the usual suspects will deride this article as an opinion piece, and it is, but there sure are alot of unanswered questions. I never thought the Thane of McGill would demonstrate such an incurious mind, but I imagine he'll be among the first to dismiss the connections out of hand. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133 -- Saddam's Files New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Thursday, May 27, 2004 One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism. We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links? One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own. It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since. As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded. That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific. After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad. One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke. The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.
And the usual suspects will present this opinion piece based on random speculation and secondhand unfiltered data as an article. I note that the WSJ/Weekly Standard's Saddam-Al Qaeda articles are distinctly shorter now, approximately 1 chalabi shorter than they were previously, and that they seem to czech themselves prior to wrecking themselves. This is the same hackneyed stuff we've heard for years....I guess this is their way of doing an NYT-chalabi-judy miller mea culpa: admit you are wrong by falling back on the next group of tenuous allegations. lame. BTW, I love the hilarious nugget of logic displayed therein ....the intelligence was wrong and overstated the extent of WMDs (due to the cajoling and cherry picking of the Neocons) therefore the CIA might also be wrong to the point of UNDER-stating the Saddam, Al Q (non) connection.....brilliant. Sometimes I get the feeling that the opinion leaders on the right just aren't that smart.
McGill? Glamis, maybe...Cawdor even...but McGill? I'm in Toronto, McGill's in Montreal. Pittsburg is a lot closer, for example. You Californians never get it right...
faith; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Now see right here you've got a problem. The article is supposing that we are supposing that something doesn't exist despite lack of proof to the contrary. This is not reconcilable with the meaning of faith. To have faith in the matter would be to believe something does exist, despite having no evidence. Which brings me bak to the war supporters... basso; it is not impossible, although it is unlikely, that Saddam had serious connections with Al Quida. Unfortunately, to justify this war ( beyond the dubious WMD claim) on these grounds, we would have had to know this before hand. We did not. I doubt we ever will, but if we ever do find 'proof', it'll be too late to avoid the uncomfortable truth; that we were deceived ( some of us) into believing we knew something that at best we believed, and probably not even that. Additionally, we did know of other nations' connections, and that inspired no invasion. This argument is dead, not because of political correctness, but because of logic.
I really wouldn't be surprised if Saddam had links to AQ. In fact, I find it harder to believe he had absolutely none -- and was the beacon of balance in an otherwise terrorist overrun region. I would also not be surprised if we learn he recently had...or possibly there still are...those elusive WMD in Iraq. But I think it's pretty clear George did not have overwhelming evidence of either of these things when he set the war machine in motion. I think it's also pretty clear he, and his merry band of cowboys hadn't figured out what they'd do once they'd crashed the gates. They simply knew they were right...and didn't diligently seek confirmation. And that's why this 'preemptive' war was so wrong. We really should have relied on something stronger than a strong possibility. EDIT -- and McB just said that. I should hit that ol' submit post button sooner rather than let interruptions interfere with my bbs duties
The reason it's unlikely isn't because he was a beacon of balance, but because, unique to the Middle East, his control over his people was not connected to, and in fact seperate from religion. Saddam openly saw Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to his own absolute control, as he saw almost every means which he did not direct himself. Moreover, Osama Bin Laden had publicly stated that Saddam's overthrow was one of AQ's prime objectives, calling him an 'infidel' and 'bad Muslim'. I find it next to impossible that there weren't 'connections' between the two; there are connections between AQ and almost every government, including our own, and especially in the Middle East. But the supposition that they were working in conjunction before we made them strange bedfellows ( enemy of my enemy, etc.) is contrary to both of their stances towards each other.
'scuse me? connections between al queda and the U.S. government? does mccarth--errr, Ashcroft, know about this?
You are more learned in this subject than I am, McB -- so I'll defer to you here. The important point, i think (as you pointed out -- and i later repeated) was that even if those links exist -- we hadn't satisfactorily established them before barging on in.
so if i understand the logic here, if we find and destroy iRaqi nukes, and a picture of Ossama and Saddam making the beast w/ seven backs, it won't matter to U.S. security and the global WOT because we didn't have established proof of these things prior to the invasion? talk about moving the goal posts!
Not moving them at all. We differ on 'established proof.' I'm quite certain we didn't have enough -- given how wrong we've been so far and how long it's taken to verify our hunch -- clearly no satelite pictures a la cuban missile crisis. You seem complacent in attacking at will as long as there's probable grounds. If we accept that standard -- MacBeths analogy of 'well then it's ok for anyone to do it' hold true. War's pretty serious stuff. If our hunch was that strong then many more resources should have been applied to verify it. Surround the nation. Overrun them with inspections. A spy at every table. There must be an alternative to 'do nothing and wait' and 'barge on in at our discretion. ' Process is kind of important. Even if it sometimes gets in the way. Does it not concern you that we took this serious an action - and appear to have been so wrong?
I assume you're referring to US support for anti-soviet mujahadeen during the afghan war. although some members of the mujahadeen may have subsequently joined the taliban or al queda, that's a pretty tortured connection.
!?!?!?! Osama Bin Laden...you've heard of him...has called Al Qaida the child of the Mujah Hadeen. Almost all of his original members and contacts were made during his period with the Mujah Hadeen. They used the same methods, anly usually localised to Afghanistan, as they are now in Iraq. It was originally essentially the same network with a different name, as ther jihadi stimulus of the first had been achieved. So if Al Qaida changes it's name, but engages in the exact same kinds of practices, and uses the same people, and we find that Saddam funded Al Qaida, you'll say it's a tenous connection because they're no longer called Al Qaida?
MacBeth, you obviously don't get it. If you are talking about an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, a rumor that Bin Laden's cousin had a 2 hour layover in Baghad on his Pakistan is enough to justify an invasion. If your talking about a U.S./Al Qaeda connection, Bin Laden's canceled checks with Reagan as the payee are tenous evidence.
Seriously. If we found out that the KGB had trained, funded, and given intelligence to the earlier version of Al Qaida, including Bin Laden himself, do you think we'd call that 'a connection'?
what were the 12 years of sanctions? i know, zinni says they were working, and i suppose in a perverse way they were, although they were also enriching saddam and impoverishing his people. They also, since 1998, provided saddam with substantial opportunities to expand his wmd programs and stockpiles. remember, the presence of WMD in iRaq wasn't some neocon fantasy cooked up by doug feith, paul wolfowitz, et al. the entire world believed Saddam had WMD, including the U.S., Russia, the U.K., even France and Denmark! although the arguement has been conveniently perverted post-saddam's fall, it's was never about whether saddam possessed WMD, but rather, in the wake of 9/11, what to do about them. the bush admin made a determination that in light of new realities in the region, and established links between saddam and terrorists, the U.S. could no longer afford the risk that saddam posed. subsequent events to not change this original calculation. you may disagree with it, and certainly the conduct of the occupation has had its problems, but it was always about US security, the safeguarding of which is the president's foremost repsonsibility. anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
