administration communications specialist told me that the government is bashful about all of this because these links are difficult to prove. And indeed they are. But prosecuting the informational battle in the War on Terrorism is not like prosecuting a Mafia don, which typically requires rock-solid exhibits such as wiretap intercepts, hidden-camera footage, DNA samples, and the testimony of deep-cover ?Mob rats.? On the contrary, it is important to emphasize, as strongly as possible, that the United States need not?and in fact should not?hold itself to courtroom standards of evidence except when appearing before domestic or international judges. The administration merely has to demonstrate its claims and refute those of its opponents, not convict Saddam Hussein before a jury of his peers.
Moreover, those who argue that Hussein was no terror master do not hold themselves to such lofty standards of proof, as the examples noted earlier demonstrate. The appropriate standard of evidence, then, to be entirely fair to both sides in this controversy, is not that of a trial, but rather that of a hearing on whether a criminal suspect should be indicted. In this respect, the ?prosecution? definitely has a prima facie case that Hussein?s Iraq indeed was a haven for terrorists until the moment U.S. troops invaded.
Terrorist attacks, of course, are meant to be at least as shadowy as Cosa Nostra hit jobs. Although this makes metaphysical proof elusive, it is possible to reach reliable conclusions about such matters, even conclusions solid enough to justify military intervention. Hence, the White House and its relevant agencies owe it to the American people to highlight what they know about Saddam Hussein and terrorism, even if some (though not all) of this damning evidence is only circumstantial.
Assuming that he wishes to influence domestic and global opinion, President Bush and his administration immediately should guide Americans and the world through these sometimes-murky specifics and identify the patterns and conclusions that have arisen. Although the former Iraqi dictator never may endure a courtroom cross-examination, plenty of evidence clearly exists in the public record (and more should be declassified) to confirm that Saddam Hussein?s ouster, Iraq?s liberation, and its current rehabilitation were and are vital phases of the continuing War on Terrorism. An American failure in Iraq, conversely, could reinstate the ancien regime and restore Iraq?s status as Terror Central Station.
President Bush and his top advisors urgently need to present this case, not haphazardly, but systematically and in as comprehensive, well-documented, and well-illustrated a fashion as their vast resources will allow.
[1] Madeleine Albright, ?How we tackled the wrong tiger.? Melbourne Herald Sun, October 21, 2003, page 19.
[2] Anne E. Kornblut, ?Kennedy to assail Bush over Iraq war.? Boston Globe online, October16, 2003,.
[3] Greg Miller, ?No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush says.? Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2003, part 1, page 1.
[4] CBS 2 homepage, ?Gore Takes Aim At Bush: Former Veep Addresses New York Audience.? August 7, 2003,.
[5] Reuters, ?Hussein vows cash for martyrs.? March 12, 2002. Published in The Australian, March 13, 2002, page 9.
[6] The White House, ?Saddam Hussein?s Support for International Terrorism.?
[7] Carol Rosenberg, ?Families of slain Palestinians receive checks from Saddam.? Knight-Ridder News Service, March 13, 2003. Published in Salt Lake City Tribune, March, 13, 2003.
[8] Facts of Israel.com, ?Chronology of Palestinian Homicide Bombings.?
[9] U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism. May 21, 2002,.
[10] Saud Abu Ramadan, ?Call for Abbas release, also extradition.? United Press International, April 16, 2003.
[11] Marie Colvin and Sonya Murad, ?Executed.? Sunday Times of London, August 25, 2002, page 13. See als Republican Study Committee, ?American Citizens Killed or Injured by Palestinian Terrorists: September 1993 ? October 2003.? October 17, 2003.
[12] Sameer N. Yacoub, ?Iraq claims terrorist leader committed suicide.? August 21, 2002 Associated Press dispatch published in Portsmouth Herald, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 22, 2002,.
[13] Associated Press, ?Palestinian officials say Abu Nidal is dead.? Posted on USAToday.com, week of August 19, 2002,.
[14] Ravi Nessman, ?Marines capture camp suspected as Iraqi training base for terrorists.? Associated Press, April 6, 2003, 4:14 p.m. EST. Posted by St. Paul Pioneer Press on April 7, 2003,.
[15] Deroy Murdock, ?The 9/11 Connection: What Salman Pak Could Reveal.? National Review Online, April 3, 2003,.
[16] Khidhir Hamza, ?The Iraqi Threat.? Statement before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 31, 2002,.
[17] PBS online, ?Gunning for Saddam: Should Saddam Hussein Be America?s Next Target in the War on Terrorism?? November 8, 2001,.
