No Connection Between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Only if you're ignorant of the facts!

[Angry White Man]

I am so sick and tired of hearing "There is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda!" because there is! Quite a few connections actually! Here are just A FEW:

• Malaysian intelligence in January 2000 took pictures of Ahmed Hikat Shakir, who was an Iraqi intelligence operative, attending key planning meetings with al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11th attacks.
• Iraqi intelligence documents obtained after the first Gulf War show bin Laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officers in 1992.
• Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and a critic of the Bush administration, wrote in his 2002 book "Through Our Enemies Eyes" that bin Laden "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum station."
• Clinton Justice Department attorney Patrick Fitzgerald prepared an indictment of bin Laden, in which he wrote "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and than on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq".
• Britain's leading left-liberal newspaper, the Guardian, reported in 1999 that Faruq al-Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Khandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda officers. He was "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
• In "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America", Stephen Hayes writes about captured Iraqi documents: "In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a 'trusted confidante' to Baghdad for sixteen days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al-Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA [the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency] has assessed those documents as authentic."
• Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi intelligence center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, which is a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden.
• A Paris-based center-left daily newspaper, Le Monde, reported on July 9th, 2005, that Ansar al-Islam "was founded in 2001 with the joint help of Saddam Hussein - who intended to use it against moderate Kurds - and al Qaeda, which hoped to find in Kurdistan a new location that would receive its members."
• An Associated Press reporter, Ravi Nessam, noted that satellite photos of "Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad.... show an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instructions, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert."
• Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, used a phony Iraqi passport to enter the United States
• Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 to remain at large during the Clinton Presidency. He fled to Iraq. US Forces discovered documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.
• 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, who was a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected from Iraq. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Did Iraq run al Qaeda, no, it didn't. But to say that it did not help or have any association to al Qaeda is a lie. Whether or not you believe President Bush should or should not have gone into Iraq is not the question here. The question is did Iraq have anything to do with al Qaeda, and the answer is a resounding YES IT DID!

If you would like a complete list of connections, which is 17 pages long, check out the new book by Richard Miniter, "Disinformation : 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror". A FANTASTIC read, full of eye-opening information!

 

[GoingNova]

I think I am going to have to pick up this book. Thanks Angry!

 

[bob_gray]

Your source forgot to read the 9/11 commission report. That would be that bilateral commission made up of equal parts Republicans and Democrats charged with investigating the terrorist attacks on the United States on Septemer 11, 2001. So who are we going to believe: the dully elected representatives of the American people or some guy (with an obvious agenda based on the language) who wrote a book. The choice is yours. I will quote the relevant passage from page 66 of the report which you can find in it's entirety here http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

 

[GoingNova]

Bob, only one problem, the 9-11 Commission, at least among political pundits, has since been shown to be a PARTISAN commission, that failed miserably. They did not even mention Able Danger. The lists that Angry provided are fairly detailed, and quite frankly, in my opinion, can not just be dismissed.

After looking at that list, the statement "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." means that they did not do their jobs. But again, they didn't even mention Able Danger, so...

 

[Angry White Man]

Your source forgot to read the 9/11 commission report.

The 9-11 Commission? You mean the 9-11 Commission that Congressman Weldon of PA mentioned on the floor of the House? <search the Congressional Record, Weldon, October 20, 2005>. It was a long speech, I will cut right to the JUICY PARTS:

"What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack."

BUT...

"I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over 1 year before 9/11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because we have been trying to get the story out about Able Danger and what really happened. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to rise tonight to tell you that as bad as this story is, and as bad as it is that the data was not transferred to the FBI, and as bad as it is that the 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story and referred to it as historically insignificant even though it was authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, even though Louis Freeh has now said it could have provided information to prevent the attack against us, the 9/11 Commission ignored it. "

That 9-11 Commission? Or do you mean the one that did not have access to all the documents that Sandy Berger stole?

The 9-11 Commission was a joke. There are 17 pages of facts in that book, I only listed some. Let's focus on just one:

Clinton Justice Department attorney Patrick Fitzgerald prepared an indictment of bin Laden, in which he wrote "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and than on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq".

How does the 9-11 Commission explain that? Simple, they didn't mention it. Nor, as Nova pointed out, did they mention Able Danger. Nor did they mention that Clinton was offered bin Laden by the Saudis.

The 9-11 Commission was a joke.

 

[smo1704]

I'm not going to bother trying to systematically refute each and every claim, as I simply do not have the information. Instead I will take a different angle. What would Saddam Hussein gain from aiding al-Queda? Just because they are both our enemies does not make them friends. For instance during the Iran-Iraq war when an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia seemed plausible, Ossama Bin Laden offered the services of the "mujahidin" to Saudi Arabia to protect against Iraq (Saudi Arabia then made enemies with al-Queda by instead opting to allow the U.S. to come to their aid).

"Bin Laden referred, in his speeches and recorded/written announcements, to Hussein (and the Baathists) as evil, a demon or devil worshipper, calling for his overthrow by the people of Iraq. Organizations such as Ansar al-Islam would be founded in Kurdish northern Iraq with the encouragement of Osama bin Laden.
Ansar al-Islam -- a reactionary, Taliban-like terrorist organization -- was established by dogmatized Muslim Kurdish fighters who had fought against the Russians in Afghanistan. In presenting the case for the invasion of Iraq to the United Nations the then Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Ansar al-Islam as one of the missing links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. This viewpoint has been dismissed by most commentators as Ansar al-Islam has a long history of violent actions against the Baathist regime. Indeed the organisation has received support from both Iran and Syria as it offered the dual attraction of providing an irritant to Saddam as well as a buttress against the aspirations of the larger secular Kurdish organisations for a wider Kurdish state." - Wikipedia.

