CNN, Guardian: Bin Laden, iRaq party like it's 1999

[basso]

stories in noted neocon opinion journals from 1999, no doubt planted by the as yet to be formed Bush administration.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

--
Saddam link to Bin Laden

Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks

By Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday February 6, 1999
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.

News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."

US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received.

In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world.

Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."

An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. "Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there's no one here who is going to comment on it."

Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, was "the perfect man to send to Afghanistan".

[i]Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.

Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden's position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.

Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.

[FranchiseBlade]

Thanks for that blast from the past. Of course we know now that Bin Laden and Iraq did not make any agreement, and the offer, if it existed, was never put into action.

The offer was for Bin Laden to move to Iraq. However, he was still in AFghanistan 2 years later. So I guess the 9/11 commission had it right. There were contacts but no operational relationship.

It's also been pointed out, that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden has had far greater government relationships with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Congressmen Russ Feingold pointed out that Al-Qaeda had more ties with Charles Taylor's Liberia than he did with Saddam's Iraq.

But still offers that were years old and never agreed to are used to provide justification for a war.

[Aceshigh7]

Could your reply be any more biased?

:mad:

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Aceshigh7
Could your reply be any more biased?

:mad:

biased towards facts? I don't get it. I was merely talking about recent history and the events that happened and didn't happen. When somone uses two year old, never acted upon, offers as a means to justify something, then I don't see anything biased in pointing out the actual events as they happened or didn't happen.

[Aceshigh7]

The fact that they even met to discuss this shows a degree of collaboration, and a like minded goal of terror against the United States. Plus the full extent of their contact is not even fully known. Their links could indeed go much deeper than that. Look at all the Al-Queda activity in Iraq currently. Most of the hostage taking and coordinated bombings and attacks in Iraq today are not being done by Iraqis, they are being done by foreign Al-Queda operatives.

The Bush haters like yourself obviously live in your own world far away from reality.

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by Aceshigh7
The fact that they even met to discuss this shows a degree of collaboration, ...
Huh? I know you're very convinced of your position, which is fine, but your statement is odd. A meeting = a meeting. That's all.

We met with bin Laden many times. We met with Saddam many times. Were we plotting terror against ourselves?

Bush recently had dinner with Clinton. Are they "collaborating?" I think not.

During WWII, the *Pope* had a couple of meeting with Hitler. Were they *collaborating*? Let's hope to hell not.

Look, all I'm saying is we only have proof of a meeting. The *bipartisan* 9/11 commission, which supposedly had all the evidence that the administration was willing to give it (which supposedly should have been everything they knew), has said there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship. Are you saying the *bipartisan* commission "hates Bush?" :confused:

All people who disagree with you do not "hate Bush" or "hate America" or really hate anything at all. They simply have a different point of view. It's all good.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Aceshigh7
The fact that they even met to discuss this shows a degree of collaboration, and a like minded goal of terror against the United States. Plus the full extent of their contact is not even fully known. Their links could indeed go much deeper than that. Look at all the Al-Queda activity in Iraq currently. Most of the hostage taking and coordinated bombings and attacks in Iraq today are not being done by Iraqis, they are being done by foreign Al-Queda operatives.

The Bush haters like yourself obviously live in your own world far away from reality.

Aces, how does a meeting show collaboration? When the Soviets and the U.S. met or even made proposals about nuclear arms, was Reagan collaborating with communism?

You can make personal comments about me and the world I live in if you wish, and I'll concentrate on the issues being discussed in this thread. In order to debate those issues with you, I want to understand the logic(or lack of logic) being used.

[mc mark]

I hate oatmeal...

where ya been bobby boy?

[bnb]

Serious question.

Please take off your partisan hats for a moment.

Was the commission's 'no collaborative effort' conclusion pretty narrow in scope -- ie relating just to 9/11, or to targeted US attacks? Or was it an all encompassing -- meaning no-links.

I think it's quite possible to conclude that there was no collaborative effort regarding 9/11, or no collaborative effort to attack the US, yet still have potential ties related to terrorism. And i think you should be looking at the purpose and context of meetings before suggesting that if any two parties meet, then it must be the same as if any other groups meet.

And I'm not suggesting those ties (if any) were enough to warrant the invasion -- just trying to decypher the spin.

[ROXTXIA]

Originally posted by Aceshigh7
The fact that they even met to discuss this shows a degree of collaboration, and a like minded goal of terror against the United States. Plus the full extent of their contact is not even fully known. Their links could indeed go much deeper than that. Look at all the Al-Queda activity in Iraq currently. Most of the hostage taking and coordinated bombings and attacks in Iraq today are not being done by Iraqis, they are being done by foreign Al-Queda operatives.

The Bush haters like yourself obviously live in your own world far away from reality.

I have a connection with my neighbor. We sometimes nod hello at each other. Hmn. I guess I never thought about it. Maybe we could start a crime syndicate together?

Nothing like tenuous connections to justify invasion of a country with thousands of its civilians dead and now even more of a potential breeding ground for terrorists.

I don't condone any of Iraq's atrocities. I just don't ignore our own.

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by bnb
Serious question.
...

And I'm not suggesting those ties (if any) were enough to warrant the invasion -- just trying to decypher the spin.
Fair enough, bnb (as usual :) ). We should probably all wait for the final, official report instead of extrapolating from these interim reports.

That said, my understanding of the interim report is that there was an absolute statement of "no evidence of a collaborative relationship," meaning 9/11, or buying bombs, or drinking beer and watching football. My reading of it in context was that no evidence showed collaboration of any kind, though there was certainly communication.

The Washington Post did have a nice column last weekend about the word "relationship," saying that whatever your perspective it was sad to again have a presidency playing semantic gymnastics with the word. Arguably, such games are more dire for the march to war than for messing with interns, but whatever. The spin game is oddly familiar.

[basso]

Originally posted by bnb
Serious question.

Please take off your partisan hats for a moment.

Was the commission's 'no collaborative effort' conclusion pretty narrow in scope -- ie relating just to 9/11, or to targeted US attacks? Or was it an all encompassing -- meaning no-links.

it meant 9/11. both hamilton and kean were pretty clear about that. oddly, most (all?) the commissioners had not read the staff reports prior to their release. the poinnts in question were "very carefully worded" in the words of one staffer, to apply them only to 9/11 in an operational sense. in this regard there is no conflict with what the admon has said, the ridiculous conclusions and screaming headlines of many newspapers and websites notwithstanding.

[B-Bob]

There you go, bnb.

Suffice it to say that, at least for basso and myself, we remove partisan hats to reveal... (*gasp*) (*woman's scream!*) ...

surgically implanted partisan toupees! :eek:

[basso]

Originally posted by B-Bob
There you go, bnb.

Suffice it to say that, at least for basso and myself, we remove partisan hats to reveal... (*gasp*) (*woman's scream!*) ...

surgically implanted partisan toupees! :eek:

sorry, i didn't mean my response to seem partisan. the "ridiculous" comment was, i thought, objectively supported by kean's and hamilton's comments.

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by basso
sorry, i didn't mean my response to seem partisan. the "ridiculous" comment was, i thought, objectively supported by kean's and hamilton's comments.

basso, I'm just kidding both of us here. You have bnb's sensible request, followed by our two apparently sensible posts which, after reading volumes of materials and attempting to look at facts plainly... come to completely different conclusions! :D We're in too deep I guess.

i just thought it looked funny.

[bnb]

I found it rather odd, that Saddam, who, truth be told, really wasn't that swell a guy, would have absolutely no links with a known terrorist movement operating in his neighbourhood.

Though i'm not really surprised those links appear to be substancially less that the administration certainly implied.

And, since we've taken off our hats, and are chatting so amicably, i'll confess my primary motivation in clicking this thread.

http://www.system-records.co.uk/photo/1999.jpg

Stinkin' Styx forum :rolleyes: ?????

what was that about????

[basso]

Originally posted by B-Bob
basso, I'm just kidding both of us here. You have bnb's sensible request, followed by our two apparently sensible posts which, after reading volumes of materials and attempting to look at facts plainly... come to completely different conclusions! :D We're in too deep I guess.

i just thought it looked funny.

i see what you mean- i do think it's unfortunate that anyone has to "interpret" what the commission, or its staff, meant. it ought to be presented in such a way as to remove any ambuguity so noone, on either side, can jump to conclusions. ours is not a political culture given to sober, honest reflection i guess. sadly, the media and our politicians, grossly underestimate the vast majority of americas on this score. not those of us on the BBS though!

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by bnb
Stinkin' Styx forum :rolleyes: ?????
If you are seriously stepping to MR_ROBOTO, this will get ugly fast.

Don't bring a hirsuit midget to a robot fight, sucka.

[bnb]

Originally posted by B-Bob
If you are seriously stepping to MR_ROBOTO, this will get ugly fast.

Don't bring a hirsuit midget to a robot fight, sucka.

I see it's futile.

There is no common ground.

http://www.csatolna.hu/hu/erdekes/CsA/che.gif

...a raaaaasbeeeeerrrrrrry beret...

so...heard any good trade rumours lately????

[Aceshigh7]

Originally posted by ROXTXIA
Nothing like tenuous connections to justify invasion of a country with thousands of its civilians dead and now even more of a potential breeding ground for terrorists.

Other than the occasional wartime mistake by the coalition forces (bad intel, misfired weapon, etc), most of the vast majority of civilians killed have been by either the Iraqis or the foreign terorists in Iraq. The U.S and the coalition have been remarkable in the lengths they go to try to avoid civilian casualties..

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by Aceshigh7
Other than the occasional wartime mistake by the coalition forces (bad intel, misfired weapon, etc), most of the vast majority of civilians killed have been by either the Iraqis or the foreign terorists in Iraq.


Can you provide a source for this?

[mc mark]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Can you provide a source for this?

No he can't because the US's official policy is that they don't keep track of civilians killed.

[No Worries]

Can you provide a source for this?

The Constanza Defense- "It's not a lie if you believe it."

This is the truth as long as you don't count all of the innocent people who have killed. Rumsfeld did not know about the Iraq prison tortures, since he forgot he ordered it. Ashcroft did not investigate how far we could go torturing "enemy combatants". Really, he did not do that, at all, ever. Really.

I believe in GWB's moral clarity.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bnb
Serious question.

Please take off your partisan hats for a moment.

Was the commission's 'no collaborative effort' conclusion pretty narrow in scope -- ie relating just to 9/11, or to targeted US attacks? Or was it an all encompassing -- meaning no-links.

I think it's quite possible to conclude that there was no collaborative effort regarding 9/11, or no collaborative effort to attack the US, yet still have potential ties related to terrorism. And i think you should be looking at the purpose and context of meetings before suggesting that if any two parties meet, then it must be the same as if any other groups meet.

And I'm not suggesting those ties (if any) were enough to warrant the invasion -- just trying to decypher the spin.

That's a fair question bnb. If by 'no links' you mean they never had any contact about anything, I think we can safely say they did have contact. I don't think we could find any credible source to deny that there was contact made between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

If you mean that we believe that al-Qaeda didn't act in collaboration with al-qaeda in regards to 9-11 but they did act in collaboration with al-Qaeda in regards to other al-qaeda terrorist activities, I believe there is no proof of that either. As far as I know there is no evidence of Saddam's Iraq supporting al-Qaeda in any operational terrorist strike in regards to 9-11 or otherwise. I have seen no evidence of of connection beyond merely contacting one another. Taking the partisan hat off and going by what the Bush administration said prior to the IRaqi invasion, but even post 9/11 there was no collaboration. If we look at the list of 40 nations supplied by the Bush state department of countries in which Al-Qaeda was active post 9/11 - pre U.S. invasion, we find that Iraq was not on the list.

I think we can say that Samoza, the Nicaraguan dictator, or Noriega of Panama were not nice guys either, but that they weren't collaboratively working with the Zapatistas in Mexico. Even though they were mean dictators and the Zapatistas were active in their neighborhood, I don't think we will find a collaborative working relationship.