06-12-2003 15:02									#1
	Saddam and al Qa'ida - why is Bush suppressing the evidence? Support Apolyton

Bush justified the war because of Saddam's links to terror groups who could use Saddam's chemical and bio weapons in an attack on America. Powell in his UN speech noted extensive al Qa'ida contacts with Saddam.

Since the war, we have learned a lot more, as will be disclosed below. For one, there is significant evidence that Saddam helped finance the 9/11 hijackers.

At the request of the Senate, an undersec of Def summarized the extent of our knowledge to the Senate intelligence committee. That memo has been leaked. Still the administration is not talking about the linkage between al Qa'ida and Saddam. One has to ask why?

Perhaps it has to do with ongoing investigations. But is Bush trying to set his Democratic rivals up? They are claiming that Saddam had no links to al Qa'ida and that the war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq. Is Bush sandbagging them?

Here is the Weekly Standards summary of the memo:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp

Excerpt:

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.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."
....
A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.
....
The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

The analysis of those events follows:

The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.
....
According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
....
According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.
....
During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

The analysis of this report follows.

CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons."
....
The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani.
....
[T]he report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of

2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time.
....
An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration:

References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11
....
Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions

	06-12-2003 17:22									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

"Bush justified the war because of Saddam's links to terror groups who could use Saddam's chemical and bio weapons in an attack on America."

No the justification for the War was that Saddam had supposedly bought a 'yellow cake', that is depleted uranium in niger. This information was planted by Italian intelligence, which in the seventies was closely ties to ultra-right terror attacks in Italy.The fact that the Weekly Standard bears false witness regarding the stated reasons for war is worrying

"CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani."

Yet the Czech President Vaclav Havel denied that any such meeting had taken place. In fact this 'information' was planted in order to embarass him. The security services in the Chech republic is not exactly known for its affinity with the Liberal Czech president. The fact that the report does not mention the opinion of the czech president is worrying.

"President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Yet in the weeks following the attacks on the united states, the right wing media claimed that Bill Clinton had done nothing to prevent terrorism, had in fact been directly responsible for the debacle. Of course that this information is used now, point to the fact that the Bush administration is getting desperate and is even ready to submit to the fact that Clinton did in fact take appropriate measures to prevent terror.

"During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training.

Is custodial interviw an euphomism for torture?"

"(Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.)"

Why would this have to be put into parantehsis when it is obvious that this undermines the whole claim of the report, namely that Saddam was supposed to have actively helped Osama bin Laden. The fact that saddam Hussein, or rather some of his intelligence chiefs had contact to al-quaida is hardly an appropriate rationale behind an invasion. May I remind you that Richard Perle had contacts to the Iraqi regime before the war. Did richard Perle pass any sensitive information on to the Iraqi intelligence service at that point? I think an investigation is called for in that matter.

Lastly the Weekly standard is a neocon mouthpiece and their reporting on the report which reports the reportings of what various shady personalities had reported to them, is hardly unbiased.

	06-12-2003 17:41									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

or maybe there is no link for him to surpress. jesus christ ned, you need to change your tinfoil hat. the mind control rays are getting to you.

	06-12-2003 18:54									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Jesus, the man posts an article from The Weekly Standard corroborating his argument and you accuse him of wearing a tin-foil hat? Get a clue...

	06-12-2003 19:43									#5
	Re: Saddam and al Qa'ida - why is Bush suppressing the evidence? Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Because you're an idiot?

The first clue this article is BS is when they say that contacts between AQ and Iraq began in 1990. This would be highly unlikely, since AQ didn't exist for several more years.

	06-12-2003 19:55									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc No the justification for the War was that Saddam had supposedly bought a 'yellow cake', that is depleted uranium in niger.

Bush's actual statement:

quote: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

	06-12-2003 20:59									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I've just bought a smoke alarm! Does this mean that I'm making a dirty bomb?

	06-12-2003 21:12									#8
	Got spare money?

Isn't "yellow cake" enriched unranium?

	06-12-2003 21:15									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Verto Bush's actual statement: quote: quote: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

And both turned out to be untrue. Iraq did not attempt to buy uranium and the aluminum tubes were not of sufficient quality to process uranium.

	06-12-2003 22:03									#10
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Isn't "yellow cake" enriched unranium?

You are right.

Depleted uranium. That is of course the stuff that causes cancer and disease among iraqis as well as Amercian veterans.

	06-12-2003 22:12									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If there is anything to reveal (and I'm not holding my breath) we'll hear about it in late October '04

	06-12-2003 23:52									#12
	Re: Re: Saddam and al Qa'ida - why is Bush suppressing the evidence? Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Because you're an idiot? The first clue this article is BS is when they say that contacts between AQ and Iraq began in 1990. This would be highly unlikely, since AQ didn't exist for several more years.

First of all watch the name calling d1ckhead

Second of all you're hardly in a place to make judgements considering you've held the theory that Saddam was "setup" the first time by Bush 1

Thirdly how would you know when they started, did you read the Al Queda Constitution????