In short, Ossama and Saddam were enemies. Saddam would have no reason to aid Ossama, especially if doing so could draw additional heat from the U.S. or U.N.

 

[GoingNova]

In short, Ossama and Saddam were enemies. Saddam would have no reason to aid Ossama, especially if doing so could draw additional heat from the U.S. or U.N.

That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but I am sorry, in my opinion, it is a very weak argument. Quite obviously, Saddam wasn't really concerned with "drawing heat from the U.S. or U.N.", because if he was so concerned about upsetting the U.S. or the U.N., he would have complied with all the U.N. directives.

I am getting that book, and reading it, but as far as I am concerned, the evidence presented here by Angry, in my opinion, OVERWHELMINGLY provides a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Hell, I would like someone to respond to the statement:

Clinton Justice Department attorney Patrick Fitzgerald prepared an indictment of bin Laden, in which he wrote "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and than on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq".

 

[Angry White Man]

In short, Ossama and Saddam were enemies. Saddam would have no reason to aid Ossama, especially if doing so could draw additional heat from the U.S. or U.N.

Page 123, "DISINFORMATION"

"Some skeptics still dismiss the emerging evidence of long-standing link between between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam and bin Laden did not like each other. <Angry White Man- that would be you smo! >

But self-interest can trump personal chemistry. There are many "Hitler-Stalin" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes, and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat that he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal since 1990 has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Iraq.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to have worked with Saddam is money <Angry White Man - "Bin Laden has a vast fortune and is able to finance terrorism out of his own pocket" is another myth that is debunked by the author in this book>. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 differences in pay between Egyptians and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Saddam adopted an increasingly Islamist pose after the 1991 Gulf War. At a Popular Islamic Conference in Iraq, one of Saddam's top aides, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, said: "We are blessed in this country for having the Islamic holy warrior Saddam Hussein as a leader, who is guiding the country in a religious holy war against the infidels and nonbelievers"

Since no one wants to touch the Clinton era indictment, how about number one on the list?

* Malaysian intelligence in January 2000 took pictures of Ahmed Hikat Shakir, who was an Iraqi intelligence operative, attending key planning meetings with al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11th attacks

Anyone care to take a shot at explaining that little ditty? It is not disputed that it took place, and it's purpose is also not disputed:

2000 al-Qaeda Summit

So, if there was "no connection", what was an Iraqi intelligence operative doing there? Perhaps he was catering the affair... I don't know.

17 pages of well documented linkings. Sorry, but an old quote comes to mind,​

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"

Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963), "Proper Studies", 1927​

Anyone?

 

[igotthemic]

someone did their homework

 

[jatkins]

Malaysian intelligence in January 2000 took pictures of Ahmed Hikat Shakir, who was an Iraqi intelligence operative, attending key planning meetings with al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11th attacks.

The author you're quoting appears to be overstating his case.
1) Malaysian intelligence did indeed take pictures of several participants of the 2000 Al Qaeda "summit," but Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was not among those photographed (San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/27/02; USA Today, 2/12/02; www.cooperativeresearch.org.)
2) While several documents and third party sources suggest that Shakir was at the meeting (Newsweek, 10/7/02; Australian, 12/24/02). The truth of this claim is still in dispute (AP, 10/2/02).
3) Mr. Shakir is not known to have ever been a member of the Iraqi government in any capacity, though he is of Iraqi nationality. He was hoped to be related to the Iraqi government by American intelligence, but nothing came of that hope (Newsweek 12/5/01).

Another thing to consider is that he was arrested by Jordan near the end of 2001 (Newsweek, 9/30/02). The United States apparently refused to take custody of him; the Newsweek article suggests that the US hoped Jordanian intelligence would interrogate Mr. Shakir in ways that the US could not, and share the results of their interrogation. Mr. Shakir is inexplicably released by Jordanian authorities on 9/17/2001.

Iraqi intelligence documents obtained after the first Gulf War show bin Laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officers in 1992.

This is pretty old news. Apparently a connection was made between certain Iraqi intelligence officials and Al Qaeda in which Al Qaeda asked for several things, including land for training sites. While the meeting was not openly hostile, apparently (according to the same documents you cite) a decision was reached within the Iraqi government not to respond to any of Al Qaeda's requests. The results of this meeting are the basis for your next two bullet-points.

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and a critic of the Bush administration, wrote in his 2002 book "Through Our Enemies Eyes" that bin Laden "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum station."

Khartoum is in Sudan, which is where the meeting above took place. The documents cited indicate that nothing came of it.

Clinton Justice Department attorney Patrick Fitzgerald prepared an indictment of bin Laden, in which he wrote "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and than on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq"

Yes, that's the kind of language that would be bandied about in any meeting between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. But again, the same documents used as the source of this information indicate that nothing came of this.

Britain's leading left-liberal newspaper, the Guardian, reported in 1999 that Faruq al-Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Khandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda officers. He was "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

Farouk Hijazi was Iraq's ambassador to Turkey. He was sent to Afghanistan to offer Osama Bin Laden asylum in Iraq immediately after the American cruise-missile attacks in 1998 (Guardian, 12/16/99; AP, 9/27/01). Bin Laden rejected the offer, apparently because he didn't want Al Qaeda to be under Hussein's thumb (Knight Ridder, 10/7/02; AP, 4/25/03). Mr. Hijazi has since been captured and interrogated, and has vehemently denied any cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda (USA Today, 7/13/03).

