[IceBreaker]

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

BY IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.

The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.

Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr. Sada's claim independently will face difficulty. His book contains a foreword by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, David Eberly, who was a prisoner of war in Iraq during the first Gulf War and who vouches for Mr. Sada, who once held him captive, as "an honest and honorable man."

In his visit to the Sun yesterday, Mr. Sada was accompanied by Terry Law, the president of a Tulsa, Oklahoma based Christian humanitarian organization called World Compassion. Mr. Law said he has known Mr. Sada since 2002, lived in his house in Iraq and had Mr. Sada as a guest in his home in America. "Do I believe this man? Yes," Mr. Law said. "It's been solid down the line and everything checked out."

Said Mr. Law, "This is not a publicity hound. This is a man who wants peace putting his family on the line."

Mr. Sada acknowledged that the disclosures about transfers of weapons of mass destruction are "a very delicate issue." He said he was afraid for his family. "I am sure the terrorists will not like it. The Saddamists will not like it," he said.

He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We have been freed."

He said he had not shared his story until now with any American officials. "I kept everything secret in my heart," he said. But he is scheduled to meet next week in Washington with Senators Sessions and Inhofe, Republicans of, respectively, Alabama and Oklahoma. Both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on Israel.

When, during an interview with the Sun in April 2004, Vice President Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had seen such reports.

An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as "completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.

Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or use chemical weapons. Syria's chemical warfare program, apart from any weapons that may have been received from Iraq, has long been the source of concern to America, Israel, and Lebanon. In March 2004, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying, "Damascus has an active CW development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group acknowledged in its September 30, 2004, "Comprehensive Report," "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not yet been able to investigate this possibility thoroughly."

Mr. Sada is an unusual figure for an Iraqi general as he is a Christian and was not a member of the Baath Party. He now directs the Iraq operations of the Christian humanitarian organization, World Compassion.





....

my 2 cents:

thoughts from the lunatics who ranted about Bush's so called "lying"?

[UNTeMac]

If it's true, then it changes my opinion going to war but not how it was handled. It also makes me wonder how we're going to deal with this once Bush tries to sell an attack on Syria to the American people.

[von Wrangell]

"The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism."


:

[Kevin]

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

LYING TRAITOR!11

But seriously. I'll wait to see how this pans out before commenting seriously.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

And if it is, there is going to be lots of crow pie to go round.

[segovius]

Lol

Georges Sada is an evangelical right-wing Bush-supporting Christian fundie. Really!

He hangs out with Benny Hinn a lot and talks with Robertson and other nutters. Curiously he is Alawi's right-hand man.

He is also the president of the National Presbyterian Church in Baghdad and chairman of the Assembly of Iraqi Evangelical Presbyterian Churches.

Without a shadow of doubt he is responsible for the entry of the notorious 'Christian missionaries' who have military (US) tank escorts to distribute fundie tracts and Bibles in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Causing untold trouble.

If this guy is claiming Syria has WMD it is because Bush and the Neocons are working him with their foot - but of course he himself wants to 'save Syrian Muslims for Jesus' (read bomb).

[Busemann]

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

LYING TRAITOR!11

But seriously. I'll wait to see how this pans out before commenting seriously.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

And if it is, there is going to be lots of crow pie to go round.

exactly

[tie]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

my 2 cents:

thoughts from the lunatics who ranted about Bush's so called "lying"?

I think that once again, like every other sensationalist story about Iraq's WMDs, this will turn out to be false. Every one of those stories you swallowed whole without a shred of evidence. On every one of those stories you were dead wrong. Thousands of people are literally dead because of these ludicrous mistakes.

Once again now, the forever gullible have another theory to stand by. Hopefully, more people won't end up dead because of this mistake. Is it completely impossible for you to learn from your mistakes?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by tie

Is it completely impossible for you to learn from your mistakes?

They aren't mistakes. They never believed them - they are merely the justifications for planned murder.

[Shaddim]

Well now, here come the anti-Bush patrol, getting all excited and emotional... even bordering on abusive. Wow, that other article was dead-on.

[Gee-Man]

This guy has a book coming out. Therefore, he must be lying.

Oh wait - that's only true for left-wing people with books coming out. Right-wing books are always truthful and factual.

In any case, taking this guy's word for it is pretty much an exercise in faith since there isn't any colloboration of this at the moment. Everyone should wait and see if any evidence appears to support his claim.

Trying to think of this logically - I still think it doesn't make sense that a brutal dictator who had been obsessed with gaining and staying in power for over 30 years, who supposedly had active WMD, would suddenly decide to voluntarily give up his most powerful weapons when faced with invasion by the most powerful military on earth. Even if Iraq would have been annihilated in retaliation, why would he care - he was going to lose against the Americans no matter what, so what would be gained by giving up his WMD instead of using it in a last-ditch effort?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by segovius

They aren't mistakes. They never believed them - they are merely the justifications for planned murder.

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you say these things?

[Kerrigan]

Saddam was up to something in the immediate run-up to the invasion. Recall how he kept stalling the investigators and shifting them around to the wrong sites, etc. It was blatantly obvious, at the time at least, that Saddam was trying to hide something. What was he doing? And why was the entire world convinced that he possessed these weapons during the 90s and the early 00s?

Valid questions, IMHO.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you say these things?

By you....no.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

And why was the entire world convinced that he possessed these weapons during the 90s and the early 00s?

In the 90s, not the 00s.

Why? Because he had them.

Why was the entire world convinced that he DIDN'T have them at the time of invasion (apart from the United States, and Great Britain, which relied heavily upon a college term paper written in the early 90s for evidence to the contrary)?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by analogika

relied heavily upon a college term paper written in the early 90s for evidence to the contrary

That must have been one hell of a term paper at least, it better have been.

Whatever the case, the whole thing is probably the biggest WTF moment that I have lived through. wtf was Bush doing if there was no evidence, why the feck did Sadam act like he had said weapons, etc.

[tie]

Originally Posted by segovius

They aren't mistakes. They never believed them - they are merely the justifications for planned murder.

I disagree. And I am not sure who you mean by "they." Is this Bush and his crowd?

The right-wing posters in this thread have believed every random WMD story to come down the pipe. They've been wrong again and again and again, and they still haven't learned that maybe you should look for more evidence, look for contrary intelligence, consider the source, etc. Gullible; they've been played for fools.

This idea that "the whole world" believed Iraq had WMDs, so it wasn't just the US which was completely wrong (and that this therefore absolves the US of responsibility for its mistaken invasion) is wrong. Whatever the case in the 1990s, certainly in the few months before the invasion, the whole world was not in consensus on the WMD situation. Iraq's actions could be interpreted in different ways, but the shallowness of US intelligence was quite clear to everyone even that early.

[Rolling Bones]

From another thread almost of the same name by the IceMan...

Originally Posted by Face Ache

I heard parts of nuclear devices were buried in Iraqi scientist's backyards. The plan was to smuggle them into the USA disguised as vending machines.

Or was that a movie?

I thought it was funny and worth repeating.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

In the 90s, not the 00s.

Yes in the 00s too. Would you like me to whip the quotes out?

Why? Because he had them.

What did he do with them? We don't know.

Why was the entire world

Exaggeration. If your cause is so "noble" one doesn't need to exaggerate.

convinced that he DIDN'T have them at the time of invasion (apart from the United States, and Great Britain, which relied heavily upon a college term paper written in the early 90s for evidence to the contrary)?

Actually it was just the countries that disliked America to begin with. Them and the countries that had business deals with Iraq. And Illegal goings on like the UN did with the oil for food scandles.

But the left never want to bring that up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie

I disagree. And I am not sure who you mean by "they." Is this Bush and his crowd?

The right-wing posters in this thread have believed every random WMD story to come down the pipe. They've been wrong again and again and again, and they still haven't learned that maybe you should look for more evidence, look for contrary intelligence, consider the source, etc. Gullible; they've been played for fools.

Exaggeration. SOME believed. Most waited.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

And why was the entire world convinced that he possessed these weapons during the 90s and the early 00s?

Because he had them in the early 90's...

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually it was just the countries that disliked America to begin with. Them and the countries that had business deals with Iraq. And Illegal goings on like the UN did with the oil for food scandles.

But the left never want to bring that up.

[Kevin]

That really didn't make sense... but ok.

You go on with your over-sized image self.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by analogika

Why was the entire world convinced that he DIDN'T have them at the time of invasion (apart from the United States, and Great Britain, which relied heavily upon a college term paper written in the early 90s for evidence to the contrary)?

I don't remember that the "entire world" didn't believe that he wasn't hiding weapons. I remember that A LOT of countries didn't want to go to war just because the UN has promised to make Saddam comply with force if necessarily (and after 10 years of essential non-compliance it was necessary). Most people (including Blix) thought he was hiding something. Otherwise, he would have complied and wouldn't have had spies on the inspection teams and refused inspections of some areas until AFTER there was enough time to move whatever was there in the first place.

Saddam has had this oceanfront property he's been trying to sell in Tinkrit, and the left has been lining up to buy. The claim regarding weapons to Syria was made back at the beginning of the war. Why aren't there any hardcore US investigative reporters going after that story? Most likely, because it would make them look even less credible than they already do.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by tie

The right-wing posters in this thread have believed every random WMD story to come down the pipe. They've been wrong again and again and again, and they still haven't learned that maybe you should look for more evidence, look for contrary intelligence, consider the source, etc. Gullible; they've been played for fools.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Exaggeration. SOME believed. Most waited.

believing and waiting. into which camp do you fall? because unless we've missed something, there's only the inconsequential matter of... evidence... which has yet to be shown.

hmm, 2002 corresponds to the collapse of a dam in syria. that part checks out, but is 56 flights needed for 100 homes (possibly 600 people)? i would think they'd need 1 flight/100people/week. power was "quickly re-established" so 56 flights does seem excessive. is there any awacs evidence of that many flights? northern watch was in full effect at that time. are there any records (anecdotal or not) of received humanitarian aid from iraq?

two lines of evidence that would help elucidate this picture. both were possible in previous stories about sequestered WMD to syria, but have yet to materialize.

does summer 2002 seem too early for this action?

until then, i remain waiting (but not holding my breath), bbt

[Kevin]

I am saying, I wouldn't be surprised. But I am waiting for PROOF before I would believe it.

Are you saying something is wrong with that stance? I sure hope not.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Are you saying something is wrong with that stance? I sure hope not.

my point is that there should be some sort of supporting evidence, air traffic controller records, whatever i listed above, etc. maybe we'll hear about it in the next week, or never, as before.

until then, i remain waiting (but not holding my breath), bbt

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

wtf was Bush doing if there was no evidence, why the feck did Sadam act like he had said weapons, etc.

I'm still undecided upon the topic if Saddam's Iraq had undeclared WMD's or not. I doubt it, but I'm not sure at all.

But I can imagine why Saddam might have wanted to keep up the impression he had useable WMD's even if he hadn't: Considering the weakened state of Iraq because of sanctions and the previous wars, Saddam might have gotten the impression that if he fully admitted he had no useable WMD's, that the shias in the country might topple his regime and kill him and his family in the process.

But who knows, maybe we will never find out the ultimate truth.

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Most people (including Blix) thought he was hiding something.

Link please?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by segovius

Lol

Georges Sada is an evangelical right-wing Bush-supporting Christian fundie. Really!

He hangs out with Benny Hinn a lot and talks with Robertson and other nutters. Curiously he is Alawi's right-hand man.

He is also the president of the National Presbyterian Church in Baghdad and chairman of the Assembly of Iraqi Evangelical Presbyterian Churches.

Without a shadow of doubt he is responsible for the entry of the notorious 'Christian missionaries' who have military (US) tank escorts to distribute fundie tracts and Bibles in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Causing untold trouble.

If this guy is claiming Syria has WMD it is because Bush and the Neocons are working him with their foot - but of course he himself wants to 'save Syrian Muslims for Jesus' (read bomb).

Georges Sada has also never had an intelligent cogent thought.

I hear he is a pathological liar and has NEVER once spoken the truth under any circumstance.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Georges Sada has also never had an intelligent cogent thought.

I hear he is a pathological liar and has NEVER once spoken the truth under any circumstance.

I think he is quite intelligent as it happens.

To call him a pathological liar is a bit strong - he merely lies for an end (in this case spreading the 'Xian' agenda throughout the ME and the suppression of Islam) as do all politicians.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am saying, I wouldn't be surprised. But I am waiting for PROOF before I would believe it.

Are you saying something is wrong with that stance? I sure hope not.

Even if Saddam had some weapons, it's become pretty clear he had no intent on attacking the US, don't you agree?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Even if Saddam had some weapons, it's become pretty clear he had no intent on attacking the US, don't you agree?

What does this have to do with the price of gold in China?

[Busemann]

Now you're just being cheeky

[boots]

There was a lot of speculation about things being moved to Syria back when we first figured out there wasn't anything in Iraq.

I always wondered why that was not pursued. Is part of that because it isn't easy for the West to get intelligence from Syria? Dunno. It always seemed like a hand-waving argument that they were moved simply because it wasn't looking into (at least so far as we have been told).

