9/11 panel: New evidence on Iraq-Al-Qaida http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040620-050700-2315r By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 6/20/2004 5:27 PM WASHINGTON, June 20 (UPI) -- The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of the security services of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein may have been a member of al-Qaida involved in the planning of the suicide hijackings, panel members said Sunday. John F. Lehman, a Reagan-era GOP defense official told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured 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 Qaida." The Fedayeen were a special unit of volunteers given basic training in irregular warfare. The lieutenant colonel, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, has the same name as an Iraqi thought to have attended a planning meeting for the Sept. 11 attacks in January 2000, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The meeting was also attended by two of the hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hamzi and senior al-Qaida leaders. Lehman said that commission staff members continued to work on the issue and experts cautioned that the connection might be nothing more than coincidence. "Shakir is a pretty common name," said terrorism analyst and author Peter Bergen, "and even if the two names refer to the same person, there might be a number of other explanations. Perhaps al-Qaida had penetrated Saddam's security apparatus." Analysts say the Fedayeen was not an intelligence unit, but an irregular militia recruited from clans loyal to the regime in the capital, in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit and in the surrounding Tigris valley area. Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank set up by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, described them to United Press International last year as "thugs and bumpkins." He said the Fedayeen were "at the low end of the food chain in the security apparatus, doing street level work for the regime." Nevertheless, the revelation seems sure to stoke the controversy over the extent of links between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime, links that were cited by the Bush administration as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. On Wednesday, the commission published a staff statement saying that contacts between the regime and al-Qaida "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship" and that, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States." Critics of the Bush administration seized on the comments as evidence that the White House had sought to mislead Americans about the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. President Bush's likely Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the president need to give "a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose it now turns out is not supported by the facts." Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, however, continued to stress that the links were extensive. Cheney hinted that the commission did not have all the facts, telling one interviewer that he "probably" had access to intelligence commission staff and members had not seen. Sunday, Lehman acknowledged that, "the vice president was right when he said he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence." Democratic panel member Richard Ben-Veniste agreed that the panel should study any more recent intelligence, "If there is additional information, we're happy to look at it, and we think we should get it." Lehman added that the row illustrated the political minefield the commission was trying to tiptoe through in an election year when the focus of their inquiry is such an explosive issue. "We're under tremendous political pressures. Everything we come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year to try to make a political point on," he said. He pointed out that the Clinton White House had made the same charges the current administration did about the danger that Iraq might pass chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida. Those charges, he said, formed the basis for the missile strikes against alleged terrorist targets in Sudan in August 1998. "The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development," he said. Commission Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, played down the differences between the commission's view and that of the administration. "When you begin to use words like 'relationship' and 'ties' and 'connections' and 'contacts,'" he told ABC's "This Week," "everybody has a little different view of what those words mean. But if you look at the core statements that we made ... I don't think there's a difference of opinion with regard to those statements. "If there is, it has to be spelled out to me. " Chairman Thomas Kean, meanwhile, stressed that the staff statement released Wednesday did not represent the settled view of the whole commission: "These staff reports have come along every now and then in connection with our public hearings. These staff reports are interim documents. The commission, for instance, does not get involved, the members, in the staff reports. When we do the report itself, that will be a product of the entire commission." He added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet." The commission's two days of meetings last week marked their final public gatherings. They are to deliver a final report by July 26. Congress formed the commission to look into possible U.S. intelligence failures prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which some 3,000 people were killed after the hijacking of four jetliners than crashing the aircraft into buildings in New York and Washington and in rural Pennsylvania. -- (Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.) Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International
morning faos Do you have any idea or thoughts as to why this information is coming to light now? The 911 commission has been working for months and they are just now getting this? Sounds like this guy was a spy.
they asked for it. they said before they closed up they wanted the administration to point them to a link between the 2.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/o...n=6def8ee2f0b48d06&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1 The Zelikow Report By WILLIAM SAFIRE ASHINGTON — "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ." All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton. "Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack. The Zelikow report was seized upon by John Kerry because it fuzzed up the distinction between evidence of decade-long dealings between agents of Saddam and bin Laden (which panel members know to be true) and evidence of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks (which, as Hamilton said yesterday, modifying his earlier "no credible evidence" judgment, was "not proven one way or the other.") But the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt on both the Qaeda-Iraq ties and the specific attacks of 9/11: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports, citing the denials of Qaeda agents and what they decided was "no credible evidence" of cooperation on 9/11. That paragraph — extending doubt on 9/11 to all previous contacts — put the story on front pages. Here was a release on the official commission's letterhead not merely failing to find Saddam's hand in 9/11, which Bush does not claim. The news was in the apparent contradiction of what the president repeatedly asserted as a powerful reason for war: that Iraq had long been dangerously in cahoots with terrorists. Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff. Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports." Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie." What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility? 1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con. 2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement. 3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.) 4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally. 5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.
It's good to see the truth finally coming out. Unfortunately the major networks will bury it if they even report it at all.
I disagree. If this connection pans out I think it will get some coverage. The connection is still tenuous, and if proven to be true, then we have one member of an irregular militia who was Al-Qaeda. I do believe that will merit some coverage and will get it.
If the guy was a member of al Qaeda, shouldn't the administration have sent the info to those who needed it? Say, the 9/11 panel? They stonewalled the 9/11 commission forever, tried to kill it. Then, right as they're about to release a report saying Bush and his buds are full of it, this information comes to light. Who provided the information? Karl Rove or Scooter Libby? If the info is true, fine, al Qaeda had a mole high in Iraq circles. Give it press coverage. But our government has been spinning lies and BS for so long, who knows what to believe anymore.
again...the commission specifically asked for this information. the 9/11 commission has not been about Iraq...it's been about how we could be better prepared to stop this sort of event from happening in the future. learning from mistakes. the commission asked the administration to bring any iraq/al qaeda tie it has to light before it closes up shop. that's it.
SamFisher, Batman Jones and MacBeth -- we eagerly await your response to this issue -- an issue that you have been erroneously dismissing for some time now. What have you to say in defense of yourselves?
Nothing. They'll find another prison abuse story from an incident that happened months ago and has since been taken care of. I think most of them are camping out at Barnes and Noble awaiting the release of the new Clinton book.
John F. Lehman, a Reagan-era GOP defense official told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured 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 Qaida." One has to wonder what Saddam would have done if he knew a member form his Fedayeen who actively collaborating with OBL and al Qaeda. I suspect if this member was acting independently (not at Saddam's bequest) that Saddam would have had him killed. Methinks that the Bush Admin trotting out the post war intell gathered in Iraq is a sword that cuts two ways. It is nice that it bolsters the Admin's case for war, but it also indicates that the pre war intell was so weak that it can no longer stand by itself. Maybe GWB has been conferring with Nancy Reagan's astrologist?
Right now there is no truth. The article says a military member may have been with Al Qaida and that it may represent infiltration by AQ into Saddam's regime, among other guesses as to what it could mean, if it were true. Both sides, apparently, should stop being cheerleaders and just wait for the actual conclusion (of the panel, not of the intelligence gathering, as that could go on for decades).
There's really nothing funnier than Trader Poof demanding answers from other posters. No one one the board disappears more or faster after being proven wrong. But, of course, no one's been proven wrong here. rimbaud's got it right. Further, I've never said it was a fact that there wasn't an Al Qaeda connect nor even that there wasn't a 9/11 connect -- only that over all these months and all the innuendo there's been no evidence of one. I've also said that proof of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 would be grounds for war -- proof that he's an Arab who once had WMD's would not. Faos: I'm interested in the Clinton book, as I would be with any former president's book. Not interested enough to pay money for it in hardcover (maybe paperback, don't know yet) and certainly not interested enough to camp out for it. I also don't buy books at Barnes and Noble and I never voted for Clinton or supported him in any way.
oddly enough, we're on the same page here. i've been posing unanswered questions about the iRaq-al queda connection for months, and liberals here are always exceedinly quick to try and debunk them. of course, my own personal feelings are that most of the reports of such connections have some basis in reality, but that aside, shouldn't we all really just want to know the truth? rather than oped grandstanding, demanding presidential apologies ala the time editorial board, could we wait to pass judgement until the facts are known? unfortunately, the commissions own members, and staff, have engaged in just such grandstanding for months, making their ultimate report highly suspect, no matter what the verdict.
Well when you post them as challenges or threats in a taunting fashion and call people out by name (like TJ in this thread or the way you have in the past), then you're going to have people willing to debunk them, especially given the tenuous nature in general of raw unverified reports from this kind of a place.
i post them as such because they often are directly at odds with the prevailing liberal meme here. i believe we should all be challenged in our beliefs, and if you can't defend them they really aren't worthy of being held. i've stated repeatedly that my support for bush is directly correlated to his unwavering prosecution of the WOT, not the reverse. i've also stated repeatedly that i believe the battle in iRaq is an integral part of that war. you obviously feel differently, but i find it curious how quick you are on the discrediting draw whenever evidence of iRaqi connections to al queda is presented. your haste strikes me as the act of someone who is extremely defensive about his preconceived notions, rather than the acts of a truly curious mind. i could be wrong too...
Basso, you post thread after thread of pretty much every single article in the NRO or WS or WSJ that comes down the pipe, all of which lean one way. I wish I could catalogue the number of threads that you've posted in the past that now contain information that has been uniformly discredited, but I don't have the time even if I had all afternoon given the remarkable number of threads on the topic you staarted. Your unwavering support for bush is directly correlated to the fact that you are a good little republican, just like the rest of us in our own little ways. Exclusively citing to one side, day after day after day, is the expression of a curious mind? Sure it is. I'm quick to respond because when you boil it down, you end up citing the same unverified material over and over and over again, so the response is generally the same. You refuse to admit anything on this issue, and you refuse to confront what are obviously salient issues about the office of special plans, the failure to plan for rebuilding, and other embarrassing missteps that are conceded by pretty much everyone at this point. It's like running on a treadmill, over and over again. Additionally, when you couch your proposition as a direct challenge to me personally, what do you expect me to do? "Oh, basso, wow, you got me, my curious mind was wrong and you were right! thanks for the insult!" .....sure that's going to happen.
as far as where the articles come from, there no longer is any real difference in accuracy between the weekly standard, WSJ, NRO on the one side and the NYTimes, WaPO, et al on the other. unfortunately for all of us, all "news" outlets practice opinion journalism to one extend or another. the difference is that the conservative outlets i cited are open about their opinionist origins, while the Times still pretends to be a "newspaper."
I believe in fact, there is a difference. Is there a conservative Judy Miller running around out there that I'm not aware of? Hell, at least the Times throws Bill Safire and David Brooks up there a few times a week, and lets GWB, Condi, Cheney & whoever else have a guest editorial every now and then. When was the last time Al Gore penned a piece in the NRO? Does Molly Ivins appear in the WSJ Opinion Journal? Anyway, a Harvard study from last year found (don't feel like digging it up) that the major difference between "liberal" and "conservative" media was that "liberal' media was far more likely to criticize "liberal" politics and politicians rather than for the "conservative" media to show dissenion in the ranks to a statistically significant degree. (e.g. The LA Times, an establishment "liberal" paper, had a full time staff reporter to chase down Clinton's past paramours, I belive) When you think abou it makes sense if you consider that "conservative" media was founded as a deliberate counterweight while "liberal" media is officially impartial though subconsciously less so . But that's off topic. .
we've had this discussion before, but you've missed/avoided my point. i'm not talking about the editorial pages of the various Times, rather i'm speaking about the extent their editorial views infiltrate what should be hard news reporting, and in the NYTimes' case, the editors relentless drive to politicize every section of the paper, frank rich in the 'arts and leisure' section being exhibit A.
