Back to Saddam's al Qaeda connections

[Yonivore]

One of the documents released by the FMSO project (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm) contains the records of the Iraqi regime's early connections to Osama bin Laden, starting in 1994 and continuing at least through 1997. It comes in the middle of document ISGZ-2004-009247, a review of Iraqi Intelligence Service contacts in the region and summaries of the combined efforts that they produced.

The review of their work with Saddam comes in section 2, discussing "The Reform And Advice Committee":


2. The Reform and Advice Committee:

Headed by the Saudi Usamah Bin Ladin [UBL], who is a member of a wealthy Saudi family with his roots going back to Hadhramut [TC: An area now part of Yemen]. This family has a strong ties with the ruling family in Saudi. He is one of the leaders of the Afghan-Arabs, who volunteered for jihad in Afghanistan. After the expulsion of the Russians, he moved to live in Sudan in 1992 subsequent to the Islamists arrival to power in Sudan.

[A]s a result of his antagonistic positions against the ruling Saudi family in opposition to the foreign presence in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi authorities issued a decree to withdrawing his Saudi Citizenship. We approached the committee by doing the following:

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sunusi to Iraq and his meeting with Mr. `Uday Saddam Hussein, on December 13th 1994, with the presence of the respectable, Mr. Director of the Intelligence Services, he [Dr. Al-Sunusi] pointed out that the opposing Usamah Bin Ladin, residing in Sudan, who expressed reservations and fear that he may be depicted by his enemies as an agent for Iraq; is ready to meet with us in Sudan (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the results of the meeting in our letter 782 on December 17th 1994).

B. An approval to meet with opposer Usama Bin Ladin by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency in its letter 138, dated January 11th 1995 (attachment 6). He [UBL] was met by the previous general director of M ’I M 4 [QCC: possible the previous General Director of Intelligence] in Sudan, with the presence of the Sudanese, Ibrahim Al-Sannusi, on February 19th 1995. A discussion ensued with him about his organization, he [UBL] requested the broadcasting of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman Al-`Udah (who has an influence within Saudi Arabia and outside, due to his religious and influential personality), to designate a program for them through the radio broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz. (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4th 1995, attachment 7)

C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them {QCC: UBL and the Sheikh] through the directed radio broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to find out what other avenues of cooperation and agreement would open up. The Sudanese were informed of the Honorable Presidency’s approval of the above through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services our Ambassador in Khartoum.

D. Due to the recent situation in Sudan, and being accused of supporting and embracing terrorism, an agreement with the opposer Saudi Usamah Bin Laden was reached, to depart Sudan to another region; whereas, he left Khartoum in July of 1996. The information indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan.

The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently, we are working to revitalize this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location.
This shows that the connections to the Saddam regime went much higher than previously thought. Uday himself made the arrangements with the Sudanese government in December 1994. Osama met directly with the General Director of the IIS. Even after he left the Sudan, the Sudanese continued to act as a conduit between Osama and Iraq, at the behest of Saddam Hussein -- and the IIS states that they were actively working to connect to Osama again after he landed in Afghanistan.

During this period of 1996 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm), al-Qaead bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, Osama issued his fatwa against the US. The embassy attacks in Africa followed, and then the bombing of the USS Cole -- and finally, 9/11.

One has to wonder how successfully the IIS was in its project to "revitalize" their relationship.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just for attribution's sake: RIGHTWINGSPARKLE (7/15/06) (http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-the-saddam-osama-connection.html)

[Yonivore]

Just for attribution's sake: RIGHTWINGSPARKLE (7/15/06) (http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-the-saddam-osama-connection.html)
I don't know what's more pathetic. You thinking this means anything to anyone or you wasting your time run around behind a poster that's already admitted to stealing his material (for economy of time).

You're too much.

[FromWayDowntown]

I offer it for public consumption and only for that reason. You bully people around with your intimations of a rhetorical upperhand, but then don't even acknowledge that your rhetoric and arguments aren't really your own.

Frankly, I'd prefer to be the pathetic sort that ensures that those who you try to bully in this forum can know where you get your material than the pathetic sort that gets defensive when exposed for plaigarizing the thoughts of others.

If you've admitted it before, why not just bother to cite your source? It's really a rather simple process -- and one that you obviously have learned.

[Yonivore]

I offer it for public consumption and only for that reason. You bully people around with your intimations of a rhetorical upperhand, but then don't even acknowledge that your rhetoric and arguments aren't really your own.
Some are some aren't. But, I'm not sure how an anonymous poster bullies another anonymous poster. I believe that gives this medium more importance than it deserves.


Frankly, I'd prefer to be the pathetic sort that ensures that those who you try to bully in this forum can know where you get your material than the pathetic sort that gets defensive when exposed for plaigarizing the thoughts of others.
Cool. But, who's being defensive? I offered absolutely no defense.


If you've admitted it before, why not just bother to cite your source? It's really a rather simple process -- and one that you obviously have learned.
I've explained that before as well. Google it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I've explained that before as well. Google it.

Color me uninterested. Any attempt to justify eschewing the courtesy of source citation is one that I'll never agree with. I respect the views of others, even if I disagree with them -- I don't co-opt them without attribution.

[FromWayDowntown]

I have a substantive question here -- one that has never been answered to my satisfaction in this context:

Taking everything in your post as true (for the sake of argument) it means that we're only now putting together the pieces of a Saddam link to al Queda. That would suggest that hard-and-fast, conclusive evidence did not exist at the time of the invasion -- we may have had reason to deduce or suspect that there was a relationship, but we didn't have hard evidence.

A precise converse exists in Iran -- we have absolute proof that Iran is in bed with terrorists and that Iran has been in the process of developing a WMD program.

Now -- why is it that there was such a grave rush to invade Iraq, as to whom there was only surmise and no such rush to invade Iran, which is guilty on both counts supporting the President's decision to undertake hostilities against a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States? Just curious.

[Yonivore]

Color me uninterested.
d'okie dokie. But, you did ask the question.


Any attempt to justify eschewing the courtesy of source citation is one that I'll never agree with.
Who said I justified it? I just find it saves time and, does so while compelling responses. I really don't see the point in spending 30 minutes formulating a forum post when you find the exact same argument elsewhere.

If I were doing this for money, for a grade, for a living, for anything that really mattered, I'd attribute or do the heavy lifting myself. The fact is, what we do here mean absolutely zero in real life. It's merely a way to pass the time.

I do enjoy seeing the responses to the various arguments I've posted...no matter their source. I suppose if that stops (and it didn't last time we had this whole "Yonivore-is-a-plagiarist" row), I'll stop posting. It'll cease to be interesting.


I respect the views of others, even if I disagree with them -- I don't co-opt them without attribution.
Well, you do have to float your own boat; so, I say good for you. At the end of the day, neither of us will be better, or worse, off for the separate manners in which we employ this forum.

[FromWayDowntown]

Who said I justified it? I just find it saves time and, does so while compelling responses. I really don't see the point in spending 30 minutes formulating a forum post when you find the exact same argument elsewhere.

I didn't ever suggest that you shouldn't cite the thoughts of others. I merely said that if you're going to cite the thoughts of others, do all of us (the original writer; your audience) the courtesy of telling us the source of your post. I'm hard pressed to believe that it's terribly time consuming to add a link to your post to assure attribution. For crissakes, the most illiterate amongst us are able to do that.


If I were doing this for money, for a grade, for a living, for anything that really mattered, I'd attribute or do the heavy lifting myself. The fact is, what we do here mean absolutely zero in real life. It's merely a way to pass the time.

So it's entirely about what you get out of it? I thought attribution was so much more about recognizing that you respect the thoughts of others to such a degree that you're willing to substitute them for your own. That willingness isn't a proxy for ignoring a source, just as a matter of courtesy, though.

[Yonivore]

I have a substantive question here -- one that has never been answered to my satisfaction in this context:

Taking everything in your post as true (for the sake of argument) it means that we're only now putting together the pieces of a Saddam link to al Queda. That would suggest that hard-and-fast, conclusive evidence did not exist at the time of the invasion -- we may have had reason to deduce or suspect that there was a relationship, but we didn't have hard evidence.

A precise converse exists in Iran -- we have absolute proof that Iran is in bed with terrorists and that Iran has been in the process of developing a WMD program.

Now -- why is it that there was such a grave rush to invade Iraq, as to whom there was only surmise and no such rush to invade Iran, which is guilty on both counts supporting the President's decision to undertake hostilities against a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States? Just curious.
It's been asked and answered.

You had Russian, France, and Germany working to ease sanctions so their illicit trade with Iraq could go above board.

You had OFF funneling money into Saddam's weapons programs.

You had a relationship with al Qaeda. (Just because we're just now finding the regime's documents confirming that relationship doesn't mean there was intelligence and people who were convinced of this before the invasion).

You had an ongoing WMD program. (Again, just because we're just now uncovering regime documents that tend to confirm this doesn't mean there was intelligence and people who were convincedof this before the invasion.)

I believe there was a real concern that, since we were engaged in Afghanistan, and still reeling from 9-11, Iraq would find a way to use all of this to do harm. The invasion stopped that.

