Al Qaeda Link to Iraqi Militia Doubted

[IJ Reilly]

More evidence to support my pet theory that the Bush administration is working to split the 9-11 Commission along party lines.

U.S. intelligence official disputes a claim that a terror operative served in Fedayeen Saddam.

WASHINGTON — A U.S. intelligence official expressed skepticism Monday that a member of Al Qaeda had served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia, contradicting a claim made the day before by a member of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

The intelligence official said the CIA had investigated the matter this year after documents recovered in Iraq listed an officer in the Fedayeen Saddam militia whose name was similar to that of a known Al Qaeda operative.

The agency determined that the militia member and the terrorist operative were not the same person, the official said. "We think that it is not the same guy," said the intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The CIA's conclusion undercuts an assertion made by John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the Sept. 11 commission, who said in a television interview Sunday that new intelligence indicated that "there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of Al Qaeda."

Lehman made the comment on NBC's "Meet the Press." He could not be reached for comment late Monday.

Lehman's claim has become the latest point of friction in the ongoing debate over the extent of Al Qaeda's ties to the former Iraqi government. The Bush administration frequently cited Iraq's alleged ties to Al Qaeda while building the case for war.

The Sept. 11 commission issued a staff report last week concluding that although there were contacts between Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda during the 1990s, there was no evidence that there was a collaborative relationship between Baghdad and the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

The report prompted fresh questions about the credibility of the administration's prewar claims, and the White House has staunchly refused to retreat. After the commission's report was released, Vice President Dick Cheney said "the evidence is overwhelming" that the Iraqi government had a relationship with Al Qaeda and suggested that the commission had not seen all the available information.

Lehman sought to defend Cheney and others during his NBC appearance Sunday, and he cited the claim that an Al Qaeda member was part of the Fedayeen militia as an example of how the intelligence community's understanding of the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq was still evolving.

"There's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written," Lehman said. "New intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and Iraq, and from captured documents."

The U.S. military operates a prison at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The intelligence official said Lehman appeared to be referring to documents that included rosters of the Fedayeen Saddam. The militia melted away after the fall of Baghdad, but many believe that its former members continue to lead insurgent attacks on American forces.

One name on the list closely resembled that of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, an Iraqi who escorted two Sept. 11 hijackers to a high-level Al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in January 2000.

A CIA investigation this year "concluded that the individuals listed in captured Iraqi documents as members of the Fedayeen are not the same as the Iraqi who facilitated the arrival of a Sept. 11 hijacker in Kuala Lumpur," the U.S. intelligence official said.

He noted that "names such as Ahmad, Hikmat and Shakir are pretty common in Arabic" and that the order in which they appear on the roster differs from the name of the Al Qaeda figure. The official said he could not provide any more information.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fedayeen22jun22,1,2460796.story

[3rdpath]

i've noticed some subtle party-line shifting since the condi rice testimony. there's no doubt it will become more pronounced as the commission finishes their report and the election draws nearer. regardless of the committee's sworn objectivity...they ARE career politicians and none of them is going to commit political suicide. i watched lehman on MTP and thought he basically "parroted" cheney's remarks.....some almost verbatim.

i think we're heading for a buffet style conclusion with each party picking the items that bolster their views. if the commission reaches a single conclusion--i'll be very surprised.

[zimv20]

IJ - is it your feeling that lehman is acting at the behest of the administration?

[mactastic]

It sounds to me as if Lehman is pulling from an internal GOP talking points memo, but I'm pretty sure there's no official 'go do this for us' kind of thing on the record.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ - is it your feeling that lehman is acting at the behest of the administration?

I don't know if his remarks were orchestrated by the White House, but IMO this kind of statement is clearly being encouraged. Bush and Cheney elected to give their differences with the commission staff over the Saddam/al-Qaeda link the full court press, when they could just as easily have spun it their way and otherwise let it ride. To me, this looks like an open invitation to the commissioners to take sides -- and the case of Lehman at least, it appears to have worked. If the 9-11 Commission fails to issue a unanimous report, the administration's finger prints will be all over the scene of the crime.

