Iraq war a distraction from war on terrorism

Iraq Forum

Iraq a 'distraction' in war on terrorism: Think tank

MARK LAVIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

TEL AVIV, Israel — The war in Iraq did not damage international terror groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually "created momentum" for many terrorists, a top Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.

President Bush has called the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism, saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.

But the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said that instead of striking a blow against Islamic extremists, the Iraq war "has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly Al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman said the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected attention and assets from other centres of terrorism, such as Afghanistan.

The concentration of U.S. intelligence assets in Iraq "has to be at the expense of being able to follow strategic dangers in other parts of the world," he said.

Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it's quite clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."

Instead, he said, the Iraq campaign is having the opposite effect, drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle.

"On a strategic level as well as an operational level," Brom concluded, "the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism."

In other findings, Jaffee Center experts disagreed with the Israeli government's statements that its four-year struggle against Palestinian militants is part of the world fight against Islamic terrorism.

Yoram Schweitzer, who wrote the chapter about the Iraq war, said the local conflict is a "national struggle," while international Islamic militant groups like Al Qaeda target not only Israel but also the entire Western world.

After interviewing Palestinian militants, including some in prison, Schweitzer said they do not consider themselves part of the Al Qaeda campaign. "Many of them are critical of Al Qaeda and its methods," he told a news conference.

The Jaffee report found that Israel has succeeded in reducing Palestinian violence against Israelis.

Feldman said the motivation of Palestinian militants to attack the country remained unchanged, but praised the work of military intelligence in preventing many attacks.

"The only reason these (anti-terror) operations succeed is that we have better intelligence," he said.

Feldman said the weekend attacks in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula aimed at places where Israelis gather did not figure in to the assessment. Thirteen Israelis were among at least 34 people killed in two car bomb attacks Thursday.

"We regard the attacks in the Sinai in a different category," he said, likening it to an attack at a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, last year that killed 10, including three Israelis.

The report includes statistical breakdowns of the military forces and their capabilities in the Middle East, as well as analyses of regional issues.

If the war on terrorism were chess, Iraq would be one of those sneaky moves by the knight. In this case, terrorism has one less place to move. Yeah, Iran and North Korea may be the king and queen of terrorism, but you can't get to those without taking out the other peices first.

Look beyond the horizon. Think 3-dimentionally.

If this was a chess game, the pond that Iraq was just turned into a queen. There are now 2 queens on the board Sayzak.

Pond? You don't know much about Chess do you?

How do you figure that Iraq is a Queen on the board? Bush's Queen maybe.

And that's the difference between Bush and Kerry, Bush is playing chess, Kerry wants to play checkers.

I doubt that Kerry ever played Risk either but I bet Bush has.

Ron

I know you want to think Bushes war is going perfect, we found WMDs, and Iraq is connected to 9/11 but.....

WELCOME TO REALITY

We our fighting a war with no end in site

Bush has not protected nuclear sites, and terrorists now have nuclear material

We let Iran build up its nuclear aresonal while we focused on Iraq

Osama Bin Laden was never caught by the US

Terrorism is on the rise.

And you actually think were winning this game of fighting terrorism? Thats what you call somebody who is dillusional.

Keep dreaming Ron

REALITY IS NOT POLITICALLY BIASED

Not related to the election, people..

This isn't the election forum Sean.

Ah, but it was. But now it is not

Ahhh gotcha

Thanks for moving it.

Ron,

By your statement that terrorism is not on the rise in the US, you are clearly denying Bush's assertion that the "world is safer" - generally speaking - for the US and its allies.
Remember - Saddam was presented by Bush as a threat to the US AND its allies.

Well, you feel maybe more secured inside island America - which I doubt is really the case - but what about the allies ?

I tell you - 200 deads in Madrid last March, and probably others to come sooner or later in Europe.

Paris is a target of choice to Al Qaeda. France has lots of diplomatical, economical ties with a muslim countries throughout the world. That's exactly what Al Qaeda wants to disrupt, with its aim to get a global "clash of civilization".
So France as a good target makes sense to me. If I believe the news and rumors here I am not the only one to "feel" it.

Besides Iraq, and of course Israel. Tell me where terrorism is on the rise. Show me that there were more terror attacks this year or 2003 vs any year prior to Sept 11.

Now who is confusing things, you didn't ask about the Saddam threat. You said terrorism was on the rise. Nowhere in your post did you mention Saddam.

Terrorism is on the rise in Bali and technically terroism is on the rise in Iraq if you consider that before the allied invasion terror attacks numbred zero. London WILL be hit that is the belief of those in charge of security as will Paris and New York again these are the words of experts in the field of terrorism groups such as secret service agents and plans stolen in special forces raids all around the world.

Show a comparison, I'm sure you can find a listing on the internet.

Ron out of intrest can you prove that terror attacks have fallen world wide?

Listen to the Bush Admin and everyone fighting against the US in Iraq is a terrorist - so terrorism must've risen, given there's a car-bombing every day, and 30-odd people dead, and all the other ****.

Ron - you're smart, you think, you're considered - ... if we want to fight this war on terrorism, as we do, as everyone does, wouldn't it have been better to fight Al Queda? Do you really think Iraq, invading and conquering and taking over the administration of Iraq, with a view to installing a government favourable to Western interests in its oil and whatever, was gonna help the war on terror, an ephemeral thing perpetrated by dozens of shadowy "cells" of nut-job fundamentalist ****wits? I mean - Saddam - he didn't support these people. He had some weapons, sure, (though he must've moved them prior to the war ... or maybe they weren't there at all ...) - but he wasn't involved with Al Queda or 9/11.

Yet we're in there in Iraq, running the place, with no forseeable good end in sight. What do you think about it mate? You think it's good?

Cos we aint fighting Al Queda in Iraq.

I had to get this from multiple sources.

According to the US Army's Terrorism Timeline and taking out Terrorism in Israel because we all know that that is a whole different issue and taking out Terrorism in Iraq because there is still a war going on. And to be fair I went back 4 years pre 9/11 but included pre war on terror attacks and some into the start of the war on terror in with the Post 9/11. If you take out the attacks that happened prior to us overthrowing the Taliban and putting Osama on the run then its less for the post 9/11

Rather optimistic Ron, however the Bush administration conceded in April of this year that global terrorism has risen since the Iraq invasion. I'm sure you remember when they originally claimed it decreased, something you're doing now.

In as much as this is fact, I'm inclined to believe you're report above is absent of some events of the past. Also, I don't think your approach includes the many attempts of terrorism either.

However it is a foregone conclusion by our government that global terror has risen. In case you’re still skeptical, here is Colin Powel explaining away last June the bogus report claiming just what you’re claiming above.

Powell Explains Bogus Global Terrorism 2003 stats June 24, 2004

It's true if you count Iraq and Israel. You see they count ALL terror including Israel and Iraq where a terror events happens almost daily. Those are 2 hotspots and I don't think it's fair to include the two.

And Colen Powell said this:

Here is some info I got.
In late May or ealry June 2004 that State Dept's Mr Brennar released a report sayin that in 2003 terro attacks had decreased, however on June 22nd 2004 he had to withdraw that report and claim that terror attacks had increased worldwide. There were 208 terror attacks in 2003 that left nealry 700 dead, in terms of large attacks in terms of damaged property or lives lost there was an increase from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003. The report and figures came from the CIA, the terrorist threat center and the Penatgon.

Obviously the figures for 2004 have not been compiled but since 9/11 there have been 2929 detahs as a reult of terrorism and 51% have been in 2004 according to a UK govt department I apologise as I do not know which one but it will either be the foreign office, MI5 or MI6.

Again, that encompasses ALL attacks including Iraq and Israel where there have been many. It also includes unsuccessful attacks and suspected attacks, and hostages. They use a broad factor to claim a terror attack. What I am telling you if you take out the Iraq/Israel factor. Terror attacks have dropped including zero, zilch, nada in the U.S. since 9/11.

