• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
I took the liberty of copy and pasting a portion of this interview I don't want old dis to miss. What do you have to say about this dis?

FP: Do we have any idea what is in the Iraqi Intelligence documents regarding Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and global terrorism?

Joscelyn: Yes, we do. But first, a caveat. Since so few of the documents have been reviewed, it is difficult to say what the complete picture of Saddam’s activities will look like. We also know that a large number of documents and other pieces of media were destroyed as U.S. forces entered the country. Furthermore, the majority of the documents have not been authenticated. Great care should be exercised in analyzing these documents and we should always be wary of forgeries.

However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.

One IIS document, in particular, has received significant attention. The document was apparently authored in early 1997 and summarizes a number of contacts between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi oppositionist groups, including al Qaeda, during the mid 1990’s. The document says that in early 1995 bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in two ways. First, bin Laden wanted Iraqi television to carry al Qaeda’s anti-Saudi propaganda. Saddam agreed. Second, bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in performing “joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz.” That is, bin Laden wanted Iraq’s assistance in attacking U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia.

We do not know what, exactly, came of bin Laden’s second request. But the document indicates that Saddam’s operatives “were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up.” Thus, it appears that both sides saw value in working with each other. It is also worth noting that in the months following bin Laden’s request, al Qaeda was tied to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia.

The same document also indicates that Iraq was in contact with Dr. Muhammad al-Massari, the head of the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR). The CDLR is a known al Qaeda propaganda organ based in London. The document indicates that the IIS was seeking to “establish a nucleus of Saudi opposition in Iraq” and to “use our relationship with [al-Massari] to serve our intelligence goals.” The document also notes that Iraq was attempting to arrange a visit for the al Qaeda ideologue to Baghdad. Again, we can’t be certain what came of these contacts.

Just recently, however, al-Massari confirmed that Saddam had joined forces with al Qaeda prior to the war. Al-Massari says that Saddam established contact with the “Arab Afghans” who fled Afghanistan to northern Iraq in 2001 and that he funded their relocation to Iraq under the condition that they would not seek to undermine his regime. Upon their arrival, these al Qaeda terrorists were put in contact with Iraqi army personnel, who armed and funded them.

Obviously, this paints a very different picture of prewar Iraq than many would like to see.

Interestingly enough, the existence of this document was first reported by The New York Times in the summer of 2004, several weeks after the 9-11 Commission proclaimed that there was no operational relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. For some reason, the Times decided to sit on the document while splashing the 9-11 Commission’s conclusion on the front page.

But that conclusion is now more tenuous than ever. Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator who served as a 9/11 commissioner, told Eli Lake of The New York Sun that the document is a “very significant set of facts.” While cautioning that it does not tie Saddam to the September 11 attack, Kerrey said that the document “does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

That circle includes al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf, which was funded by bin Laden’s brother-in-law. One document, which has not yet been released to the public, indicates that Iraqi Intelligence also funded Abu Sayyaf. Steve Hayes first reported the existence of this document last month. The document includes a series of IIS memos from 2001 in which Saddam’s henchmen discuss funding the group, but consider withdrawing support after a string of high-profile kidnappings of westerners brought unwanted attention. But whatever concerns Iraqi Intelligence had appear to be short-lived. In 2003, one Abu Sayyaf leader openly admitted to the press that the Iraqis had been funding his group.

Still another document provides interesting insight into the workings of Saddam’s ultra-loyal Fedayeen martyrs. Uday Hussein, leader of the Fedayeen, authorized a wave of terror attacks in London, Iran, and “self-ruled” areas of Iraq (meaning Kurdish-controlled territory) in May 1999. The Fedayeen were ordered “to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings).” One such operation was called “Blessed July.”

The document recounts explicit instructions for recruiting Fedayeen capable of carrying out these attacks. Martyrs are even reminded to use "death capsules" if "captured at the European fields"--an apparent order to commit suicide if caught. What ever came of the “Blessed July” operation or similar operations, if anything? We don’t know.

We do know, however, that the Fedayeen Saddam were trained alongside terrorists from throughout the Middle East. There are a number of unreleased documents that demonstrate that Saddam was training terrorists by the thousand. For example, a team of analysts working for the Joint Forces Command reviewed hundreds of Iraqi Intelligence documents and reported their findings in a report called the “Iraqi Perspectives Project, A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam’s Senior Leadership.” Here is what they found in the documents:

Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these training camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."

Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor describe similar documents in their new book Cobra II. They say that in March 2003 Saddam called back many of the terrorists his forces had trained. Some of the documents, they write, “show that the Iraqi Ministry of Defense coordinated border crossings with Syria and provided billeting, pay, and allowances and armaments for the influx of Syrians, Palestinians, and other fighters.” Paul Bremer writes in his book, My Year in Iraq, that he too saw Iraqi Intelligence documents that showed Saddam was planning on coordinating an insurgency with various jihadists.