	07-12-2003 00:36									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

drake, if this had been posted by anyone BESIDES ned i would give it some thought, but since ned is the male version of anne coulter but with more tinfoil hats i think it lacks all credibility.

i call it the jimmytrick effect. you may call it the che effect, or whatever liberal loony on the boards you think is a few slices short of a loaf

	07-12-2003 02:29									#14
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 anne coulter

I'd hit it

	07-12-2003 02:33									#15
	Remove this text

I didn't read that article, but just a point, generally speaking, is that mostly likely intelligence information is not released/made public in order to protect the source(s) of the information.

	07-12-2003 02:34									#16
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

ted, is your bar for sexual pleasure a hole and a heartbeat?

	07-12-2003 02:37									#17
	Suffering from ads?

As che pointed out, there was no al-Qaeda in '90 (or '93 for that matter). So at best, this article is relying on totally unreliable sources, if not blatantly fabricating information.

	07-12-2003 02:40									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oh, and to protect the methods that such intellegence was gathered as well.

If the target were aware of what information we had, the target would also possibly know how we collected it. And if the target were aware of exactly how we collected our intellegence information, he'd now how to stop of from getting it anymore. That would be A Bad Thing.

	07-12-2003 02:47									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Chegitz and Ramo are both WRONG

quote: JANES INTELLIGENCE REVIEW http://lists.laplaza.org/pipermail/...ber/002284.html August 1, 2001 During the 1980s, resistance fighters in Afghanistan developed a world-wide recruitment and support network with the aid of the USA, Saudi Arabia and other states. After the 1989 Soviet withdrawal, this network, which equipped, trained and funded thousands of Muslim fighters, came under the control of Osama bin Laden. In light of evidence from the recently completed US embassy bombing trials, Phil Hirschkorn, Rohan Gunaratna, Ed Blanche, and Stefan Leader examine >the genesis, operational methods and organisational structure of the Bin Laden network - Al-Qaeda. BODY: Al-Qaeda ('The Base') is a conglomerate of groups spread throughout the world operating as a network. It has a global reach, with a presence in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Xinjiang in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, and in the West Bank and Gaza. Since its creation in 1988, Osama bin Laden has controlled Al-Qaeda. As such, he is both the backbone and the principal driving force behind the network.

Check your sources next time guys.

Maybe you forgot when the World Trade Center got bombed the FIRST time back in 1993.

	07-12-2003 02:50									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 ted, is your bar for sexual pleasure a hole and a heartbeat?

Apparently less, since Coulter would have to have a heart to have a heartbeat.

	07-12-2003 02:53									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

Like you guys wouldn't hit it.

Attachment: coulter.jpg
This has been downloaded 82 time(s).

	07-12-2003 02:55									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Is she a porn star?

	07-12-2003 02:56									#23
	Tired of ads?

that adams apple is disturbing.

	07-12-2003 02:56									#24
	Full PM-box? Change here!

i'd hit it, too

	07-12-2003 03:01									#25
	Re: Saddam and al Qa'ida - why is Bush suppressing the evidence? Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

maybe because (*gasp*) it isn't there

	07-12-2003 03:18									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Maybe you forgot when the World Trade Center got bombed the FIRST time back in 1993.

So that was Al qaida too? I don't think so. If I remember correctly some egyptian Mullah was tried and found guilty of being the mastermind there. No mention of al-quida at that time. but maybe that was confidential at the time. Or what?

	07-12-2003 03:23									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Check your sources next time guys.

Fair enough, but al-Qaeda wasn't at all significant until years later. They couldn't pull off a terrorist attack until 1994 (the Manilla embassy bombings IIRC).

quote: Maybe you forgot when the World Trade Center got bombed the FIRST time back in 1993.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

	07-12-2003 03:28									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Tripledoc, it appears your criticism of the report centers on two items: 1) what WMD's Bush cited to justify the war; and 2) the lack of any contact between Atta and the Iraqi intelligence service in Praque in 2001.

Bush actually justified the war both on Saddam's attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and upon Saddam's possession of bio and chem weapons. The potential of Saddam giving terrorists anthrax was a significant cause for the war.

On Atta, the report notes significant controversy surrounding the 2001 visit to Praque. However, this only diverts attention away from confirmed visits earlier, including the well documented visit in the Spring of 2000 and the Iraqi order for a wire transfer of funds.

Finally, Che and Ramo falsely deny the existence of al Qa'ida as early as 1990 to dismiss the report in its entirety.

MRT144 criticism is typical of some of the left who are overly sensitive to any criticism let alone being laughed at by the likes of Coulter.

But the point remains. Why is Bush being silent on this issue? Is he allowing the Dems to dig a deep hole so that he can bury them in it in next year's campaign? I think this is the reason.

	07-12-2003 03:33									#29
	Suffering from ads?

Ann Coulter looks like the twin sister of a Swedish ultra-feminist. They both should have multiple body cavities filled for pure punishment.

	07-12-2003 03:38									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned MRT144 criticism is typical of some of the left who are overly sensitive to any criticism let alone being laughed at by the likes of Coulter.

god forbid someone criticize the right though. god forbid someone point out how wrong coulter is in her rants.