CNN Reports Saddam Offered Asylum [to Bin Laden]

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What are you talking about. There were unverified reports that Iraq used some mustard gas on Iranians during a battle in 1988, and that some Kurds got caught in the crossfire. It was never actually confirmed that Iraq did this and the Kurds were not their target in any case. The US didn’t care at the time. Reagan was buddy-buddy with Saddam and supported him during the Iran-Iraq War (we even gave him WMDs).

Now how does any of that have anything to do with proving a connection to bin Laden or al Qaeda?
[/QUOTE]
A Dutch court found the gassing of the Kurds to be deliberate genocide. The Iraqis delberately targeted the Kurds for gas attacks and other acts of violence. tollbit-host.com. Read Samatha Power’s book A Problem From Hell for more on Saddam’s genocidal campaign against the Kurds.

Of course, this doesn’t have any bearing on this offer of asylum, which I agree is pretty scant evidence of an Iraq-AlQ connection. The offer was made before 9/11, was turned down, and Bin Laden was in Afghanistan before and after the 9/11 attacks. To use it as a justification for invasion is really stretching. If anything we’d be more justified in invading Sudan, which did harbor Bin Laden briefly.

22

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

More on Saddam’s campaign against the Kurds. Sorry about the hijack.

23

[QUOTE=Don26]
Does the fact that it happened eight years ago mean anything? The left has been screaming for years that Iraq never had anything to do with Al Quaeda and certainly not with Bin Laden.
Is CNN not a reputable news agency, in your opinion?
[/QUOTE]

They also told a defector to come back, all was forgiven, and then killed him. Are you sure that even if the offer were made, Saddam wouldn’t have turned bin Laden over to us to patch things up?

Anyhow, bin Laden has effective asylum in Pakistan today. This isn’t just an offer - what should we do about it?

24

[QUOTE=Don26]
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
Gee, I guess the whole “Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism” crowd can STFU now…
[/QUOTE]
You know, I hate to have to say this, but one really scores no points on this board by opening with poor claims for facts and bad logic and closing with abuse.

Your entire case is built on this rather slender, fraying thread of a statement:

Note that there is no provenance for the statement. No one is directly quoted. No news agency or government office is reported as quoting or publishing the claim. We do not have the exact words of the “offer.”

So, while I would not accuse CNN of having manufactured the information, the context makes it appear that, in the midst of the public news that Afghanistan wanted bin Laden out of their country (to take the heat off of them), Hussein made one of his notoriously vague “offers” and “promises” to the world–one that he had no intention of backing.

Had this been a genuine offer extended to bin Laden, the current administration would have been all over it, three years later trying to use it to “prove” a connection, (instead of relying on the very weak and misleading medical visit of al Zarqawi to try to “prove” the same thing).

Meanwhile, we have already known for several years that Hussein used his Federal Guard and Fedayeen to guard the borders of Iraq to keep out al Qaida and other militant groups (doing a better job than we have been able) and that the al Qaida training camp in Northern Iraq was established there explicitly because the U.S.-secured safety zone for the Kurds was one place in Iraq where they would be safe from the Republican Guard or Army.

We have also known for several years that Iraq and al Qaida did have one meeting to discuss cooperation and that neither side trusted the other sufficiently to actually follow up with even a second meeting.

This is not “old news” simply because it is stale; it is “old news” in the sense that it has been known, dissected, critiqued, and dismissed by all rational people years ago.

25

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
So, while I would not accuse CNN of having manufactured the information, the context makes it appear that, in the midst of the public news that Afghanistan wanted bin Laden out of their country (to take the heat off of them), Hussein made one of his notoriously vague “offers” and “promises” to the world–one that he had no intention of backing.

[/quote]
Wow - again you demonstrate your magical mind-reading powers.

No way! Actually, it was a secret plan to lure them in so he could kill them and strike a blow for freedom and democracy in the Middle East!

Not really - it was dismissed by the Usual Suspects amid the usual barrage of tu quoques and special pleadings, as all other evidence contrary to their preconceived notions has been, is now, and ever shall be.

Regards,
Shodan

26

Don26~~we have ioccupied Iraq for years now. If there was such an offer, the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs would have had paperwork referring to it. Putting forward that paperwork would have help the current Administration in many, many ways.

Why has no post-war data on this “offer” emerged? :dubious:

The Ancient Greeks regarded Hubris as a terrible crime.

Hubris seems to be S.O.P. for this War. :frowning:

27

[QUOTE=Don26]
Gee, I guess the whole “Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism” crowd can STFU now…
[/QUOTE]

Is the thrust of your article even correct? Bin Laden certainly didn’t leave Afghanistan permanently, he may still be there NOW. So why do you think this single uncited, unexplained sentence is reliable?

28

[QUOTE=Don26]
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
Gee, I guess the whole “Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism” crowd can STFU now…
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I for one have never said that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Our invasion of Iraq has everything to do with helping to recruit the next generation of terrorists and give them training, helping to gain more sympathy for the terrorists in the Islamic World, helping to take resources and focus away from where they were really needed to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, and so forth. And, unfortunately, I am afraid that the invasion has succeeded in these terms beyond Bin Laden’s wildest dreams.

29

You know, my theorem that extreme conservatives are blind to time and time lines was supposed to be half in jest, but when people like that continue to say they are still correct by going back in time and ignoring that time and evidence made their positions silly, then I have to say that my theorem is now on the way of becoming a law.

