This is going to be a bit of a messy OP because my thoughts are a bit numerous on this. The main crux of this thread is to affirm or to debunk the website, “Husseinandterror.com”
I’ve got a friend who keeps saying that the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam not only had ties to terrorism, but ties to Al Qaeda. *(Please keep this thread about the linked website, and not the justifications for the war). *He’s pushing the website Husseinandterror.com as unequivable evidence that Hussein had enough ties to terrorism and Al Qaeda:
Now, I found a possible discrepency when H&T.com quoted this article from CBS that said:
That article is dated 5/7/03 which predates the 9/11 Commission report. Because in June '04, 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida. I’m curious whatever happened to that court settlement. (I couldn’t find if that was ever overturned due to the Commission report evidence).
''cept for the fact that he was in an Iraqi prison and twice offered to be returned to US authorities, yeah, that one hell of a “connection” your friend’s Make Their Own Reality blog has got there.
What it comes down to is, are you going to believe some kooky website, or everyone else? As you pointed out, the 9/11 Commission found no link. It’s a commonly known fact that Saddam wasn’t in cahoots with al Qaeda.
It’s been my experience that you just can’t argue with these nutcases. You can give your friend all the evidence you want and he will never change his mind.
There’s quite a bit to refute all at once. Perhaps your friends could pick out a few items at a time?
That being said, Hussein did have ties to terrorists. He just wasn’t that involved with aQ. Check out the MEK that’re rightfully mentioned on that page. Did you know that hey recently had a convention here in DC @ the DAR’s Constitution Hall?
You might also ask your friend to square his version with the facts that sympathies for aQ have increased as anti-Americanism has increased world wide, but esp in predominantly Muslim countries esp in the ME. Even our erstwhile friends in Turkey have taken a severe dislike to us. Extreme Anti-Americanism in Turkey
"It is difficult to detect the difference between what Osama bin Laden said in his 19 audio and videotapes since September 11, 2001, and what some Turkish journalists write. If anything, the Turks outvenom bin Laden.
This would be hilarious if not for the incontrovertible fact that it is believed not only by Islamist extremists but by countless millions of Muslim fundamentalists … Anti-Americanism is a relatively new phenomenon in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s in Turkey, 60 percent of the people had favorable views about the U.S. and its policies. The 2003 Iraq war closed many minds.
Thanks all, I gave him the info and this was his (albeit lengthy response)
Alright. (The quotes were my notes to him)
That article link didn’t work for me, but one from the Wash Post also said:
“But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation.”
“The staff report said that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, ‘but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.’”
So. The fact remains that there WAS contact between Saddam and al-Quaida. The commissions conclusion is not a denial of complicity, but rather a claim that the evidence is not significant enough to prove anything. The absence of proof is not proof of absence.
This article that you cite is laughable. To back up its claims, it cites two people: Abdul Rahman Yasin, a terrorist, and Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Foreign Policy Minister.
Here’s some background info on Aziz:
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Tariq Aziz served as the international spokesman in support of the military action, saying the move was justified because Kuwait’s increased oil production was dampening Iraqi oil revenues. He has condemned Arab states for “subservience to the United States’ hegemony in the Middle East and their support for punitive sanctions.”
Tariq Aziz has survived as an adviser to Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years. Some attribute his survival to his lack of a power base in Iraq, which means he presents no threat to Saddam Hussein.
Tariq Aziz blamed the United States rather than the United Nations for the sanctions that followed the Gulf War, believing they were implemented as a result of U.S. government policies. He used these beliefs to back the expulsion of Americans working for the United Nations Special Commission in 1997.
Hmmmm, think this guy has a reason to hate the United States much? When the only side of a story being presented is that of two completely discredited propagandists, it’s not a very convincing article.
Regarding Abdul being in prison…not according to her:
Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”
A little bit more info on that alleged deal, from one of your sources:
Cheney didn’t mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.
So what do you suppose the pictures are of? This base didn’t disappear magically. Your implication that the base never existed is disputed by Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. He says it DID exist, and managed to draw a picture of it from memory that matched the aerial photo. You neglected to mention that.
From that same article:
Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam’s secular police state and Osama bin Laden’s Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.
Occasional meetings just about does it for me.
Regarding your 4th claim. Mohammed Atta may not have been in Prague for that meeting. I don’t have any evidence that would support that claim. Other than that, I feel like this report pretty well argues the ties between Saddam and terror.
Despite your claims that it’s outdated, it was presented in Sep 2004, and much of its evidence is from late 2004.
Now, if you’ll oblige, I have a few questions for you:
What do you make of the fact that Saddam was giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine?
Does the fact that these bombers were then killing both Israeli’s and Americans constitute an attack on America?
How do you defend the fact that Abu Abbas, the infamous cruise ship murderer, escaped jail by virtue of possessing an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport?
What about the fact that Abbas lived in Iraq safely and freely for 18 years, until he was captured by the US during the invasion?
How do you defend the actions of Iraq’s diplomat to the Phillipines, who was expelled from the country after calling terrorists both directly before and after an attack that killed 23 people, including an American?