One more attempt to blame America for Islam's reign of terror.
BTW- to Compare Germany and Nazis to Islam and terrorism doens't fit.
Germany was not a religion with followers around the globe. Nor is the US a religion with KKK followers around the world.

If terrorism has risen, it is because of Muslim support. Islam is making this a religious war not the US. I don't think we care what religion it is or if they are Nazi for that matter. The issue is global and we have commited this country to fight it. Even Kerry claims he will kill them all and that's about the smartest thing i have heard him say to date.
Terrorists are being apprehended and killed every single day around the world.
Until Muslims everywhere denounce these murders, it will contiune. How many Muslims are there in the world? How many are against it?

Ron,

Perhaps this argument will appear insufficient regarding how partakers are weilding statistics to solidify their opinion, but, anyway, I have never seen as much militaries patrolling in public places in France than recently. Last time I saw such a military presence it was 9 years ago just after murderous islamist attempts in Paris.
Terrorism risk is stated to be very high by officials in charge of this concern. And we are not within elections days that would explain any manipulation of the public opinion.
Feeling safer ? Definitely not.
Maybe in fantasyland. I should consider relocating at Dysneyworld.

Ron,

Have you ever heard of the IRA. Believe it or not, the British have been dealing with terrorists before 9/11. Guess what stopped the bombings? Here is a pop quiz.

Was it

A) Black and Tans. The British murder squad instructed to kill as many Irish people as possible, including the 12 innocent people in the crowd of the football match at Croke Park, Dublin.

B) Bloody sunday, the day the British slaughtered 13 innocent protestors and injured a great deal more. The British run roughshod all over human rights in favour of the hardline approach of "we will beat the "terrorists""

C) The Good Friday agreement whereby the British finally negotiated with the IRA, created the northern Ireland assembly, and handed over power to the people of Northern Ireland.

I will give you a clue. The answer is C.

Yeah, Ron, but why we in Iraq? Don't you reckon fighting a war on Al Queda would've been better served by fighting a war on Al Queda?

I mean, all the resources, all the massive billions in money, all the innocent lives, have been spent invading and conquering a country with nothing to do with Al Queda and 9/11 ... surely invading Iraq has weakened the US's power to fight terrorism, that which is perpetrated by Osama and his fanatics. Don't you reckon?

It's a war on Terrorism, not just al Qaeda. And no our military is big enough to fight on multiple fronts.

But why waste time in Iraq? Surely there's more important fights in the war on terror, given Saddam has no links with Al Queda, no nukes, etc...

Saddam supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad for years. I guess in your view that if they are killing Jews, they aren't considered terrorists.

What does that have to do with this invasion USA? So we invaded Iraq because he supported terrorist against Israel?

That is exactly what Arabs are claiming and you're giving them credence. However, we did NOT attack Iraq because they were supporting Hamas. The reasons were WMD and that they would give them to terrorists.

As you see now, nothing was farther from the truth, yet nothing will make you suffer from any form of skepticism, even when the facts say we were wrong. However, what is fundamentally lacking in your foundation is the pretext of “imminent threat”.

You guys are hilarious in trying to redefine justifications for invading that country.

Yes Peace and the title of the thread is painfully obvious: "Iraq war a distraction war on terrorism".
While right wingers keep deluding themselves with convenient rhetoric-du-jour, Al Qaeda is reinforcing itself dangerously. But hey - Bush told it on TV: "the world is safer".

Connecting the dots:

Saddam’s Multiple Acts of Aggression Against the U.S.,
(including participation in the surprise attack of September 11, 2001).

A. Motive and Policy

After the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein viewed his expulsion from Kuwait as only a temporary set-back in a continuing war with America; in 1991 his news agency carried the threat that "the American arena will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahedin and all the honest strugglers in the world" (Iraq News Agency, Jan 30, 1991, quoted by Laurie Mylroie (former CIA official [Clinton era]), Iraq News, http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/990304_in.htm , March 4, 1999.;

B. Alliance with Al Qaida

“Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. It says 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-Qaida.’ [¶] The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al-Qaida-affiliated National Islamic Front.” (October 27, 2003 Defense Department memo to Senate Intelligence Committee, as reported by the Weekly Standard, as reported in WorldNetDaily, November 15, 2003.)

“In November [2003], the Weekly Standard reported a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee said bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.” (2004 WorldNetDaily.com, May 27, 2004, citing the Weekly Standard, November, 2003, citing Senate Intelligence Committee memo.)

There are at least “50 instances of contacts between senior al-Qaeda officials and Iraqi operatives – starting in 1990 and continuing right up to March 2003.” (Weekly Standard, Nov. 15, 2003 )

“In what could go down as the Mother of All Copyediting Errors, Babil, the official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, last fall published information that appears to confirm U.S. allegations of links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. It adds one more piece to the small pile of evidence emerging from Iraq that, when added to the jigsaw puzzle we already had, makes obsolete the question of whether Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league and leaves in doubt only the extent of the connection. [¶] In its November 16, 2002, edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an ‘intelligence officer,’ describing him as the ‘official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan.’ A man of this name was indeed the Iraqi ambassador to Pakistan from the fall of 1999 until the fall of the regime.” (Stephen F. Hayes, “The Al Qaeda Connection,” Weekly Standard, 05/12/2003, Volume 008, Issue 34.

See generally: Stephen F. Hayes, The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (HarperCollins, 2004).

[Page 2, Saddams Aggressions against US]
. . .

C. The Nine Attacks:

1. First Attack on World Trade Center (February 26,1993)

On Friday, February 26, 1993, the second anniversary of the U.S. liberation of Kuwait, two Iraqi agents Ramzi Yousef (aka "Rashid the Iraqi"), the mastermind, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, along with others, organized the first attack (by bombing) of the World Trade Center, the symbol of world capitalism and of the U.S. economy;

“[T]he book The New Jackals by Simon Reeve, published in 1999 by Northeastern University Press. . . . documents connections that Ramzi Youssef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, had with Iraqi intelligence officials.
. . . [¶] With regard to connections between Iraq and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the book makes the following points:
• The author concludes that evidence of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 Twin Towers bombing is strong.
• Significance was placed on the timing of the attack on Feb. 26. This date marked the second anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait.
• One of the WTC conspirators, Abdul Rahman Yasin, became a fugitive and, as late as 1999, was living openly in Baghdad, possibly working for the Iraqi government.
• Another conspirator, Mohammad Salameh, is the nephew of Qadri Abu Bakr, a leading figure in a Palestine Liberation Organization terrorist unit that received funding from the Iraqi regime. Before Ramzi Youssef came to the United States to oversee the WTC bombing, Salameh made the first of 46 phone calls to Baghdad, most of them to his uncle.
• Ramzi Youssef came from Baluchistan, a Sunni area in Iraq that spread into Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan intelligence sources were convinced that Youssef had close links to the MKO.
• American and Pakistani intelligence sources believe that while Youssef was teaching in Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps in 1992, he met with a senior Sunni representative of the MKO who was working for the government in Baghdad. The MKO official, acting under orders from Baghdad, is reported to have asked Youssef to go to the United States to prepare a spectacular terrorist attack.” (Robert E. Powis, letter to the Washington Times, June 05, 2004, citing Simon Reeve, The New Jackals, Northeastern University Press, 1999, emphasis added.)


“[On September 1, 1992] . . . Ramsi You[s]sef (aka "Rashid the Iraqi") arrives in United States.” (www.iraqi-freedom.com/chat/show.php/act/ST/f/1/t/743, Sam Pender, Iraq's Smoking Gun, citing Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America.) “Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 attack and whose laptop computer contained plans to crash U.S. airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, entered the U.S. with an Iraqi passport.” (Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Sept. 15, 2003.) The passport misappropriated the identity of “Abdul Basit,” a national of Kuwait then under Iraqi occupation. (Jack Kelly, Jewish World Review, August 20, 2002.)






[Page 3, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[1993 Attack on WTC, cont’d]
. . .

