Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
Case Closed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)
Well I guess if the President "alluded" to anything, he might have had good reason too. lol
LB Lex
11-15-03, 09:29 PM
I was going to do a nice write-up on this, but you beat me to it. It shows that Iraq has ties with Al quada and Bin Laden dating back to the early 1990s.
Vegassc400
11-19-03, 01:59 AM
Wow. This post has been up 4 days. Where are the resident Bush haters and anti-war guys to chime in? We may never find the WMD's but at least we have proof of the Saddam/Bin Laden link. Do we need anymore reason to blow that crazy bastard up?
stckyfngz
11-19-03, 02:25 AM
I have concerns that the article is written by the Weakly Standard and a "leak" from the white house
people on the right complain about propaganda from the NY times and your proof is an article from the Weekly Standard? Hell even Drudge knew to get this off his website as quick as possible. Only NewsMax kept it up.
how come a secondary source hasn't confirmed the story?
why hasn't the White House commented on this? Because it goes against what they have been saying all along
the President said in his own words "I can't make the link between Saddam and 9/11" so either he is ignorant, lying or this is a false truth
here's the President in his own words talking about the connection between 9/11 on Al Qaeda
this is from the White House's OWN WEBSITE
The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html)
scroll down to find GW answer the question:
Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 31, 2003
President's Remarks
President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair
Remarks by the President and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
The Cross Hall
4:12 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome Tony Blair back to the White House. We just had a wide-ranging discussion on a lot of issues. I appreciate my friend's commitment to peace and security. I appreciate his vision. I appreciate his willingness to lead. Most importantly, I appreciate his understanding that after September the 11th, 2001, the world changed; that we face a common enemy -- terrorists willing to kill innocent lives; that we now recognize that threats which gather in remote regions of the world must be dealt with before others lose their lives.
Tony Blair is a friend. He's a friend of the American people, he's a friend of mine. I trust his judgment and I appreciate his wisdom.
Welcome.
THE PRIME MINISTER: First of all, can I say how delighted I am to be back in the White House and to see President Bush. And as he's just described to you, we had an excellent discussion, covering all the key issues of the day. And I would like to praise his leadership in the world since September the 11th, particularly, on what I think are the two key issues that face our world today -- which are issues of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And I think both of those issues come together because they threaten the peace and the order and the stability of the world.
And what is essential is that in every respect, in every way that we can we mobilize international support and the international community, in order to make sure that these twin threats that the world faces are dealt with. And I have no doubt at all that we can deal with them. But we should realize those two threats -- terrorism, weapons of mass destruction -- are not different, they're linked. And dealing with both of them is essential for the future peace and security and prosperity of the world.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Fournier. Here's what we're going to do. I will call upon a reporter. The Prime Minister will call upon a reporter. And we'll do this three different times. Start with you.
Q Thank you, sir. First, quickly to the Prime Minister, did you ask President Bush to secure a second U.N. resolution and to give the inspectors more time? And, President Bush, the U.N. says -- the U.N. inspectors say Saddam is not complying, you say Saddam is not complying, why wait a matter of weeks? What's -- why hold up on the decision?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, you violated the two-question rule -- as usual. He's had a bad habit of this. I'll start.
Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said and the Prime Minister has constantly said this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.
THE PRIME MINISTER: The whole point about the present situation is that when President Bush made his speech to the United Nations, when we went down the United Nations route, we passed Resolution 1441. And I think it really repays reading that, because we said very clearly that Saddam had what we said was a final opportunity to disarm, and that he had to cooperate fully in every respect with the U.N. weapons inspectors.
As Dr. Blix said in his report to the Security Council earlier this week, he's not doing that. And therefore, what is important is that the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable. And the reason why I believe that it will do that is precisely because in the original Resolution 1441, we made it clear that failure to disarm would lead to serious consequences.
So this is a test for the international community. It's not just a test for the United States or for Britain. It's a test for the international community, too. And the judgment has to be, at the present time, that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors, and therefore is in breach of the U.N. resolution. And that's why time is running out.
Andy.
Q A question for the President, if I may. What is the status, in your view, of any second resolution? Is it something that you think it's worth spending time and energy trying to assemble and, if so, why?
THE PRESIDENT: First, let me reiterate what I just said. This is a matter of weeks, not months. Any attempt to drag the process on for months will be resisted by the United States. And as I understand the Prime Minister -- I'm loath to put words in his mouth -- but he's also said weeks, not months.
Secondly, I want to remind you, I was the guy that went to the United Nations in the first place. I said, why don't we come together as a world to resolve this issue, once and for all. Why doesn't the United Nations stand up as a body and show the world that it has got the capacity to keep the peace.
So, first of all, in answer to one part of your question, this just needs to be resolved quickly. Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution. And Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.