How do you defend Al-Zarquai’s medical treatment at a special state hospital after the US wounded him while invading Afghanistan?
The immediate escape plan for many of the terrorists in Afghanistan after the US invaded was to enter Iraq. Does it seem strange to you that these terrorists would congregate there, when they knew that it too could be a US target? Doesn’t it also seem strange that the Iraqi border police didn’t realize that even one of these people entering their country were terrorists?
Despite your claim that this site is outdated, does the information from mid 2004 showing that a prized Lieutenant Colonel in the elite Saddam Fedayeen had documents outlining the 93 bombings and another 95 al-Quaida plot, the predecessor to 9/11, seem odd?
Many on the left have claimed that even though many officials from both parties went on the record saying that Iraq and 9/11 were tied, they are exempt from responsibility from that because they were believing the words of President Bush, and as President, the responsibility for the Iraq claim rests on him. How would you react to this:
This is an excerpt of the original indictment of Osama bin Laden, filed by President Clinton’s Justice Department in 1998.
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, 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.
Given this evidence, could you argue that the premise of a tie between Iraq and al-Quaida was not created by Bush, but rather by Clinton?
And finally, 10) Not all of the claims put forth before the war have been refuted. George Tenet, whom you quoted in your original post, had the following to say during the hearings, and has since reaffirmed this:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
To me that doesn’t seem like an exoneration of Iraq, but rather a sign that although the concrete evidence may not yet be enough to gurantee a conviction in a court, any reasonable person could be expected to believe that there WERE ties, and that the ties were most likely far deeper than we now know.
Just because there is a base doesn’t mean that it was used the way this fellow said it was. The question is who do you trust more, the US military or Mr. Khodada?
The US has had “occasional meetings” with aQ. Does that mean the US is in league with them as well? I suppose this would explain why the US military’s involved in a cover up of the Salman Pak issue.
No one else has evidence that he was there either.
Take a look at the quotes from Cheney as he makes untrue statements in an attempt to distance himself from his earlier comments re the Atta/Prague affair: Team Bush and “Best Info Available @ the Time”
Cheney’s crawfishin’ for a reason. The reason isn’t that the Atta/Prague meeting actuallu happened. Unless we’re back to the US/aQ link and cover up involving the US military as evidenced by the “occasional meetings” between Americans and aQ agents. Don’t forget that aQ terrorists received training to help them carry out the 9-11 attacks right here in the US of A. There must be a collaborative relationship of some sort. Look at the cover up by the US military and Cheney too! Both of them are denying evidence of the IRaqi-aQ links.
Or, perhaps not. Perhaps “occasional meetings” don’t really mean diddly and the US military really didn’t find any sort of terrorist training camp.
I report, you decide.
Here’re some more interesting reports (there from the US intel community, so they may be involved in the attempt to cover up the aQ/Iraq conspiarcies):
Iraqi Support for Terrorism
“Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” discusses the lack of “evidence of completed training,” and says most of the reports of training “do not make clear whether training” was “actually implemented.” It indicates that some number of the reports appeared to be based on “hearsay,” and that others were “simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al Qa’ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them.”
Hussein was involved with terror.
He did support an international terrorist organization who has killed Americans and who fought against the US before Baghdad fell. This group were Hussein’s enforcers. They carried out the brutal oppression of the Kurds and Shia that so many people are fashionably upset about. The organization is rightfully noted on the H&T website. The organization is called the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).
This terrorist organization held a convention in the Daughters of the American Revolution’s Consititution Hall in Washington DC last week and I was there. I had dinner with their spokesman, Ali Safavi, who is said to’ve been a member of the Iraqi Army who tortured dissenting MEK personel. I recorded an interview with him. Several members of the US Congress gave speeches at the event. Members of Team Bush have helped this terrorist organization of Hussein’s raise funds. Members of Team Bush and members of the US Congress are supporting the same international terrorist organization that Hussein used to carry out attacks against Iran and Iraqis. Dwell on that for a moment.
HOWEVER, this is all markedly different from having some sort of collaborative relationship with aQ.
Keep that in mind.
Then it was presented with outdated info. Perhaps this was on purpose, perhaps from from negligence, perhaps from incompetence.
Not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts.
If one chose, one could make this case. However, it’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts.
Why do I have to? Why would I want to?
What about it? It’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts.
Why do I have to? Why would I want to? It’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts.
Why do I have to? Why would I want to? It’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts.
Strange compared to what? Being a terrorist is outright bizarre to me.
As strange as when the 9-11 terrorists got into the US.
Odder than the FBI having similar documents?
meh
One can argue any number of things. What of it? Clinton was a screw up. Rememeber also that Clinton was saying aQ was going to give chemical weapons to Iraq, not the other way around.
A critical reading reveals that this isn’t as revelatory or radical as some might suppose. Compare and contrast:
And the nature of these contacts? Despite more than a decade of efforts the two were unable reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in SPAIN and the US of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in MADRID and CHICAGO.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in the UK, US & PAKISTAN who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities.
The reporting also stated that the US has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of the USE OF JETS AS WEAPONS.
To you this speculation was worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and a big boost to aQ’s recruiting efforts?
