The Shotgun Blog
Friday, March 24, 2006
Saddam Al Qaeda connection bubbling up
I’ve been waiting for this information to start hitting the mainstream media for over a damn week:
A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents are available for anyone to review but a large portion of the American media has not been rushing to report on any of this for the possibly obvious reason that maybe George Bush was right….
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Saddam Al Qaeda connection bubbling up:
Don't hold your breath waiting for El Cubos to admit they're wrong, Darcey.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-24 10:04:43 AM
The left won't care, they will still say that we are the bad people and the poor mussies are suffering because of our greed and oppression.
You know they will never let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-24 10:31:13 AM
Agreed - one thing for sure about the left; they aren't interested in facts. They have only one simple agenda - anti-Americanism and anti-Bush.
The Weekly Standard is posting comments on the newly released documents and the fact that they show a link of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. They also reveal support by Saddam Hussein for terrorism against the West - and in Iran and Iraq against..?? possibly moderate Iraqis who wanted democracy??
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-24 10:56:07 AM
so by that logic, because Osama met with a senior Iraq official it means Saddam was involved with Al Quaeda?
By that logic, the US was in bed with him as well, considering that Rumsfeld met with him personally. Does that make the US responsible for Iraqs gassing of the Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait?
Obviously Osama would try to see if he could work with Saddam, he knew Saddam was at Odds with the US and so was he. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." but that only applies if you actually don't have to be afraid of that "friend". and I don't think Saddam had any interest inviting militant Islams into his country.
Iraq was pretty much a religion free state. Religion is bad, they make people blow up things, not a good idea if you're a dictator. Why do you think China is trying to get rid of the Falung Gong?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-03-24 11:39:49 AM
You just made my point!
Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-03-24 12:02:00 PM
Snowrunner - you don't seem to understand it. Meeting with someone and working with someone are two different things.
The point is, that the released documentation shows that Iraqi officials and Bin Laden Al Qaeda officials were working together - something denied by Hussein's era.
Members of the so-called 'Supreme Council' of 'Global Jihad', include several Iraqi Shiite clerics, they include the Saudi Salman al-Ouda, whom Bin laden wanted broadcast in Iraq; they are led by al-Hawali, the infamous extremist Saudi Arabi cleric...who, by the way, sounds exactly like many of our sophist left (war is about oil, war is about occupation, confrontation of civilizations, etc).
Iraq was not a 'religion-free' state. It was and remains, Muslim. However, its political regime was not under the authority of the religion but under the direct authority of Saddam Hussein- who ignored religious ethics in his agenda.
Religion is not 'bad' per se. I'm an atheist but I don't view religion as bad; it doesn't 'make people blow up things'. That's silly. You can fall into any ideology and use that ideology as your Supreme Guide..and your excuse to 'blow up things'. It has nothing to do with religion.
The Falun Gong is a cult, not a religion. It's a totally irrational belief system, filled with superstition, apocalyptic scenarios and pure hogwash. The Chinese remain a strongly superstitious people and therefore, quite susceptible to a mass-mind-deadening cult based on superstition.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-24 12:15:43 PM
I see you still don't really can understand written text. Read again what I wrote, if you still don't get it, ask someone if they could explain it to you in simpler english.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-03-24 12:33:59 PM
"Iraq was pretty much a religion free state. Religion is bad, they make people blow up things, not a good idea if you're a dictator. Why do you think China is trying to get rid of the Falung Gong?"
Posted by: Snowrunner
That would be why Saddam changed the Iraqi flag in the Gulf War to read 'Allah is Great'. Oh, you didn't know that Saddam changed the Iraqi flag by adding a religious script, Snowrunner?
Gee, you must feel silly.
But Saddam was really religion blind in practice, why look at how Saddam filled key government and military positions with other Muslim sects and.....oh, wait.... he didn't do that at all! Saddam, who was a minority Sunni, filled all the key positions in his regime with Sunnis just like himself. Did I mention that Crazy Sammy is a Sunni too?