Steve.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, is Secretary Powell going to provide the undeniable proof of Iraq's guilt that so many critics are calling for?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all due in modesty, I thought I did a pretty good job myself of making it clear that he's not disarming and why he should disarm. Secretary Powell will make a strong case about the danger of an armed Saddam Hussein. He will make it clear that Saddam Hussein is fooling the world, or trying to fool the world. He will make it clear that Saddam is a menace to peace in his own neighborhood. He will also talk about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody else who loves freedom.
As the Prime Minister says, the war on terror is not confined to just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror includes people who are willing to train and to equip organizations such as al Qaeda.
See, the strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind. Colin Powell will continue making that case to the American people and the world at the United Nations.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
Q Mr. President and Prime Minister, if I could, sir, the arms inspectors made their report on Monday this week. You've both made clear that it's a question of weeks, not months. And here we are at the end of the week and the Iraqis are suddenly inviting the arms inspectors back to Baghdad for further consultations. Could I ask both of you what you make of that?
THE PRESIDENT: Let's see if I can be polite. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to learn how to deceive, and I would view this as more deception on his part. He expects to be able to convince 108 inspectors that he is open-minded. The only way that he can show that he is truly a peaceful man is to not negotiate with inspectors, is not to string the inspectors along, but to disarm in front of inspectors. We know what a disarmed regime looks like. We know what it means to disarm. There's no negotiations. The idea of calling inspectors in to negotiate is a charade. If he is going to disarm, he must start disarming. That's the only thing he needs to talk to the inspectors about, is, here, I'm disarming.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That's absolutely right. If you look back at the history of this, for 12 years, he's played these games. And that's why it's so important to realize what the U.N. inspectors were put back in to do. The U.N. inspectors -- and this is the crucial point, because it's on this basis that the whole issue of the U.N. authority rests -- the U.N. inspectors did not go back into Iraq to play a game of hide-and-seek with Saddam. They didn't go back in as a detective agency. They went back in under an authority that said that they had to cooperate fully, in every respect: the interview of witnesses, not just access to sites; honest, transparent declarations in the material they had. They're not doing that.
Now, why are they calling back the inspectors? I think it's fairly obvious. It's because as the pressure grows, they want to play the same games as they've been playing all the way through. That's why it's important we hold to the path that we've set out. They have to disarm. They have to cooperate with the inspectors. They're not doing it. If they don't do it through the U.N. route, then they will have to be disarmed by force.
Nate.
Q Mr. President, an account of the White House after 9/11 says that you ordered invasion plans for Iraq six days after September the 11th -- Bob Woodward's account. Isn't it the case that you have always intended war on Iraq, and that international diplomacy is a charade in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned.
I've told you the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we're vulnerable to attack. And the worst form of attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people, or the worst attack could come when somebody uses weapons of mass destruction on our friends in Great Britain.
Recently, Tony Blair's government routed out a poison plot. It should say to the people of Great Britain, there is a present danger, that weapons of mass destruction are a danger to people who love freedom. I want to congratulate you on your fabulous job of using your intelligence and your law enforcement to protect the people of Great Britain.
Today, Italy rounded up yet another cell of people who are willing to use weapons of mass destruction on those of us who love freedom.
And so, no, quite the contrary. My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now realize the stakes. I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. And I will do that.
Thank you all very much.
END 4:25 P.M. EST
LB Lex
11-19-03, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by stckyfngz
IWhy hasn't the White House commented on this? Because it goes against what they have been saying all along
The President said in his own words "I can't make the link between Saddam and 9/11" so either he is ignorant, lying or this is a false truth
The memo was talking about Saddam's links to terror groups, not about Saddam's links to the 9/11 bombing. So, if Bush keeps saying he can't make a link to 9/11 and the memo talks about Saddam's links to terror groups and mentions nothing of Saddam's link to 9/11, it looks like there's consistency.
stckyfngz
11-19-03, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
The memo was talking about Saddam's links to terror groups, not about Saddam's links to the 9/11 bombing. So, if Bush keeps saying he can't make a link to 9/11 and the memo talks about Saddam's links to terror groups and mentions nothing of Saddam's link to 9/11, it looks like there's consistency.
if this is true, then it helps Bush, he should be talking about it, acknowledging it, but he isn't
look it's written by the Weekly Standard a very right-wing group so I'll take the news with a grain of salt
2Lexus430s
11-19-03, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by stckyfngz
if this is true, then it helps Bush, he should be talking about it, acknowledging it, but he isn't
look it's written by the Weekly Standard a very right-wing group so I'll take the news with a grain of salt
Its still factual.. Even the Democrats won't call it false.. Much of the information on the memo is composed by a Democrat. The information on the memo has be validated by several sources.. The weekly standard is just the first to release it.
stckyfngz
12-12-03, 03:21 PM
How true is this?
IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 15, 2003
DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, from Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the department to provide the reports from the intelligence community to which he referred in his testimony before the committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the intelligence community.
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.
DoD News (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html)
here's a Newsweek rebuttal, by no means the word of god either
Case decidedly not closed (http://www.msnbc.com/news/995706.asp?)
and finally here's the Weekly Standards rebuttal...drama
Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp)