 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/07/W...inforces_.shtml
Hmmm. The plane found as described. People foreign to Iraq giving intel after having been trained there...
Perhaps you would like to try again? |
It's an interesting article you found there, how long did it take to find it? I just did a google news search on "Salman Pak" and the vast majority of articles have been saying that the intel was faulty. Sure, there were a couple places where they assert that it is true (usually referencing either INC defectors or Shrub's pre-war pronouncements, rarely actually asserting that they found it - and when they do say it, it's generally in early April of last year). You must have realized that it's a bit fishy that no one else picked up the story (and in fact asserting the opposite), not even the government is asserting its validity. Well, there is a reason: 
quote:
"Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the
stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq
to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by
the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an
Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by
people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct
terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified
only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said
that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on
a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak,
south of Baghdad.
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a
former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had
been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In
the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In
1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed,
after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At
the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then
sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6.
The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the
Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the
former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an
airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they
visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years
before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be
converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted,
however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open.
“That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in
basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11
terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the
real thing.”
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither
the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to
substantiate the claims made before the war. |
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
As I said, thank you, come again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
From Winds Of change
quote:
However, last night NRO's the Corner linked to an extremely critical column on Clarke by George Smith of Global Security which quoted an article in The New Republic stating that Clarke played a key role in the Clinton administration's decision to launch a cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. That article, if true, puts Clarke's comments about a war in Iraq detracting from the larger war against al-Qaeda in an entirely different context.
As any number of media reports indicate from the time period in question, those US officials who ordered the cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa plant did so because they believed that bin Laden was producing precursors for VX there with Iraqi assistance. It is worth noting that the basis for this conclusion even found its way into the November 4, 1998 US indictment of both bin Laden and his military commander Mohammed Atef, stating that bin Laden had formed a non-aggression pact with Iraq and had agreed to work with the Iraqi government with regard to weapons development.
One might note rather cynically that all of these claims were made long before the Office of Special Plans or Douglas Feith ever appeared on the scene, a point I noted during my analysis of the Weekly Standard memo.
In light of all of this evidence, if Clarke was indeed a key player in convincing President Clinton to attack al-Shifa but does not believe that Iraq had any connection to al-Qaeda then he should be subjected to some extremely serious questioning regarding whether or not he still stands by the decision to attack the al-Shifa plant. As anybody who has read The Age of Sacred Terror by former Clinton administration defense advisors should know, other key officials from the previous administration continue to stand by the decision to attack the plant, Sandy Berger amongst them. At the very least, Clarke might want to let Salah Idris know that he supports his case and perhaps agree to testify in court on his behalf
. |
So has Clarke clarified his position on the al-Shifa plant?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
 |
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
If the terrorists strike again, Kerry can kiss his ass goodbye. |
That depends on several factors.
1. How does the Bush administration handle the press in the aftermath? Do they blame al-Qaeda or imply that it was an act of domestic terrorism, or of a group unrelated to al-Qaeda? This is what did Spain's former government in -- they tried to blame it on domestic terrorists when all the evidence said it was al-Qaeda.
2. Of course, who's behind the attacks? If it's domestic terrorism, Bush might not be in the best situation, having paid most attention to international terrorists and nearly none to the potential domestic threats. If it's al-Qaeda, the entire Iraq thing is a problem, unless Bush has fully convinced Americans that Iraq was a necessary stop in the war on terrorism.
3. What kind of attack? Now, if members of the administration or first family were harmed, it would draw in overwhelming sympathy. If it's innocent Americans, the 'patriot' thing would be a factor, but given the polarity of this nation in regard to how they feel about Bush, it could simply propel more and more people into the polls to vote both ways.
All in all, I don't think a terrorist attack in the days before the election would bode well for Bush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Have those Clinton officials that STILL hold that view ever criticized the Iraq war on the grounds of no connection to AQ?
And last tme I cheked, the conventional wisom was that the Sudan attack was wrong, so if it was wrong, the idea there was a link between Osama and Saddam there was also wrong..
AND Clarcke felt the war in Iraq undemrined the overall war on terror. That is NOT the same as saying Iraq and AQ had NO connections-since you could believe Iraq and AQ to have had minor and eventually irrelevant connections not large or important enough to warrant an Iraq invasion based on those AQ threats. |
\
GEpap : one of the more liberal commenters on the Winds of Change site indicates that in his testimony this week Clarke stood behind the Al-Shifa bombing, and said critics of it were wrong. Unfortunately that testimony has not been posted yet, and so I am unable to verify this.
Now it may be that this is garbled, and he has in fact renounced the bombing, as you seem to assume.
Or it maybe that he stands behind the bombing, and considers it justified without believing that there was any connection to Iraq (but in that case the justification for the bombing looks REALLY THIN)
But IF he continues to beleive that there was a connection between Iraq and VX at Al-Shifa this IS NOT a minor thing. This isnt just AQ saying we might like a fall back place, and Iraq saying no, or Iraq suggesting some limited cooperation and AQ saying no. Or someone from Iraq intel helping an AQ/Abu Sayaf operative in the Phillipines some travel documents. Its Iraq passing CHEMICAL WEAPONS expertise to a fundamentalist muslim regime, one which harbored Bin Laden, and which could reasonably be suspected of sharing such expertise with Bin Laden.
Last edited by lord of the mark on 26-03-2004 at 23:34
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2004 10:45
|