In "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America", Stephen Hayes writes about captured Iraqi documents: "In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a 'trusted confidante' to Baghdad for sixteen days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al-Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA [the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency] has assessed those documents as authentic."

I cannot find any evidence of any such document. That could suggest that it doesn't exist, or that it remains classified. Again, when one considers that Farouk's mission to Kandahar post-dates this one, and nothing comes of that meeting, one can reasonably surmise that the prior meeting was not productive either. In fact, one might conclude that the "trusted confidante" provided Bin Laden the information he needed to conclude that he should not accept Iraq's offer of Asylum. Again, this is speculation. The source document is not available.

Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi intelligence center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, which is a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden.

The United States has funded terrorist organizations. That does not link the United States to all of those organizations' activities, or to the activities of all of those organizations' donors. Intelligence agencies are notably opportunistic; they'll support organizations when their activities appear to further the agencies' objectives, then disown them when their goals diverge. All it shows is that the goals of the Ugandan group in question and the goals of Iraqi intelligence temporarily converged. And that's still one step removed from Al Qaeda, which may not even support the group.

A Paris-based center-left daily newspaper, Le Monde, reported on July 9th, 2005, that Ansar al-Islam "was founded in 2001 with the joint help of Saddam Hussein - who intended to use it against moderate Kurds - and al Qaeda, which hoped to find in Kurdistan a new location that would receive its members."

Firstly, Le Monde is only center-left when the presiding government is center-right. It's center-right when the presiding government is center-left. I'd suggest a better term for it might be "center-contrarian."
Secondly, this again only shows that the two groups were both donors to one organization. Moreover, their supposed goals for Ansar al-Islam conflict. Iraq sought to use the organization against the Kurds, while Al Qaeda sought to use it to bring Kurdish recruits into the fold. This conflict was noted in Foreign Affairs in May of 2003.

An Associated Press reporter, Ravi Nessam, noted that satellite photos of "Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad.... show an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instructions, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert."

I cannot find any evidence of this either. Let's assume it's true, just for the sake of argument. We train our soldiers in how to secure an aircraft we have forced to land, in how to secure trains, and in urban fighting scenarios. Why would it be strange that the Iraqis do too?

Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, used a phony Iraqi passport to enter the United States

If he were cooperating with the Iraqi government, why didn't he have a real Iraqi passport? That seems like evidence that they weren't in cahoots.

Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 to remain at large during the Clinton Presidency. He fled to Iraq. US Forces discovered documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.

That's not evidence of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That's evidence of how much Iraq hated the United States.

1998, Abbas al-Janabi, who was a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected from Iraq. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In 1998, when Al-Janabi defected, it appears that Iraq was indeed making overtures to Al Qaeda. But then, the information I've provided above suggests that nothing came of those meetings. Mr. Al-Janabi could not have known the outcome of those meetings which took place after his defection, and may not have known the outcome of any meeting which took place before. Furthermore, Mr. Al-Janabi's opinions of the Iraqi government were informed by its brutality to him and to his family. He may have overstated what he knew in an attempt to get the United States to step up its "regime change" strategy.

Did Iraq run al Qaeda, no, it didn't. But to say that it did not help or have any association to al Qaeda is a lie. Whether or not you believe President Bush should or should not have gone into Iraq is not the question here. The question is did Iraq have anything to do with al Qaeda, and the answer is a resounding YES IT DID!

Iraq had no ongoing relationship with Al Qaeda or its activities that is substantiated by the evidence. Every other country in the region--except for Israel--had clearer and more indisputable ties to the organization than did Iraq.

If you would like a complete list of connections, which is 17 pages long, check out the new book by Richard Miniter, "Disinformation : 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror". A FANTASTIC read, full of eye-opening information!

Mr. Miniter's work selects evidence very carefully, so as not to provide the reader with too much information. As I demonstrated with the examples above, any more than cursory reading of the documents in question--any analysis with any real depth--reveals just how weak the case was. Mr. Miniter leaves out just enough details to make the evidence seem conclusive, all the while overstating the importance of some findings, referencing the same events several times (in an effort to create the appearance of more connections), and occasionally just making stuff up. His work is already being criticized for its lack of scholarship, rigor, and depth, by conservatives and liberals alike.

 

[GoingNova]

1) Malaysian intelligence did indeed take pictures of several participants of the 2000 Al Qaeda "summit," but Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was not among those photographed (San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/27/02; USA Today, 2/12/02; www.cooperativeresearch.org.)
2) While several documents and third party sources suggest that Shakir was at the meeting (Newsweek, 10/7/02; Australian, 12/24/02). The truth of this claim is still in dispute (AP, 10/2/02).
3) Mr. Shakir is not known to have ever been a member of the Iraqi government in any capacity, though he is of Iraqi nationality. He was hoped to be related to the Iraqi government by American intelligence, but nothing came of that hope (Newsweek 12/5/01).

In 1), you say was not among those photographed, quoting San DiegoUnion-Tribune, 9/27/02; USA Today, 2/12/02; as proof. Then in 2) you say there are several documents and third party sources that suggest Shakir WAS at the meeting, but say the claims are still in dispute. Then you say that he is not known to be a member of the Iraqi government in any capacity. My questions are:

1. Was he known for sure NOT to be there, as you say in 1, or is it in dispute, as you say in 2? If it is in dispute, I would side with a government's intelligence agency, in this case Malaysia, before I would the San Diego Union-Tribune, USA Today, or Newsweek.
2. If he is a known Iraqi national, than how can you prove he was not part of Iraqi Intelligence? What do you need, a W-2 and a pay stub? Do we have the files of all Iraqi Intelligence Agents? My point is, in my opinion, the suspicion on the part of ANY Intelligence Agency outweighs the lack of concrete evidence. The assessment by the Malaysian Intelligence is good enough for me. The documents needed to prove someone works for an Intelligence Agency are not exactly easy to get. Some how I doubt that Iraq has a "Freedom of Information Act", and I bet you if you asked them for a list of their Intelligence Agents, they would probably say no.

