Iraq- al Qaeda link found

[Grog]

Iraq-al Qaeda

Saturday, April 26, 2003 Posted: 7:39 PM EDT (2339 GMT)

LONDON (AP) -- Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.

The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational."

The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia.

The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said.

Journalists found a three-page file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said.

"Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid," the newspaper reported. "After carefully removing the dried fluid, however, the name is clearly legible three times in the documents."

One of the pages, dated February 19, was marked "top secret and urgent" and referred to plans for the trip from Sudan of the unnamed envoy, who is described in the file as a trusted confidant of bin Laden's, the paper said.

The document, signed, "MDA," which the newspaper said is a code name believed to belong to the director of one of the Iraqi intelligence sections, said the Iraqis sought to pay for the envoy's costs while in Iraq "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The message to bin Laden "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him," the newspaper quoted the document as saying.

The other documents confirm that the envoy traveled from Khartoum in Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998 and that he stayed at the al-Mansour Melia hotel.

The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said.

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

One document, dated September 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

 

[WillyJ]

Why are "western intelligence officials" excited?

Didn't the Bush administration claim they already had indisputable proof months ago and use that as one justification for the war?


Besides, it seems suspecious to say the least that this one paper keeps finding "sensational" evidence that rectro-actively supports the war and casts doubt on the character on a few slect people who opposed it? (Ritter, Galloway, Chirac. . )

And why are our military officials letting a pack of foreign journalists dig through such an important office?

Sorry, looks a little too convienient for me too give much credence too. .

 

[Grog]

*yawn*

 

[Laz]

Although I am not surprised by the finding, could it be that the "excitement" was started by the media in the first place who keeps asking for a "smoking gun?" They always want to put their own slant on everything.

 

[WillyJ]

Could it be that the Bush adminitration has misplaced the "indisputable proof" they claimed they had before the war- evidence they said they couldn't reveal because it would endanger their sources in Iraq, but even though that's no longer a factor, we still haven't seen ?

Or could it be that the main reason given for the war- that Saddam had WMDs and the Bush people were worried he'd give them to terrorists- wasn't really something the Bush people were worried about because they knew they were lying about it?


_______________________________________________
Press Conference, March 21st- (day air attack started)

Q : So you expect the weapons will be found?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question. We have said that Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons, and all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. . . And in this case, as regretful as the American people are that our military has to be engaged in combat -- risking the lives of Americans, let alone anybody else -- the American people understand what is at stake is protecting the American people from Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Q The surprise element -- you're not surprised that they haven't been found?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think there can be a variety of factors behind it. But as we have said repeatedly, we have information that Iraq has possessed biological, and possesses biological and chemical weapons.Full strory


April 2, 2003- U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims that most Iraqi WMDs are "in the area south of Baghdad … near Karbala" as well as "north of Baghdad, up near Tikrit"—areas allied forces have yet to capture. Full strory

April 9 — . . Rumsfeld expressed his concerns in response to questions from reporters about finding and destroying significant caches of weapons of mass destruction believed to have been stockpiled by Saddam Hussein’s regime — the original rationale of the U.S.-led campaign that began March 20.

“You bet we’re concerned about it,” Rumsfeld said at a news conference at the Pentagon. “And one of the reasons it’s important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction — in this case, chemical and biological and nuclear technologies and knowledge — and terrorist groups and networks is a critical link. And the thought that as part of this process, some of ... those materials could leave the country and [be] in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn’t happen.” Full strory



4-13-3. . Meet the Press.

Russert: "Why have we not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"

Rumsfeld: "There is a war going on, we don't have time to look for weapons of mass destruction right now."
link


4-26. .

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Thursday that he does not think the United States is going to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"I don't think we will find anything. Inspectors did not discover anything and I don't think we will," said Mr Rumsfeld.