“Ramzi Yousef is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He also plotted to bomb U.S. airliners in January 1995. [¶] In 1993, before the bombing, Yousef lived in Jersey City, New Jersey, with fellow bomber Mohamed Salameh, one of the first four men convicted in the WTC attack and sentenced to life in prison. According to the presiding judge in his 1998 trial, the bombing of New York's World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city's tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. ‘Only’ six people died. . . . [¶] Pakistani police arrested Yousef a month later, on February 7, 1995, in an Islamabad hotel room. [¶] Prosecutors depicted Yousef as the leader of the cell that carried out the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center truck bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 -- at the time, the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Yousef's fingerprints turned up on bomb-making manuals and storage lockers used by the trade center bombers. He was believed to have bought the chemicals used to construct the 1,500-pound bomb placed inside a rented Ryder truck and detonated after the vehicle was driven into one tower's parking garage. [¶] U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Duffy sentenced Yousef to life in prison on January 8, 1998, for the trade center bombings” (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/indiv...zi_yousef.html.)

"We've discovered since [Iraq was liberated] documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now." (Vice President Dick Cheney, National Public Radio on January 22, 2004.)

Also involved was "“a Malaysia-based Iraqi national named Ahmed Shakir. . . . Authorities found in his [Shakir’s] possession contact information for terrorists involved [inter alia] in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing . . . . The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted." (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, emphasis added.)

“[T]he original lead FBI official on the case, Jim Fox, concluded that ‘Iraq was behind the World Trade Center bombing.’" (Joseph Farah, WND, Posted: February 21, 2003, citing Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks, )
See generally, Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks - A Study in Revenge (Harper Collins, 2001); Simon Reeve, The New Jackals, Northeastern University Press, 1999.








[Page 4, Saddams Aggressions against US]
. . .

2. Attempted Assassination of the first President Bush (April, 1993)

In April, 1993 the Saddam regime attempted to use a car bomb to assassinate former President George Herbert Walker Bush, the man who had foiled his 1991 expansionist ambitions, during the latter's visit to Kuwait;
“On April 14, 1993, Iraq plotted to assassinate former President [George H.W.] Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Two Iraqi nationals were captured with a sophisticated car bomb. They admitted under interrogation they had been recruited by Iraqi intelligence, which supplied them with the bomb. After an investigation, the CIA concluded ‘with confidence’ that the recruitment of the assassins had been authorized ‘at the highest levels’ of the Iraqi government.” (Jack Kelly, Jewish World Review, August 20, 2002.)

[Page 6, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[OkC, cont’d]
. . .
(b) Hussain Hashem Al Hussaini, a Palestinian with a tatoo proclaiming past service in Saddam's Republican Guard, appears to have been the "John Doe # 2" seen in the company of confessed bomber Timothy McVeigh a few days before the attack.

“[T]he appeals court [U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals] ‘affirmed U.S. District Judge Timothy Leonard's November 17, 1999, ruling, which upheld as 'undisputed' all 50 statements of fact and opinion which set forth on the court record implicating former Iraqi soldier Hussain al-Hussaini in the 1995 bombing. …’ . . . [¶] Davis said al-Husseini also admitted in court depositions filed with his lawsuit that he did serve in the Iraqi army. . . . [¶] ‘After two separate lawsuits, both state and federal, this man was unable to produce even one witness affidavit establishing his whereabouts for the critical hours of April 19, 1995,’ Davis said. ‘The testimonies of several eyewitnesses who place him in the company of executed bomber Timothy McVeigh and fleeing the scene of the worst act of terrorism in 20th century America stand undisputed.’" (Jon Dougherty, © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com, April 3, 2003)

“During the follow-up investigation, it was discovered that Timothy McVeigh had a large collection of phone numbers of Iraqis that he hid. Jayna Davis’ follow-up investigation reveals that 22 witnesses saw an Arab-looking man alongside Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh in the minutes and seconds before the bomb detonated.” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden:
A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing Davis, in US News, October 29, 2001.)
See generally: Jayna Davis, The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, (WND/Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004). This book has been endorsed by R. James Woolsey, CIA Director, 1993-1995.

“An FBI report records a call a few hours after the bombing from Vincent Cannistraro, a retired CIA official who had once been chief of operations for the agency's counter-terrorism center. He told Kevin Foust, a FBI counter-terror investigator, that he'd been called by a top counter-terror adviser to the Saudi royal family. Foust reported that the Saudi told Cannistraro about ‘information that there was a “squad” of people currently in the United States, very possibly Iraqis, who have been tasked with carrying out terrorist attacks against the United States. The Saudi claimed that he had seen a list of “targets,” and that the first on the list was the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.’" (Joseph Farah, WND, February 21, 2003.)

[Page 7, Saddams Aggressions against US]
. . .

4. Bombing of U.S. Embassies in East Africa (August 7, 1998)

“On August 7, 1998, the United States embassies in the East African cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were severely damaged in nearly simultaneous truck bomb attacks. The bombings killed 213 people in Nairobi and a dozen in Dar es Salaam. An estimated 4000 were injured in the Kenyan capital and 85 in Dar es Salaam. Almost all of the victims were African civilians, as well as several US diplomats. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings)

"“a Malaysia-based Iraqi national named Ahmed Shakir. . . . Authorities found in his [Shakir’s] possession contact information for terrorists involved [inter alia] in the 1998 embassy bombings." (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA.)

5. Attack on USS Cole (October, 2000)

“In February 2000, according to an Iraqi defector whom claims to have shipped arms for Iraq to Al-Qaeda, senior Iraqi officials began planning at least nine operations against the United States in the Middle East and Gulf. The defector says he was told of a plot he was to take part in involving a trade ship packed with explosives to be used by suicide bombers to attack a US ship in the Gulf. The plan was revealed to the defector approximately one month after an Al-Qaeda attempt to attack the USS Sullivans, an American destroyer, in Yemen. In October 2000, Al-Qaeda successfully attacked and badly damaged the USS Cole in Yemen.” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2002.)

"“a Malaysia-based Iraqi national named Ahmed Shakir. . . . Authorities found in his [Shakir’s] possession contact information for terrorists involved in [inter alia] the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, . . . . The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted." (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA.)










[Page 8, Saddams Aggressions against US]
. . .
6. Second Attack on World Trade Center and Pentagon (Sept. 11, 2001)

The Saddam regime participated in the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;

“Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled in May that ‘Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11.’ Baer's finding was issued in response to a civil lawsuit brought against Iraq by two families of 9/11 victims.” (Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Sept. 14, 2003; Larry Neumeister, A.P.,CBS News, May 7, 2003.) “[The] May 7, 2003, decision by Manhattan U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, . . . awarded $104 million to two families of 9/11 victims based on the testimony of [Sabah] Khodada [an Iraqi defector], Duelfer and former CIA Director James Woolsey, as well as other evidence presented to his court. [¶] In his opinion Judge Baer wrote that the case was ‘sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11.’" (Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Jan. 26, 2004.)

“Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.” (CNN, June 18, 2004.) “Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam's special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.” (Raushan Nurshayeva, Reuters, June 18, 2004.)

a. Saddam’s continued targeting of the World Trade Center
“Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 attack and whose laptop computer contained plans to crash U.S. airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, entered the U.S. with an Iraqi passport. [¶] After his capture in 1995, the FBI flew Yousef over the World Trade Center and reminded him that his plan to destroy the Twin Towers had not succeeded. His reported response: ‘Not yet.’" (Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Sept. 15, 2003, reporting on a “Meet the Press" interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, emphasis added.)

b. Saddam’s Planning of September 11 Attack

“Rosters of officers in Saddam's Fedayeen list Lt. Col. Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who was present at the January 2000 al-Qaida ‘summit’ in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9-11 attacks were planned, the Wall Street Journal reports. . . . [¶] Reported accounts of the al-Qaida planning summit said Shakir had a job at the Kuala Lumpur airport he obtained through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. [¶] Among the al-Qaida operatives in attendance were the two who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon – Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi – and Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9-11 attacks. [¶] Also in attendance was Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. ” (2004 WorldNetDaily.com, May 27, 2004, citing the Wall Street Journal, citing recently translated documents captured by U.S. forces.)


