For all those who still maintain that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, I think this Pentagon sponsored study of 600,000 Iraqi documents finally puts to rest this ludicrous debate.
My favorite part which supports my previous claims of clearly ambiguous intelligence on Iraq. I’ve always maintained that the Bush Administration cherry-picked the intelligence they wanted to use to support their case… (in my book, lies of omission this big count as lies… and in Rumsfeld’s case, the lies are flat out!)
Moreover, it also confirms that Saddam saw Bin Laden as COMPETITION!
… so we just wiped out one of Osama’s biggest competitors. Awesome.
justin
4 comments ↓
Justin,
Let’s start with the assumption that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the intelligence on WMDs was blown out of proportion, and we should not have invaded. Those who oppose the war give no clear alternative to the invasion and the beneficial removal of Saddam from power. Therein lies their cognitive disconnect. They believe that Iraq would still be better off under a ruthless Saddam Hussein, who despite (or because of) his lust for power, murder, and torture, was able to hold the country together through his continuous terror. While few opponents to the war will publicly state that they would prefer Saddam to still be in power, this reality is the logical conclusion of their criticisms. What was their alternative plan for dealing with Saddam? Or were we just to ignore him and hope he went away? Where is the counter proposal? It doesn’t seem to exist. Instead, the rhetoric is nothing more than emotionally charged rants with little or no constructive value in dealing with the very real challenges and dangers in the Middle East. These rants consist of no long-term strategy for dealing with the asymmetric threat that exists in the world of extremism with the potential for gaining and using WMDs. The criticism never acknowledges the real world national security challenges; opponents too often like to rant for ranting’s sake. There is also, incredibly or predictably, no discussion from the opposition of when enough is enough in dealing with unstable regimes.
But let’s consider other information…
I believe that it’s important to reserve judgment on the pentagon’s recent report until it is actually released and the public has had time to digest the findings. Right now, its conclusions are taken out of context through pure speculation from a leak that was posted on a blog…and a 3-minute NPR report.
I do not believe that because Iraqi documents do not discuss “operational” links to Al Qaeda, it follows that there exists no strategic or tactical link between the two. And like I mentioned to you before, many critics often replace the words “Al Qaeda” with “9/11″ making it much easier to trick people into a false association for the purposes of opposing the war. I have found no public statements that propose war based on a link between Saddam and 9/11. I recall public statements that proposed war based on a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Consider this passage out of “Through Our Enemies Eyes” by Michael Scheuer (former CIA analyst and hardly a fan of the administration):
Pg 124-125
“Search for CBRN Capability
In Sudan, bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam’s enemies. Bin Laden’s first moves in this direction were made to in cooperation with NIF leaders, Iraq’s intelligence service, and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad through its intelligence officers in Sudan, and by a Turabi-brokered June 1994 visit by Iraq’s then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan’s Corriere Della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for “nurturing Iraq’s ties to Islamic fundamentalist warriors.” Turabi had plans to formulate a “common strategy” with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-US Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed good rapport that would “flourish” in the late 1990s.
Turabi’s scheme for an overall strategy was not achieved, but there is information showing that in the 1993-1994 period bin Laden began work with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a CBRN capability for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Hajir al-Iraqi appears to have been his point man in this effort, and Time magazine reported that in 1993 Al Qaeda tried to buy a “Russian nuclear warhead” on the black market. Bin Laden halted the effort when a warhead for sale could not be located and instead, “his agents began scouring former Soviet republics for enriched uranium and weapons components that could be used to set off the fuel.” Time magazine clams bin Laden was frustrated in this effort and “settled on chemical weapons which are easier to manufacture.”
In regard to CBW, it is prudent to assume bin Laden’s tannery in Sudan has legally purchased dual-use chemicals that allow production of chemical weapons as well as of leather. In the nuclear area, Al Qaeda as early as 1993 drafted “plans to buy enriched uranium from the former Soviet Union to produce portable light nuclear explosive canisters to be used in terrorist operations.” Suggesting Al Qaeda’s interest in biological weapons, moreover, is Saudi journalist Jamal Khashogji’s recollection of visiting Sudan in the early 1990’s and hearing bin Laden “earnestly discussing the virtues of genetically engineered crops.” In all these efforts, bin Laden’s goal was to get a CBRN weapon to use on a US target. Al-Watan Al-Arabi has said bin Laden especially wants the capability of “manufacturing mobile weapons of mass destruction that could be used in terrorist operation and in confronting the United States in particular.”
Whatever progress bin Laden made in Sudan toward arming Al Qaeda with CBRN weapons appears to have had Turabi’s approval and was supported by the Khartoum factories of the Military Industrial Corporation (MIC) – where bin Laden had a private office – of other NIF-controlled facilities. A Sudanese military engineer named Colonel Abd-al-Basit Hamza – who now builds military factories and once built roads for bin Laden’s Al-Hifra Company – reportedly manages a “ground of companies…run by the NIF in cooperation with Iraq and bin Laden. The operation of this program is lead by Iraqi scientists and technicians, led by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Mubaruhah, and by Asian and foreign experts.” The New Republic quotes a Sudanese military defector as saying that “up to 60 Iraqi military experts rotate through Sudan every six months, and that some of these experts are involved in some kind of munitions development” at the MIC. In addition, Sudanese oppositionists – not the most unbiased sources – claim Iraq’s technicians are helping Sudan build chemical weapons at MIC facilities in Khartoum and in return, Iraqi chemical weapons have been hidden by Sudan at the Yarmuk Military Manufacturing Complex in Sheggara, south of Khartoum.”