The author you're quoting appears to be overstating his case.

I bought the book and read the chapter. The entire basis of the author's argument is that one can not say there were "no connections" between al Qaeda and Iraq.

This is pretty old news. Apparently a connection was made between certain Iraqi intelligence officials and Al Qaeda in which Al Qaeda asked for several things, including land for training sites. While the meeting was not openly hostile, apparently (according to the same documents you cite) a decision was reached within the Iraqi government not to respond to any of Al Qaeda's requests. The results of this meeting are the basis for your next two bullet-points.

Again, the fact that they met at all, in my opinion, constitutes cooperation. So, at the end of the meeting, they decided to "officially" say they are not going to cooperate. That means they didn't? Or does it mean they decided to leave a paper trail saying there was no cooperation, and did in fact cooperate? Who knows, but they had a meeting. Good enough for me.

Khartoum is in Sudan, which is where the meeting above took place. The documents cited indicate that nothing came of it.

So, you are saying that Iraq has to have all of it's intelligence offices in Iraq, and that they can not have an office in Sudan? Are all of the CIA offices are in the United States?

No documents were sited, the information came from Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA, and he said that bin Laden "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum station." Are you calling him a liar?

Yes, that's the kind of language that would be bandied about in any meeting between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. But again, the same documents used as the source of this information indicate that nothing came of this.

No, it says that Iraq and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate. And how do you know the source of this information? I don't recall the indictment listing it sources.

Farouk Hijazi was Iraq's ambassador to Turkey. He was sent to Afghanistan to offer Osama Bin Laden asylum in Iraq immediately after the American cruise-missile attacks in 1998 (Guardian, 12/16/99; AP, 9/27/01).

An offer from Iraq of asylum to bin Laden, but I thought there was no cooperation going on there?

Bin Laden rejected the offer, apparently because he didn't want Al Qaeda to be under Hussein's thumb (Knight Ridder, 10/7/02; AP, 4/25/03).

And just how exactly does one profess to know the reason why bin Laden rejected the offer? Did they ask him? I would venture to say he refused because the Cruise Missile attacks by Clinton, which some allege occurred with advance warning, did SQUAT to bin Laden! At that moment in time, why the hell would he leave Afghanistan, where he essentially was a king, and go to Iraq? He had nothing to fear from the Clinton Administration!

Mr. Hijazi has since been captured and interrogated, and has vehemently denied any cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda (USA Today, 7/13/03).

Well, ok, if he says there was no connection, I guess we should take him at his word. <rolls eyes>

I cannot find any evidence of any such document.

Because you could not find documents doesn't mean they do not exist, nor does it mean that a book researched and written on a particular subject is untrue. Until you find proof that the documents do not exist, or that they do, but were forged, or something to that matter, I am going to believe them to be true. Regardless of the outcome, once again, a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is established.

The United States has funded terrorist organizations. That does not link the United States to all of those organizations' activities, or to the activities of all of those organizations' donors. Intelligence agencies are notably opportunistic; they'll support organizations when their activities appear to further the agencies' objectives, then disown them when their goals diverge. All it shows is that the goals of the Ugandan group in question and the goals of Iraqi intelligence temporarily converged. And that's still one step removed from Al Qaeda, which may not even support the group.

Team A works with Team B. Enough so, that they are said to be "associated with one another". I send a check to Team A. That means I am indirectly helping Team B. The bottom line here is, Iraq helped to fund terrorism, specifically, a group that is KNOWN TO WORK WITH al Qaeda.

this again only shows that the two groups were both donors to one organization. Moreover, their supposed goals for Ansar al-Islam conflict. Iraq sought to use the organization against the Kurds, while Al Qaeda sought to use it to bring Kurdish recruits into the fold. This conflict was noted in Foreign Affairs in May of 2003.

I disagree. Iraq and al Qaeda both funding the same group establishes a working relationship.

I cannot find any evidence of this either. Let's assume it's true, just for the sake of argument. We train our soldiers in how to secure an aircraft we have forced to land, in how to secure trains, and in urban fighting scenarios. Why would it be strange that the Iraqis do too?

A reporter saw it, but you can also read about it HERE, from PBS.

Jatkins, you are a very smart person, are you really that naive? I mean, seriously, do you REALLY THINK that was NOT a terrorist training camp? Do you really think, for one second, that Iraq only trained it's Army for legitamite purposes in that camp? If you do, hey, well, we disagree. But me? I have no doubt whatsoever that was a Terrorist training camp.

That's not evidence of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That's evidence of how much Iraq hated the United States.

No Jatkins, it is evidence of Iraq helping al Qaeda. al Qaeda bombs the United States. Iraq says come to our country. If I commit murder, and you hide me in your house knowing full well I committed a murder and I am hiding from the law, isn't that a crime? Of course it is! How in the hell can you say this isn't? How can you say that this doesn't establish a relationship?

In 1998, when Al-Janabi defected, it appears that Iraq was indeed making overtures to Al Qaeda.

"Making overtures" is the same thing as trying to help them. Trying to help them is establishing a relationship with them.

But then, the information I've provided above suggests that nothing came of those meetings.

SUGGESTS nothing came from them. SUGGESTS, not proves. I can't say this enough times, the fact that Iraq OFFERED help to al Qaeda, regardless of whether al Qaeda took it or not, ESTABLISHES A TIE BETWEEN THE TWO. If there were no ties between the two, then none of these "OVERTURES" would have been possible.

Furthermore, Mr. Al-Janabi's opinions of the Iraqi government were informed by its brutality to him and to his family. He may have overstated what he knew in an attempt to get the United States to step up its "regime change" strategy.

Pure speculation.

Iraq had no ongoing relationship with Al Qaeda or its activities that is substantiated by the evidence. Every other country in the region--except for Israel--had clearer and more indisputable ties to the organization than did Iraq.

There are multiple proven cases of Iraq offering help to al Qaeda. You suggest that because there is no concrete evidence of al Qaeda accepting said assistance, there is no established tie between the two.

I suggest that the mere fact that Iraq offered assistance to al Qaeda, a known terrorist organization which has attacked the United States several times, is, IN AND OF ITSELF and COMPLETELY IREGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACCEPTED IT OR NOT, a tie between the two.

Mr. Miniter's work selects evidence very carefully, so as not to provide the reader with too much information. As I demonstrated with the examples above, any more than cursory reading of the documents in question--any analysis with any real depth--reveals just how weak the case was. Mr. Miniter leaves out just enough details to make the evidence seem conclusive, all the while overstating the importance of some findings, referencing the same events several times (in an effort to create the appearance of more connections), and occasionally just making stuff up. His work is already being criticized for its lack of scholarship, rigor, and depth, by conservatives and liberals alike.

Having read the chapter myself, I completely and utterly disagree. The last three paragraphs of the chapter are, as follows:

"No connection? Well, al Qaeda and the Iraqis certainly had a lot of meetings, money changed hands, some terrorist training seems to have occurred in Iraq, a lot of personnel -including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi- moved freely through the Iraqi police state. In other words, there are connections.

None of this means that Iraq ran al Qaeda or had foreknowledge of its most gruesome attacks. It certainly does not mean Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks or even knew about them in advance.

For there to be "no connection," between Iraq and al Qaeda, it would mean no meetings, no money, no training, and no movement of personnel. On the strength of much weaker evidence, Saudi Arabia is "connected" to al Qaeda. Why is Iraq the one nation given the benefit of the doubt?"


Having read the chapter, I completely agree with his position.

 

[Moderate One]

And Goingnova says I write a book in my posts.

Interesting topic of which I haven't kept up on the details on this particular issue. Al Qaeda issue was a minor issue to me, as a reason to enter the war. To be blunt, the removal of Saddam H. and his regime was enough reason for me. To my eyes, the war never ended based on Iraq's failure to comply with the terms that supposely ended the original war.

I can't argue one way or the other about this Al Qaeda connection since I never particular took an active interest in researching it.

 

[GoingNova]

And Goingnova says I write a book in my posts.

In fairness, I was responding to a book! I guess I could have simply said:

Offers of assistance from Iraq to al Qaeda, whether accepted or not, consitute a tie between the two.

How is that for terseness? :D

 

[jatkins]

1. Was he known for sure NOT to be there, as you say in 1, or is it in dispute, as you say in 2?

I never said that he was known for sure not to be there. I said that he was not among those photographed. Inasmuch as people can attend the meeting and not be photographed, I think that your conflation is ill-founded.

If it is in dispute, I would side with a government's intelligence agency, in this case Malaysia, before I would the San Diego Union-Tribune, USA Today, or Newsweek.

Those news organizations were citing the Malaysian intelligence report in their articles. They were conveying the very uncertainty that existed in Malaysia's dossier.

2. If he is a known Iraqi national, than how can you prove he was not part of Iraqi Intelligence?

I cannot prove a negative, and it's abusive to expect me to. I cannot prove that you are not a member of the CIA, but that doesn't mean that you are one. The burden of proof is on those asserting some connection. Furthermore, I provided analysis indicating where the author's mistake may have come from: American intelligence hoped to connect the man to Iraqi intelligence, but found no such connections.

What do you need, a W-2 and a pay stub? Do we have the files of all Iraqi Intelligence Agents? My point is, in my opinion, the suspicion on the part of ANY Intelligence Agency outweighs the lack of concrete evidence.

That's a pretty bizarre standard. I think evidence is the only valid grounds for suspicion of any kind. You'd think that some of the intelligence documents we've uncovered since the war would have mentioned him if he ever worked for the Iraqi government in any capacity at all, especially considering the documentation we have on others.

The assessment by the Malaysian Intelligence is good enough for me.

They never claimed that he was an Iraqi intelligence officer. They merely knew that he was on an international terrorist watch list and reported his likely attendance at a meeting. You're conflating the author's conclusions with those of Malaysian intelligence.

The documents needed to prove someone works for an Intelligence Agency are not exactly easy to get. Some how I doubt that Iraq has a "Freedom of Information Act", and I bet you if you asked them for a list of their Intelligence Agents, they would probably say no.

We invaded their country and raided their government buildings. We found tons of sensitive documents, including lists of intelligence employees and agents. We didn't ask permission. Your argument that the lack of evidence that he wasn't an agent proves that he was is patently ridiculous. What kind of evidence could I even conceivably cite to show what he wasn't?

I bought the book and read the chapter. The entire basis of the author's argument is that one can not say there were "no connections" between al Qaeda and Iraq.