[Page 9, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]
. . .
c. Saddam’s Agent Shifts from OkC Attack to September 11 Take-off Site (Boston)

“After the [1995 Oklahoma City] attack, Al-Hussaini moved from Oklahoma City to work at Boston’s Logan International Airport, where several 9/11 hijackers would meet to seize airliners, including Mohammed Atta.” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing US News, October 29, 2001; see also Jayna Davis: The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, praised by R. James Woolsey, director of central intelligence, from 1993-1995.).)

“[I]n November 1997, Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini – a former Iraqi Republican Guardsman whom multiple eyewitnesses identified as McVeigh's elusive accomplice, John Doe 2 – confided to his psychiatrist that he was anxious about his airport job because ‘if something were to happen there, I (Al-Hussaini) would be a suspect.’ At the time, Al-Hussaini was employed at Boston Logan International Airport, where two of the four 9-11 suicide hijackings originated." (WorldNetDaily.com, May 7, 2004.)

d. Saddam Trains the Hijackers

The al-Qaida insurgents were trained at two camps – Nahrawan and Salman Pak – under the supervision of the Fedayeen Saddam. Saddam trained the al Qaeda terrorists in the art of 9/11-style hijackings in the South Baghdad terrorist training camp Salman Pak, using a Boeing 707 [alternately characterized as a Soviet-era Tupelov 154] airliner plane fusilage, later found by U.S. troops, telling the recruits that the targets were U.S. installations around the world. “Commercial satellite photos show the body of a Boeing 707 at Salman Pak.” (Joseph Farah, WND, February 21, 2003.) “U.S. satellite photos confirming the existence of a Boeing 707 fuselage that Khodada and his partner say was used as a hijacking classroom. U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who was tapped on Friday to succeed David Kay, corroborated their account. [¶] ‘We reported [the Salman Pak hijacking drills] at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance’ after the 9/11 attacks, Duelfer told USA Today at the time.” (USA Today, Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.)

“U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers. . . . [¶] Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's ‘Frontline’ about what went on there. ‘Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests.’" (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, 09/01/2003, Volume 008, Issue 48.)

“ [In 1995] Saddam Hussein sent Farouq Hijaz, a former Iraqi intelligence general, and Habib Ma’muri, chief of special operations, to meet with Bin Laden representatives at Salman Pak, Iraq’s top terrorist training camp.[16] According to Iraqi defectors, these meetings resulted in the revival of the plot to hijack airliners in the US to attack prominent US buildings including the World Trade Center, which had already survived the first Iraqi attack. . . . [17]” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing Radio Free Europe, October 19, 2001.)

[Page 10, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]

“A Nov. 11, 2001, report in the London Observer citing the accounts of two Iraqi defectors who say they helped train radical Islamists to overcome U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a technique never used before 9/11 - at Iraq's Salman Pak terrorist training facility. [¶] Sabah Khodada, one of the defectors, told PBS's "Frontline" that he believed the 9/11 attacks had been executed ‘by graduates of Salman Pak.’” (London Observer, November 11, 2001; Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.)

“[In 1997] the first Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq opened up. Saddam Hussein’s regime increased the flow of small arms and money to Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization.[28]” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2002)

“Saddam's contacts with al-Qaida, the [Iraqi] officers told interrogators, preceded the group's Sept. 11, 2001 strikes on New York and Washington. They said Saudi envoys arranged for al-Qaida insurgents to enter Iraq and begin training in camps around Baghdad. [¶] The al-Qaida insurgents were trained at two camps – Nahrawan and Salman Pak – under the supervision of the Fedayeen Saddam. [¶] One [Iraqi] officer who completed his interrogation was allowed to reveal details of the Saudi role in al-Qaida's operations in Iraq. The officer, identified as "L," told the independent Iraqi weekly Al Yawm Al Aakher that he saw al-Qaida members arrive in Iraq as early as July 2001 for what he described as a secret mission. [¶] ‘L’" said 100 trainees arrived, many of them from Saudi Arabia, led by a cleric named Mohammed. The officer said the Saudi cleric, himself a skilled fighter, remained in Iraq for the war against the U.S. [¶] Officers said the Salman Pak training included ways to hijack airplanes. Training was conducted under the supervision of an unidentified Iraqi general who is currently a police commander. They said many of the al-Qaida insurgents left Iraq after their training stint.” (WorldNetDaily, December 26, 2003, linking Geostrategy-Direct, a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com.)

“A memo from Iraqi intelligence uncovered by the London Sunday Telegraph last month stating that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had completed his training regimen in Baghdad under the tutelage of notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. The memo was dated just two months before the World Trade Center attacks. [¶] In one passage, the Iraqi intelligence chief reportedly informs Saddam that Atta had demonstrated his capability as leader of the team "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." (London Sunday Telegraph, Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.)

“By the end of 2002, at least 6,000 people from terrorist groups all around the world were currently involved in Iraq’s training programs. Camps like Salman Pak, al-Safar and al-Habaniya were often used to train suicide bombers. Training in everything from communications, surveillance, document forgery, infiltration, and spying to explosives creation, work with small arms, to work with poisons and toxins was offered.” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing, Daily Telegraph, October 28, 2001.) "‘We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development,’ Rice said.” (Condoleezza Rice, in interview with PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN.com, September 26, 2002.)

[Page 11, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]
“On March 12th, former CIA director James Woolsey testified in court in a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the 9/11 victims, that he was certain that Iraq had a role in 9/11, particularly in the training of hijackers. Five witnesses reported that Al-Qaeda operatives were being trained at Iraq camps, specifically Salman Pak.” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing generally Worldnetdaily.com, March 16, 2003.) In the Manhattan district court’s May 7, 2003 decision, “The account of former CIA Director Woolsey, whose testimony was summarized by Judge Baer thusly: [¶] Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway.’ [¶] Judge Baer continued: ‘The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.’" (Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.)

e. Saddam’s Ongoing Operational Contacts with the Hijackers

“ [In 1998] Farouq Hijazi was promoted to ambassador to Turkey by Saddam Hussein. Not long after his appointment, Hijazi traveled to Afghanistan and met with Osama Bin Laden. The meeting resulted in an official invitation to Bin Laden to travel to Baghdad for a meeting.[32] Between April 25th and May 1, 1998, two Al-Qaeda senior military advisors, Muhammed Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim met with Qusay Hussein, Saddam’s youngest son, in Baghdad.[33] Plans were made for the first group of Saudis belonging to Al-Qaeda to be trained in Iraq, whom crossed over in mid-June using secret infiltration routes that Iraqi intelligence had used. Upon arrival at the al-Nasariya terrorist camp, one group of Saudis was taught how to prepare for attacks and conduct surveillance, and the other group was integrated into a network to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia from Iraq.[34]” (Ryan Mauro, “Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?”, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing [32] Daily Telegraph, October 28, 2001; [33] and [34] Times of London, October 10, 2001; Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky. Pages 323-324)

Saddam maintained contacts (through Iraqi intelligence) with at least 4 of the September 11 hijack conspirators, including their leader Mohammed Atta (the others being Marwan al-Shehri, Ziad Jarrah, and Yusuf Galan);

“The London Telegraph reported in December the discovery of a secret memo to Saddam that gives details of a visit by Atta to Baghdad just weeks before the 9-11 attacks. Information obtained by Iraq's coalition goverment indicated Atta was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal.” (2004 WorldNetDaily.com , May 27, 2004, and December 13, 2003, citing the London Telegraph, c. December 13, 2003, in turn citing memo by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, dated July 1, 2001.)

“Atta met as many as four times in Prague with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks[,]” i.e., in Dec. 1994, June 2000, Oct. 26, 1999, and April 9, 2001. (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, citing in turn Czech intelligence, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, and five high-ranking members of the Czech government ].)

[Page 12, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]
“‘[A] very senior CIA man told me that, contrary to the line his own colleagues were assiduously disseminating, there was evidence of an Iraq-al-Qaida link,’ Rose writes. ‘He confirmed a story I had been told by members of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress – that two of the hijackers, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, had met Mukhabarat officers in the months before 9-11 in the United Arab Emirates. This, he said, was a pattern of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida which went back years.’" (2003 WorldNetDaily.com , November 15, 2003, quoting David Rose, Vanity Fair and the United Kingdom's Evening Standard.) “Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has 'credible information' that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be Atta's closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah, the other two members of the 'German cell ' who lived with Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s.” (The Observer, November 11, 2001.)