Elected leaders lie; partisian supporters look for any reason tio justify their behavior. . reminds me of the Clinton years. :yawn:

 

[Laz]

I will paste what I wrote from another post:

WillyJ, I am not trying to start a debate, but her is the mission objectives set at the begining of the war by the coalition. Department of defense website:

Mission Objectives

1. End the regime of Saddam Hussein
2. Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraq’s WMD, systems, and facilities
3. Capture or drive out terrorists sheltered in Iraq
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks and on Iraq’s illicit WMD activity
5. Secure Iraq’s oil fields and natural resources for the Iraqi people
6. End sanctions and immediately deliver humanitarian relief and assistance
7. Help the Iraqi people rapidly transition to a representative form of self-government that does not threaten its neighbors and is committed to the territorial integrity of Iraq


1- completed

2-here is one debate. One could say it was accomplished--at least in part- because Iraq now has no WMD to be found and the systems and facilities have been contained or destroyed. One could also argue your point of view because no weapons were found.

3-being completed. Many have been taken care of with many more to go.

4- on going. relates directly to #2. As we capture more leadership, we could get more information. This could take a great deal of time. I guess how long you are willing to wait depends on whether you like our leaders right now.

5-completed.

6- Looks like France wants to mess this goal up, at least as far as sanctions go. Will the UN waffle on this one too? Yes, rebuilding the infrastructure of a war torn country takes lots of time. Again, I guess how long you are willing to wait depends on whether you like our leaders right now.

7- on going. As with #s 4 & 6, how long you are willing to wait depends on whether you like our leaders right now.

____________


You can focus on what is important to you and what furthers your political motives. The media focuses on what is important to their political motives. Of course, I focus on mine which is this will take time for any of the ongoing tasks to be completed. If you choose to think that the Bush administration is out for personal gain in this whole war (as the media does), fine. If I choose to believe that Clinton was too busy watching a golf game on tv to handle national security problems (as one author claimed), fine. However, I found it hard to believe that ANY president would use the presidency for personal gain.

You get to choose, I get to choose, and now the Iraqi people get to choose without imprisonment, rape, or torture.

 

[Laz]

As an addendum (sp?), hear are some of the media articles I choose to focus on:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/904230.asp?0cb=-416143917

The "Abu Earless" brigade concerning Saddams ear amputations


http://www.msnbc.com/news/905486.asp?0cb=-116143917

Saddam's Victims: A child waits to die. A quote from the article:

"Ahmed suffers from a form of leukemia that would be highly curable in almost any other country. The recommended treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia is a bone-marrow transplant, and in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq such procedures were banned. “Take him to Kuwait, you could treat him,” says Dr. Meitham al Baka. “Take him to anywhere in Africa even, and you could treat him.” It’s not that Iraq has a backward medical system; the country’s doctors are highly trained, its major hospitals at least well-equipped. But it was one of the whims of the tyrant’s regime that bone-marrow transplants were forbidden."

So again, WillyJ, it all depends on what you focus on as to what the war on Iraq means. You focus on WMD (or lack of), and I will focus on Iraq being rid of Saddam and Ear Amuputations, forbidden life-saving medical procedures, etc.

 

[MJames41]

Ok Willy,

You want to talk about what each side said before the war? How about:

"No Blood for Oil" - exactly which company has taken over the Iraqi oil?

"It will be another Vietnam" - Vietnam last several decades, with thousands and thousands killed - you do see the difference don't you?

"Thousands of innocent civilians will die" - even before the war it was pointed out that to keep Hussein in power meant the death every month of about 5,000 civilians, most of them (2/3) children. This was a conservative estimate by the UN. The most outlandish estimates put the civilian deaths at around 2,000 during the war (I have severe doubts that this estimate is true), which is still 3,000 less than leaving him in power.

"Thousands of innocent American soldiers will die" - ummm....only 137. In previous wars, we had much, much more than that many die in a single day of combat.

"There is no evidence that Iraq and Al Queda had any dealings with each other" - yes, there is.

You want proof of WMD though, and only that will please you? Then explain to me, with any plausible reason at all, why the Iraqi government would have a pesticide storage facility in the middle of the desert, with special fixtures to make it invisible to sattelites? And why is there this time limit to find them, that if they are not found in 2 weeks they don't count? The government of Iraq wasn't set up before the fighting had ended and people who were against the war were screaming that it wasn't happening fast enough. I don't think that there is sufficient proof to satisfy you, even if they found a nuclear missle ready for launch.