[wwworry]

oops, I did it again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html)
Al Qaeda Link To Iraq May Be Confusion Over Names

By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A13

An allegation that a high-ranking al Qaeda member was an officer in Saddam Hussein's private militia may have resulted from confusion over Iraqi names, a senior administration official said yesterday.


Former Navy secretary John Lehman, a Republican member of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Sunday that documents found in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda." Although he said the identity "still has to be confirmed," Lehman introduced the information on NBC's "Meet the Press" to counter a commission staff report that said there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no "collaborative relationship."

Yesterday, the senior administration official said Lehman had probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names.

One of them is Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, identified as an al Qaeda "fixer" in Malaysia. Officials say he served as an airport greeter for al Qaeda in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, at a gathering for members who were to be involved in the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Iraqi military documents, found last year, listed a similar name, Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad, on a roster of Hussein's militia, Saddam's Fedayeen.

"By most reckoning that would be someone else" other than the airport greeter, said the administration official, who would speak only anonymously because of the matter's sensitivity. He added that the identification issue is still being studied but "it doesn't look like a match to most analysts."

....

[zimv20]

...and in florida, all guys named Ahmad were just removed from the voter rolls. along w/ all guys named Arnold in Dade county...

[skunk]

along w/ all guys named Arnold in Dade county...
How about in CA?

[Voltron]

As for the "discovery" that Saddam Hussein's intelligence apparatus had no direct connection with 9/11, well, the administration has never claimed that it did. ("No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." - George W. Bush, September 17, 2003.)

What the administration did claim was that Saddam's ties to terrorism go back at least a decade, which is when Iraq made the State Department's list of terrorist-supporting states. The administration also pointed out that Saddam's agents established contacts with al-Qaida, a fact that no one seriously disputes - including the 9/11 Commission, however its actual findings may have been distorted by the major media, or anybody with an interest in hunting this president.

Indeed, the commission's investigators confirmed that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden himself in the Sudan as early as 1994.

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.

Remember the fuss over the small but critical word "imminent" some time back? Not too long ago everybody who was anybody in The Media or the opposition (or do I repeat myself?) was claiming that the administration had taken us to war to avert an "imminent" threat that never really existed!

The only problem was that the administration had never claimed the threat represented by Saddam Hussein's rogue regime was imminent - more like grave and growing. Even today the occasional critic who never got the word may still throw that old canard into the election-year cauldron.

Conclusion: After all this time and these investigations, the Major Media still haven't connected the dots:

No, Saddam Hussein's regime may not have had anything to do with the surprise attack on the American mainland September 11, 2001 - as opposed to various attacks on our embassies in Africa, on the USS Cole, and on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. No more than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy had anything to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. And yet they were all in it together - Japanese militarists, German Nazis, Italian fascisti, and the whole worldwide web that constituted the fascist threat to freedom in those days.

Our enemy at the time was no single regime or nation but a whole international movement that had declared war on freedom and even civilization itself. Just as today it is a radical Islamic movement that seeks to dominate the Muslim world and mobilize it against Western civilization.

Only slowly did this country awaken to the fascist threat, but even by 1941 a still largely isolationist America was drafting a citizen army, staging maneuvers, sending lend-lease shipments to Britain, and conducting an undeclared naval war against the Nazis in the North Atlantic.

Then, as now, Americans debated intensely about just how serious the threat was, and who posed it. Then, as now, a large segment of pubic opinion - and of the media - just didn't get it, and refused to connect the dots.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20040623.shtml

[Taft]

Stop it, stop it, stop it!!!!

Contacts do not equal a collaborative relationship. The 9/11 commission concluded that contact occurred, but that no collaborative relationship was found. And that is not in reference to 9/11. Rather, no collaborative relationship was found going back over ten years.

You keep quoting these hardcore conservative sites expecting people to believe what they are saying. They got it wrong. The commission did not find collaboration between Iraq and al Quaida. Please either:

a) stop posting these opinion pieces claiming there was a relationship

or

b) show me that the 9/11 commission did in fact find a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaida.

If a relationship was discovered by the commission, it should be very easy to prove. If you have any integrity whatsoever, you'll respond to this charge, in full.