[Yonivore]

I didn't ever suggest that you shouldn't cite the thoughts of others. I merely said that if you're going to cite the thoughts of others, do all of us (the original writer; your audience) the courtesy of telling us the source of your post. I'm hard pressed to believe that it's terribly time consuming to add a link to your post to assure attribution. For crissakes, the most illiterate amongst us are able to do that.

So it's entirely about what you get out of it? I thought attribution was so much more about recognizing that you respect the thoughts of others to such a degree that you're willing to substitute them for your own. That willingness isn't a proxy for ignoring a source, just as a matter of courtesy, though.
Having any expectations when you come in here is your first mistake.

[xrayzebra]

I have a substantive question here -- one that has never been answered to my satisfaction in this context:

Taking everything in your post as true (for the sake of argument) it means that we're only now putting together the pieces of a Saddam link to al Queda. That would suggest that hard-and-fast, conclusive evidence did not exist at the time of the invasion -- we may have had reason to deduce or suspect that there was a relationship, but we didn't have hard evidence.

A precise converse exists in Iran -- we have absolute proof that Iran is in bed with terrorists and that Iran has been in the process of developing a WMD program.

Now -- why is it that there was such a grave rush to invade Iraq, as to whom there was only surmise and no such rush to invade Iran, which is guilty on both counts supporting the President's decision to undertake hostilities against a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States? Just curious.

How do we know we aren't in Iran? There have been some reports that
we have special forces working in several countries.

But I do agree with you that maybe some open action on our part would
be a good idea. But I have grave doubts that the American public will
support such a move. Look at the negative opinions expressed on just
this board for any actions we take. I fear for this country because of
the opinions expressed by those opposed to any actions taken by our
government in protecting us.

[boutons_]

YV, quit trying scare us your ex-post facto bullshit about Iraq. It amounts to a tiny pile of ratshit.

The enormity of your tireless efforts betrays how desperate you and rabble bloggers are trying to justify the fucking abortion of Iraq.

The US had Iraq pinned down with troops in the Kuwait and SA, daily flyovers, a blanket of radar and satellite surveillance.

Your Repugs lied to us about Iraq, PERIOD.

The Repugs wil soon have murdered more US lives in Iraq than al-Qaida murdered at WTC. And Osama achieved his objectives, while the Repugs will not.

In the context of the war on terror outside of Iraq, the invasion of Iraq was/is/will be a fucking disastrous decision had it been well done, but the fatal, incredible incompetence in planning and execution has made Iraq much worse.

And you still think Willie's answer about a consensual sex act between adults to a question that should have never been alllowed was serious blow to the rule of law?

[xrayzebra]

boutons, I do feel sorry for you. You have no perception whatsoever of this world.

[valluco]

As much as boutons is far, far to the left, you Mr. xray are just a right wing nutcase. Which one's worse?

[Crookshanks]

A left-wing nutcase - of course!!

[valluco]

They far left and the far right are both bad. That's why this country is in the shape that it's in. No one can fucking agree on anything and do what's right for this nation and its people. It's pretty iritating.

[boutons_]

You're a bunch of stupid motherfuckrs, no surprise, if you think that opposing the current set of lying, vicious, venal, incompetent, thieving Repugs, that dissenting against the Repug Iraq war must automatically classify me or anyone else as an extreme liberal, or even a liberal.

The 70% of the US polled as down on dubya, on the Repugs, on the Repug war are all flaming liberals assholes?

hell, even conservatives are fed up with this shithole of WH :

===============

Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy

By Michael Abramowitz

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; A01

At a moment when his conservative coalition is already under strain over domestic policy, President Bush is facing a new and swiftly building backlash on the right over his handling of foreign affairs.

Conservative intellectuals and commentators who once lauded Bush for what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and advance U.S. interests said in interviews that they perceive timidity and confusion about long-standing problems including Iran and North Korea, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah.

"It is Topic A of every single conversation," said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. "I don't have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration."

Conservatives complain that the United States is hunkered down in Iraq without enough troops or a strategy to crush the insurgency. They see autocrats in Egypt and Russia cracking down on dissenters with scant comment from Washington, North Korea firing missiles without consequence, and Iran playing for time to develop nuclear weapons while the Bush administration engages in fruitless diplomacy with European allies. They believe that a perception that the administration is weak and without options is emboldening Syria and Iran and the Hezbollah radicals they help sponsor in Lebanon.

Most of the most scathing critiques of the administration from erstwhile supporters are being expressed within think tanks and in journals and op-ed pages followed by a foreign policy elite in Washington and New York.

But the Bush White House has always paid special attention to the conversation in these conservative circles. Many of the administration's signature ideas -- regime change in Iraq, and special emphasis on military "preemption" and democracy building around the globe -- first percolated within this intellectual community. In addition, these voices can be a leading indicator of how other conservatives from talk radio to Congress will react to policies.