Having Sunnis in key military and government positions was one of the reasons why the coalition armies had to disband the Iraqi Army and find new people for administrative positions.
"I don't think Saddam had any interest inviting militant Islams into his country."
Posted by: Snowrunner
Well you're right about that Snowrunner. Wait, ha ha, you aren't right AT ALL. Saddam had the infamous Abu Nidal as his personal guest in Baghdad but we all forget about him because, like many people close to Saddam, the dictator had him shot.
You sure do talk crap, Snowrunner.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-24 12:34:13 PM
religion is bad for people who try to control masses. If you are a strong believer in something, chances are you listen more to those people than to anybody else. In that context, religion is bad.
The Shiite werne't part of the ruling class. They are the majority of the muslims IN Iraq, but weren't part of Saddams Regmine. So if Osama and his men met with the Shiite clergy then it was to overthrow Saddam, not work with him.
As for Falun Gong: What's the difference? Every religion can be dealt with as a cult. I personally don't care one way or the other, or asked differently: Do you consider the Falun Gong bad, and if so, why?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-03-24 12:37:45 PM
Snowrunner, I didn't say that Bin Laden met with the Shi'ite clergy. I think that the way I wrote my outline was unclear and you could indeed assume that's what I meant. I'm sorry about my lack of clarity.
Bin Laden met with members of Iraqi intelligence in 1995, to urge the broadcasting in Iraq of a radical Saudi cleric, Salman al-Ouda.
Then, in 2003, a new extremist organization was established, led by al-Hawali (a Saudi), and it included the Iraqi Shi'ites. Saddam was already overthrown. This group is involved in a 'jihad' against all and any of the west.
Check out Jihad TV by Dan Darling and other posts.
As for religion- I disagree that religion is, per se, 'bad'. I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean that I denigrate religion.
Religion is a belief system, obviously constructed by human beings (i.e., it's not a natural set of beliefs) and it explains, primarily, the reality of continuity within our experience of discontinuity. I disagree with the ideology of a metaphysical agent as the causality of this continuity - but, I certainly concur with the logic of continuity! Religion, which establishes that supreme metaphysical agent, relies on faith, not proof. But - so what? That doesn't mean religion harms a society. It only harms a society when it moves into the political and intellectual realm, and censors reason, logic, observation and contextual experience.
You can add a set of moral rules to your notion of a metaphysical agent, but, such moral rules do not need religion to substantiate them. They are valid within the functionality of a society. Our species is social; we cannot live isolate; it takes a long period of learning for a human being to be relatively independent, and no-one can ever be completely independent. Therefore, morality is a factor of that social interdependence. There is no possibility, ever, of a society functioning without a set of morals, or rules of proper behaviour. Whether you say these rules are authorized by The Supreme Being or are just Our Way or whatever - every society has normative rules of behaviour.
The Falun Gong is, in my view, a cult, not a religion. It's, as I'm sure you know, based around the very ancient belief in China that we function as 'energy fields' and the agenda is to maintain the balance of these fields. Actually, makes a lot of sense, particularly in matters of health.
But, it moved into a kind of supernatural realm, where the practioner could gain superior powers by the practice, because it is claimed that we humans are in contact with aliens, with gods, with demons. You can apparently cure diseases, control the future and so on.
That's where it moves out of any contact with reality, with science, with proof and into the supernatural. The Chinese are still a very superstitious people and Falun Gong, by, in a sense, legitimizing these superstitions about aliens, demons etc - moves them backwards rather than forwards.
There's even comments that humans are controlled by aliens..and so on. That kind of talk moves it into a totally irrational and illogical set of beliefs. And the elevation of the founder, Li, to some kind of supreme power. And, it moves into discussion about controlling 'degenerates' and so on. It's a cult.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-24 1:37:55 PM
I know a lot of people who are Falun Gong practitioners and they are the nicest people around. All they want to do is help and rescue their family members who are tortured in China. They're up against something BIG, the CCP. The practitioners have no fear and are handling their appeal for justice in a most peaceful manner. I'mm happy to help them out where I can. This is no joke-- the CCP want them crushed before the 2008 Olympics. To achieve their goal, the CCP propaganda machine has been working overtime to defame Falun Gong for 7 years 24/7. Some people still believe the hate propaganda. A little background info here--the CCP had called Falun Gong a cult initially in 1999 thinking that they could eradicate the FG in 3 months. Jiang Zemin legislated an anti-cult law that would justify the persecution of his own people. Many religious groups such as the Catholics, Protestants, and other QiGongs also got the same label in China. But, guess what...that strategy didn't work because Falun Gong is still Falun Gong. OK I admit it, it's hard to undersand the teachings of Falun Gong and it's not for everyone either. I'm told that it's easier to understand that QiGong stuff if you're Chinese. But what I get from it is the root of it all:'Truth-Compassion-Tolerance'. Now that doesn't sound like a bad thing to me at all. As for the rest of it, well they don't seem to make a big time of it. Most religions believe in some mystical stuff anyway and miracles, things like Jesus appearing here and there... all supernormal stuff. Martial arts is quite supernormal too. And about the theory of aliens on earth...well that has been around for decades now. Many people have seen UFOs--it's a fact of life. Have you seen 'The Matrix'...some believe in that and others don't. Religions are notorious to equate everything with good and evil, well it seems this one is no exception either. I really don't understand what the prob is!
Posted by: solange | 2006-03-24 2:53:37 PM
leftie-liberal Bush=ChimpyMcHaliburton people would not change their view unless there was a requisition signed by Saddam to OBL instructing him to fly planes into American buildings. Even then I'm sure they could come up with something to invalidate it - Bush lied, people died is a major tenet of their religion.
Just an aside to ET, (don't want to derail this comments blog to something totally off topic), if as you say religion is totally constructed by human beings, do you think that some really smart people made up the first five books of the Bible?
Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-03-24 3:04:10 PM
Did anyone click my link above about Saddam and Abu Nidal? It really is worth reading. Here it is.
Early proof that President Bush was right. No apologies then either.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-24 3:27:40 PM
Thanks for the link, Speller - it's a very good article and does indeed show the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. But- the left will continue to deny this reality.
ex-liberal - I doubt if any of the books of the old bible were written by one person. Those early books would have been a result of a collective 'knowledge development', developed over centuries, by a number of groups/tribes of people. After all, all societies have these 'tales of origin' and they are not the creation of one or even a few, indivduals. They are oral, not literate texts, and as such, operate within the 'rules of oral narrative development' (eg. Walter Ong)
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-24 4:03:24 PM
Thank you back, ET.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-24 6:26:21 PM
ET and Speller, \
It's a three-and-half-year-old article that relies on American intelligence sources and Donald Rumsfeld for its basic proposition that, "
It now transpires that Saddam was hoping to take advantage of Abu Nidal's presence in Baghdad to persuade him to use his considerable expertise in terrorist techniques to train al-Qa'eda fighters."
And this is a major breakthrough, a very good article? By what standard?
If you folks are willing to hang your hat on gruel as thin as this(and judging from this thread, you are) you're even more gullible than you seem. As far as I can see, the MSM (and the Daily Telegraph is very much the MSM) is only credible in your eyes as long as it supports your preconceived positions.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-24 9:32:19 PM
Saddam is a control freak. People like that do not deal with someone they cannot control. Saddam was totally consumed with controlling his own subjects. He certainly didn't have the time or the resources to develop WMDs. This was a simple man with simple needs, total control of his surroundings. His brutality was evidence of his lack of leadership skills.
He could not have even carried on a conversation with Osama. They were from different worlds. The connection makes no sense at all.
Posted by: dan | 2006-03-24 10:45:18 PM
Let's see, dan. They both spoke Arabic, they are both Arabs, they are both tribal, they are both Sunni Muslims. I think they could have conversed.
Saddam had both the time and resources to develop WMDs. Perhaps you have heard of the Oil for Food program?
Saddam already had Sarin and VX nerve gasses. He had and used mustard gas on the Kurds and Iranians. Saddam had aerial bombs, artillery shells, and rockets to deliver these chemical weapons with. His rocket program included rocket motor development which would give his medium range area rockets a range that violated the Gulf War Armistice. Moulds for rocket motors which were destroyed by previous UN Weapons Inspection teams had been rebuilt and repaired.
Yes, the date of my article link predates Operation Iraqi Freedom, but then as now, no amount of evidence can penetrate the delusions of BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome) suffers. Rest assured, before this war is over, people with BDS will be cured or quarantined.
Can't you El Cubos see the rollback of your little multicult socialist experiment? It has brought chaos, death, and destruction. The writing is on the wall.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-25 4:19:03 AM
Must it also be repeated? Newfound documents confirm old ties linking terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam | Mindy Belz
There they sit. Forty-eight thousand boxes containing thousands upon thousands of documents from the Saddam Hussein regime stacked variously to the heavens, entirely filling a desert warehouse where Central Command has its headquarters in Qatar—a message in a bottle writ as large as Wal-Mart. Three years since U.S. soldiers swept into Baghdad and began collecting pages out of Saddam's playbook on a regime allegedly involved in terrorism, in propagating weapons of mass destruction, and in plotting deadly war against the United States, that regime's written and audiotaped record remains largely unexamined, barely translated, and—until this month—grossly underestimated.
Faced with mounting pressure from Congress and the media to allow public access to some of the estimated millions of printed records and over 500 hours of audiotape, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte agreed March 16 to release select documents. Within days the directorate posted 125 separate items at its Foreign Military Studies Office website (fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm) and added to a roster of terrorism-related documents already available in a West Point database (www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp).
The documents are a hodgepodge, the detritus of ponderous recordkeeping from a dictatorship obsessed with management and control. (And these are the papers that didn't face the shredder as the 3rd Infantry Division moved toward Baghdad.) There are land surveys and high-level discussions of transferring property to tribal heads friendly to Saddam so that they, in turn, could transfer land to their cronies; audiotapes of Saddam discussing military strategy in the Iran-Iraq War; videotape of Saddam greeting various heads of state; a memo on cooperative exchange of military officers with Vietnam; Saddam talking about Iraqi folk songs; Saddam giving an interview to ABC; Saddam at a military air show, and so on.
Sorting wheat from chaff is "long, slow, and tedious, but this is what intel is," said Bill Tierney, an Army linguist who helped jumpstart the document dumping in February by publicizing 12 hours of Saddam on tape he had translated from Arabic to English. The recordings, released at the national Intelligence Summit in Washington last month, include Saddam discussing a previously undisclosed nuclear weapons program and promising in the mid-1990s that the United States would be visited in the future by "terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." This latest set of disclosures, Mr. Tierney told WORLD, "is a haystack. And there are definitely jewels hiding in it, but it is difficult to find them."
Many analysts blame the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency for stashing the documents in the desert while the president battles feverishly to close a credibility gap over his reasons for going to war. At the same time, House Intelligence Committee chair Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) had to introduce legislationcompelling the intelligence community to release documents before Mr. Negroponte would agree to it. But if the intelligence community is launching the public on a paper chase just to satisfy key lawmakers and a smattering of noisy experts like Mr. Tierney, important discoveries already are surfacing, anyway.
One file from 1987 consists of extensive letters between Iraq's military intelligence (or Mukhabarat) and Saddam Hussein, confirming for the first time that Saddam himself ordered chemical weapons attacks against villages in northern Iraq. Those attacks began on a few dozen villages in April 1987 but culminated in the worst attack, in March 1988, on Halabja, a town of 70,000 where 5,000 reportedly died from poison gas over three days. Overall, approximately 12,000 are believed to have died from the attacks, commonly attributed to orders from Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali."
One memo in the file informs the president that plans for chemical attack "have been readied. Weapons in Kurdish villages in the north and northeast are ready." It describes specific loads of sarin and mustard gas and prescribes targeted villages. It warns that "explosion of these chemicals will create clouds and the troops should not move before the clouds have settled." +
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-03-25 9:35:59 AM
Thanks rednecked Speller for all those great thoughts you have, you must spend days on the toilet seat thinking what to post next here so they the others do not forget you. No one can forget you but many they sure wish they could.
Posted by: James | 2006-03-25 10:13:36 AM
speaking of another saddam
There is a wealth of hiddens sins coming forth. So they have loads of skeletons in Ralph's government all while he was still pretending to be a honest, sober person and not rather an old drunken fool. He should in decency have resigned before his bad name becomes tarnished some more. A day after Klein's caucus ousted a senior cabinet minister with more decent leadership aspirations, The well-oiled ability of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's Conservatives to quell inner dissent showed his true dictatorial management approach. The rest of Canada laughs now at it all again. Keep up the good work Ralph, you are a real joker.
Posted by: Dann | 2006-03-25 10:28:26 AM
Fascists co-operating with each other to attack the West? That's shocking!
Fascists in this country insist on a distinction between al-Qaeda fascists and Ba'ath Party fascists so they can apologize for both separately, but as peaceful democratic people understand - the fascists are all under one big tent and none call themselves fascists. They like to call themselves religious or 'peace activist' or politically aware or some such stupid moniker - but never what they really are> Fascists.
Posted by: infidel | 2006-03-25 12:07:19 PM
Getting back to the original point of the thread:
While the US (and other) MSM may not wish to publicly validate so much as Bush's choice in neckware, IMHO their reluctance to so much as glance at those documents is primarily due to their realization that they are now totally and officially obsolete, and any effort to contradict the perfect storm of information that will be coming out of the internet will only kick more dirt into their grave.
.....and that information need not necessarily support or contradict Bush.
For most of the past ten years, the amount of information and opinion available on the Internet has increased exponentially, while newspaper circulations and network news ratings have been in a death spiral. (If you own stock in the NY Times, for example, I promise not to laugh when I offer my condolences.) All Dan Rather's clumsy attempt at forgery to create a news story and the public exposure of that sloppiness really represents is one of the last kicks of a long-dead body. I'm still trying to decide why the CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS axis keeps harkening back to Katrina, when their sorry display of hysterical misstatements, self-promotion and journalistic malfeasance turned them into a laughing stock, if anyone bothered to watch past the first few minutes of their histronics.
Throughout the past week's bleating from the MSM after being stuffed into their own hats during "that" White House press conference and then being schooled in their own house by a variety of other speakers, the refrain "Don't shoot the messenger" seems to have gained the most favor.
It's a waste of time and ammunition to shoot someone who has done the world-class job of destroying credibility and confidence that the Old Media has done for themselves.
Wait for the MSM to release the OIF papers?
Who needs THEM?
Posted by: DarnYank | 2006-03-25 1:16:07 PM
Couldn't agree with you more DarnYank, the shrillness and anti-Americanism coming from the far left MSM has only been matched by their ineptitude. The only people reading their gruel are the far left America haters (unfortunately that is many) and the moonbats who often post here.
Seeing the death spiral of the yahoos in question is a hopeful sign, and with any luck they will find the resting place they so richly deserve. As you mentioned, they have only themselves to blame.
You know they are going to ignore the facts, as they have since the beginning of the conflict, and before. They are as predicable as the rest of the BDS (thanks speller, that is a great one!) people, and just as despicable.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-25 2:17:44 PM
A few comments on the shrill bleatings about the imminent demise of the "far left MSM" (which I take it to mean any media that doesn't worship at the alter of W.):
1) I see from the story that it was ABC News that translated the documents. Last I looked, ABC News was very much part of the MSM.
2) If you're not happy with price of your NY
Times shares, I'm sure you can find someone willing to swap them even-up for shares in Hollinger, the Washington Times or, for that matter, a piece of the any number of ideological loss leaders who proffer heavily-subsidized views from the right.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-26 1:23:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.