Taft

[Sayhey]

I think the pressure on the GOP loyalists on the commission must be intense. It doesn't take a phone call from Bush or Rove; these guys have every friend and associate telling them they are killing Bush's chances for reelection. Every time I hear someone from the commission talk they always speak of the unity on the commission, but I think the facts and their impact on Bush will test some of these folks commitment to the truth.

[Taft]

Speaking of this issue, spinsanity did a great piece analyzing exactly what the Bush administration has said about al Qaida's relationship with the 9/11 attacks. Hint: they hinted that Iraq was involved.

Also on that page, you'll see an analysis of how some Democrats and liberals are distorting some of Bush's rhetoric.

That's what's great about spinsanity: they give both sides a good reaming when they are being disingenuous.

Edit: here's the link: http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_06_20_archive.html#108780918427108137

Taft

[Sayhey]

That's what's great about spinsanity: they give both sides a good reaming when they are being disingenuous.

Edit: here's the link: http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_06_20_archive.html#108780918427108137

Taft

Not that they don't do a good job sometimes, but the amount of time and effort the people at spinsanity spent on arguing about the Bush administration's use of (or in their point of view - not using) the word "imminent" blew my mind. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees! I think they try to be so even handed that they miss the big picture of from where the the big lies are coming. Anyway, they are still a good resource.

[IJ Reilly]

Speaking of this issue, spinsanity did a great piece analyzing exactly what the Bush administration has said about al Qaida's relationship with the 9/11 attacks. Hint: they hinted that Iraq was involved.

Hinted, broadly hinted, gave anyone with the slightest inclination towards believing it a reason to think so. They spent months dancing right on top of that line, but never went over it. Now what?

[Voltron]

Stop it, stop it, stop it!!!!

Contacts do not equal a collaborative relationship. The 9/11 commission concluded that contact occurred, but that no collaborative relationship was found. And that is not in reference to 9/11. Rather, no collaborative relationship was found going back over ten years.

You keep quoting these hardcore conservative sites expecting people to believe what they are saying. They got it wrong. The commission did not find collaboration between Iraq and al Quaida. Please either:

a) stop posting these opinion pieces claiming there was a relationship

or

b) show me that the 9/11 commission did in fact find a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaida.

If a relationship was discovered by the commission, it should be very easy to prove. If you have any integrity whatsoever, you'll respond to this charge, in full.

Taft
yes I know they use Clintonese in their report.

[skunk]

yes I know they use Clintonese in their report.
Not a very full response.

[Voltron]

In late 1998, according to U.S. intelligence documents and numerous reports in the media, Saddam dispatched Faruz Hijazi, a top intelligence officer and longtime al Qaeda liaison, to Afghanistan to offer Osama bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. Saddam was continuing his policy of denying UN inspectors access to sensitive sites. The inspectors left Iraq and a 70-hour bombing campaign – Desert Fox – ensued. Meanwhile, just five months after the simultaneous al Qaeda bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, the Taliban was receiving intense pressure from the West to expel bin Laden. The overture sparked widespread news media coverage of the possibility that, as you say, our two most dangerous foes could be collaborating against us.

Is this true or false?
What about this?

When CIA Director George Tenet released a letter to the Senate Intelligence Community outlining Iraq’s WMD threat and the al Qaeda connection on October 7, 2002, the establishment media largely ignored the entire second half of the letter – the part dealing with the connection. They did so despite the fact that Tenet concluded that the Iraqi regime’s cooperation with Islamic terrorists would likely increase even without military intervention in Iraq. Tenet’s letter was balanced and nuanced; the reporting on it was not.


In fact, in its spring 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden, Janet Reno's Justice Department included what it termed an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda whereby al Qaeda agreed not to agitate against the Iraqi regime and, in exchange, Saddam promised help on "weapons development" to al Qaeda. Later that same year, top Clinton official disclosed several pieces of intelligence that tied Iraq to al Qaeda-linked chemical weapons programs in the Sudan. Where the Clinton Administration failed, I think, is that even after having recognized the threat that an Iraq-al Qaeda alliance posed to America, it did very little to eliminate it.

