Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat?

[treis]

and ** rjung ** from the same site

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.

Looks like Karl Rove is getting a new job eh?

[jshore]

*Originally posted by treis *
Which supports my contention that Saddam would not attack us directly but provide weapons to other groups that would.

How likely is this either? In “Uncovered: The Truth About the Iraq War”, Joe Wilson (you know, the guy whose wife was illegally outed as a CIA agent apparently by someone at the White House) noted that a megalomaniac like Saddam would be very unlikely to turn over WMDs to anyone else…and particularly some group he thinks is sort of nutty like Al Qaeda. The reason? Control. Once he turns it over to them, he can no longer control what they do with it…And, since what they do with it could get him in deep shit, he just ain’t likely to give up that control. Here is what Wilson said:

It is just inconceivable to anybody who understands Saddam Hussein and understands the nature of highly centralized dictatorships, generally that dictators would want to give up control of their most potent weaponry because once you’ve given up control, you have no control. So you can’t say to Al Qaeda- you will use this or you won’t use it. The decision on whether or not they’re going to use it depends on what Osama Bin Laden does. Do you want to entrust your fate to Osama Bin Laden and his nihilistic ways. I don’t think so. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath and a sociopath, he was not an irrational being in the sense that he was going to insure his own demise by doing something like that.

Here is what John Brady Kiesling, former state department official, said along these lines:

Saddam was not a maniac or a fool. He was a terrible villain, yes. But he was not going to sacrifice his own life and the future of his country to stupid adventures with terrorists who had completely antithetical views to his.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by treis *
**
Which supports my contention that Saddam would not attack us directly but provide weapons to other groups that would.
**

No, actually, it doesn’t.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by treis *
**and ** rjung ** from the same site

Looks like Karl Rove is getting a new job eh? **

The US has had senior level contacts w/ Iraq going back more than a decade.

[PatriotX]

CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page A20

The CIA’s search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former president Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military and intelligence expert.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in a report released Friday. It was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq; L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator there; and military officials.

“No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists,” Cordesman wrote of Kay’s briefing. “Only possibility was Saddam’s Fedayeen [his son’s irregular terrorist force] and talk only.”

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

**Saddam link to Bin Laden**
By Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday February 6, 1999
The Guardian
Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: “Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired.”
An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. “Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there’s no one here who is going to comment on it.”
[AND]
Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.

Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden’s position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.

Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks [1999] that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. “It’s a matter of time now for Osama.” He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.

So, apparently, what happened is that the Hijazi met with bin Laden and the details of the meeting are unknown. A member of the Iraqi National Congress, INC’s intelligence chief, Ahmed Allawi, said that “There is a long history of contacts…” In the past, when similar meetings took place bin Laden rejected Iraqi offers. And bin Laden is purported to have a “strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality.”

This hardly seems like a report of anything substantial as far as an Iraq - al Qaida alliance goes.

Intel supplied by the INC and Chalabi have history of credibility problems.

Oddly enough, despite what “senior members of the Saudi royal family” told Mr. Fandy, I don’t think that Mullah Omar ever got around to asking bin Laden to leave.

The Western nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden versus the world, February 6, 2002, Guardian Unlimited

Palestinian born Director of External Operations for Iraqi Intelligence, the new Ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, traveled to Kandahar, Afghanistan in December, 1998 and met with Osama Bin Laden.
[AND]
Ahmed Allawi, a senior INC official, advised, that it is not new, “There is a long history of contacts between the Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Ladin.”

This was not the first time that President Saddam had offered Mr Bin Laden a partnership. At least one approach is believed to have been made during the Saudi dissident’s sojourn in Sudan from 1990 to 1996. On that occasion, the guerrilla leader turned the emissaries away, out of a pious man’s contempt for President Saddam’s secular Ba’athist regime.

Even before the embassy bombings in Africa, US special forces had been rehearsing daring ‘grab raids’ aimed at fighting their way into Mr Bin Laden’s mountain lair in Afghanistan and either abducting or assassinating him.

There has been at least one assassination attempt [on bin Laden] in recent months, carried out by Saudi intelligence.
But Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of CIA counter-terrorist operations, who maintains close contact with US and Middle Eastern intelligence networks, said an assassination bid did indeed take place.
‘The Saudis hired someone among his followers to poison him, probably in November. He suffered kidney failure but recovered, at least partially,’ Mr Cannistraro said.
Whether as a result of the assassination attempt or not, Mr Bin Laden is unwell, said Mr Cannistraro.

This should viewed in light of the fact that in bin Ladens two most recent messages he’s called the Iraqi Baathist party members infidels, (and we are all familiar with bin Laden’s take on what to do with infidels, right?)

And the current “operative statement” about a meaningful tryst between aQ and Hussein:
“I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection” between Iraq and al Qaida.

• Secretary of State Colin Powell, 1/9/04
  treis,
  In addition, please note that “contacts in Iraq” is not synonymous with the Iraqi gov. Also note that what you quoted says nothing about the willingness of Hussein to supply aQ with weapons of any sort, let alone banned weapons.