Given that WMD was one of the central arguments for the war, it seems a bit odd that they wouldn't look into a claim like this with more vigor.

So, I remain skeptical.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What does this have to do with the price of gold in China?

That's "TEA" not gold.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

That's "TEA" not gold.

Both are commonly used... I don't see a point here.

Not suprising.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Link please?

Here's the first one that popped up when I did a google search. I'm sure there are more:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/eu....irq.blix.wmd/

Asked if he thought Iraq no longer had banned weapons when he conducted his inspections, Blix replied: "It's one suspicion I have. You want to pin me down, but I still think it's too early to do that.

"I don't exclude that they can find things. ... I don't think I'd be surprised if they found it."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am saying, I wouldn't be surprised. But I am waiting for PROOF before I would believe it.

Are you saying something is wrong with that stance? I sure hope not.

That is a perfectly acceptable stance. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Unfortunately, it'll be a little difficult to prove. It's not like the US can go invading every country that some ex-Iraqi general writes a book about the supposed WMD being spirited off to. After invading Iraq and not finding any WMD of significance, it will probably be difficult to sell even the American people on yet another expensive invasion/liberation/nation building.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by tie

I think that once again, like every other sensationalist story about Iraq's WMDs, this will turn out to be false. Every one of those stories you swallowed whole without a shred of evidence. On every one of those stories you were dead wrong. Thousands of people are literally dead because of these ludicrous mistakes.

Once again now, the forever gullible have another theory to stand by. Hopefully, more people won't end up dead because of this mistake. Is it completely impossible for you to learn from your mistakes?

Before anyone is tempted to answer your question, consider this undeniable proof of a connection between OBL & Saddam.


Quote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/152lndzv.asp

The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37

Buy The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America
by Stephen F. Hayes.


"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED THE COUNTRY with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

And here's a link which features an ABC News video report from January 14, 1999 which discusses a connection between OBL & Saddam.

http://www.mrc.org/videobias/vidbias.asp

June 17, 2004
Five years ago, ABC News documented the ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
See Story | See Video

After clicking this link, just scroll down the page to click on the video.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040617.asp#1

"...
By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998 -- well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa -- the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:

“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.”

END of Excerpt

For the full Weekly Standard excerpt of the book: www.weeklystandard.com

For Amazon.com’s page on the book: www.amazon.com

Hayes also cited a January 1999 ABC story and, utilizing the MRC video archive, I tracked it down. The above-quoted MacVicar piece aired Thursday, January 14, 1999 on the short-lived ABC prime time magazine program, Crime and Justice. This one-topic edition, which featured John Miller’s interview in Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden, carried the title, “Target America: The Terrorist War.” Anchor Cynthia McFadden’s plug for the hour predicted the danger ahead: “Tonight, an exclusive ABC News interview with the man who declared war on the United States: Terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. His loyal foot soldiers are even here in the U.S., hidden among us, awaiting his call to deadly action..."

Now. You were saying what???

[Kevin]

But Iraq and AlQaeda were enemiessssssssssss!11

[Troll]

I know these two pilots and they told me that they were flying over the White House one day and they saw an alien spacecraft abducting George Bush. I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots. I can't tell you their names because they are concerned for their safety.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Before anyone is tempted to answer your question, consider this undeniable proof of a connection between OBL & Saddam.

Now. You were saying what???

UNDENIABLE!
U N D E N I A B L E ! ! !
U N F U C K E N D E N I A B L E 1 1 1 ! ! !

I guess you learned nothing while posting as mojo.

Thanks. I'll be back in a month to post more.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Before anyone is tempted to answer your question, consider this undeniable proof of a connection between OBL & Saddam.


Quote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/152lndzv.asp

I don't get this one. A former vice President, a former counterterrorism official, and a news agency say there is no evidence of a connection be Saddam and Al Qaeda and you take that as proof that there was a connection?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I don't get this one. A former vice President, a former counterterrorism official, and a news agency say there is no evidence of a connection be Saddam and Al Qaeda and you take that as proof that there was a connection?

Welcome to WingerWorld!!!!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I don't get this one. A former vice President, a former counterterrorism official, and a news agency say there is no evidence of a connection be Saddam and Al Qaeda

All of which said there was a connection before said war. And before said election. And before said Book was out.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

All of which said there was a connection before said war. And before said election. And before said Book was out.