How about this, is this true?
How about this?

in March 2002 Jeffrey Goldberg from the New Yorker magazine published a remarkable story in which he interviewed several detainees in a Kurdish prison who spoke openly about extensive contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Kurds who had captured the prisoners let them speak to Goldberg in part because the CIA, having been informed of their presence and given the basic outlines of their allegations, showed little interest in interviewing them.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13903
With all these facts how could the 9/11 commission deduce no connection between Iraq and al-qaeda? Yes so we have no provable evidence that we could use in a court of law blah blah blah. This aint a court of law. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/piss.gif

[skunk]

Is this true or false?
What about this?
The interviewee is trying to sell a book.

[blackfox]

Voltron, I do not think that the fact that there was "contact" between Iraq and Al Qaeda necessarily implies meaningful collaboration. Bear in mind that Iraq, as a Secular Regime, was not particularily liked by Islamic devotees, and any agreement made could have been in the interest of Defense for Iraq, which is a legitimate course of action for a State to make.

Also, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan and Pakistan have all supported directly or indirectly, "terrorist" organizations, for a variety of reasons ranging from realpolitik to the propensity of Muslim countries to support and encourage Islam...what makes Iraq so special in this regard? Did any of these connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda pose a security threat to the US? More so than any of the other countries I listed? This all seems like a statement of the obvious used as a justification for the administrations' policy w/ regards to Iraq and the ME in general.

Finally, since the US supported, funded and trained Bin Laden in the '80s, does that mean that the US can be held accountable for supporting "terrorists" Should we invade ourselves as retaliation?

[skunk]

Finally, since the US supported, funded and trained Bin Laden in the '80s, does that mean that the US can be held accountable for supporting "terrorists" Should we invade ourselves as retaliation?
You haven't got the manpower. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Of course the answer to all of these questions is, "9-11 changed everything."

Including the ability to think straight, apparently.

[blackfox]

Nice IJ...

[Voltron]

Also, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan and Pakistan have all supported directly or indirectly, "terrorist" organizations, for a variety of reasons ranging from realpolitik to the propensity of Muslim countries to support and encourage Islam...what makes Iraq so special in this regard? Did any of these connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda pose a security threat to the US? More so than any of the other countries I listed? This all seems like a statement of the obvious used as a justification for the administrations' policy w/ regards to Iraq and the ME in general.

Finally, since the US supported, funded and trained Bin Laden in the '80s, does that mean that the US can be held accountable for supporting "terrorists" Should we invade ourselves as retaliation?
And those countries also need to be dealt with.
Hopefully through peaceful means. But Iraq we dealt with through peaceful means over 12 years unsuccessfully so it was time to give up on it.

I believe the US funded Bin Laden as a means to combat communism?
Sometimes you must partner with an evil to get rid of a worse evil.

[blackfox]

And those countries also need to be dealt with.
Hopefully through peaceful means. But Iraq we dealt with through peaceful means over 12 years unsuccessfully so it was time to give up on it.

I believe the US funded Bin Laden as a means to combat communism?
Sometimes you must partner with an evil to get rid of a worse evil.

With reference to your first paragraph, again I would ask why did we need to deal with Iraq through any means in the first place? We invaded Iraq the first time to free Kuwait, which in and of itself posed no security threat to the US, although it might have damaged US oil interests. As far as WMD go, we didn't seem to mind them when they were employed against Iran during their war in the '80's (where we supported Saddam), and in and of themselves, chemical and biological weapons development did not pose a security threat to the US either...especially since a host of other countries in the region have similar weapons capabilities (Pakistan even has Nuclear capabilities). Saddam may have been a despot, and treated his populace horribly, but as the leader of a SECULAR regime in the ME, he would probably be the last to attack the US on their own soil, or US interests outside of his borders...it seems like such a spurious argument...

With reference to your second paragraph, if that is true (in an absolute sense), why did we not offer to support Saddam and other ME countries with financial and logistical support (even weaponry, it's not like it would be a precendent), to undercut cooperation between Al Qaeda and ME states, and to address their security concerns...lesser of two evils, right?