If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson “fair game,” then he may’ve exposed himself to criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute even if he was not initially involved with the leak.

[Officer Barbrady] Nothing to see here. Move along people. Move along. [/Officer Barbrady]

[furt]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
Excluding some elements in the broad category of “everything else,” these are the UN’s problems, …

A sensible view
view, if you subscribe to the idea that all international relations are governed by some set of rules and that the UN is some sort of “higher authority.”

As it is, I find saying “Let the UN deal with their problems in their own way” to be laughable. The UN is sliding into irrelevance, partly by it’s own failures, partly by the doings of its member states (yes, including the US), mostly by problems inherent in its design. In the meantime, the UN’s problems, almost by definition, are the world’s problems. And the UN is usually incapable of any sort of effective action unless someone takes the lead, the way the US did in 1991 or Australia did in East Timor.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by furt *
What they did say, was that there was definte connection between SH and terrorism in general – Abu Nidal, Hamas, etc, there was a definite history of SH supporting terrorism outside his borders (Palestine, Iran), there was, everyone at the time agreed, some sort of WMD program in Iraq (and there was a definite refusal to prove otherwise), and there was evidence that AQ people had at least been in Iraq and had some contact.

The precise details may vary, but these statements are basically true of every government in the region, and most especially for our wonderful ally, Saudi Arabia, which regularly funds the Palestinian cause.

Also, no credible evidence has yet emerged that the government of Iraq had any contact whatsoever with any al Qaeda “people.” Nor was any offered before the war–all the lying bastards offered on that point was the al Qaeda-affiliated guerilla group operating in the Kurdish area of Iraq, an area over which Saddam had no control at all.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by furt *
**
A sensible view, if you subscribe to the idea that all international relations are governed by some set of rules and that the UN is some sort of “higher authority.”
**

While this may be so, it’s not a necessary precondition for it to be a “sensible view.”
AFICT, most international relations are governed by sets of rules. Often they are treaties.
The UN is not "some sort of “higher authority.” However, all treaties that the US ratifies are the supreme law of the land, as per Article VI of the US Constitution. Therefor, we are bound by honor and by law to abide by all such treaties.

It’s only necessary to subscribe to the idea of, “If it’s not affecting the US, why should the US bother with it?” to relegate such things to the concerns of the UN.

*Originally posted by furt *
**
As it is, I find saying “Let the UN deal with their problems in their own way” to be laughable. The UN is sliding into irrelevance, partly by it’s own failures, partly by the doings of its member states (yes, including the US), mostly by problems inherent in its design. In the meantime, the UN’s problems, almost by definition, are the world’s problems. And the UN is usually incapable of any sort of effective action unless someone takes the lead, the way the US did in 1991 or Australia did in East Timor.
**

While all of this may be true, it still provides no compelling national interests for the US to be “The One” to shoulder the burden of being WorldCop.

If the UN wants the US’s help, there’re procedures for asking for it. If it does not, and the problem isn’t of a compelling interest to the US, then so be it.

[treis]

How does the fact that Hussien provided training in “the areas of posions and gases” to a known terrorist group not support my contention that Hussien may provide weapons to terrorists?

Secondly your cite further proves my case Saddam is not only willing to provide these weapons he was activley seeking a partnership with a terrorist orginization.

This was not the first time that President Saddam had offered Mr Bin Laden a partnership.

I am not sure how this turned into a debate whether Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies I never specifically mentioned any terrorist groups.

The US has had senior level contacts w/ Iraq going back more than a decade.

This may be true but I don’t ever recall the US government ever discussing “safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression” with the terrorist government of Iraq. Our talks were more along the lines of don’t invade your neighbor for oil or stop killing hundreds of thousands of your citizens. Clearly from the sites you have posted Saddam was more than willing to offer aid to Al Qeada but Bin Laden refused.

[treis]

Sorry didn’t see this when I first posted but

• originally posted by ** minty green ** *

Also, no credible evidence has yet emerged that the government of Iraq had any contact whatsoever with any al Qaeda “people.”

Except that according to the sites earlier cited Hussien has repeadetly offered a partnership with Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda sought and recieved training in explosives, chemical and biological weapons.

[furt]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
**However, all treaties that the US ratifies are the supreme law of the land, as per Article VI of the US Constitution. Therefor, we are bound by honor and by law to abide by all such treaties.

**Agreed. And SH’s refusal to abide by the traties ending the first Gulf War was Casus Belli in and of itself.

**It’s only necessary to subscribe to the idea of, “If it’s not affecting the US, why should the US bother with it?” to relegate such things to the concerns of the UN.

While all of this may be true, it still provides no compelling national interests for the US to be “The One” to shoulder the burden of being WorldCop.