“ A Wall Street Journal report linking Flight 93 hijacker Ziad Jarrah to Abu Nidal, who had reportedly helped train his 9/11 partner Mohamed Atta. "A constant figure in Jarrah's life in Germany was his great-uncle, Assem Omar Jarrah," the Journal said. "According to the German magazine, Der Spiegel, Assem Jarrah worked for a long time as an informer for the Stasi, the East German secret service, while maintaining connections to [Abu] Nidal's terror group." [¶] Eleven months after the 9/11 attacks, Nidal was executed in Baghdad by Saddam's secret police in what many believe was an attempted cover-up of Iraq's 9/11 complicity.” (Wall Street Journal, Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.)

“Spanish evidence was also presented [at the trial of the 9/11 case against Saddam] that the 9/11 co-conspirator, Yusaf Galem, was at a party (under this same Al-Qaeda identity) thrown by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain. Why was such a person invited?[113]” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?”, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing Worldnetdaily.com, March 16, 2003.)
“A Malaysia-based Iraqi national named Ahmed Shakir . . . is said to have ‘facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000)’” (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA.)
"Authorities found in his [Shakir’s] possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted." (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA.)

f. Saddam’s Financing of the Attack

“A Defense Department memo detailing over 50 contacts between senior officials in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's minions going back to the 1980s. According to a November 2003 report in the Weekly Standard, the memo cites evidence that Ahmed al Ani, the Iraqi intelligence chief in Czechoslovakia, ‘ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue [Mohamed] Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.’" (Weekly Standard, November, 2003; Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.)
[Page 13, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]
“In the past four months [prior to September 11, 2001] at least three high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officials - among them Hassan Ezba Thalaj, a veteran officer with a reputation for ruthlessness - have visited Pakistan to meet representatives of al-Qaeda. Previous visitors have taken large sums of money with them, including Ahmed al Jafari, a senior Baghdad intelligence officer who took £420,000 18 months ago. Other funds have been forwarded via banks in Lebanon.” (London Telegraph, telegraph.co.uk, Sept. 23, 2001, “Alert by Saddam points to Iraq” by Jessica Berry in Jerusalem, Philip Sherwell and David Wastell in Washington.)

“Iraqi intelligence bankrolled lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil Atta met as many as four times in Prague with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks. ... [D]uring one of these meetings, al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." (Newsmax, Nov. 15, 2003, citing Weekly Standard, citing in turn joint memo of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, citing in turn Czech intelligence, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, and five high-ranking members of the Czech government ].)

g. Saddam’s Preparation for Anticipated American Retaliation
In early September, 2001, shortly before the September 11 attacks, Saddam placed his troops on the highest state of alert and with his family retreated into heavily fortified bunkers in Tikrit, evidently fearing retaliation for the imminent attack on the U.S. (See Con Coughlin, Saddam: The Secret Life, 2002, Harper Collins, p. xxv.);

“SADDAM HUSSEIN put his troops on their highest military alert since the Gulf war two weeks before the suicide attacks on America in the strongest indication yet that the Iraqi dictator knew an atrocity was planned.” (London Telegraph, telegraph.co.uk, Sept. 23, 2001, “Alert by Saddam points to Iraq” by Jessica Berry in Jerusalem, Philip Sherwell and David Wastell in Washington.)

h. Saddam Celebrates the Attack and Takes Credit
In November, 2001, bin Ladin was proclaimed Iraq's "Man of the Year," but an official poem gave Saddam the credit for the attack by the four hijacked planes;

“On December 3, 2001, a poem was recited by Sheikh Ali Bin Shallal, head of the al-Sharji tribes, at a meeting with the tribal chiefs of Basra and Maysan—and Saddam Hussein. It is highly likely this will startle you, here is the text:

“From inside America, how five planes flew.
Such a mishap never happened in the past!
And nothing similar will happen.
Six thousand infidels died.
Bin Ladin did not do it; the luck of the president [Saddam] did it.’”

(Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com,)
[Page 14, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, troops found murals in Nasiriya (by marines on March 26, 2003) and in Baghdad (by the Third Infantry on April 13, 2003) at Iraqi military centers depicting the World Trade Center at the awful moment of attack, the former showing Iraqi planes as the perpetrators and the latter depicting Saddam celebrating along side of the burning twin towers;

“U.S. Marines searching Iraqi military headquarters in this southern city [Nasiriya] that was the site of intensive fighting came across a mural depicting a plane crashing into a building complex resembling New York's twin towers, a news agency photograph showed Wednesday. [¶] The plane's logo and coloring resembled that of Iraqi Airlines, said Getty Images News Service executive Brian Felber, based in New York.” (NASIRIYA, Iraq, CNN, March 26, 2003, 1st Marine Exped. Force.)

“Major General Buford ‘Buff ' Blount, commander of the Third Infantry Division, stood in the middle of a dusty parade ground yesterday at a militia training center, billows of black smoke rising behind him from yet another destroyed target of Iraqi resistance. As Blount watched, his soldiers unfurled a large mural they had discovered at the facility. There, in vibrant hues, a beaming image of Saddam Hussein, victory cigar in hand, had been painted beside a rendering of the World Trade Center at the awful moment of attack. ‘God protect Saddam and Iraq,’ the artist inscribed in Arabic.” (Brian MacQuarrie, Boston Globe, 4/13/2003, p. A39; Baghdad, Iraq. )

7. Anthrax attacks in September 18, 2001 - October, 2001

In the days following September 11, anthrax letters were mailed, anthrax being a bioweapon used by Saddam;
“Speaking about the beginning of US retaliation for 9/11, Uday Hussein wrote the following in the Iraqi state media: ‘At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything.... The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it.’[77]” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing Radio Free Europe, October 19, 2001.) Uday Hussein, wrote this in Babil on September 20, 2001, before any news had come out about the Anthrax-laced letters mailed on September 18, 2001. (Cf. Wall Street Journal, "Saddam and the Next 9/11", Feb. 14, 2003.)

“Britain's Guardian newspaper reported Sunday that American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York believe they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack -- and have named Iraq as the prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores. [¶] “The Guardian notes that in liquid form, anthrax is useless - droplets would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air to be breathed by victims. [¶] ‘Making powder needs repeated washings in huge centrifuges, followed by intensive drying, which requires sealed environments. The technology would cost millions.’ [¶] The London paper quoting CIA sources as saying that ‘Iraq has the technology and supplies of anthrax suitable for terrorist use.’. . . [¶] American officials have already revealed that anthrax bacteria used in the recent attacks is the ‘Ames strain’ of anthrax originally cultivated at Iowa State University in the 1950s. Iraq is believed to have that strain.” (WorldNetDaily, December 26, 2003, linking Geostrategy-Direct, a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com.)
[Page 15, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Anthrax letters, cont’d]

“But if we look at the anthrax strain, which was enhanced with bentonite and silicia, Iraq is suspected. Of the few countries suspected of having anthrax weapons, Iraq is the only believed to use bentonite. Silicia and bentonite are used to separate the tiny particles, so as to be inhaled more easily. Former UN biological weapons inspector, Timothy Trevan says that the presence of bentonite in anthrax is a trademark of Iraq’s anthrax.[78] Significantly, a former UN inspector and expert in biological warfare, Richard Spertzel, also have said that he believes Iraq sponsored the attack. He testified: “It has to be someone with an existing biological program. These are Russia, Syria, Iran, and Libya. Top of my list, though, is Iraq. There are known associations with intelligence personnel and al-Qaeda. Also they have the capability, and the know-how.”[79] Additionally, only three countries are known to have produced anthrax in the way that they were used in the attacks (where the spores are extremely small and made in such a way to minimize potential for not being inhaled). These countries are Iraq, Russia, and the United States.” (Ryan Mauro, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden: A Match Made Up in Propaganda?, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing, [78] ABC News, October 29, 2001, [79] Sunday Telegraph, October 27, 2001.)