[Voltron]

With reference to your first paragraph, again I would ask why did we need to deal with Iraq through any means in the first place? We invaded Iraq the first time to free Kuwait, which in and of itself posed no security threat to the US, although it might have damaged US oil interests. As far as WMD go, we didn't seem to mind them when they were employed against Iran during their war in the '80's (where we supported Saddam), and in and of themselves, chemical and biological weapons development did not pose a security threat to the US either...especially since a host of other countries in the region have similar weapons capabilities (Pakistan even has Nuclear capabilities). Saddam may have been a despot, and treated his populace horribly, but as the leader of a SECULAR regime in the ME, he would probably be the last to attack the US on their own soil, or US interests outside of his borders...it seems like such a spurious argument...

What is so difficult about understanding that someone can have more than one enemy at a time? Saddam needs to be dealt with independent of Al Qeada, and Al Qeada needs to be dealt with independent of Saddam.

From the president of the United States:

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

It is good that we have had leadership that has recognized and continues to recognize the threat that Saddam represents.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=18820

[blackfox]

Voltron, this ignores two basic assumptions...
1) That people everywhere means everywhere, where in reality, if left alone Saddam may have become a Regional Power in the ME, and perhaps adversely affected people w/in that region, but it has nothing to do with the safety of the West, or of the East for that matter. It is ideology masked as pragmatism...
2) That the "International Community" (which basically means the West BTW) has the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign countries just because we don't agree with the developments...whether we would be considered "weak" or not does not address this Western conceit, or the reality that most countries resent Western intervention as "imperialism" regardless of our possible good intentions, because after all, we decide what is good in the context of our own Cultural Values, not theirs...and our values are NOT universal, despite our insistence...

[mactastic]

I believe the US funded Bin Laden as a means to combat communism?

So if Saddam funded Hamas to combat Israeli Imperialism (since we each get to define an ism as evil apparently) how can you complain about that? But don't say because you oppose the evil tactics of the Palestinian resistance. Ask a Russian soldier who served in Afghanistan about the tactics of the mujehadeen. The insurgents we were funding were doing some very dirty work on the Russians for us. And don't say because Israelis aren't wicked like communists were, remember we're looking at this from the Islamic POV. In their eyes, we are as bad as communists were to us.

Funding people to do your dirty work is almost always a bad idea. It's almost as bad as outsourcing your interrogation.

Sometimes you must partner with an evil to get rid of a worse evil. Ah another twist on 'the ends justifies the means'. How many times will you allow yourself to be burned on 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'? You know they're not really your friend....

[Voltron]

Finally, since the US supported, funded and trained Bin Laden in the '80s, does that mean that the US can be held accountable for supporting "terrorists" Should we invade ourselves as retaliation?

Its amazing sometimes the things you find when browsing.
This is one of the biggest myths around and I wish people knew what really happened.

The US did not give Osama weapons to fight the Russians. The US provided weapons and training to the mujahedeen, not to bin laden.

Bin Laden raised money and supplied heavy machinery for the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet invasion. He also provided financing for the so-called Services Office, which recruited and trained a brigade of foreign Muslim militants that fought alongside the Afghan mujahedeen.

Bin Laden did not fight with the mujahedeen, he provided support to them as did the US. They did it for two different reasons.
http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=251408
its on the last page won't be long before this link is no good.

[blackfox]

Its amazing sometimes the things you find when browsing.

http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=251408
its on the last page won't be long before this link is no good.
Here Voltron, the following is an excerpt from a BBC story on Bin Laden:
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 16:31 GMT 17:31 UK

...Osama Bin Laden: Has called for a holy war against the US
Osama Bin Laden is both one of the CIA's most wanted men and a hero to many young people in the Arab world.

He and his associates were already being sought by the US on charges of international terrorism, including in connection with the 1998 bombing of American embassies in Africa and last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

In May this year a US jury convicted four men believed to be linked with Bin Laden of plotting the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Bin Laden, an immensely wealthy and private man, has been granted a safe haven by Afghanistan's ruling Taleban movement.

During his time in hiding, he has called for a holy war against the US, and for the killing of Americans and Jews. He is reported to be able to rally around him up to 3,000 fighters.

He is also suspected of helping to set up Islamic training centres to prepare soldiers to fight in Chechnya and other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Sponsored by US and Pakistan

His power is founded on a personal fortune earned by his family's construction business in Saudi Arabia.

Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army.