If the UN wants the US’s help, there’re procedures for asking for it. If it does not, and the problem isn’t of a compelling interest to the US, then so be it. **

Oh, I don’t think the US needs to be “The One” at all. As I mentioned, Australia took the lead in Timor, and the US is currently looking to get China involved in North Korea. If Bosnia becomes a problem again, the EU should be involved. I think the US should be as isolationst as possible; I also think that in a globalized world, it’s not often possible. Moreover, I think that even with no formal organizational link to AQ, Iraq was (and is) of compelling interest to the US.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by treis *
**
How does the fact that Hussien provided training in “the areas of posions and gases” to a known terrorist group not support my contention that Hussien may provide weapons to terrorists?
**

Mostly just in that it doesn’t do anything to support the contention that Hussein may provide weapons to terrorists.
How does it support the contention?

*Originally posted by treis *
**
Secondly your cite further proves my case Saddam is not only willing to provide these weapons he was activley seeking a partnership with a terrorist orginization.
**

Actually, it doesn’t mention the transfer of banned weapons at all. As such, I’d need you to explain in greater detail how it “proves” it, before further rebuttal could occur.
While it offers some evidence that Hussein sought a “partnership,” it also offers evidence that he did not in fact have a “partnership” with aQ.

*Originally posted by treis *
**
I am not sure how this turned into a debate whether Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies I never specifically mentioned any terrorist groups.
**

Iraq’s international terrorism was almost entirely directed against Iran. aQ’s pretty much the only relevant terrorist group re the US. Iraq’s support for other terorist groups, while entirely reprehensible, does not make for a compelling national interest for the US let alone a justification for war, esp on the basis of defending the country.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by furt *
**
Agreed. And SH’s refusal to abide by the traties ending the first Gulf War was Casus Belli in and of itself.
**

These were United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreements not treaties between the US and Iraq. And as such, they are the UN’s problem. The US ratified no such treaty with Iraq.
If you can produce such a treaty, I’ll reconsider.

*Originally posted by furt *
**
Oh, I don’t think the US needs to be “The One” at all. As I mentioned, Australia took the lead in Timor, and the US is currently looking to get China involved in North Korea. If Bosnia becomes a problem again, the EU should be involved. I think the US should be as isolationst as possible; I also think that in a globalized world, it’s not often possible.
**

Lovely, lovely, but you’ve not demonstrated any reason for the US to shoulder the burden in this instance. Why should the US make a monumental effort to fix one of the UN’s problems that the UN doesn’t want it to fix?

*Originally posted by furt *
**
Moreover, I think that even with no formal organizational link to AQ, Iraq was (and is) of compelling interest to the US.
**

While you may indeed think that Iraq was a matter of compelling national interest, you’ve not provided any reason for your assessment. It certainly was not the threat to the US that it was presented as.

[treis]

SimonX-

I am not sure how to make it any clearer. He provided training in chemical weapons to a known terrorist orginization. There are two senarios that are reasonably likely. One the terrorists have these weapons and Saddam merely trained them in using those weapons. Or he did that and provided the weapons. In my opinion either of these actions is a threat to not only the United States but to the World.

Iraq’s international terrorism was almost entirely directed against Iran. aQ’s pretty much the only relevant terrorist group re the US. Iraq’s support for other terorist groups, while entirely reprehensible, does not make for a compelling national interest for the US let alone a justification for war, esp on the basis of defending the country.

You do not feel that a country that provides training in posions and gases and in making bombs to a terrorist orginization that killed 3,000 Americans poses a threat?

[elucidator]

I think we are very likely going to need some sort of cite on that one, treis, since you seem to be in possession of information that not even Colin Powell (may his reputation rest in peace) knew about.

Pray, enlighten us, toot sweet.

[treis]

Here

Specifically:

We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Possibly you should have read my posts before posting a snippity comment? :rolleyes:

[elucidator]

“Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida…”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/

And being a well-informed person, you are no doubt aware of the Carnegie Report. If not,
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate
Snippity doo dah, snippity ay, my oh my what a wonderful day…

[Squink]

We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Didn’t the claim spring full blown from Doug Feith’s execrable memo of October 27, 2003?
IIRC, late october was about when Tenet pulled his turnabout and started spouting the party line on Iraq.

[treis]

We wouldn’t want to post the whole quote ** elucidator ** for that would prove you wrong again wouldn’t it?

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but ** I do believe the connections existed" **

Funny how you keep calling the Bush administration a bunch of liars when you are doing the exact same thing they did. Pot meet kettle.

[Squink]

So where’s the “credible evidence” of an al Qaeda connection?
All you’ve got is people with an obvious agenda saying that there’s credible evidence of an al Qaeda connection.
Do you actually have any credible evidence of an al Qaeda connection?
If so, how about supplying us all with a cite for your evidence of an al Qaeda connection?
I haven’t seen any credible evidence that Saddam had an al Qaeda connection.
I’ve seen assertions that evidence exists that there is an al Qaeda connection, but never any actual firm evidence showing that there is an an al Qaeda connection.
How about supplying us with some actual evidence that there is a Saddam, al Qaeda connection?
Actual evidence would be much better than repeated assertions that there is an al Qaeda connection.
Do you have any such evidence?
Really, lets cut the bullshit and see some evidence!