That's not what the administration's rhetoric conveyed to the American people. An enormous number of people still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which is absurd. They never explicitly said that, but enough conflation of the two creates the same effect. The burden on the administration is to prove that Al Qaeda was uniquely linked to Iraq in such a way that a war against Iraq was justified to stop Al Qaeda. Inasmuch as nothing productive came of any of the contacts between the two that we know about, they haven't even come close to meeting that burden.

Again, the fact that they met at all, in my opinion, constitutes cooperation. So, at the end of the meeting, they decided to "officially" say they are not going to cooperate. That means they didn't? Or does it mean they decided to leave a paper trail saying there was no cooperation, and did in fact cooperate? Who knows, but they had a meeting. Good enough for me.

The CIA met with Osama Bin Laden to train his Mujahideen to fight communists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That does not mean that we are currently supporting, financing, or engaged in a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with Al Qaeda. See my analysis in my earlier post about the opportunism of intelligence agencies. And again, the lack of evidence of a non-cooperative relationship is not the same as evidence of a cooperative relationship.

So, you are saying that Iraq has to have all of it's intelligence offices in Iraq, and that they can not have an office in Sudan? Are all of the CIA offices are in the United States?

No, I'm just saying that the meeting from the bullet point I just addressed is the same as this one here. I'm not saying Iraqi intelligence wasn't there, I'm saying that nothing came of it.

No documents were sited, the information came from Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA, and he said that bin Laden "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum

station." Are you calling him a liar?

No, I'm saying that the documents cited by the sources I gave above indicate that nothing came of the meeting in Khartoum. I'm not saying that Mr. Scheuer is lying. I'm merely arguing that he left out that after Iraq "made a connection" no cooperation followed.

No, it says that Iraq and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate. And how do you know the source of this information? I don't recall the indictment listing it sources.

Because the source of the information, according to a couple of sources like cooperativeresearch, is the same as the sources I gave above, since they're discussing the same meeting. Intelligence analysts didn't give this contention nearly as much credence as Mr. Fitzgerald did, since they are not prosecutors.

An offer from Iraq of asylum to bin Laden, but I thought there was no cooperation going on there?

They didn't cooperate. They offered to cooperate, and Bin Laden rejected that offer.

And just how exactly does one profess to know the reason why bin Laden rejected the offer?

They asked Mr. Hijazi, who we did capture. I assume he gave us the reason Bin Laden gave him, which may or may not be the real reason, but I don't see how a different reason would win you any points.

I would venture to say he refused because the Cruise Missile attacks by Clinton, which some allege occurred with advance warning, did SQUAT to bin Laden! At that moment in time, why the hell would he leave

Afghanistan, where he essentially was a king, and go to Iraq? He had nothing to fear from the Clinton Administration!

I can only tell you what Mr. Hijazi told American officials.

Well, ok, if he says there was no connection, I guess we should take him at his word. <rolls eyes>

His regime was toppled. He has a pretty darn good reason to cooperate with the authorities. It would seem like a really good idea to tell them whatever they want to hear, and he certainly doesn't have any reason to lie. Even then, I'm not staking my entire case on his credibility; I'm merely stating that the people in question, the intelligence involved, and the agencies about which we are speaking do not corroborate your author's conclusions.

Because you could not find documents doesn't mean they do not exist, nor does it mean that a book researched and written on a particular subject is untrue. Until you find proof that the documents do not exist, or that they do, but were forged, or something to that matter, I am going to believe them to be true.

That's your prerogative, but again, I cannot prove a negative. I cannot provet hat something does not exist, and I can't prove that something was forged if I can't find it. Perhaps there is a reference section to his book? If you could give me a complete reference (source, date, author, year), I could try again. Maybe you misspelled a name or something?

Regardless of the outcome, once again, a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is established.

Except for the, you know, working part.

Team A works with Team B. Enough so, that they are said to be "associated with one another". I send a check to Team A. That means I am indirectly helping Team B. The bottom line here is, Iraq helped to fund terrorism, specifically, a group that is KNOWN TO WORK WITH al Qaeda.

By this standard every intelligence agency on the planet has worked with Al Qaeda. And the United States of America supported the genocide in Rwanda (we gave money to the Rwandan government just a few months before the genocide). And also the genocide in Sudan. And the Taliban, since we gave money to them in 2001. You're merely reiterating the very fallacy I debunked using symbolic logic terminology, without addressing my analysis substantively.

I disagree. Iraq and al Qaeda both funding the same group establishes a working relationship.

You're not addressing my analysis about the opportunism of intelligence agencies and goal convergence.

A reporter saw it, but you can also read about it HERE, from PBS.

Jatkins, you are a very smart person, are you really that naive? I mean, seriously, do you REALLY THINK that was NOT a terrorist training camp? Do you really think, for one second, that Iraq only trained it's Army for legitamite purposes in that camp? If you do, hey, well, we disagree. But me? I have no doubt whatsoever that was a Terrorist training camp.

I can tell you, then, that the United States Army has training facilities that would look to you very much like terrorist training camps. Moreover, this doesn't even come close to saying anything about Al Qaeda.

No Jatkins, it is evidence of Iraq helping al Qaeda. al Qaeda bombs the United States. Iraq says come to our country. If I commit murder, and you hide me in your house knowing full well I committed a murder and I am hiding from the law, isn't that a crime? Of course it is! How in the hell can you say this isn't? How can you say that this doesn't establish a relationship?

It doesn't establish a working relationship, and it's not "Al Qaeda," it's one member of the organization. It may be a crime, but then, every country in the region (except Israel) has harbored known terrorist. Syria and Jordan were both harboring members of Al Qaeda. Remember, the burden on the government was to show that Iraq was uniquely connected to Al Qaeda in a way which justified its invasion.