So? When were they right? When they claimed a connection existed, or when they claimed one didn't?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Before anyone is tempted to answer your question, consider this undeniable proof of a connection between OBL & Saddam.

LOL - undeniable proof! As if that existed.

It's interesting that you disagree with the President of the United States and the Intelligence agencies of every country on the planet in saying that there is a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Why do you think those links you posted are more reliable?

Bin Laden and Saddam have always been diametrically opposed to each other. Bin Laden is a wahhabiist. Saddam opposes wahabi teachings. Saddam offers a kind of socialism and Bin Laden offers radical Islam. They were in competition.

In 1988, bin Laden warned people attending a lecture in Pakistan against Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, telling them to beware of the expansionist ambitions of the secular leader.

After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait Bin Laden lobbied the Saudi royal family to raise a force from among the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq. This was before the rest of the world had decided to do anything about Saddam's invasion. So, in 1991, Bin Laden was anything but Saddam's friend.

After the 1993 World Trade Center attack, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the alleged bombers, fled to Iraq. After initial resistance, in 1998, Iraq arrested Yasin and offered to extradite him. The US rejected the offer in 1998 and again in 2003. Why would Iraq do that to al Qaeda, if it were its ally?

Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center attack, said, "We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government." By the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack.

During the 9/11 Commission Hearings, Richard Clarke said of the '93 bombing and Yasin: "But the investigation, both the CIA investigation and the FBI investigation, made it very clear in '95 and '96 as they got more information, that the Iraqi government was in no way involved in the attack ... the allegation that has been made that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was done by the Iraqi government I think is absolutely without foundation."

On the eve of the illegal invasion by the US of Iraq, bin Laden released an audio recording in which he said "It is not important if Saddam and his government disappear. This is a war against you, the Muslims, and you must take arms to defend yourselves." Then Bin Laden did probably the worst thing that a Muslim can do to another Muslim: he labelled Saddam an apostate. Bin Laden said he believed Saddam to be a socialist and declared that "socialists and communists are unbelievers." That is, on the eve of the war, Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel. Bin Laden went on to say of Saddam: "His blood is halal." Under radical Islamic doctrine, this means that Saddam could be legally killed. So, in 2003, Bin Laden was effectively calling on Muslim Iraqis to overthrow Saddam by killing him.

Robert Pape, Daniel Byman, Rohan Gunaratna, Bruce Hoffman, Jason Burke, and Daniel Benjamin, all terrorism experts say that there is no evidence that suggests any collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Then we have the conclusion of specific investigations by the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 9/11 Commission, among others. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed the CIA's investigation and concluded that the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of collaboration was justified.

There are suggestions that after the Gulf War, Saddam turned to radical Islam to help him retake control. During that period, it is suggested that Iraq had contact with Bin Laden. However, there is no proof that anything meaningful ever came of that. Richard A. Clarke wrote, "[t]he simple fact is that lots of people, particularly in the Middle East, pass along many rumors and they end up being recorded and filed by U.S. intelligence agencies in raw reports. That does not make them 'intelligence'. Sound familiar? "My friend who is a pilot says ..."??

In addition, President Bush received on 21 September 2001 a now de-classified Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and no evidence of any collaborative relationship between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda.

Now you disagree with all of that on the basis of what exactly?

I leave you with some quotes:

"We could find no provable connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda." Senior CIA official, summing up conclusions of a 2003 report by the Directorate of Intelligence, 4 March 2004.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever" -- Richard Clarke, March 21, 2004

Interviewer, 31 January 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim."

"We do not know of a link between Iraq and the September 11 attack." Tony Blair, February 5, 2003

"In my judgment, Saddam assessed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Laden wanted to attack Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces." Judith Yaphe CIA counterterrorism analyst who specialized in Iraq during the George H. W, Bush administration, 3 August 2003

"[Stephen Hayes's book, titled "The Connection",] is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?" W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of Defense Intelligence Agency

"C {(head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove) states that} military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WDM. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Leaked 'Top Secret' UK government memo

"In 125 separate appearances, they (Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice) made {...} 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda" -- Report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell, when asked whether there had been a "connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attack of 9/11". September 9, 2005

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So? When were they right? When they claimed a connection existed, or when they claimed one didn't?

Not sure. Don't have all teh facts. Nor would I pretend to.

Just pointing out the facts I DO have.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not sure. Don't have all teh facts. Nor would I pretend to.

Just pointing out the facts I DO have.

Precisely. Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from these facts is that these people believed one thing at one time, and changed their minds at a later date.