Pg 189
“In January 1999, Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that by late 1998, ‘Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinated in the field of chemical weapons. The reports say that several chemical factories were built in Sudan. They were financed by bin Laden and supervised by Iraqi experts.’”
Consider these quotes:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huntwork/040718
“What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there.” — Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey and chairman of the 9-11 commission.
“The record of Saddam shows very well his connections to international terrorists, like Carlos and Abu Nidal. We know for sure that he had established links with chieftains in Sudan, to work closely with Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda style organizations.” — Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
I hope that the above evidence does finally put to rest the debate that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in fact linked. For the record, I don’t believe that Saddam was directly involved or responsible for 9/11.
I welcome an articulate and well-thought out response.
Joel, You can show me all the counter evidence you want, but I’m confident that the Pentagon looked at whatever evidence you can find on the internet and then some… and that if they had any bias it would be to protect their own interests and previous actions… so I give this study mounds of credibility for that reason. Kind of like if Al Gore came out and said “Just kidding. Global Warming is actually a hoax”, I’d believe that coming from him more than you!
Without knowing exactly what they’ve looked at, or the quality of the intelligence you’ve presented, I don’t think either one of us can confidently make a statement that so brazenly contradicts the pentagon’s study. Let’s be honest, if this study was saying that there WAS a link you wouldn’t be questioning it… it’s not exactly like this was put out by a liberal thinktank!!
Also, a broader point: Saddam was not being ignored. He was being contained… and nothing is better evidence for that fact than the other FACT that there were no weapons of mass destruction in his country! NONE. The best thing they found was old chemical suits! As a pretense for going into war, it has to be ranked atop the list of biggest international follies in the history of the United States… and it amazes me that conservatives like yourself and practcally all neo-conservatives STILL maintain some argument about WMDs and worse… about a Saddam link to Al Quaida!
I’m sorry but It’s just not there. Even back in 2003, it was clear they were enemies. One of the first Osama tapes after the invasion of Afghanistan showed that Bin Laden was supporting Iraqi sovereignty but only for the sake of the people:
“Socialists are infidels wherever they are,” the statement said. But it added: “It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.”
So in short, I don’t think your 3 or 4 sources overwhelm the 600,000 documents that the Pentagon looked at!
justin
Justin,
A few points:
1. I think it is hasty to conclude that the debate is over based on a report that has not been reviewed by Congress or the American public. Remember, this story has thus far been a leak to a blog and a 3 minute NPR report. I find it interesting, and much more journalistically sound, that other publications and news agencies have not reported on this leak. I don’t know if this decision says more about those other agencies or more about NPR.
2. The 3 or 4 sources I sent in my previous comment fall outside of the 600,000 Iraqi documents that were reviewed by the Pentagon in that they came from outside Iraq. Again, it seems a little impulsive to conclude that the debate is over without including outside information. Some of the sources I referenced site a link going as far back as 1993 when bin Laden was in the Sudan (this collaboration, you’ll notice, involved chemical and biological weapons- one of these Sudanese plants was bombed by Clinton in 1998). It is possible that documents detailing these links were no longer around 10 years later during the invasion and 15 years later when the Pentagon conducted this review.
3. As you know Al Qaeda is a consortium of various affiliated terrorist organizations- from Egyptian al-Jihad to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. Osama does not maintain direct command and control over this loose alliance of extremists. So, because Osama makes an audio tape condemning the secular Saddam regime does not prove anything about sub-surface affiliations between these various extreme groups and the Iraqi government.
4. It would be relatively easy to show you 600,000 documents from the US military that gave no “smoking gun” that we as a nation possess nuclear weapons.
5. I noticed that your summary link mentioned that Saddam Hussein had conclusive ties to terrorist organizations and sponsored state terrorism to target his own people, which for me reinforces the international security and humanitarian reasons to take him out of power.
6. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and used them against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds. This history combined with the evidence at the time leading up to the 2003 invasion compels a national leader to make a conservative estimate on the threat to national security and respond. We vote the president into office in order to protect our national security and to make those tough decisions. Why is it so hard for the opposition to believe that the administration took the intelligence information available to them, combined it with the international experience of dealing with Saddam Hussein, and made a hard but correct decision to remove him from power?? Isn’t this the same reasoning that many global warming advocates favor? Isn’t it better to do something about global warming now, before it is too late, in the event that the human-impact-on-global-warming hypothesis proves true? Wasn’t it better to do something about Saddam and his possible WMDs in 2003, before it was too late, in the event the WMD hypothesis was true? Why is one line of reasoning okay and the other not?
7. Claiming our invasion was unjustified because Saddam was found to have no WMDs ignores the fact that the only way we confirmed the regimes WMD capabilities was by invading. In other words, if we had not invaded, we would never have found out his WMD capabilities…perhaps until it was too late.
8. The failed policy of containment was realized in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland and Chamberlain was forced to resign in 1940.
well done, man
Leave a Comment