"Making overtures" is the same thing as trying to help them. Trying to help them is establishing a relationship with them.

Failing to help them is not maintaining a relationship, though. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?

SUGGESTS nothing came from them. SUGGESTS, not proves. I can't say this enough times, the fact that Iraq OFFERED help to al Qaeda, regardless of whether al Qaeda took it or not, ESTABLISHES A TIE BETWEEN THE TWO. If there were no ties between the two, then none of these "OVERTURES" would have been possible.

I'm using the term "suggests" because I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize that even the best intelligence doesn't provide absolute certainty about things. I'm also arguing that that is inconsistent with the narrative that Iraq was uniquely involved with Al Qaeda, making it the only place to effectively combat them.

Pure speculation.

Which does not differentiate it from your author's spurious conclusions.

There are multiple proven cases of Iraq offering help to al Qaeda. You suggest that because there is no concrete evidence of al Qaeda accepting said assistance, there is no established tie between the two.

By multiple, you mean two. There was one case of Al Qaeda asking for help and not getting it (which doesn't count as Iraq offering help), one case of Iraq offering help and being rebuffed, and one case of Iraq offering asylum to a single member of the organization who has not been linked to any terrorist activity since. That's a pretty weak case for Iraq having a close working relationship with Al Qaeda.

I suggest that the mere fact that Iraq offered assistance to al Qaeda, a known terrorist organization which has attacked the United States several times, is, IN AND OF ITSELF and COMPLETELY IREGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACCEPTED IT OR NOT, a tie between the two.

By which standard we should invade Great Britain, which has provided funding and assistance to the regimes and several terrorist groups in the region on multiple occasions. And that's actually material support, so I guess Britain is actually worse. I use Britain as an example because if I used the United States, I'd be in the logically awkward position of saying that we should invade ourselves.

Having read the chapter myself, I completely and utterly disagree. The last three paragraphs of the chapter are, as follows:

"No connection? Well, al Qaeda and the Iraqis certainly had a lot of meetings, money changed hands, some terrorist training seems to have occurred in Iraq, a lot of personnel -including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi- moved freely through the Iraqi police state. In other words, there are connections.

But not unique connections sufficient to justify the invasion of Iraq. Also, I'd like to see the citation of the "money changing hands" thing so I can investigate it on my own.

None of this means that Iraq ran al Qaeda or had foreknowledge of its most gruesome attacks. It certainly does not mean Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks or even knew about them in advance.

And yet people somehow got that impression from Administration rhetoric. That's odd.

For there to be "no connection," between Iraq and al Qaeda, it would mean no meetings, no money, no training, and no movement of personnel. On the strength of much weaker evidence, Saudi Arabia is "connected" to al Qaeda. Why is Iraq the one nation given the benefit of the doubt?"

Because I'm not one of those people saying that there is no connection. I'm saying that Iraq's connection to Al Qaeda is about ten times weaker than Syria's, then Sudan's, then Jordan's, or than Saudi Arabia's. It cannot, thus, be used as a justification for the invasion.

Having read the chapter, I completely agree with his position.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[GoingNova]

You're entitled to your opinion.

As are you my friend, as are you.

I can best sum up my position this way: The fact that Iraq offered help to al Qaeda, in my opinion, was enough to invade and remove Saddam from power. Period.

I believe in the "If you help my enemy, you are just as bad as my enemy" doctrine, particularly when we are talking about a war against organizations, and not countries per se. The War on Terror is an extremely complicated thing. I wish it was easy as "Country X Attacked us, we attack Country X", but it is not. What we have is organizations attacking us, and in my opinion, any country that wants to help these organizations is fair game. If you offer assistance to someone who will intentionally blow up a school bus, then in my opinion, you are just as bad as they are, and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no question that Iraq OFFERED help to members of al Qaeda. That is good enough for me.

Would I have chose Iraq first? I am not sure. Do I think the President had valid reasons and legal justification to choose Iraq? Absolutely. Do I deeply resent the media undermining the war? Yes I do, but that is another topic.

 

[jatkins]

Happily ensconced in the protection afforded us by our status as the world's only remaining superpower, the United States has forgotten what it means to be a responsible member of a community of nations. The idea of a "legal justification for war" must be predicated upon some conception of international law that we respect and abide by. If it is illegal and unethical to support terrorist organizations when their goals converge with those of our own intelligence agencies, then we committed an illegal and unethical act when we funded and supported the mujahideen under Bin Laden when they were terrorizing the Soviet Union. The fact that the Soviet Union could not enact reprisal does not make our act right or even valid, if we believe in any standard of "law" transcending our own self-interest.

Using Al Qaeda as a justification for the war in Iraq was misleading, because it conflated September 11th and the emotions connected thereto with a war against people completely unrelated to that act. Suggesting that Iraq was uniquely (by regional standards) connected to Al Qaeda was, at the very least, misleading. We can find no real evidence for material support, so Iraq's support of Bin Laden wasn't even as clear as ours was. We cannot claim it is just to hold Iraq responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda when we refuse to hold ourselves to the same standard, especially when Iraq's support was far more ambiguous than our own.