“There is immense evidence that ‘Waly Samar’ (not his real identity), an Iraqi associate with experience in biotechnology whom worked alongside Ramzi Yousef in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has a role in the anthrax attacks. The contacts Samar made with Yousef were paid by Abdul Rahman Yasin, the other Iraqi involved in the 1993 plot with Ramzi Yousef who was given safety by Baghdad. Samar has been teaching in New York City (but lives in New Jersey) since receiving his Ph.D. in biology from Hunter College. His graduate and current research was in Bacillus subtilis, a stimulant used in making anthrax as a potent biological weapon. . . . [¶] In 2000, Waly Samar tried to get a job at the University of Minnesota, one of the top colleges for “agricultural aviation”, or crop dusting. This is the same college that Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, tried to take courses on crop dusting. Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 leader, is also known to have tried to buy a crop duster.” (Ryan Mauro, “Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden:
A Match Made Up in Propaganda?”, http://www.worldthreats.com, citing J. Adams, “Is 'Waly Samar' an Iraqi Bioterrorist on U.S. Soil?”, http://www.spiritoftruth.org/samar.htm.)

[Page 16, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]

8. Assassination of Laurence Foley (Oct. 28, 2002)

On October 28, 2002, the al-Zarqawi network, a Baghdad-based al-Qaida cell, allied to Saddam, assassinated Laurence Foley, a U.S. diplomat in Jordan;
“An expert in poisons and chemical weapons, Zarqawi is believed to have been providing training to the extremist group Ansar al Islam. The group is based in northeastern Iraq in territory that is under the control of neither Baghdad nor the main Kurdish groups that have divided up most of northern Iraq. [¶] Soon after Zarqawi arrived, Powell said, "nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. [¶] "These Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they are now operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," he added. Coalition officials said that no group could operate in this manner without deep engagement with Iraq's ubiquitous intelligence services. . . . [¶] The unraveling of the Qaeda story in Iraq, which is still under way, took on some of the drama of an espionage thriller when, after the murder of Foley in Amman, the Qaeda deputy to Zarqawi suffered a lapse of communications discipline. As he drove across northern Iraq to the Turkish and Syrian frontiers, he could not resist using his satellite phone to call Foley's murderers to congratulate them and tell them he was on his way to meet with them. . . . [¶] "The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder," Powell said. In December, Jordan announced that it had two men in custody who had confessed to killing Foley on the instructions of Zarqawi.. . [¶] "The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder," Powell said. In December, Jordan announced that it had two men in custody who had confessed to killing Foley on the instructions of Zarqawi.” (Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, February 7, 2003.)

[Page 17, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]

9. Attacks on U.S. Planes Monitoring “No-fly” Zones (2002 - 2003)

Even during the U.N. inspections, before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Saddam regime continuously attacked U.S. planes monitoring the "no-fly" zones.

“The no-fly zones were established by the US, the UK and France after the Gulf War for humanitarian reasons in an attempt to stop Saddam's repression of Kurdish people in the north of Iraq, and the Shia population in the south. The aim is to prevent Iraq being able to attack these people from the air. The Secretary of State commented— [¶] Previously Saddam has used helicopter gun ships to repress the Kurdish population in the north and both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter gun ships to repress Shia muslims in the south. Coalition patrols prevent him using his air force in this way but there is no reason to suppose he would not resume the tactics if the patrols ceased.[63]” (UK Parliament, Select Committee on Defence Thirteenth Report, 27 ) “The UK and the US governments have frequently said that the basis lies in UN Security Council Resolution 688 of April 1991 which— [¶] ‘... condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq ... demands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression ... requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq ... appeals to all Member States ... to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts.[73]’ [¶] The Secretary of State told us—... the justification is essentially based on the overwhelming humanitarian necessity of protecting people on the ground, combined with the need to monitor the effect of 688; so it is the two taken in combination that provides the legal justification.[74] ” (UK Parliament, Select Committee on Defence Thirteenth Report, 30 ) In addition, the underlying legal basis was supplied by UN Security Council Resolution 678, which “ . . . 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area” (UNSCR 678, Nov. 29, 1990; see also UNSCR 1441, Nov. 8, 2002 [reaffirming UNSCR 678].)

“The zones were established shortly after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Kurdish and Shiite Muslim groups. Iraq, which considers the zones violations of its sovereignty, frequently trie[d] to shoot down allied planes. . . . [¶] Under the [Security Council] resolution [1441], a material breach must be reported to the Security Council for new debate and could be used as possible justification for U.S.-led military action to remove Saddam's government. [¶] A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said in Washington Friday the government considers the firing a material breach, but could not say whether or when American officials would raise the issue with the United Nations. [¶] State Department spokesman Frederick Jones said the United States had the option of reporting the Iraqi firing to the Security Council but had not decided whether to do so.” (Associated Press, November 18, 2002, “Coalition planes attacked over Iraq.” )

[Page 18, Saddams Aggressions against US]
[Sept. 11, 2001, cont’d]

“Military officials here at the Pentagon point out there's one sort of delicate problem in calling this a material breach and initiating military action, and that is Iraq has been doing this for over 10 years. It would be a very delicate situation for the U.S. to now suddenly stand up, they say, declare this is a material breach, and that it would be grounds for going to war. [¶] But it is very, very clear Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is becoming increasingly frustrated. He told reporters earlier today that he wanted . . . to remind people, this is the only place in the world where U.S. pilots are fired upon, and there is a measured response by the U.S. military. He pointed out in any other case, there would not be such a measured response.” (Wolf Blitzer with Barbara Starr, CNN, “No-Fly Zone Shootings”, aired November 18, 2002, http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/18/sdi.06.html.)

D. Conclusion

Therefore, “if reporters really want to know why Americans see ties between Baghdad and 9/11, they need look no further than their own archives, where they'll find repeated and as yet undisputed reports documenting compelling evidence of Iraq's role in the attacks.” (NewsMax.com, Sept. 17, 2003.) Not only is the evidence undisputed, but the natural conclusion from that evidence comes as no surprise to such authorities as Vice President (and former Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former CIA director James Woolsey, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, FBI official Jim Fox, [t]he original lead official on the [1993 World Trade Center] case, U.S. District Judge Timothy Leonard [re Oklahoma City bombing] , Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer [re Iraq’s involvement in September 11], and U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer.

LOL.

My, my, you Bushies are still banging proven false information.

Have you ever heard of a guy called Ahmed Chalabi? He was the guy who fed false information and admitted it, to the US in order to justify an invasion. He came out and said that the false information was OK, because it served the greater goal of ousting Saddam. He was also the guy that said Salman Pak was a terrorist training ground. Of course, the fact that it was set up with western involvement, (including the British SAS), because Iraqi aircraft faced hijacking threats back in the eighties, apparently escaped you.

Now, please post evidence that comes from anyone that was not associated with Ahmed Chalabi.

Your rant sort of goes even more, (if possible), downhill when you start talking about Tim Mcveigh. This is so funny it does not even deserve a retort, other than pointing out the fact that Tim Mcveigh was an NRA nutcase, the NRA being the same organisation that stated before the 2000 elections, "if Bush wins the White House, the NRA will operate directly from the oval office". Mr Mcveigh also being someone that did what he did because he hated "big government" so much. Hmmm, now what political party promotes such hatred? Now if you are saying that Mr Mcveigh was in league with arab extremists, then you need to think that Mr Bush, as the leader of the party extolling the nutty virtues that drove him to do what he did, is just as much to blame.

dhudlud - that was a major screw-up with your cut & paste editing work. If you want to try and fit more text into the post, please EDIT the post and SAVE it again rather than make a new post for each attempt as you ended up doing. I just spent the last few minutes deleting all the duplicate garbage.

Sorry about that. I was trying to break up one long (albeit condensed) article that I had written into consecutive parts. However, I must have pressed the "post reply" button more than once for some of the parts, erroneously thinking that the first attempt did not work.