30

I don’t think the OP will be back to this thread. In fact, I expect him to start a lot of GD threads like this one, denouncing “the left” and accusing “certain quarters” of dishonesty, then get banned in a week, 2 at the most. It seems to happen a lot lately.

31

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Wow - again you demonstrate your magical mind-reading powers.
[/quote]
At least you are beginning to recognize that I do actually have them and that I use them only for good.

Bullshit.

As I already noted, had this been an example of anything other than the typical “Let me tag along on the sympathy of the Arab world with some lip service I know I will never need to act upon” ploy from Hussein, the adminstration would have been waving this around like a bloody shirt throughout their entire dishonest campaign attempting to link Hussein to al Qaida. Given the gallons of ink and billions of electrons wasted trying to pump up the non-story of the Prague meeting and the mendacious story regarding al Zarqawi, the simple fact that the boys in Office of Special Projects did not even bother to raise this is a very good indicator that even they knew that it was insufficient evidence of a “connection.”

You would not actually happen to have some citations indicating that the OSP or other administration functionaries even raised the issue more than once or on more than one occasion, would you?

32

[QUOTE=BMax]
I don’t think the OP will be back to this thread. In fact, I expect him to start a lot of GD threads like this one, denouncing “the left” and accusing “certain quarters” of dishonesty, then get banned in a week, 2 at the most. It seems to happen a lot lately.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s refrain from speculating about other posters’ potential lifespans, particularly in ways that may be construed as suggesting that they possess various traits deemed inappropriate at the SDMB

[ /Moderating ]

33

If President Jones says we have to invade Dirkastan because it’s supporting Al Qaeda you’d expect:

a.) Al Qaeda to have a large base of operations located in Dirkastan, supported or tolerated by the Dirka government. These would include training, logistical, and command bases, as well as havens to paln and launch attacks from.

And/or:

b.) Significant military and financial support for Al Qaeda from the Dirka government.

That would justify an invasion. That did justify an invasion in Afghanistan. A mere theatrical offer of asylum for Bin Laden, an offer of doubtful sincerity and one never taken up, does not. Nor does a meeting in Prague between some Al qaeda operative and some Iraqi intelligence guy, even if such a meeting did take place. (It probably didn’t.)

34

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Not really - it was dismissed by the Usual Suspects amid the usual barrage of tu quoques and special pleadings, as all other evidence contrary to their preconceived notions has been, is now, and ever shall be.
[/QUOTE]

How is it that you deal with the evidence, that, for instance, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction as claimed by the Bush administration? Just curious.

I mean, you were wrong, and the folks you call “the Usual Suspects” were right. It’s time to accept the fact that you were wrong and move on.

35

I don’t even think this story displaces any of the reasons in my top-5 list of evidence for an Iraq-- al Qaeda connection that justifies the invasion of Iraq:

  1. Member of Saddam’s inner circle heard to say, “Al Qaeda is all-righta!”

  2. Evidence surfaces that many members of Saddam’s government can spell “Al Qaeda” (as long as you remind them that there is no “u” in it).

  3. …Some can apparently even spell it in Arabic.

  4. Bin Laden overheard by an associate to say, “Saddam’s kinda cute for an infidel”.

  5. CIA determines that Saddam and Bin Laden use the same brand of shaver to trim their beards.

36

Totally bogus jshore…I’m militantly disappointed in you here. :mad:

[QUOTE=jshore]
5. Member of Saddam’s inner circle heard to say, “Al Qaeda is all-righta!”

  1. Evidence surfaces that many members of Saddam’s government can spell “Al Qaeda” (as long as you remind them that there is no “u” in it).

  2. …Some can apparently even spell it in Arabic.

  3. Bin Laden overheard by an associate to say, “Saddam’s kinda cute for an infidel”.

  4. CIA determines that Saddam and Bin Laden use the same brand of shaver to trim their beards.
    [/QUOTE]

Your post SHOULD have read:

  1. Member of Saddam’s inner circle heard to say, “Al Qaeda is all-righta!”

  2. Evidence surfaces that many members of Saddam’s government can spell “Al Qaeda” (as long as you remind them that there is no “u” in it).

  3. …Some can apparently even spell it in Arabic.

  4. Bin Laden overheard by an associate to say, “Saddam’s kinda cute for an infidel”.
    And the number one reason <small musical flurish>

  5. CIA determines that Saddam and Bin Laden use the same brand of shaver to trim their beards.

<small drum flurish indicating the punch line>
I really expect better from you. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

37

Dismissing the datedness of the “revelation” in the OP, can someone explain to simple-minded me why the secular leader of secular Iraq would offer asylum to the leader of a religious fundamentalist group that had previously offered to fight against said secular leader?

38

Its like imagining a conspiracy between Stalin and Rasputin.

39

I wonder which number is higher, the amount of Iraqis killed by Saddam, or the number killed by the US in their “liberation” :rolleyes:

40

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I wonder which number is higher, the amount of Iraqis killed by Saddam, or the number killed by the US in their “liberation” :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

If you count all the people killed in the chaos since the invasion and the people who’ve probably died from a lack of resources - well, it’s not really a fair comparison. He ruled the country for almost 25 years, and we’ve only been there for 3.