[18] Deroy Murdock, ?At Salman Pak: Iraq?s Terror Ties.? National Review Online, April 7, 2003,.
[19] Stephen F. Hayes, “Saddam’s al Qaeda Connection: The evidence mounts, but the administration says surprisingly little” The Weekly Standard, September 1, 2003, volume 008, issue 48,.
[20] Stephen F. Hayes, “The Al Qaeda Connection, cont: More reason to suspect that bin Laden and Saddam may have been in league.” The Daily Standard July 11, 2003,.
[21] Gilbert S. Merritt, ?Document Links Saddam, bin Laden.? The Tennessean, June 25, 2003,.
[22] Richard Miniter, ?The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections.? Tech Central Station, September 25, 2003,.
[23] Federal Bureau of Investigation, profile of Abdul Rahman Yasin on FBI?s Most-Wanted Terrorists list.
[24] Sheila MacVicar, ??America?s Most Wanted? ? Fugitive Terrorists.? ABC News? ?Day One,? July 27, 1994.
[25] Stephen F. Hayes, “The Al Qaeda Connection: Saddam’s links to Osama were no secret.” The Weekly Standard, May 12, 2003,.
[26] Inigo Gilmore, ?The Proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden.? London Daily Telegraph, April 27, 2003,.
[27] Stephen F. Hayes, ?Dick Cheney Was Right: ?We don?t know? about Saddam and 9/11.? The Weekly Standard, October 20, 2003,.
[28] Hynek Kmonicek, letter to James Beasley Jr., February 24, 2003. In author?s possession. A scanned image of the letter is available on the Hudson Institute?s website.
[29] CBS News, ?Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked.? May 7, 2003,.
I love my lumpy!!!
Can’t do without some early morning lumpy talking points!!!
It’s the same reason I listen to NPR: It keeps me awake!!!
lumpy wrote:
“Uhmmm and we funded Saddam… I acknowledge the strategy, Just pointing out grossly it has failed, and how unwise it was to begin with. In a crisp clean war against terrorism, step 2 would not be invade foreign islamic country unrelated to al-queda and spend years, billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and exhaust our military in the process. Especially since the net result is (painfully) now fighting even more terrorists.”
So wonderful!!!
He conveniently forgets how many of his party thought alqaeda was significantly involved with Iraq.
Let’s have some fun!!!
"The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
From the December 29, 2003 / January 5, 2004 issue: Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
by Stephen F. Hayes
12/29/2003, Volume 009, Issue 16
ARE AL QAEDA’S links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.
For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan’s Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant’s top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant’s opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant’s general manager.
Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it’s hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.
The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant’s main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed
reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. “Iraq is the only country we’re aware of,” the official said. “There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique.”
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden’s headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people–including 12 Americans–and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up “chatter” among bin Laden’s deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.
The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:
Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America’s target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, “strong evidence” of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.
Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden’s financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country’s chemical weapons program."
Wait!!! clinton believed the same thing that Bush did?
No, clinton lied, the Earth died!!!
Wait, Iraq reconstituting their chemical weapons.
NO!!! No stockpiles of WMD=no threat from Iraqi WMD!!!
We can’t have all this “thinking” in here!!!
It will hurt our heads.
I know lumpy won’t read the article, but it was fun anyway!!!
JeffR
redwinsline,
Excellent articles!!!
You watch, lumpy and the hardcore crackpots will neither read them nor digest them.
You will see the standard regurgitated lines of: “Bush lied, I died.” Or, “There were only alqaeda in Afghanistan.”
Or, “What did saddam ever do to us?”
Their intransigence equals their demise.
JeffR
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
What Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance? There was no Al Qaeda-Iraq connection before the US invaded Iraq.
Come on, you can’t just make stuff up. People might notice.
[/quote]
I make formed thoughts and call them “opinions” all the time. It may differ from yours. I generally make my own opinions rather then rely on others. Quite liberating really.
I formed this opinion based on a book I read by an author I hold in high regard.
America’s Secret War
Runs a company called Stratfor. You’ve heard of them right??? Evaluates and consults on geopolitics for the Fortune 500. Think private CIA. I am going to wager he has a pretty good handle on what’s going on with Al-Queda. Some big companies are paying him for his advice.
Many here would hate this book. It’s objective and reasons thru strategy. Some worked some didn’t. It’s called the real world. The important thing is the enemy is being engaged and defeated on a daily basis. Iraq served it’s purpose.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Iraq served it’s purpose.
[/quote]
I think it is a little early and there have been far too many “new terrorists” to make that claim. It is easily argued that what the War in Iraq has accomplished is putting the focus of the entire world on that one small geographical area. Terror attacks have increased. Iraq is far from over yet so how could it have served its purpose? Because we got rid of Saddam? It takes more than one man to spread evil that broad.
OBL’s attempts at establishing his own in different areas of the world years before an attack is planned shouldn’t be taken lightly. I do have the opinion that this “war” has effectively allowed some Americans to sleep better at night by believing all of the bad guys are “over there”. I doubt that to actually be the case.
And, since you pointed out your clear ability to form opinions, here is mine. Someone who works for Fortune 500 companies would have who in the general community in mind as far as further advancement? That doesn’t mean I am against big business. I am a few years away from starting my own business. What I am against is the false belief that by affording big business the greatest benefits, that this will lead to an increase in the status of the entire community.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
Iraq served it’s purpose.
I think it is a little early and there have been far too many “new terrorists” to make that claim. It is easily argued that what the War in Iraq has accomplished is putting the focus of the entire world on that one small geographical area. Terror attacks have increased. Iraq is far from over yet so how could it have served its purpose? Because we got rid of Saddam? It takes more than one man to spread evil that broad.
OBL’s attempts at establishing his own in different areas of the world years before an attack is planned shouldn’t be taken lightly. I do have the opinion that this “war” has effectively allowed some Americans to sleep better at night by believing all of the bad guys are “over there”. I doubt that to actually be the case.
And, since you pointed out your clear ability to form opinions, here is mine. Someone who works for Fortune 500 companies would have who in the general community in mind as far as further advancement? That doesn’t mean I am against big business. I am a few years away from starting my own business. What I am against is the false belief that by affording big business the greatest benefits, that this will lead to an increase in the status of the entire community. [/quote]
Well you have a different perspective that’s for sure. I think the war is one by fighting a lot of little battles everyday, not in one decisive confrontation.
You may enjoy the book I referenced. It was fascinating.
As to the value of a company like stratfor to the fortune 500. It can be invaluable. you certainly don’t want to commit funding to a place that may not be stable. Does it lead to an increase in the status of the entire community…who knows? Commerce and trade is generally good. Certain segments do better then others but a healthy trading relationship certainly reduces the chance of war or conflict.
deanosumo wrote:
“Jeff, okay. Perhaps I have not been clear. My bad.”
Thanks. I understand now.
Let’s discuss your viewpoints.
“What I mean by ‘leave that part of the world to it’ is- DON’T try to run their governments. DON’T invade and subjugate Iraq and create more hatred. DON’T force ‘democracy and freedom’ onto them. They won’t appreciate and don’t deserve it unless they earn it on their own.”
Agreed. The invasion had to happen. It was clear that they were never going to be able to shake saddam on their own. We hoped from 92 onward that this would happen. The guy was a master at subterfuge and survival. One of my friends was born in Iraq. She said that the guy would leave his palace with seven other identical cars going in different directions. This guy had it all planned out. Hard to kill or capture. He had ruthlessly killed all organized religion.
I submit that the Iraqi people wanted (see recent elections) freedom, but were unable to get it on their own.
“DO retain diplomatic ties. DO retain some economic ties- we need their stinking oil, at least at the moment, (although that’s another issue I could write a book about).”
Agreed.
“DO let everybody in that part of the world know that terrorism against America will be punished swiftly (which has NOTHING to do with the invasion of Iraq, despite unfounded claims to the contrary).”
Disagree completely about the nothing to do with comment. Please see my posts and PLEASE read redwingsline’s excellent articles.
Please. Please. Please.
I know you are on of the few who will read them through.
“This is not isolationism, just not exercising influence through force, or invading countries because you think it is cool to call yourself a war President.”
Way too simplistic and unfair to the man.
“I hope I have cleared some things up for you.”
You have. Thanks.
JeffR
I meant “organized resistance.”
Fumbly, bumbly, stumbly!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I love my lumpy!!!
Can’t do without some early morning lumpy talking points!!!
It’s the same reason I listen to NPR: It keeps me awake!!!
lumpy wrote:
“Uhmmm and we funded Saddam… I acknowledge the strategy, Just pointing out grossly it has failed, and how unwise it was to begin with. In a crisp clean war against terrorism, step 2 would not be invade foreign islamic country unrelated to al-queda and spend years, billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and exhaust our military in the process. Especially since the net result is (painfully) now fighting even more terrorists.”
So wonderful!!!
He conveniently forgets how many of his party thought alqaeda was significantly involved with Iraq.
Let’s have some fun!!!
"The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
From the December 29, 2003 / January 5, 2004 issue: Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
by Stephen F. Hayes
12/29/2003, Volume 009, Issue 16
ARE AL QAEDA’S links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.
For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan’s Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant’s top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant’s opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant’s general manager.
Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it’s hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.
The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant’s main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed
reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. “Iraq is the only country we’re aware of,” the official said. “There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique.”
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden’s headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people–including 12 Americans–and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up “chatter” among bin Laden’s deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.
The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:
Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America’s target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, “strong evidence” of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.
Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden’s financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country’s chemical weapons program."
Wait!!! clinton believed the same thing that Bush did?
No, clinton lied, the Earth died!!!
Wait, Iraq reconstituting their chemical weapons.
NO!!! No stockpiles of WMD=no threat from Iraqi WMD!!!
We can’t have all this “thinking” in here!!!
It will hurt our heads.
I know lumpy won’t read the article, but it was fun anyway!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Gosh, I don’t remember Clinton invading Iraq on the basis of “proof” of wmd and connections to al-queda. Did we have “proof” Jeffr? Apology accepted in advance. Wait—you being a dittohead probably believe there is proof, if detrioit=Iraq and duelfer report= wmd in Iraq, then I’m sure no proof=proof! That’s the way it is in disneyland, err I mean wingnuttia. Keep trying Jeff. And by all means read a newspaper, watch the news, anything to get you past this political dementia.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Gosh, I don’t remember Clinton invading Iraq on the basis of “proof” of wmd and connections to al-queda. Did we have “proof” Jeffr? Apology accepted in advance. Wait—you being a dittohead probably believe there is proof, if detrioit=Iraq and duelfer report= wmd in Iraq, then I’m sure no proof=proof! That’s the way it is in disneyland, err I mean wingnuttia. Keep trying Jeff. And by all means read a newspaper, watch the news, anything to get you past this political dementia.[/quote]
Political dementia… You mean like believing that the dems are in touch, despite their historic loss of control of the US Senate, the US House, the White House, governorships, and state legislatures?
Or that they don’t use “scare tactics”? You mean like the commercials about pushing old ladies down stairs in the last election? How about the commercial a few weeks ago with Tom Delay blowing up the Capitol? How about the commercial with the vote for the GOP=burning black churches?
I know, how about all the volumes and volumes of rhetoric comparing George Bush to adolf hitler?
That kind of dementia?
Is this the part where you say:“At least LISTEN to NPR, read the New York Times, drink a moccha latte, shrink down to a 155 pound pussy, attend a communist rally, and learn what’s REALLY happening in the world?”
Oh, my God!!! Cream that was a beautiful post. I’m not sure I can approach it’s purity.
However…
lumpy, I trully do love you!!! You are as close to talking to terrymcaullife as I will ever get. You’ve got all the talking points down verbatim.
I love it!!!
When shown you are full of shit (dixiecrats became Republicans) you gloss right on over it.
If you don’t like something, you don’t read it!!!
You really are a lot of fun for me.
“Gosh, I don’t remember Clinton invading Iraq on the basis of “proof” of wmd and connections to al-queda.”
Even though you can see quite clearly (from the wonderful article I provided (and you didn’t read)) that billy boy believed exactly what W. did.
In fact, he said last year “We should give W. a pass on this. My administration believed the same thing.”
You know what the difference is?
Conviction.
“Did we have “proof” Jeffr? Apology accepted in advance.”
I promise to apologize if you ever best me. Can you say the same?
Well, lumpy. I know this guy who had melanoma that had spread into his lymph nodes. Luckily, he received proper treatment and was free of disease for 15 years.
The melenoma recurred. He had it treated before it spread.
I never asked him if he had “proof” that it was going to spread. He took the past into consideration, and made an informed choice.
I’ll bet he could have gotten some yahoo to say, “We don’t have proof it will spread today.”
“Wait—you being a dittohead probably believe there is proof, if detrioit=Iraq”
Where is “detrioit” Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Never said that, of course. Quite clear what I was discussing. It’s called media bias.
“and duelfer report= wmd in Iraq,”
True. But no stockpiles as you love to say. Limited numbers of WMD found. Lot’s of undeclared weapons systems. Evidence of money being poured into the systems. One hell of a lot of information about reconstitution.
“then I’m sure no proof=proof! That’s the way it is in disneyland, err I mean wingnuttia. Keep trying Jeff. And by all means read a newspaper, watch the news, anything to get you past this political dementia.”
I trully love you man!!!
I’ll let you in a little secret, the articles that I post are not written by me.
Therefore, she is a witch.
I mean: Therefore, I read quite liberally.
Please don’t ever change. I would hate to lose you. I’ve never run across anyone as blindly faithful to the Democratic party line as you.
You are a figure of fun.
JeffR
Two things to add to this:
Republicans engage in scare tactics too. The RNC had an ad out last year saying the Democrats were trying to ban the Bible. DeLay, Frist, and a lot of the leadership aren’t the most standup guys around. They’re all politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike.
You can disagree about whether going into Iraq was the right move, but if you really think the best thing to do in the Middle East is, as deanosumo suggested, leave them to it, you’re painfully ignorant. Ignoring the problem would lead to one thing: a major American city disappearing in a terrorist mushroom cloud within the next decade. If you think all those tens (actually probably more like hundreds) of billions of dollars that have been poured into Iraq could instead make America’s borders impervious to terrorist penetration, well, you’re ignoring reality. This country has open borders that shouldn’t, and most likely can’t, be closed with both of its neighbors, and 6,053 miles of coastline. If you can think of a way to secure those borders without doing more harm to the U.S. economy than a nuke in Manhattan, I’m sure the White House would love to hear it. Maybe Iraq is the wrong war (although I don’t think so), but the only way to keep this country safe is to attack terrorists abroad, and, probably more importantly, fundamentally change the political culture of the Middle East.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I don’t really understand how invading Iraq lessens the chance of terrorist attack in the US. Increased vigilance at home is the only way to achieve this. You can’t go over there and kill them all. It doesn’t work like that. You’re just pissing more people off, some of whom will become terrorists.
As for a catastrophic attack like the one you mentioned- well, we can only pray it doesn’t come to that. No doubt these things are being planned by twisted men as we sit here and debate. It comes down to their will- because all Sept 11 took was the will to achieve their goals- versus vigilance on the borders, the work of the FBI, etc. Not the actions of the army in Iraq. That’s irrelevant at best, or at worst, counter-productive.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I don’t really understand how invading Iraq lessens the chance of terrorist attack in the US. Increased vigilance at home is the only way to achieve this. You can’t go over there and kill them all. It doesn’t work like that. You’re just pissing more people off, some of whom will become terrorists.
As for a catastrophic attack like the one you mentioned- well, we can only pray it doesn’t come to that. No doubt these things are being planned by twisted men as we sit here and debate. It comes down to their will- because all Sept 11 took was the will to achieve their goals- versus vigilance on the borders, the work of the FBI, etc. Not the actions of the army in Iraq. That’s irrelevant at best, or at worst, counter-productive.
[/quote]
You honestly think it’s possible to secure America’s borders and coasts against even a single man trying to sneak in?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I don’t really understand how invading Iraq lessens the chance of terrorist attack in the US. Increased vigilance at home is the only way to achieve this. You can’t go over there and kill them all. It doesn’t work like that. You’re just pissing more people off, some of whom will become terrorists.
As for a catastrophic attack like the one you mentioned- well, we can only pray it doesn’t come to that. No doubt these things are being planned by twisted men as we sit here and debate. It comes down to their will- because all Sept 11 took was the will to achieve their goals- versus vigilance on the borders, the work of the FBI, etc. Not the actions of the army in Iraq. That’s irrelevant at best, or at worst, counter-productive.
You honestly think it’s possible to secure America’s borders and coasts against even a single man trying to sneak in?[/quote]
You honestly think killing people in the Middle East lessens the chances of terrorist attack in the US?
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I don’t really understand how invading Iraq lessens the chance of terrorist attack in the US. Increased vigilance at home is the only way to achieve this. You can’t go over there and kill them all. It doesn’t work like that. You’re just pissing more people off, some of whom will become terrorists.
As for a catastrophic attack like the one you mentioned- well, we can only pray it doesn’t come to that. No doubt these things are being planned by twisted men as we sit here and debate. It comes down to their will- because all Sept 11 took was the will to achieve their goals- versus vigilance on the borders, the work of the FBI, etc. Not the actions of the army in Iraq. That’s irrelevant at best, or at worst, counter-productive.
You honestly think it’s possible to secure America’s borders and coasts against even a single man trying to sneak in?
You honestly think killing people in the Middle East lessens the chances of terrorist attack in the US?
[/quote]
I didn’t get a real answer there, but yes, I do. Not really in some kind of attrition, fight them in Baghdad instead of Boston sense, but in terms of using war, if necessary, as a tool to change the Middle East. Is that idealistic and risky? Sure. But it beats the hell out of letting the present situation continue, in my book.