What are the best evidences of a MEANINGFUL connection between the former government of Iraq, (Hussein et al), and al Qaida?
Reports that there was contact, or that various Iraqi officials met w/ a person suspected of having ties to al Qaida, things like this don’t count unless there is info regarding the nature of these meetings. I mean, the US has had involved and ongoing contact and dialogue w/ members of AQ and the Taleban involving agreements on terrorist activities down in Gitmo; HOWEVER, these hardly count as evidence of meaningful collaboration in any relevant way between the US and AQ and the Taliban.
The evidence should show that:
[ul]
[li]contact occurred[/li][li]an agreement to cooperate in an endeavor that advanced the cause of terrorism was reached, (preferrably but not limited to one(s) that involved WoMD and/or the USA)[/li][li]it was gathered from and/ or reported by a credible source, (no UFO/remote viewing/Illuminati Central Command stuff)[/li][/ul]
If you see something listed as evidence and you have evidence that it isn’t meaningful or doesn’t meet the citeria established, please speak up and provide you reasons, sources and facts too.
Having had an opportunity to talk to a couple professors at the US Naval Academy about this:
A: Ahmed Chalabi, who has not physically been on the ground in Iraq since 1958, and has been demanding he be put in power since, was the one who reported on the “Senior Al-Quaeda agent meeting with an Iraqi diplomat.” The CIA and FBI stopped considering him anything more than a raving Lunatic back in the seventies.
B: There WERE AQ in Iraq, but they were there opposed to Saddam’s secular regime and trying to start a revolution to overthrow him.
Considering that these were conversations, I don’t have a recorded cite, but for what I do have…
The “professor of middle-east politics and history” spoke between 9:00 and 10:00 AM EST today, 06/19/03 in front of about 1000 people, I’m sure that if they don’t have his name on their website (Google +Annapolis “USNA”), they have a number/e-mail adress you can call if you have that much energy to challenge me by tracking him down and talking to him yourself.
It’s my understanding that Chalabi was in Iraq in the early 1990’s on some sort of a mission. I’m fairly certain that he has also been there recently, after the war ended. The inaccuracy of the 1958 statistic leads me to doubt your sources, Iacob_Matthew.
Its my understanding that Chalabi was briefly in Iraq in the mid 90s as it was considered he would be more credible as an opposition leader if he had actual experience of the country more recent then 1958. I dont know how long he may have been there but if I recall rightly the failure of a CIA-backed revolt made his rapid departure again prudent. So while its not entirely accurate that he hasnt been in Iraq since 1958 the import of the observation remains the same. The coups, the rise of Saddam, the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait, sanctions, all these things that influenced modern Iraq he missed them all. Gives him a credibility problem in many eyes.
I’d love to have this info. There’s not really enough here for somone of my poor research skills to find it though. I don’t think it’s so much a matter of “challenging” as maybe vindicating or vetting.
My point is that Chalabi not having been in Iraq is a slogan, which isn’t even true.
No matter where Chalabi was, most of his information would have come from other people. E.g., he says Saddam is alive and is leading terrorism efforts against the US. Presumably Chalabi didn’t see Saddam personally. His opinion is based on a combination of deduction and information conveyed to him. People in Iraq could easily communicate with him while he’s in America.
That’s not to say that I necessarily believe Chalabi. Just that his lack of time in Iraq doesn’t disprove his statements.
I’m not sure there’s not a family of squirrel monkeys living under my sink, but if you want me to believe there is, you’ll have to show me some evidence of it.
What about bin Laden’s connections to the Sudanese pharmacuetical factory that Clinton had bombed?
Apparently the factory was involved in sending medicine to Iraq on a regular basis. The reports said that there was a precursor to VX nerve gas, empta, in the soil around the plant, (but oddly, not in the plant). The theory was that the empta was made elsewhere in Sudan and brought to the al-Shifa site for repackaging to be sent to Iraq with shipments of medicine.
Did the US ever backdown from the claims that bin Laden funded, (or was somehow meaningfully connected to), the plant or that the test for empta was not a false positive triggered by herbicieds/pesticides?
This is backwards from the more recent fear of SH providing the WoMd to ObL rather than ObL providing it to SH.
Not that I’m aware of, but it doesn’t matter. They never repeated the test for Empta, even though US intelligence had concerns about the original sample and wanted another test done to be sure.
Saddam and Bin Laden totally differ in theology. Besides being Muslim, there is no other similarity. Bin Laden is a radical muslim - aligned with the likes of the Taliban. Saddam is a socialist dictator. Look at Iraq. Almost 50% of the women in the country worked and had full rights. Bin Laden began his first jihad against agains Americans after they used Saudi soil for the 1st Golf War. He didn’t mention the attacking of Saddam - he was more concerned with the use of Saudi soil. During this current conflict, even though he denounced the invaders, he called Saddam an infidel and advocated his overthrow. To me, these don’t sound like two folks that would get along so well…
One administration after another refuses to have any substantive intelligence oversight or fact finding. Truly stupid to let politics drive intelligence.
Recent FAIR report notes that on June 15, 2003, we got this odd bit of news on Meet the Press, which was never picked up:
And of course, the cbs report on Sept 4. 2002 that noted:
Yeah I was surprised, (though I shouldn’t’ve been), that Clinton’s story was so different than Bush’s. Clinton said that bin Laden was trying to supply Hussein. Bush said that Hussein was tryng to supply bin Laden.
“Et memento—delenda est Iraq.”
May I please have a cite for these? I’d love to have these. They’d go great.
thanX,
Irrelevant. Stalin and Roosevelt totally differed in theology, but they saw Germany as a common foe. The logic behind a purported Saddam-Bin Laden connection is that they would work together to eliminate a common foe - for example, the US or Israel. Whether or not there’s a plausible link remains to be seen, but differences in ideology are not in and of themselves a good reason to doubt such a collaboration.
Jeff
But this difference in ideology is so wide that Bin Laden appearantly sees Saddam and Bush in the same light - as infidels. I don’t think he sees degrees of islam, does he?
Peace,
mangeorge
Of course there’s a connection between Saddam and OBL. There’s a connection between OBL and Qadaffy Duck. There’s a connection between OBL and the Saudi Royal Family. Theres a connection between OBL and Mossad (Israeli Secret Service), though he likely doesn’t know it. What the hell does a “connection” prove? Diddly-squat.
OBL is a religious fantatic, his mind set and temperment is utterly and irreconcilbably at odds with that of a secular cynic like Saddam. There might have been a connction beteen Lenin and Rasputin. Think Lenin would have trusted him any further than he could throw him?
Saddam might very well have entertained the notion of using OBL to his own ends. But trust him? Put weapons in his hands that might as easily be “misused”? Never.
Look what happened after 9/11. Rumsfeld and Cheney are on record as blaming Iraq for it before the smoke even cleared! The last thing on God’s green Earth that Saddam wanted was a terrorist attack on the US because there was no doubt that he would be blamed, no matter how tenuous the connection. And he was, wasn’t he?
I would be incredibly grateful if you would provide me a cite to the record where Rumsfeld and Cheney say this.
I would truly love to have such a cite formy own purposes.
