home

In other news . . . Saddam Was Not Cooperating With Al Qaida

For the 'You don't say?' file:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

In other news, Dick Cheney is still lying about it:

Yesterday, Cheney, in an interview with Rush Limbaugh, again touted a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, saying:
...remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated . . . to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq... This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
. . . The three distortions: Zarqawi did not organize operations for Al Qaeda prior to the invasion, in fact, he did not affiliate himself with al Qaeda until 2004; prior to the 2003 invasion, he was in the northern Kurdish portion of Iraq, outside of Saddam Hussein's control, not Baghdad; and there's no evidence of collusion between Zarqawi and Hussein.
< The GOP Plan To Never End The Iraq Debacle | Equal vs. Splenda: The Lawsuit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And we ARE cooperating with terrorists (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:12:04 AM EST
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    Our support of MEK

    Parent
    Over at TPM Muckraker (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by baba durag on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:32:23 AM EST
    They're smiling over the rare "two-fer" we got yesterday.  Cheney repeating the lies on the same day that they are refuted.  Thank you Carl Levin: for requesting the declassification, and then making the doc's public.

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002961.php

    oops (none / 0) (#4)
    by baba durag on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    didn't click through the link in BTDs story.  There's the TPM story in all it's glory.

    Parent
    Cheney repeating the lies... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    I think the rule of thumb on Cheney is, "If Cheney's talking, Cheney's lying."

    So Fitzgerald told the commission (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    that he couldn't tell them for sure,
    but this guy named al-Fadl
    and a coupe other guys
    whose names no one can seem to spell
    tried to reach
    a sort of understanding
    where they would not work against each other.

    This testimony, which in no way links Saddam Hussein to 9/11, is what PPJ uses to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    People can decide the veracity of that argument on their own. Personally I think it is far more dangerous and offensive to this country than pelting someone with eggs.


    Babble Boring Bu$hBot (none / 0) (#24)
    by walt on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:24:23 AM EST
    Some quotations are actually factual.

    The Iraq Connection
    Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
    By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
    Link
    It's bothersome on a website to have some stupid, boring, repetitive lies repeated over & over again as if the Bu$hInc talking points become true because they've been babbled endlessly since 2004, almost 3 years ago.  The 9/11 investigation-----

    . . .the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
    [snip]
    The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."
    [snip]
    At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

    Fielding inaccurately quoted a working document that was later superceded.

    The absolutely false misquotes of Mr. Fitzgerald are especially tiresome.  The 9/11 Commission took direct testimony from the prosecutor after his convictions of the embassy bombers.

    Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.

    The whole al-qaeda connection with Iraq is a phony concoction of the neocon jackass intelligence operation in the basement of the Pentagon & the office of the vice-president.  It's a fake.  The 9/11 Commission says its bogus.  The Pentagon's inspector general wrote that it's false.  The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence describes it as "inappropriate," per Sen Roberts (R-KS).

    The Bu$hBot babble is tiresome.  The Hussein dictatorship & bin Laden's al Qaeda were enemies, especially in Kurdistan.  Any comments to the contrary are lies, total falsehoods, debunked by every resource that has or had the power to look at the facts.  This "stuff" is not secret, highly classified Pentagon & CIA spook information; it's all in public documents.  Cheney lies.  Bu$h xliii lies.  And the bots babble it over & over; got to catapult the propaganda!!!!

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:16:17 AM EST
    It's bothersome on a website to have some stupid, boring, repetitive lies repeated over & over again as if the Bu$hInc talking points become true because they've been babbled endlessly since 2004, almost 3 years ago.

    But here at TL the portal to wingnuttia is open. Doesn't matter what you say the same lies get repeated over and over. Tiresome, yes. It is like the night of the living dead.

    Parent

    Aw, so much nonsense, so little time. (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    Dearest Walt:

    Thanks for showing us what you don't know, and how one shouldn't rely on second hand articles and information.

    Let us examine the record. First from your quote article (minus all the snarky remarks):

    Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment

    Now, reading that, you would be led to believe that the agreement to work together bit had been dropped. But that is not what Fitzgerald said. I go to my quote, which was from the hearing transcript.

    I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

    So the charges were broadened, not dropped, and since they were broadened. The language was dropped.

    That is a vast difference, Walt. And it makes me wonder if the authors of the article you quote made other mistakes.

    Perhaps you should take advantage of all those public documents you referenced and try to read the ones that have the original information. Not filtered by the press.

    BTW - If you will read my original comment, you will see that I underlined Fitzgerald's statement in an attempt provide a clear understanding.