All of this should make anyone who wants to argue that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism or al Qaeda pause. Instead, many current and former members of the U.S. intelligence community still contend that Saddam was disconnected from the global terrorist network.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
dis
ostrich_looking.gif
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Makes me laugh to see the Bush groupies flock to this stuff. "Look, look, we were right." :roll: I'll say again what I've said before:

If Bush had proof Saddam had WMDs he would go on television and present that proof to the American people. He hasn't done that. At this point, I don't think it makes a bit of difference. The American people have seen that the Emperor has no clothes and it's going to be very, very hard to convince them now that Bush is an honest, trustworthy man.

This article says very clearly, my emphasis:

"Joscelyn: Yes, we do. But first, a caveat. Since so few of the documents have been reviewed, it is difficult to say what the complete picture of Saddam’s activities will look like. We also know that a large number of documents and other pieces of media were destroyed as U.S. forces entered the country. Furthermore, the majority of the documents have not been authenticated. Great care should be exercised in analyzing these documents and we should always be wary of forgeries."
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
I copied all of the quote because I didn't want to hide anything. What are you trying to hide?

Read this next part over carefully, emphasis mine:
However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.

Dis, do you have any idea what “authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community” means? What part of authentic don’t you understand?

Now tell us, what DO you think of this information? Oh, yeah, I remember… “Bush lied”, isn’t that the mantra of the left and America hate-mongers like you?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Liberty Belle said:
I copied all of the quote because I didn't want to hide anything. What are you trying to hide?

Read this next part over carefully, emphasis mine:
However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.

Dis, do you have any idea what “authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community” means? What part of authentic don’t you understand?

Now tell us, what DO you think of this information? Oh, yeah, I remember… “Bush lied”, isn’t that the mantra of the left and America hate-mongers like you?

Bush did lie. He lied about needing a court order for a wiretap, all the while listening in on our phone conversations. He lied when he said no thought the levees in New Orelans wouldn't hold after he was briefed that they might fail. He lied when he said Congress voted to go to war in Iraq with the same intelligence information that he had. He lied when he blamed the Democrats for the failure of the recent Immigration Bill. He lied when he said Abramoff gave as much money to Dems as Republicans. I could go on and on and on.

However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.

What does that mean? "a startling view". That says nothing. Who's "startled?" You can read what you want into it, but it does not say that Saddam was involved with 9/11. It does not say Saddam had WMDs. When Bush has the proof that would support his reasons for invading Iraq, he'll go straight to the American people with it. He hasn't. Why? Because there is no such proof. And if they find it next year or the next, it still won't justify this war because he didn't have it before the war. That's why he lied to justify the war.

The Commander In Chief has the responsibility to the military in this country to be sure before he sends them off to die. Bush had no proof that Saddam had WMDs. The UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. They could have averted this war, if Bush hadn't ordered them out of the country so he could invade. You can't get around that.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Liberty Belle said:
I copied all of the quote because I didn't want to hide anything. What are you trying to hide?

Read this next part over carefully, emphasis mine:
However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.

Dis, do you have any idea what “authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community” means? What part of authentic don’t you understand?

Now tell us, what DO you think of this information? Oh, yeah, I remember… “Bush lied”, isn’t that the mantra of the left and America hate-mongers like you?

dis doesn't think. It's always just cut and paste liberal talking points that she recieves from the demo party. Somehow she got on the fax list. :wink:

I doubt dis has ever had an original thought. :p
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
BBJ said:
dis doesn't think. It's always just cut and paste liberal talking points that she recieves from the demo party. Somehow she got on the fax list. :wink:

I doubt dis has ever had an original thought. :p

We know how much credibility you have on this board, BBJ.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
BBJ said:
dis doesn't think. It's always just cut and paste liberal talking points that she recieves from the demo party. Somehow she got on the fax list. :wink:

I doubt dis has ever had an original thought. :p

We know how much credibility you have on this board, BBJ.

Yes we do and it is 100% equal to yours. :wink:
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
What is basically says is that Saddam and Bin Laden were buddys before 9-11. How come thats hard to understand Dis Fonda?


I am sure you will tell me if i am wrong, or even that i am right you will say i am wrong, but didnt Bush says we will go whereever terrorism is, and any country that harbors or assists the terrorist are in our cross hairs?
 

passin thru

Well-known member
The odd thing is that the whole HATE BUSH crowd bases their argument on that there is no connection. Since that is proven wrong and they still want to HATE BUSH they have to ignore these and numerous other factsso that they can keep on HATING BUSH.

THEIR WHOLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER...........AND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A LIFE JACKET. Too bad you have NONE
WRONG.jpg
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
#1 Disagreeable did aska valid question....IF all this is true WHY hasn't Bush got on TV with this information , especially since his numbers are in the crapper now?

#2 I didn't like Bush BEFORE 9-11 and the WAR...so mine is not a newly found dislike...I just don't like/trust the man and that'd not change, be he President or Fuller Brush Sales man.. ( sorry all you Fuller Brush Salespeople out there!!)

#3 I went to collge with a guy from Saudi Arabia. He was over here starting medical school. We had several classes together and become pretty good friends and we still keep in touch to this day. He has since moved back to Saudia Arabia and I later found out he was one of the 10,000 princes they have.

Anyway, my point is I asked him what he thought of the Saddam-binLaden connection. He said as far as he was concerned and his family, Saddam was looked down up by the Saudis as basically " the poor white trash" of the Middle East. No one really wanted to be associated with him as he was trouble. He-Saddam- was always a ' wanna-be' by no one would let him "play" with them as he was considered below standard.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
What is basically says is that Saddam and Bin Laden were buddys before 9-11. How come thats hard to understand Dis Fonda?

Where does it say that Saddam and Bin Laden were ever "buddys?" According to the 9/11 Commission, "The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."


and "It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq." Link below; my emphasis.

I am sure you will tell me if i am wrong, or even that i am right you will say i am wrong, but didnt Bush says we will go whereever terrorism is, and any country that harbors or assists the terrorist are in our cross hairs?

Yes, he said that. But he lies. Why would you believe anything he says? We didn't go into Iraq because there were terrorists there. There weren't. We didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. We went into Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam. That we could also get their oil supplies for this country was another plus. The problem with the scheme is their total incompetence and refusal to listen to professional soldiers who told them it would take more resources than they wanted to commit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
passin thru said:
The odd thing is that the whole HATE BUSH crowd bases their argument on that there is no connection. Since that is proven wrong and they still want to HATE BUSH they have to ignore these and numerous other factsso that they can keep on HATING BUSH.

What argument is based on "no connection." My argument against the Iraqi war is that Bush said Saddam had WMDs. There were no WMDs. You haven't shown that Saddam had any connection with 9/11. This little article that's been posted here certainly doesn't prove Saddam was involved with Bin Laden. But keep trying.

THEIR WHOLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER...........AND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A LIFE JACKET. Too bad you have NONE
WRONG.jpg

Don't need a life jacket. This doesn't prove a thing. The 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence investigation, the CIA, several government agencies have said "there is no proof that Saddam and bin Laden were conspiring together." Keep spinning, but you'll only get dizzy.

I'll say it again: When Bush has information that shows he was right on Iraq, he'll ring the bells and blow the whistles and get it out for Americans to see. That's not happening for a reason: there is no such information.
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
I really dont know if bush wanted their oil. I am sure his pals in texas do alot better with $70 oil than with $20 oil so i really dont think that had much to do with it.

So Dis Fonda, should we have sat back and waited until Saddam attacked us or our alies? You know as well as me it was only a matter of time before we would have had to take care of Saddam. So your main beef her is "there were no WMD's" Would it have been better, in your opinion, that we wait until he had them and could use them on us when we attack? I dont think so. I think you and all the extream left would have screamed to high heaven " we should have been there along time ago"
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
I really dont know if bush wanted their oil. I am sure his pals in texas do alot better with $70 oil than with $20 oil so i really dont think that had much to do with it.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. $70 oil is making Bush's oil buddies a lot richer than $20 oil, so how can you say that didn't have much to do with the invasion of Iraq?

So Dis Fonda, should we have sat back and waited until Saddam attacked us or our alies?

Saddam was in no position to attack anyone. You saw how his Army folded when we attacked that country.

You know as well as me it was only a matter of time before we would have had to take care of Saddam.

No, I don't know that. "we" didn't have to do anything.

So your main beef her is "there were no WMD's" Would it have been better, in your opinion, that we wait until he had them and could use them on us when we attack? I dont think so.

My main beef here is that the President of the United States lied, mislead, and tricked the Congress into declaring war on a country that was no threat to us. You want to keep defending this liar, go ahead. You can't deny he's lied. So you bury your head in the sand and pretend it's ok. Saddam had no WMDs, he had no WMD program. He was nowhere near being able to attack this or any other country. He was isolated in the region.

I think you and all the extream left would have screamed to high heaven " we should have been there along time ago"

Think what you want. But the facts are:There were no WMDs, there was no WMD program, Bush lied about them, he refused to listen to professional soliders who told Rumsfeld he needed more boots on the ground, there is civil war in Iraq, American troops are dying there almost every day, we're spending over a billion$$ a week in Iraq, the situation is worse this year than last, worse last year than the one before.
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
trying to become a pro like Dis Fonda on this cut and paste thing, cant get a hold of it!

Anyway, what i said is bush dont want their oil! DAAA You said bush wanted the war because he wanted their oil. If we had their oil, we would be paying $20, not the $70 his pals are getting rich on.
 
Top