In addition, McVeigh appears to have been a Saddam sympathizer.

Ahh, of course, Sabah Khodada. Would this be the same Sabah Khodada whose information was dismissed by the CIA, and who is linked to the INC? (Of course the INC being headed by a mr Chalabi). Salman Pak was built with international cooperation in the eighties as an anti terror base. Parts of airplanes were found there because the Iraqi's were victims of hijackings. What part of this do you not understand? The so called "proof" that you are talking about has been discredited by the CIA. The INC enchouraged a number of people post 911 to produce false information about 911 and Iraq. This is because they wanted America to invade Iraq.

As for Mcveigh, I heard, (through a Chalabi friend), that a man with a small moustache speaking German was found to be cohorting with Saddam Hussein just after 911. Yes this is true. Saddam and Hitler were the best of friends. They reguarly lunched together with other mutual friends, the yorkshire ripper, Stalin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan, Judas Iscariot and Darth Vader.

Come to think of it, Gerry Adams has a beard like Saddam, hmm, maybe all of those IRA bombs that we have had to put up with for decades have all been as a result of Saddam too. Any ideas for anything else we can pin on Saddam?

My, my you are clutching at straws. You critisize sources such as commondreams then go on in the next sentence to quote an opinion article from an Israeli web site. Guess what, certain people were to benefit greatly from the ousting of Saddam, such as Israel and the INC. So far the only credible source you have quoted is the new york times. If you were to look a little later you would have found this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/i...=5070&oref=regi

This is a full apology for the misreporting with regards to Salman Pak, and the uncredible sources they quoted.

The CIA intelligence problems were certainly not to do with not connecting dots, but rather in connecting dots that do not exist, (remember the WMD claim, or lack of). It also stems down to Bush having a fall guy for his administration cherry picking intelligence information.

I do not need to prove a negative, since you cannot provide any credible evidence about liars claims discredited by your own intelligence agency. Remember, the CIA do not have the underlying motives of the INC or Israel. (nor, incidentally, did the 911 commision which found no ties)

Now rather than trying to point a rather absurd finger at Iraq, why not look at Saudi. The majority of terrorists in 911, (including Bin Laden), are Saudi's. Why did we not bomb Saudi?

We are now in november 2004. Soon 2 years will have passed by since the beginning of this invasion of Iraq. So far no significant evidence has been proposed by intelligence agencies to account for alledged possession by Saddam of WMDs or ties with Al Qaeda; on the contrary officials has stated lack of such evidence, such as Colin Powell himself, who was making the case against Saddam at the UNSC. Yet we still have individuals posting void accusations, pointing fingers, shifting blame in vain attempts to solidify their rantings.
Scott I admire you for your calm and argumented rebuttals. Personnally I give up. It is a waste of time to try to have some people opening their eyes on the obvious.

Here is another bit of enlightenment regarding the September 11 Commission:


"Only Connect

"From the August 2, 2004 issue: Findings on Iraq and al Qaeda in the final report of the 9/11 Commission.

"by Stephen F. Hayes
08/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 44

"'THERE WAS NO QUESTION in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.'"

"Those are the words of Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chairman of the September 11 Commission. He made the statement on July 22, 2004, 10 days after a New York Times headline declared, '9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance,' and a month after another headline in the same paper blared, 'Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.'

"The second of those stories came as part of the wide wave of media coverage that dismissed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection after a 9/11 Commission staff statement concluded that the available evidence did not suggest a 'collaborative relationship.' The staff statement was poorly worded and vague, and reporters long dubious of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship trumpeted the findings as definitive proof that the Bush administration had exaggerated the connection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the staff statement was the "most complete and authoritative dismissal" of the Bush case on Iraq-al Qaeda.

"But the commission's final report presents a much more complicated picture. It cites repeated 'friendly contacts' and details numerous high-level meetings between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda terrorists. It demolishes the claims of former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke that there was 'no evidence' of Iraqi support for al Qaeda--in part by publishing excerpts of internal White House emails in which Clarke himself directly makes an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The final report also amends the staff statement in two important ways, finding only

"'no collaborative operational relationship' and specifying that these contacts did not indicate 'that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.'

"The report provides details of several of the 'friendly contacts,' including meetings throughout the mid-1990s which suggest the outreach between Iraq and al Qaeda went both ways. In March 1998, 'two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.' The public learns for the first time of a trip taken by Iraqi officials to Afghanistan in July 1998 in which they met first with representatives from the Taliban and later with bin Laden. According to the report, 'sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.' (THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported in November 2003 that Zawahiri met with Saddam Hussein in 1992. And, according to an interrogation of a senior Iraqi Intelligence official, Zawahiri received $300,000 from the Iraqi regime in 1998.)

"This new information is helpful. But the report contains several gaping holes with respect to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. Its overview of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center makes no mention of Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for that attack. And in seeking to rule out any Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks, the panel allowed its conclusions to race ahead of the available evidence by relegating the intriguing story of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi present at a key 9/11 planning meeting, to a single, dismissive footnote."

(www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/357lnryy.asp)

[QUOTE]scottc said this in post #53 :
[B]Ahh, of course, Sabah Khodada. Would this be the same Sabah Khodada whose information was dismissed by the CIA, and who is linked to the INC? (Of course the INC being headed by a mr Chalabi).
[quote]


See the following article:

June 02, 2004, 8:45 a.m.

An Unapologetic Apology:
The Times is only sorry it wasn’t more antiwar.

By Christopher S. Carson

Last week, the New York Times issued an unusual mea culpa about the history of its Iraq coverage. This strange self-flagellation was published in multiple newspapers around the United States, and gained wide coverage in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, America's "paper of record," in the wake of a steady accumulation of evidence of Iraqi WMD stocks and programs, and ties to al Qaeda, was not apologizing for the near-uniform negativity of its assessments of the Bush administration's pre-war intelligence. The Times is sorry it wasn't negative enough.

The "Correction" article, published on May 26, started out with a healthy dose of self-hugging. "We found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of," it read. "In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies..."

KICK THE ANTI-CHALABI COVERAGE UP A NOTCH

But "looking back," the correction stated, "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge." The Times believes that its "problematic articles" shared a common feature: They relied on those Iraqi "anti-Saddam campaigners" hanging around Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. The Times regrets that it and certain U.S. officials "fell for misinformation" from these "exile sources." The only exile named is Chalabi.

The logical extension of this surmise, then, is that the Times should have run even more anti-Chalabi hit pieces than it has already. But how could it? Almost every anti-Chalabi claim ever spun by the unnamed desk-bound solons in the CIA and State Department, no matter how ill-founded, found an instant national audience in the Times's pages. For example, the headline of Douglas Jehl's article on September 29, 2003, screamed that our spy "Agency Belittles Information Given by Iraq Exiles," especially Ahmad Chalabi. Other Douglas Jehl stories, all pre-dating Chalabi's "fall" in May 2004, read, "Pentagon Pays Iraq Group, Supplier of Incorrect Spy Data," and, "Stung by Exiles' Role, C.I.A. Orders a Shift in Procedures." The Times, on the other hand, had no comment about General Richard Meyers's recent testimony before Congress, in which he baldly stated that Chalabi's INC had "saved American lives" time and again by its accurate intelligence about anti-coalition forces.

SALMAN PAK

The correction article enumerated a few examples of not being liberal enough: In the autumn of 2001, "page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced." But alas! "These accounts have never independently been verified," and thus presumably should never have even been reported. Implication? The "defectors" were probably lying. The weekend correction piece tried to make the "secret Iraqi camp" even more willowy and insubstantial by not giving it a name — which, of course, was Salman Pak.

I don't accept the Times's premise here. Indeed, as a trial attorney, "verifying" the existence and true purpose of Salman Pak in, say, a court of law would be one of the easier things I could manage. The fact that the Salman Pak terrorist-training school, 25 kilometers south of Baghdad, was first brought to the attention of the world through the INC ought to boost Chalabi's credibility before any reasonable jury. How? Let's look at the evidence.

Interviewed about Salman Pak by the Times and PBS's Frontline in October of 2001, Iraqi defector and army Captain Sabah Khodada had this to say about the purpose:

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.

Khodada pointed out that there was even a camp-within-the-camp devoted entirely to the training of foreign jihadists. Who were these people? His answer: "They look like they're mostly from the Gulf, sometimes from areas close to Yemen, from their dark skin..."

The airplane-hijacking courses were especially intensive, Khodada recalled. The foreign terrorists would later break into small groups and study the local language of the target nation, such as Hebrew or English. Asked about the 9/11 attacks of the previous month, Khodada was adamant:

I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened. Osama bin Laden has no such capabilities. Why? Because these kind of attacks must be, and have to be, organized by a capable state, such as Iraq; a state where they can provide high level of training, and they can provide high level of intelligence to do such training.

The camp has a "real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp," Captain Khodada related. This 707 was used to teach terrorists how to take over commercial airliners and subdue and terrorize the pilots and crew with materials already available on the aircraft, such as plastic knives, pencils, and the like.

Saddam's government, of course, denied even that an airplane existed 25 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, smiled genially and told Frontline in the fall of 2001: "I am lucky that I know the area, this Salman Pak. This is a very beautiful area with gardens, with trees," Aldouri said. "It is not possible to do such a program there, because there's no place for planes." Who ultimately turned out to be more credible — Captain Khodada, or Ambassador Aldouri?

The New York Times apparently believes that Saddam's man at the U.N., Ambassador Aldouri, must have been telling the truth all along. Khodada and the other defector, although no evidence ever surfaced to discredit them, must have lied — apparently because the prince of darkness, Ahmad Chalabi, brought them out to talk to the press. But if the Times was remiss in its coverage, it was not for reporting on Khodada's story. The bias was for not reporting the corroboration of Khodada's story.

If the CIA had photos of Salman Pak at that time, it chose not to release them to the public in the wake of the Times/Frontline story, perhaps for fear of validating Ahmad Chalabi. A private U.S. satellite-photo company, Space Imaging, then searched its archives and duly found a photo showing the Boeing 707 parked in the Salman Pak compound. There was no airstrip in sight. The private Space Imaging photo, amazingly, exactly matched the personal drawing Captain Khodada had made for the 2001 Times/Frontline story — before the photo was retrieved. Evidently Captain Khodada must have had extraordinary telepathic drawing capabilities.

In reading the "Correction" lamenting the supposedly nonexistent "verification" of Salman Pak, it's obvious that the Times forgot what the UNSCOM inspectors discovered about Salman Pak during the mid-'90s. Then-deputy UNSCOM chief Charles Duelfer, who now heads the Iraq Survey Group searching the country for WMDs, personally visited the terrorism camp around 1995 and saw the Boeing. "He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the liberal-leaning London Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by 'police' for counter-terrorist training." "Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"

Even before Duelfer visited Salman Pak, UNSCOM had a file on it. A U.N. team that toured one of the "campus" buildings in 1994 found a decontamination shower and airlock doors, which were obvious hallmarks of a high-risk environment. Sensing something big was being concealed, the inspectors attempted to excavate a recently dug and refilled trench there, looking for something that had been quickly buried in anticipation of their arrival. The digging met with what inspectors called a "nearly hysterical" Iraqi reaction. Saddam called in compliant Sunni mullahs to declare the barren stretch of sand "sacred" and off limits. UNSCOM backed down. Salman Pak kept its secrets.

If Ahmad Chalabi, Captain Khodada, Space Imaging, Inc., and UNSCOM Deputy Chief Charles Duelfer were presumably all lying or misled about Salman Pak, the Iraq war itself would have exposed this unlikely conspiracy. For example, at the location of the mystery camp, the Marines who conquered this area during the three-week war would find no 707 jetliner parked in the sand. Unfortunately for the Times, they did.

In April 2003, advance elements of the 3rd Marine Battalion shelled the camp, and then overran it. They corroborated the defectors' reports in striking detail. "The rusted shell of an old passenger jet sat out in a field, its tail broken off," the Associated Press embed reported. "The passenger plane's sun-bleached fuselage lay alone in a large, barren field. A fire engine sat at one intersection. Elsewhere, the twisted metal wreck of a double-decker bus stood near three decrepit green and red train cars."

There was a lot of chatter among the captured foreign jihadists in Iraq about Salman Pak. As U.S. Army spokesman Brigadier General Vincent Brooks told reporters that week at his regular press briefing, "The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak."

To believe that Salman Pak was not a terrorism graduate school for al Qaeda members and affiliates like Abu Musab Zarqawi, you have to imagine that the Boeing 707, the double-decker bus, and the train cars found by the Marines must really have been put there for a bizarre Iraqi remake of the American movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

. . .

— Christopher S. Carson is a Milwaukee attorney in private practice.

[unquote]

(www.nationalreview.com/comment/carson200406020845.asp)

www.nationalreview.com/comment/carson200406020845.asp

June 02, 2004, 8:45 a.m.
An Unapologetic Apology
The Times is only sorry it wasn’t more antiwar.

By Christopher S. Carson


. . .

URANIUM AND ROCKETS SURE LOOK LIKE WMD...

The Times next "criticize[d]" itself not for reporting on a claim about Iraq's large-scale efforts at procuring high-strength aluminum tubes, but for reporting on the challenges to this claim half-way through its lengthy article. Apparently, the Times believes it was supposed to criticize the uranium-enrichment claim at the beginning of the article — before it described the basic claim itself. The key dispute was not the purchasing of the tubes; everyone acknowledged that. The dispute was that the United States asserted that these tubes were for a uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq maintained that these tubes were simply for firing conventional rockets.

Once again, the Times forgets about the U.N. resolutions prohibiting Iraq from ordering or having high-strength tubes at all. Iraq was thumbing its nose at the U.N., and enduring billions of dollars of lost oil revenue per year as a result, so it could buy tubes for small conventional rockets, as now claimed by IAEA head Mohammed al-Baradei? The New York Times apparently now believes this claim, in retrospect, to have been so self-evidently true that the Times should not even have given the Bush administration's conclusions about uranium enrichment the dignity of a discussion.

UNSCOM and the IAEA historically had a more nuanced picture of Iraq's nuclear capabilities, to say the least. When Saddam booted the U.N. inspectors in 1998, the IAEA was able to confidently conclude that although there were as yet

"no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," it was the case that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of highly enriched uranium through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon (emphasis added).

In other words, it's not as if the idea hadn't occurred to Saddam. But when it became clear that America was using Saddam's tube-procurement as an argument for going to war, the current IAEA head Mohammed al-Baradei definitively switched course and told the world that he believed the tubes were for little rockets.

Finally the Times feels bad that it "never followed up on the veracity" of a certain Iraqi chemical-weapons scientist, who told the U.S. troops in the wake of the invasion last year that Saddam had "destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment" only days before the invasion, that Saddam had transported WMDs to Syria, its fellow Baathist terror regime, and that Saddam had cooperated with al Qaeda.

For once in its mea culpa, the Times got it right, though not for the reason it thinks. The paper surely should have investigated these claims. If it had done so, it might have learned that the chief of Israeli military intelligence, in addition to David Kay of the Iraq Survey Group, CentCom itself, and at least two former Iraqi intelligence officials have now reported evidence of Saddam's late pass-off of the WMDs to Syria. These recent lines of evidence include specific locations of WMD stockpiles within Syria, and, most recently, in the Bekka Valley in Syrian-occupied Lebanon as well.

If Times editors were really interested in unbiased reporting from Iraq, it might have "followed up on the veracity" of dozens of former regime officials who have made startlingly consistent and intransigent claims about the depth of the threat from Iraq, especially concerning Iraq's operational links in logistics, training, finance, and manpower support for Osama bin Laden and his murderers. A few more trips outside of the Green Zone and into Salman Pak for Times reporters would have made a world of difference in the Gray Lady's Iraq coverage.

— Christopher S. Carson is a Milwaukee attorney in private practice.

(www.nationalreview.com/comment/carson200406020845.asp)