    But even then you jumped on the bait like a possum going after a three day dead chicken.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Boring Bu$hBot. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by walt on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    Your link is not to the 9/11 Commission Hearing transcript; it is to the Washington Post phoney, bogus re-arrangement of the transcript.  In fact the WaPo version cites the name "KAY" for a CIA officer who is termed "Dr. K" in the genuine report transcript.  Here's the copy of your link, taken from your comment.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46525-2004Jun16_5.html

    My reference is to a Pincus & Priest opinion that accurately summarizes the information about what Fitzgerald said.  From the commission report (this is not a hyperlink, but a target line so you can SEE that my citation is true):http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-16.htm#one

    The commission staff report reads:
    Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists is Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, who wanted to protect their ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease his support for the anti-Saddam groups and arrange for meetings between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan and finally met with Bin Ladin in 1994. At that time, Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. And two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq, and so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

    [snip]

    MR. KEAN: Our questioning today will be led by Senator Kerrey followed by Governor Thompson. Senator Kerrey?

    MR. KERREY:
    [snip]
    Let me ask you if there's any disagreement with the Staff Statement that was presented. I heard "Dr. K" said it was a good Staff Statement. And if there's any comment about that statement I'd like to hear it -- any disagreement, any fundamental disagreement with the Staff Statement as it was prepared?

    MR. FITZGERALD: I fundamentally agree.

    [snip]

    MR. FIELDING: Is that better? I'm sorry. The indictment reads, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that's referenced in it?

    MR. FITZGERALD: And the question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don't have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don't have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May, and then when we superseded, which meant we brought in the charges in the fall -- we dropped that language. We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudan. They work hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.


    [snip]
    The clearest account was from al Fadl as a Sudanese was that he dealt directly with the Sudanese Intelligence Service, so we had firsthand knowledge of that. We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent, and then we had information from al Fadl, who we believed was truthful, learning from others that there also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being a part of al Qaeda. We understood a relationship with Iran, but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other, to standing down against each other, and we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together. That's my piece of what I know. I don't represent to know everything else, so I can't tell you what we learned since then, but there was that relationship that went from -- not from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.
    [my bold]

    Now, the shill Fielding tries again with an even bigger lie:

    MR. FIELDING: Thank you. That's very helpful. Not unrelated -- later, in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism. I don't know if any of you are familiar with that report -- but it's a 178-page document -- but there was a passage about possible al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C., and it said that "could take several forms." And it had various scenarios. One of the scenarios is rather chilling, because it is -- and I'm quoting again -- "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of CIA, or the White House." Another passage in that same report says, "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decides to use terrorists to attack the continental United States, he would likely turn to Bin Ladin's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals including Iraqi chemical groups, weapons experts, and others capable of helping to develop weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests and for al Qaeda's well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide."

    Now, I would appreciate brief comments -- and we're really very short on time -- of the panel as to -- is there validity to that report and, secondarily, in your view, in addition what you have helped us with, Mr. Fitzgerald, is there any evidence or any indicia of cooperation and support on the side issue of whether it's Iraq?


    MR. DAVIS: Sir, I think the Staff Statement -- we are in full agreement with the Staff Statement in terms of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship at this time.

    [snip]
    MR. FIELDING: Mr. Pistole?

    MR. PISTOLE: I agree with the Staff Statement, also.


    You may no longer remember the staff statement:
    "And two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," etc.

    And finally, the indictments.  This is the inaccurate 1998 version that Fielding quoted.
    http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

    4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

    This is the trial version described by Fitzgerald as superceding the previous material.  In the actual indictment, at trial, the words are as follows.
    http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

    8. USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, and al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hizballah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

    Now then, you've never read any of the original documents about this.  You don't even know how to find them.  I referenced Pincus because it's a quick, accurate summary that should satisfy the generalized curiosity of the Talk Left readers.  You, personally, fabricated a re-interpretation by Fitzgerald that never happened.  When the prosecutor stated that the Fielding quoted material was superceded, it was eliminated: "we dropped that language."  It was not replaced.  It was not broadened.  It was gone.

    There has never been any relationship between Iraq & al Qaeda.  Fitzgerald superceded the small reference to inaccurate hearsay when his team went to trial with a solid indictment.  From the trial documents & testimony, the 9/11 Commission Reports & the ISG, the CIA & the FBI about 100 percent of the data indicates that al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq prior to the invasion by the United States.

    There was never any relationship between Iraq & al Qaeda prior to the invasion by the USA.  Never.  Nothing.


    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:43:47 PM EST
    You're babbling. Who are you talking to? What's a direct line?

    Perhaps "direct" quotations help. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by walt on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    NYTimes: Hussein-Qaeda Link `Inappropriate,' Report Says

    WASHINGTON, April 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon provided "inappropriate" analysis for its reports of a strong link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, a finding that was cited by the White House as a rationale for invading Iraq, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
    [snip]
    Mr. Levin also pointed out, "The report specifically states that `the C.I.A. and D.I.A. disavowed any "mature, symbiotic" relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.' "

    And from Bloomberg "directly":

    Defense Department officials ``undercut'' the U.S. intelligence community when making a case to White House officials that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had a close relationship with the al-Qaeda terror network, the Pentagon inspector general said in a declassified report.
    [snip]
    ``The intelligence community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda,'' Levin said. ``The report specifically states that `the CIA and DIA disavowed any `mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.''

