Is it POSSIBLE that Iraq and Al Qaeda had an "operational relationship"?

[XT]

I was surfing the web earlier and I found this story on (you guessed it) Fox. Its appearently a reprint of a story that ran on another news service, The Weekly Standard. I understand that certain posters have a gut level dislike of Fox, but I would ask that you seriously read through the article, and, if you have objections (which I expect), to please post them rationally. Cites for your various positions would be more than welcomed, reguardless of which side of the debate you are on.

Some key points before I get into the debate here:

From The Weekly Standard

Usama bin Laden (search) and Saddam Hussein (search) had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for Al Qaeda - perhaps even for Mohamed Atta - according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard.

From The Weekly Standard

Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo, which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points, Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

From The Weekly Standard

This source’s reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a “window” into bin Laden’s activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).

I have zero idea how credible all this is. It seems fairly detailed, from what little snippits have been released in the article, but who knows. This is NOT a Rah Rah! Bush was right thread. Nor is it (I hope) a knee jerk “Americans are SO stupid for believing this tripe” thead. Rather, I hope, that we can look at this objectively and see if there is anything here at all. My hope is, the anti-war crowd will actually read carefully through the article and provide some thoughful counters to its assertions. A lot of this article seems to be conjecture and speculation, and is fairly vague to boot, but there seems to be enough here that we can at least discuss the possibilities rationally, I hope.

For myself, I currently have no position on the article…I simple don’t know enough about the source(s). However, I have to assume its not pure bullshit, if it was submitted to the Senate. Presumably if it was total fabrication they wouldn’t do such a thing.

My questions for debate would begin:

A) How credible is this? It comes from a compiliation of sources, some CIA, some FBI, and seems to rely heavily on statements of ‘informers’ and such.

B) Is this the kind of information the the administration had pre-war, and were relying on it (and things like it) to form their decision making process? If so, and if its correct, does this modify the perception of the Administration re Iraq? Of, even if it is true, does it make no substantial difference?

C) Why is the administration releasing this information now (I understand the Senate requested it, but this was a rather public disemination of this information…it could have been given to the Senate secretly after all)? I can see two ways to spin this thing atm (you guys will undoubtely come up with a bunch more I never thought of): A) They held this information back because governments are anal about releasing ‘secrets’, and they felt that their WMD reason would hold up and they actually WOULD find them. Now that they have not, they are releasing this information in the hope of spinning things to look better for them, and damn giving out the secrets. B) This is basically made up or at least smoke and mirrors designed to pull the wool further over our eyes.

D) Could this relationship between Iraq and AQ really have happened? I know, after slogging through myriad threads on this board about Iraq, that the anti-war consensus is that Americans are stupid for believing this, and that ObL and SH hated each others guts, etc etc, for a variety of reasons. I can certainly see that.

However, I also remember that Hitler and Stalin were able to put aside their ‘little’ differences and form a non agression pact…and invade Poland together. So, COULD there be a relationship between SH and ObL…one of mutual distrust perhaps, but also mutual hatred for America? Sort of an “Enemy of my Enemy is my friend” type thing?

What are the proofs that there either was or was not such a relationship? From the anti-war crowd, are there any compelling proofs against such a relationship (besides the “they hated each others guts” assertion)? From the pro-war (or maybe from the "there was a relationship between Iraq and AQ faction) are there any independant proofs (besides this article/report) that there was such a relationship?

---

Please try and keep this thing civil and as objective as you can. I really want to explore this possibility, not simply yammer back and forth with bullshit. I don’t mind opinions on this, but I would ask that the question be taken serious, and the responses thought out, not just a knee jerk. Please, no Bush hating invective, no GOD stuff…lets really explore this thing and see what we find.

Reguards,
XT

[elucidator]

Saw this last night on Grudge. Checked it out, kind of laid back to see who else would pick up on it. So far it seem exclusive to the Weekly Standard, which, so far as I know, tends to be more a journal of opinion than an investigatory news service.

Given the decidedly conservative slant of WS (to say the least) its either very odd that they got the story first, or it makes perfect sense, depending on your level of suspicion of skullduggery. In my case, elevated.

How come this is “leaked” to a distinctly friendly outlet? Perhaps more importantly, why no full-court press? Its almost as if they found and killed Osama but just “leaked” the news to the Wall Street Journal.

Having read it, my impression is much like xt: there is far more an indication of a tense truce than a brothers-in-arms cameraderie. I would have to wonder if there is a single government in the ME that doesn’t have a similar rapprochment with Al Queda: do what you want, just not to us, and we’ll look the other way so long as its expedient to do so.

As well, I think we must, necessarily, chuck all “informants”, especially those even remotelyassociated with Mr. Chalabi’s Garden of Disinformation right out the window. Screw me once, etc.

One thing we can be sure of: if this really is what it claims to be, its gonna be all over the news and examined with steely eyed attention. We will soon know lots more. And of course, if it isn’t what it pretends to be (“Case Closed!”), then very likely it will disappear without so much as a ripple.

For the moment, that’s my preliminary bet. Not giving odds.

As to its possible effect, well, time has kinda mooted the point. The case for “He’s gonna give Osama The Bomb!” becomes pretty weak once its been established that Saddam didn’t have it to give.

[rjung]

Considering the Weekly Standard is heavily tilted towards the right (a Google search for “Weekly standard” and bias is worth 30 seconds of your time), I’d take the whole thing with a shaker full of salt.

At the moment, I’ll wager that this is just the kind of “cherry-picked” pro-war intel that the neoconservatives and the OSP was using in their pre-war pep rallies. If the Administration had something substantive tying Saddam and Osama together, they’d have brought it before the UN nine months ago.

[elucidator]

What, and spoil the surprise?

[GIGObuster]

Of course, this means Bush was not told of this info when recently he came saying there was no relation of Iraq with 911, I read that as: no direct relation of Iraq with Al Qaeda.

The British intelligence covered this ground before and already confirmed many of the meetings in this report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

For British intelligence the conclusion was that there were too many differences between the parties, and no deals came of them. So, no operational relationship. I do have serious doubts with Douglas Feith: you cannot separate him from the now infamous OSP:

Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith twisted CIA data in order to justify a war...

When George Tenet, the director of the CIA, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week about dubious intelligence data on the Iraqi threat that made it into President Bush’s State of the Union address in January, he said an ad-hoc committee called the Office of Special Plans, set up Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and other high-profile hawks rewrote the intelligence information on Iraq that the CIA gathered and gave it to White House officials to help Bush build a case for war, according to three Senators on the intelligence committee.

Scanning the Standard article, I cannot help to notice the padding, particularly of relying on sources that failed us miserably on the WMD issue. In addition, what is up on the discredited Atta a meeting in Prague being used also to pad this report?

Sound to me that, with the US now saying a semi exit is planed from Iraq next year that the hawks like Feith are in fear of losing influence in this administration, time to pad resumes (and reports)?

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9390

[_possum_stalker]

One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden’s name.)

FOXnews is excerpting from the (Rupert Murdoch-funded) Weekly Standard’s story about a secret memo from [URL-http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/bio/feith.html]Doug Feith. Feith (author of Hydra of Carnage: International Linkages of Terrorism:)) was head of the DoD Office of Special Plans (OSP)that helmed the Pentagon’s alternate-universe reasoning for the Iraq war.

Feith is closely linked with Ahmad Chalabi, who is looking more and more like a total fraud. Most all the OSP intelligence came from Chalabi.

This looks like the ol’ party line, barely reheated by FOX and the Weekly Standard. Neither organization attempted to independently verify the memo’s information, or even questioned it. This a state-approved press release, not actual journalism.

[_possum_stalker]

One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden’s name.)

FOXnews is excerpting from the (Rupert Murdoch-funded) Weekly Standard’s story about a secret memo from [URL-http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/bio/feith.html]Doug Feith. Feith (author of Hydra of Carnage: International Linkages of Terrorism:)) was head of the DoD Office of Special Plans (OSP)that helmed the Pentagon’s alternate-universe reasoning for the Iraq war.

Feith is closely linked with Ahmad Chalabi, who is looking more and more like a total fraud. Most all the OSP intelligence came from Chalabi.

This a state-approved press release, not actual journalism. Neither FOX nor the Weekly Standard attempted to independently verify the memo’s information, or even questioned it.

[XT]

I understand the cite might be biased (I cringed a bit posting a Fox cite) but does the fact that this was an official report given to a Senate subcommittee mean anything? Granted, the article didn’t go into detail, and THEY might have cherry picked information from the report, but does the fact that this was an official report given to the Senate (bi-partisan subcommitte I suppose) mean anything? (this is a serious question…sometimes you have to say that on this board :)).

From elucidator

One thing we can be sure of: if this really is what it claims to be, its gonna be all over the news and examined with steely eyed attention. We will soon know lots more. And of course, if it isn’t what it pretends to be (“Case Closed!”), then very likely it will disappear without so much as a ripple.

Thats a good point…I hadn’t thought of that. I suppose time will tell about if other news outlets pick this up…and also what, if any analysis is given it. I suppose, to be fair, a conservative could spin this another way, saying that the ‘liberal press’ hasn’t picked it up or emphasized it due to their bias, etc. However, if it really IS a story, I’m confident that it will be more widely discussed.

Are there no proofs or cites from the anti-war side disputing this assertion, or is this too soon to tell? I’m thinking maybe I jumped the gun on this, if Fox/The Weekly Standard are the only one’s talking about this…maybe there isn’t a story here at all.

From elucidator

As to its possible effect, well, time has kinda mooted the point. The case for “He’s gonna give Osama The Bomb!” becomes pretty weak once its been established that Saddam didn’t have it to give.

Thats true enough. My own theory has been for some time that SH basically destroyed the majority of his WMD (though I conceed he probably did keep the PROGRAMS laying about…just in case) just after GWI. For a variety of reasons he kept that information to himself (IMO), but its a good point that he wouldn’t have such things to give to ObL, true enough. However, there were other things he could give them, as a nation-state, IF the relationship was that close. Training, expertese, money, a safe haven, conventional weapons and explosives, etc. After all, the Taliban also couldn’t give ObL the bomb, but they helped AQ out. I’m NOT trying to equate the two countries btw, just making an observation.

-XT

[elucidator]

Well, as of this moment, Grudge has taken down the story from its front page in favor of “Baby Sitter arrested, accused of withcraft, Satanism”.

You may draw your own conclusions. I have.

But perhaps it was never intended for wide renown. Perhaps it was more of a “morale booster”, saying “We’ve got the truth, always have had, but you won’t see it on the Liberal media…”

Nah. Too much conspiracy, even for the Forces of Darkness. Most likely this “Top Secret” document, was “leaked” by a Tighty Righty zealot who believes every word Chalabi says and further believes this document is the Mother of All Smoking Guns.

He wouldn’t last five minutes here on the Dope Board.

Ah, well, no hurt, no foul.

[Squink]

DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA._ The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community.
…
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

[elucidator]

What a splendid opportunity to avail myself of a slice of High Dudgeon!

[Foghorn Elucidator]

HA-rumph! We must track down these “deplorable” Quislings who wreak “serious harm to national security”! I expect the full force of Ashcroft’s Angels to bear down for such security breach. Start with a complete investigation of the Weak Standard, including full audits of all of its owners and benefactors by the IRS and a thorough investigation into any connection they may or may not have had with Vince Foster! The Republic is in peril…yaddablah…yaddablah…[/FE]

[GIGObuster]

Looking at that DoD statement, it is my opinion now that the OSP did turn into the Office of Special Plants.

Look at it this way: at least The Weekly Standard, FOX news, and Newsmax make lovely flowerpots.

[Magiver]

Without looking at the article you are talking about a dictator who attempted to assassinate a US President collaborating with a terrorist who attacked the one country that supported him in his own personal power grab. Collaboration?

SH has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people he didn’t like using WMD.

OBL has shown he will deal with people he labels the “Great Satan” if it suits his needs.

Collaboration between these groups is not only logical but highly likely.

[GIGObuster]

Of course Magiver, but those last two lines of yours are also what the hawks in the administration told you to believe.

Even the President removed Iraq from having connections with 9/11.

