here's the relevant passage from powell's speech: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm -- But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch -- imagine a pinch of salt -- less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock, followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote. There is no cure. It is fatal. Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today. Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. During his stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months. Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year, an al-Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly. We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain, even today, in regular contact with his direct subordinates, include the poison cell plotters. And they are involved in moving more than money and materiel. Last year, two suspected al-Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. We in the United States, all of us, the State Department and the Agency for International Development, we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan, last October. A despicable act was committed that day, the assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder. After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier. Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go. As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia. According to detainees Abu Atiya, who graduated from Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasked at least nine North African extremists in 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks. Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested. The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe. We know about this European network and we know about its links to Zarqawi because the detainees who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network. Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins. The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence again proved him right. When the British unearthed the cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the destruction of the cell. We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia, and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins. We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. Going back to the early and mid-1990s when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al-Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al-Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al-Qaida ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaida.
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. Does not past the smell test. Sorry. If any of this is to be believed, Zarqawi was operating in part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam. Yet Saddam "allows" Zarqawi to stay in Kurdish Iraq.
I'm missing something here, I still don't understand what you're getting at. Let's not bother debunking Powell's 2003 statements regarding Al-Queda/Saddam regime links. Powell himself debunked it very recently. I don't know. Why do you ask? My contention is that W's horribly waged war has given Zarqawi a huge new theater of operations, possibly even a new population of recruits. My point still stands. Look- this guy is responsible for countless attacks against US soldiers in Iraq, and at least a couple of filmed beheadings if not more. He is operating in a country with thousands of our soldiers who are very actively looking for him- he may be the number one priority target in the country. Not only has he evaded capture, but he is responsible for tons of attacks and is planning/carrying out more right now. This effectively debunks the idea that he went anywhere to avoid capture by US forces- he's straight in the thick of it. (I don't know if that's your point. Don't know what is.) Powell says they've captured 116 Zarqawi-trained operatives all over the world- apparently it's not that hard for them to travel. Why isn't Zarqawi anywhere else in the world right now? Because he's playing in the playground that W made for him. Thanks, W. Way to be "strong on terror." This is off-topic in the thread, but think about this a moment: what if we took 200 billion dollars and spent it on things that would actually protect us? No, screw it, let's be frugal, 100 billion dollars. What if we put ten billion into strengthening security in our ports, another ten in training first-responders, and twenty or thirty in special ops/intelligence? Just throwing out suggestions. I can't help but do a better job than the administration that has tied up all our military and financial resources in a conflict that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
Forgive me, I can't help but keep responding to this. Were you hoping for some pacifist-leftist response that would show that I'm "weak on terror", as opposed to W who's "strong on tehruhr?" There were people opposed to the Afghanistan war; I certainly was not one of them. Still am not. I'm concerned we haven't done a better job making life for them better post-war, but that's another story. Was there anybody against the Afghanistan war that even heard of Zarqawi? I'm totallly lol just thinking about it. My god, wait, no- don't invade! WHAT ABOUT ZARQAWI?? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN, HE MIGHT GO TO IRAQ!! We had a lot more on our minds- like Bin Laden. The guy who actually did organize a massive successful attack on US soil. Hmmm. He escaped too.
i've kinda lost the thread here, but allow me to clarify. you implied that zarqawi went to iRaq to fight the US. my point, and the reason i posted powell's comments, was to show that he arrived in iRaq well in advance of the US invasion. if that wasn't your point, sorry if i misunderstood. it is a valid point though, and one that needs to be reiterated. zarqawi was chased out of afghanistan by the US and went to iRaq. he's got definite connections to al queda, as well as to the baathist regime. while i won't go so far as to claim this proves saddam had "ties" to al queda ("contacts" si, "ties," forse no...) it definitely demonstrates saddam's ties to Islamo Fascists. to suggest the secular baathists and islamic fascists couldn't work together because of their religious differences is ridiculous. clearly they could, did, and are.
Oh, okay, I gotcha. It really makes little difference to me why exactly Zarqawi went to Iraq in the first place or when. My point towards the end of my first post in this thread only concerns what Z. is doing now. Which is killing lots of people. Desperation, warfare, and hatred are the perfect breeding ground for terrorist recruitment, and all ingredients are present in several areas of Iraq. You've got a point here. There's too much evidence pointing to both AQ style suicide attacks and also Baathist insurgency activity to think that all of them work independently. I can see some of these guys working together. However, and this is conjecture on my part, but I consider it common sense: Saddam was a power-hungry madman, and he knew how to cling to power by destroying any possible threat. Religious fundamentalist militants were definitely a threat. There's a reason AQ only operated in the Kurdish region outside Sadaam's control: they would be f*cking killed if they wandered into his territory. I also think that some Iraqi-born insurgents would eventually conflict with AQ strategies: "Okay, today we explode three massive car bombs- one at the local power plant, one at the hospital, and another at a police station." "Uhhhh... my whole family lives near that police station." "Yeah, my family lives here too... why do they have to lose electricity and access to the hospital? Can't we just waste some Americans and call it a day?" "Yeah- come to think of it, you AQ guys suck."
I have read the posts by Nolen and No Worries and this is precisely how I feel. Why do all those Bush bashers want to offer up "unique and insightful" views into how one decides to become a terrorist? I see a lot of theories posted as fact without any data to back them up, credentials as being qualified on the subject matter to accurately opine, or even an ID proving that you're Oliver Stone. If you're just parroting back what you heard some guy say on TV, then shame on you Polly, we'll line your cage with it later.
It's not about "wishing" for bad news in Iraq. It's about *warning* the Republicans (who have been neo-coned) that it was a mistake to go in the first place! In the end, the Iraqis will have to govern themselves. Remember, Iraq was never about "terrorist or 911." It was about regime change towards an imperial vision (utopia). Look at it as a "indirect" attack on that elusive thing called "terrorism." So what if a few thousand Iraq families have to die for this vision! Right? They wont mind. This is the reason I feel this is an immoral war. Because it's based on a neocon theory (which is as unchristian as you can get!). As far as Christopher Hitchens. He makes some good points; historical issues. But he can also make the most preposterous statements that are sooooo wrong. "Assumption" should be his middle name.