    And this comes out just exactly when the positive opinions of citizens who believe Veep Cheney sky-rocketed from 18 to 19 percent.

    You need help (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 09:54:33 PM EST
    in understanding the english language.

    From your quotes:

    for its reports of a strong link

    Hussein had a close relationship

    Now this is what Fitzgerald said:

    that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Now, please follow closely.

    1. The Pentagon's statements may be true. I don't argue with them.

    2. Fitzgerald's comments, which backed up the 11/98 Indcitment issued by Clinton's (not Bush's) DOJ do not claim what the Pentagon is saying.

    3. Therefore the association between Iraq and al-Qaida is not disproven by the Pentagon's statements.

    4. i.e. "sort of" is not the same as "close." "wouldn't work against each other" is not the same as "strong."

    5. This can be easily understood by putting it into the context of two Mafia families agreeing not to kill each other while they separately attack the average joe and to agreeing to support each other against the police.


    Parent
    Per your post, we have this. (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    was not directly cooperating

    I find it strange that you would try and use this to claim anything. In fact, it confirms both the 11/98 DOJ indictment that said:

    In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

    Link

    This was further confirmed in Fitzgerald's testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

    FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don't have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don't have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Link

    So there was no formal treaty, but there is no doubt that were were relationships.

    As to what Cheney knows versus Big Tent, I'll just say I was unaware of BTD's close relationship with the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

    Gak (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:01:04 PM EST

    All of that cooperation is not DIRECTLY cooperating, so it counts for nothing.  Heck, eveyone knows that joint weapons development is not DIRECT cooperation.  Semi-inderect, class 3 cooperation maybe.  But definitely not direct.

    Parent

    And yours? (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    As to what Cheney knows versus Big Tent, I'll just say I was unaware of BTD's close relationship with the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
    But you have a direct line?

    Isn't the Pentagon's announcement not good enough for you? I could see doubting their verity when they are announcing something that is self serving but, why would they announce something that untrue when it does not even slightly benefit them?  To embarass Cheney?

    Parent

    Cooperating (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST

    The announcement seems to make clear that there was cooperation, but not what the pentagram folks choose to call "direct."  Without knowing the criteria for labeling it direct the statement only says they cooperated in some things but not in every possible thing.  

    Perhaps it would be better to list every instance of known cooperation and let the reader decide its degree of directness.

    Parent

    In plain english... (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:31:57 PM EST
    I have never claimed to have a direct line.

    Nor did I disagree with Pentagon.

    As to why they made the announcement, I really don't  know.

    Do you??

    Parent

    while constantly making a (non-existent) ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    ... connection between AQ and iraq ppj sez
    Nor did I disagree with Pentagon.

    cheney and his supporters are unable to see or tell the truth, they just rely on feith.

    Parent

    A terrorist (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    is a ruthless, cold-blooded, fanatic who dosnt work for you. "Terrorism" per-say, has almost always been a charge made by those whose own actions wont bear close moral scrutiny. And then theres their flunkies.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    Could you provide some links to prove your point??

    Parent
    Lying Flunkies (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:10:22 PM EST


    Sort of (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:11:20 PM EST

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Sort of...

    Abdul (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    I hear ya. So do many others. Your argument might be summed up this way:

    I guess it depends a lot upon what your definition of "is" is.

    LOL

    Not even close... (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    They could cooperate on weapons, but not on startegy.... etc and etc.

    Simpler ... cooperation between people/groups is not  all inclusive...

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:23:11 AM EST
    Does it hurt when you do that?

    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:47:13 PM EST
    Having spent a long and happy life trying to understand complex selling situations, Saddam's relationship to the terrorists is a snap.

    I do cringe a bit watching many on the Left try and ignore human nature and demand that everything be black and white.

    I mean even you, someone in the health caring business uses a moniker of a man that was a stone cold killer.

    Parent

    Dealings with terrorists... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 04:58:58 AM EST
    In that famous picture of Saddam and ole Rummie shaking hands I really hope Jim that you're not implying that the U.S. were terrorists because we also were Friends with Saddam at one time? I believe we even allowed the Iraqi leader to use Chemical Weapons and provided Military Equipment during those Regan Years. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#1

    Oh, the good ole days of Regan and Reganomics! It saddens me to think that somehow We as a Nation gave power and backed Saddam and his terrorist regime!

    For shame on us.

    Oh, wow, I just remembered we even gave power and backed the Taliban in Afghanistan against those Commie Bastards in the U.S.S.R.

    And Regan single handedly defeated Communism! And to think it all ended right there in the 80's.

    NOT!

    Parent