The intelligence was weak, certainly not enough to support a massive invasion that would necessitate an indefinite occupation. The national security arguments can be made more strongly about other countries in the region: WMDs in Iran, terrorism in Syria. The moral argument is a non-starter because of its massive hypocrisy. The reasons they gave for this war are wholly insufficient to support their policy. That leads me to believe that either they failed to critically analyze their position, and so brought us into a war without thinking it through, or they had other reasons they aren't comfortable with giving the American people. Either way, I don't want these people in charge of my country after the next election. Given the Republicans' proclivity to keep the same people around from administration to administration, that means voting for anybody who can beat them. I would rather vote for a Democrat who disagrees with me on spending policy, trade, the role of the UN, the importance of genetically modified foods, the value of corporate science, the value of the free market and the size of government than vote for a Republican administration that will screw up or lie to me about national security. And even if Democrats are likely to do that too, the fact that the Democrats tend to change around advisors from administration to administration means that at least I have a chance of different results with them. A definition of insanity is trying the same things under the same conditions and expecting different results; I will not be voting Republican this time.

 

[DeadCode]

Forget about whether and where Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was photographed at the al Qaeda summit itself...

In fall of 1999, Shakir began a job as a special assistant to VIPs at the airport in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. Although Shakir worked for the airlines, his schedule was dictated by the Iraqi Embassy, which, through a former Iraqi intelligence officer named Ra'ad al Mudaris, got him the job.

On January 5, 2000, Shakir was assigned to escort a recent arrival through immigration at the airport, a man named Khalid al Mihdhar, who would go on to hijack one of the planes on 9/11.

Whether Shakir was definitively at the meeting or not, he greeted and escorted Mihdhar to a waiting car, and then he himself got in as well. The terrorist summit ended January 8, 2000. Shakir reported to work for each of the two days after the meeting, and then never again.

When Shakir was arrested September 17, 2001 by authorities in Qatar, he had the contact information for Musab and Abdul Rahman Yasin, two of the plotters of the original World Trade Center attack in 1993. He also had the contact information for Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, as well as the number of the highest ranking Iraqi member of al Qaeda, a man named Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim. According to al Qaeda informants, Salim maintained a good relationship with Saddam's intelligence service.

Jatkins says that Shakir was "inexplicably released by Jordanian authorities." There actually is an explanation for his release--Saddam Hussein's government pressured the Jordanians, with a combination of incentives and threats to free Shakir, which they did in January of 2002. He returned to Baghdad.

Abdul Rahman Yasin and Shakir are both Iraqis and were supported and provided financing and safe haven by Saddam Hussein up until the Coalition attack in March of 2003. And yet, the names of the Yasin brothers and Shakir do not appear among the 172 names listed in Appendix B of the 9/11 Commission report. Shakir's name shows up only in two unrelated footnotes.

The 9/11 Commission had all of this information at its disposal. So one might ask the question, why would they fail to mention Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted his role in the first World Trade Center attack despite naming no fewer than 5 of his accomplices? Why would they fail to mention Shakir, despite all of the information above?

Because they were Iraqis--and the 9/11 Commission tried to do its darnedest to leave Iraq out of it.

Disclaimer: I parapharased (practically plagiarized ) everything here from an article written by Stephen Hayes. If anyone is interested in the full article, which provides sources, and goes into much, much greater detail, please let me know.

 

[DeadCode]

Jatkins, you're way off the mark--you're erasing over a decade's worth of history. Speaking of forgetting "what it means to be a responsible member of the community of nations"...

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously--let me say that again, unanimously--for Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in material breach of its international obligations over the previous 16 resolutions in 12 years and offered "serious consequences" (U.N.-speak for military intervention) if Iraq continued to violate its responsibilities.

Iraq flagrantly violated that resolution like it did all the others. All Saddam Hussein had to do was allow the weapons inspectors to do their job--like a responsible member of the community of nations that had been ordered to do so with 17 resolutions--and there was no possible way this war would've happened.

Possible al Qaeda involvement with Iraq (which I believe exists, read above) was at most a very minor detail in the case for liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. It took 12 years of diplomacy and approximately 3 weeks of war to do that.

 

[Guest]

I don't care what they say officially or unofficially but their is a good chance they are linked.

 

[GoingNova]

Using Al Qaeda as a justification for the war in Iraq was misleading, because it conflated September 11th and the emotions connected thereto with a war against people completely unrelated to that act.

Al Qaeda was never the sole justification for the war in Iraq. It was but one of a long litany of reasons. The author's contentions are, that to defintively say that there were no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda is false. He provides a protracted roll call of incidents (17 pages to be exact) from which he derived his conclusion. It is, in my opinion, a presise, conslusive list, and proves well beyond a reasonable doubt, that Iraq had SOME SORT OF connection to al Qaeda.

We cannot claim it is just to hold Iraq responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda when we refuse to hold ourselves to the same standard, especially when Iraq's support was far more ambiguous than our own.

See now Jatkins, you should really buy this book, or at the least borrow it from the library: Myth #1 : Bin Laden was trained or funded by the CIA

The long and short of it was, the CIA funded the "home grown" mujihideen Afghans, that is to say, Arabs born in Afghanistan and fighting for their country. Bin Laden was a "Arab Afghan", that is to say, an Arab not born in Afghanistan, who came to the country to fight the Soviets. The mujihideen were financed by the United States through Pakistan's intelligence service, while Bin Laden was funded by Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Arab world. Among Arabs, there is a HUGE difference.

The fact is, bin Laden himself said, when asked in 1993 by Robert Fisk (a notoriously Anti-American reporter from the Independent, in London) directly about American assistance during the 1980's anti-Soviet war, "Personally,neither I nor any of my brothers say evidence of American help" in Afghanistan.

Later, in 1996, when Fisk interviewed him again, asking, "Did not the Americans support the mujihideen's war against the Soviets", bin Laden responded with, "We were never at any time friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans support Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."

In any event, the book is really good. It does give a full list of sources, leaving the reader to verify its statements. Seriously Jatkins, you should at least flip through it.