Egyptians, Lebanese, Turks and others - numbering thousands in Bin Laden's estimate - joined their Afghan Muslim brothers in the struggle against an ideology that spurned religion.

Turned against the US

After the Soviet withdrawal, the "Arab Afghans", as Bin Laden's faction came to be called, turned their fire against the US and its allies in the Middle East...
here is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

You might also find this link illuminating:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
if these seem perhaps not reputable to you, there is this:
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
So I choose to stand by my assertion...The fact that the US was not supporting him per se, but of a broad-based coalition of Islamic forces against the Soviet Union, is somewhat irrelevant. During that time, the US (and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) funded, supplied weapons and training to those fighting a superpower we didn't like...and now those tactics are used against us...

[Voltron]

Here Voltron, the following is an excerpt from a BBC story on Bin Laden:
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 16:31 GMT 17:31 UK

here is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

You might also find this link illuminating:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
if these seem perhaps not reputable to you, there is this:
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
So I choose to stand by my assertion...The fact that the US was not supporting him per se, but of a broad-based coalition of Islamic forces against the Soviet Union, is somewhat irrelevant. During that time, the US (and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) funded, supplied weapons and training to those fighting a superpower we didn't like...and now those tactics are used against us...
Someday if/when France decides to engage in war against capitalism imperialism will we be then ostrasized because at one time we were an ally of them?

[blackfox]

Someday if/when France decides to engage in war against capitalism imperialism will we be then ostrasized because at one time we were an ally of them?
I'm sorry, but what?! Are you equating Bin Laden and Al Qa'ida with France? Please explain...

[skunk]

I couldn't work it out either :confused:

[Sayhey]

I don't normally post articles by Michael Isikoff, don't much trust his judgment, but this is at least worth the read.

Iraq and Al Qaeda
Forget the 'Poisons and Deadly Gases'
Flip flop: Was Saddam working with Al Qaeda or not?
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek

July 5 issue - A captured Qaeda commander who was a principal source for Bush administration claims that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Saddam Hussein's regime has changed his story, setting back White House efforts to shore up the credibility of its original case for the invasion of Iraq. The apparent recantation of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a onetime member of bin Laden's inner circle, has never been publicly acknowledged. But U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda. Al-Libi, who once ran one of bin Laden's biggest training camps, was captured in Pakistan in November 2001 and soon began talking to CIA interrogators. Although he never mentioned his name, Secretary of State Colin Powell prominently referred to al-Libi's claims in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations; he recounted how a "senior terrorist operative" said Qaeda leaders were frustrated by their inability to make chemical or biological agents in Afghanistan and turned for help to Iraq. Continuing to rely on al-Libi's version, Powell then told how a bin Laden operative seeking help in acquiring poisons and gases had forged a "successful" relationship with Iraqi officials in the late 1990s and that, as recently as December 2000, Iraq had offered "chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates."


But more recently, sources said, U.S. interrogators went back to al-Libi with new evidence from other detainees that cast doubt on his claims. Al-Libi "subsequently recounted a different story," said one U.S. official. "It's not clear which version is correct. We are still sorting this out." Some officials now suspect that al-Libi, facing aggressive interrogation techniques, had previously said what U.S. officials wanted to hear. In any case, the cloud over his story explains why administration officials have made no mention of the "poisons and gases" claim for some time and did not more forcefully challenge the recent findings of the 9-11 Commission that Al Qaeda and Iraq had not forged a ?"collaborative relationship."

The debate, however, is far from over. Vice President Dick Cheney has sought to more vigorously defend the Iraq- Qaeda link, even reading to one TV interviewer from a U.S. intelligence report recounting a meeting between an Iraqi intel official and bin Laden on a farm in Sudan in the summer of 1996. (One possible problem: bin Laden had left Sudan for Afghanistan in May of that year.) Meanwhile, NEWSWEEK has learned, Pentagon officials are culling through captured Iraqi documents they say will provide hard evidence of multiple contacts between Iraqi officials and Qaeda members over a decade. Current plans call for a massive "document dump" before the election. But officials acknowledge ultimate proof may prove elusive. "It all depends on what your definition of a relationship is," said one.

link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek)