The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein

[Banky]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/152lndzv.asp


The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: The collaboration of Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37

"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED the country with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off.



THIS IS AN EXCERPT.

CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE FOR THE ARTICLE

THE ARTICLE IS VERY LONG!

And, I might add, is just one more, of HUNDREDS of articles that have proved that Saddam is connected to Al-Queda, and participated in 9/11

[Powerboss]

That is an excellent article and a must read for anyone interested in the facts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden.


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:


Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

[h2g2Fan]

Originally posted by Banky
[url]In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania

Christopher Carney, assistant professor of political science at the Worthington Scranton Campus.

According to a report last week in the Wall Street Journal

Editorial, not a report.

We've been here before, people!

[Powerboss]

Editorial, not a report.

We've been here before, people!

Are you stating that the facts presented in this article about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir are incorrect?

You must have something to substanciate this claim you are making, right?


Howabout the Newsweek and ABC News articles in my previous post from that article that also linked them?

Is that all made up stuff too?


LOL.

Denial.

[h2g2Fan]

Here's a flow chart:

*reality*

|
V

*what a reputable newspaper reports*

|
V

*what an otherwise reputable, but biased newspaper writes on its editorial page*

|
V

*what an extremely biased right-wing propaganda agent writes and tries to pass off as fact*

|
V

*your analysis*

[Manu]

1. Bill do you deny the difference between an editorial and a report/article?

2. So the fact that someone in iraq's military had al queda connections makes it that Iraq collaborated in terrorist plots? That is indeed a logical fallacy to make that jump.

3. If there is more definitive proof that this is the case why has the white house not issues a press release of conference as it is a fairly significant fact

4. As much as it would partially redeem our actions, it is a post war justification. We would have based our invasion on 'what may have been' not what we knew then. A connection certainly justifies the war but it does not legitimize it.

[h2g2Fan]

Anyways, I'm not even confident you read the entire article - just the part where he asserts "Bush was right!"

[Powerboss]

Here's a flow chart:

*reality*

|
V

*what a reputable newspaper reports*

|
V

*what an otherwise reputable, but biased newspaper writes on its editorial page*

|
V

*what an extremely biased right-wing propaganda agent writes and tries to pass off as fact*

|
V

*your analysis*

Thats really cute and all but you still will not address the questions I've asked or substance of the article.

That says it all.

Answer the questions or just run away like you usually do once you are confronted with the facts. Your cute little troll like behaivior is getting tiring.

1. Bill do you deny the difference between an editorial and a report/article?

I know what the difference is.

2. So the fact that someone in iraq's military had al queda connections makes it that Iraq collaborated in terrorist plots? That is indeed a logical fallacy to make that jump.

Did you read the article? All 2 pages? I don't think you'd be asking that if you did.

3. If there is more definitive proof that this is the case why has the white house not issues a press release of conference as it is a fairly significant fact

1) Because they have proven themselves to be inept at getting the word out on many occaisions.

2) They'd be accused of lying.
Would you believe it then?

What exactly would it take to convince you or any other liberal here?

4. As much as it would partially redeem our actions, it is a post war justification.

We were told by the left that there is no link. Iraq posed no threat. A connection to AQ would indeed be a threat, especially knowing the fact that Saddam had full intentions of ramping up his WMD programs once he was left alone. There is now this article which has the main story and also several other "dots" reported by some of those "reputable news sources" that Hg2g was talking about. Not to mention there is that article which confirms that the Atta meeting took place with the IRaqi ambassador in the Czech Republic pre 9/11.
Connect the dots.

We would have based our invasion on 'what may have been' not what we knew then.

We based it on several different things, all of which John Kerry and the Democrats were in complete agreement with until shortly before the war started.

A connection certainly justifies the war but it does not legitimize it.

What legitimizes it?

[Powerboss]

Originally posted by h2g2Fan
Anyways, I'm not even confident you read the entire article - just the part where he asserts "Bush was right!"

Troll.

[h2g2Fan]

Originally posted by Powerboss
Troll.

No, not really.

My point was that, even if everything in the article were true (which it isn't), that wouldn't even come close to backing up the connection the Bush administration asserted.

That's why I don't think you read it all.

[Manu]

h2g2-

Please step back a little and do not make the arguments so personal. we're trying to get our news forums back on track to friendly discussion, lets foster that ideal and try to not be attacking or condescending.

Thanks

[h2g2Fan]

Originally posted by Manu
Please step back a little and do not make the arguments so personal. we're trying to get our news forums back on track to friendly discussion, lets foster that ideal and try to not be attacking or condescending.

Thanks

I still don't think I'm being unfair. I called out his source, pointed out a lie, and he refused to provide anything to back it up.

That's the problem with the level of discourse in the news forum.

[Manu]

I agree your requests and comments are not unfair, but perhaps the language and tone can be better suited for a friendly discorse.

If he choses to ignore your questions or does not respond to your satisfaction, thats a separate issue. The main idea is to get the level of discussion to a friendly one.

But, I do not mean to single you out, and only you. All of us are guilty of this, and hopefully we can all self regulate ourselves to get a step better.

Once I finsih this upgrade business, I won't leave the rules/enforcement/what we're looking for so ambiguous.

[caddis]

Originally posted by h2g2Fan

Christopher Carney, assistant professor of political science at the Worthington Scranton Campus.


Editorial, not a report.

We've been here before, people!

Yes, you don't like a source so you refuse to respond to the points presented. Only sources approved by H2 are good enough to list. Do us a favor, list the sources DA members can provide links to. We'll run all our posts through the H2 editorial board and you can do a spell check at the same time. It will make for a much "cleaner" website

Originally posted by h2g2Fan
Here's a flow chart:

*reality*

|
V

*what a reputable newspaper reports*

|
V

*what an otherwise reputable, but biased newspaper writes on its editorial page*

|
V

*what an extremely biased right-wing propaganda agent writes and tries to pass off as fact*

|
V

*your analysis*

your flow chart is incomplete:
*reality

|
V

*FACTS that a "reputable" newspaper reports

|
V

*FACTS and analysis that a reputable but otherwise bias? newspaper writes on it's editorial page

|
V

*FACTS mixed with opinion from an extremly biased news site

|
V

DA post's (right wing, left wing, racist, anarchist...you name it)

It's the flow of information across the political spectrum that gets debated here. The facts are sifted and sorted out of the posts and debated. If you want front page reporting from reputable newspapers go buy a paper and enjoy yourself

Originally posted by h2g2Fan

I still don't think I'm being unfair. I called out his source, pointed out a lie, and he refused to provide anything to back it up.

That's the problem with the level of discourse in the news forum.

Yes, you are unfair. I've never heard you call out a liberal on the sources he post's. You haven't pointed out a LIE (thats a favorite word on the left) In the future, respond to the facts, if possible, and if you feel obligated to question the source then do it in the response.

[Powerboss]

Originally posted by h2g2Fan

No, not really.

My point was that, even if everything in the article were true (which it isn't), that wouldn't even come close to backing up the connection the Bush administration asserted.

That's why I don't think you read it all.

Even though it is a deflection because you won't address the article;

What did the Bush administration assert?

Are editorials based on facts?

WOuld someone who writes editorials reputation be put in jeopardy if they wrote an article full of lies?

Why would someone risk destroying their own credibility?

I still don't think I'm being unfair. I called out his source, pointed out a lie,

What is the lie?

and he refused to provide anything to back it up.

That is prescious coming from you who NEVER backs up his arguments with sources when you make ridiculous charges.

That's the problem with the level of discourse in the news forum.

Then practice what you preach and set an example instead of making charges you can't back up.
You of all people to be saying this. Amazing.






He still won't address the facts in the article.
It's one big dodge and deflection so he has to avoid dealing with it.