Speaking of Saddam and Osama:

http://truthout.org/docs_02/021303A.htm

An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence: “At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader.” This clearly confirms the clarity of mind Osama bin Laden displayed in regard to Saddam Hussein, and conforms to the recorded message heard by millions and millions of people around the world.

http://www.apj.us/20030211MSNBC.html

An alternate version of the story contains this crucial “correction”:

“THE STATEMENT also calls Iraqi President Saddam Hussein an “infidel,” but stresses that the paramount battle for Muslims is with the United States and its allies.
(An initial, extemporaneous translation mistakenly quoted the speaker as calling on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein.)”
[snip]
Whatever turns out to be the case – and both of MSNBC’s “flavors” of the story may well be close to the truth, but inaccurate – it is quickly becoming clear that corporate media is playing down a de facto rift between Osama and Saddam, a fact that reveals the spin that has been pressed for the last weeks from the people surrounding former Texas governor Goerge W. Bush as nothing but another big lie.

Zealots rarely make deals with secular rulers.

[Ale]

Pardon me, but didn´t Osama volunteer to kick Saddam´s ass out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War , which was in 1991, as you may remember; so, if Al Qaeda HAD any cozy relationship before that (I doubt even that) surely after such demostration of antagonism things would have gone quite sour.

[XT]

Oh, I think its quite plausable that they COULD work together, GIGObuster. People do what they must, and both ObL and SH had the same powerful enemy.

If Stalin and Hitler could set aside their differences for a time to work together, I’m sure just about anyone could. The key question though is, DID they…did SH and ObL have such a relationship. From what I’m hearing so far, it seems like the story I posted is pretty much a bust…just a bunch of bullshit. I still have yet to see any other news agency pick up on it, and this would be hot if there were even a shred of substance here.

From Ale

Pardon me, but didn´t Osama volunteer to kick Saddam´s ass out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War , which was in 1991, as you may remember; so, if Al Qaeda HAD any cozy relationship before that (I doubt even that) surely after such demostration of antagonism things would have gone quite sour.

Again Ale, I can think of several plausable scenerios where both could be true. Off the top of my head, ObL wanted to become a power in the ME in his own right, and to increase his influence in Saudi…as well as prevent the US from interfering in what he took to be a local dispute. He also didn’t like the fact that Iraq was secular. However, according to the cite their relationship developed AFTER that. And it makes sense in a way too. Sadam was defeated fairly harshly after that, ObL also got exponentially more pissed at the US after that (troops in Saudi, etc). Its quite plausable that they COULD have had a relationship of sorts.

No, again the key question isn’t “how could this be” IMO…the key question is “Did this happen”. And again, I’d say that there is nothing here to show it did.

-XT

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
**Of course Magiver, but those last two lines of yours are also what the hawks in the administration told you to believe.

Even the President removed Iraq from having connections with 9/11.

Speaking of Saddam and Osama:

http://truthout.org/docs_02/021303A.htm

http://www.apj.us/20030211MSNBC.html

Zealots rarely make deals with secular rulers. **

HUH??? Bush is the ruler of a secular state. All you have to do is mention Jesus in court and you’re unemployed.

That’s the kind of line a Democratic Presidential candidate told you to believe.

OBL has referred to Bush and the United States as the great Satan. Can’t get any more “infidel” than that. He had no problems using the CIA until it was time to fuck over the US. He clearly demonstrates an ability to hug his enemies when it works for him.

[Squink]

Originally posted by Magiver
All you have to do is mention Jesus in court and you’re unemployed.

Cite?

Or is this another factoid you’ve come to know “Without looking at the article” ?

[minty_green]

No, it’s just conservative porn. No need to take it seriously.

[GIGObuster]

*Originally posted by Magiver *
**HUH??? Bush is the ruler of a secular state. All you have to do is mention Jesus in court and you’re unemployed.

That’s the kind of line a Democratic Presidential candidate told you to believe.

OBL has referred to Bush and the United States as the great Satan. Can’t get any more “infidel” than that. He had no problems using the CIA until it was time to fuck over the US. He clearly demonstrates an ability to hug his enemies when it works for him. **

I did not got my lines from any Presidential candidate, I figure that after reading past articles and now the devastating DoD one.

As for your last paragraph:

I will say it again: right wingers have a congenital blind spot for timelines, we became the great Satan to Osama only after the first gulf war.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html