As the White House listens to what one official called the "chattering classes," it hears a level of disdain from its own side of the ideological spectrum that would have been unthinkable a year ago. It is an odd irony for a president who has inflamed liberals and many allies around the world for what they see as an overly confrontational, go-it-alone approach. The discontent on the right could also color the 2008 presidential debate.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a bid for president, called the administration's latest moves abroad a form of appeasement. "We have accepted the lawyer-diplomatic fantasy that talking while North Korea builds bombs and missiles and talking while the Iranians build bombs and missiles is progress," he said in an interview. "Is the next stage for Condi to go dancing with Kim Jong Il?" he asked, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the North Korean leader.

"I am utterly puzzled," Gingrich added.

Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms-control official who is close to Vice President Cheney, said he believes foreign policy innovation for White House ended with Bush's second inaugural address, a call to spread democracy throughout the world.

"What they are doing on North Korea or Iran is what [Sen. John F.] Kerry would do, what a normal middle-of-the-road president would do," he said. "This administration prided itself on molding history, not just reacting to events. Its a normal foreign policy right now. It's the triumph of Kerryism."

Not all conservatives subscribe to such views. Some prominent conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr. and George Will, have been skeptical of the mission in Iraq and, in Will's case, much of the ability of America to build democracy abroad. In his syndicated column yesterday, Will referred to the neoconservative complaints in observing that the administration is "suddenly receiving some criticism so untethered from reality as to defy caricature."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the president listens to all these criticisms but believes that aggressive diplomacy is paying off by bringing other countries into his effort to isolate North Korea and Iran. "Some people are impatient with the pace of diplomacy," he said. "But the president believes it is important to have an all-out effort to solve these problems in a peaceful way."

( yeah, like invading a non-threatening country is peaceful. These fuckers have told so many lies, they can't find their own assholes. )
GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, appear to be lining up closely with the president on foreign policy. It has not helped the neoconservative case, perhaps, that the occupation of Iraq has not gone as smoothly as some had predicted.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading conservative who has clashed with the White House on spending and immigration, said Bush has "shown toughness and grit in advancing America's interests in the world."

( totally empty, baseless bullshit sucking up to the WH )

Other lawmakers said it is unrealistic to expect different policies on Iran and North Korea given the complexities involved with forcing those countries to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

"There haven't been a lot of alternatives presented," said Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

In fact, it has been Bush's willingness to respond to criticism from the foreign policy establishment -- which has long urged him to do more to pursue a more "multilateral" diplomacy in concert with allies -- that has led to distress among many conservatives outside Congress, particularly the band of aggressive "neoconservatives" who four years ago were most enthusiastic about the Iraq war.

Bill Kristol and colleagues associated with his Weekly Standard have been agitating for several years about what they see as inadequate troop levels in Iraq, an incompetently managed war effort and a failure to move aggressively enough to defeat the insurgency.

For many neoconservatives, a final straw came with the U.S. decision to offer direct talks and potential benefits to Iran as an inducement to curb its nuclear program. There appears little confidence that Bush will be able to muster support for strong international action against Iran, including air strikes to take out nuclear facilities.

"They are starting to see multilateral talks as an end to themselves," said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "They are fooling themselves to think it could lead to tough sanctions."

Kenneth R. Weinstein, head of the conservative Hudson Institute, seemed more forgiving, recalling "the fury of the right" at Ronald Reagan in his second term for engaging then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. "Bush -- like Truman and Reagan -- is under attack from the left and the right," he said. "Given the laundry list of global challenges, the administration has had to make dozens and dozens of tough calls -- and overwhelmingly it's been right."

( holy fucking shit. The Repug "call" on Iraq was seen by many BEFORE the invasion as wrong, and has been proved wrong in fact. Repug Iraq is the central, fundamental fuckup destroying dubya's presidency and harming US interersts. France was right, dubay/dickhead were wrong. )


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[xrayzebra]

Hey boutons, did you vote for Bush in the last election. Or for the wounded
Viet Nam vetran, John F. Kerry?

And how do you remember all those names, cut and paste?

[clambake]

Xray, you guys will try anything to pretend that Iraq was necessary.

THE most paranoid Arab leader had ties to al-queda? To what extent? Has saddam ever met one before? If so, big deal. We've met saddam. Hell we made saddam.

[xrayzebra]

Xray, you guys will try anything to pretend that Iraq was necessary.

THE most paranoid Arab leader had ties to al-queda? To what extent? Has saddam ever met one before? If so, big deal. We've met saddam. Hell we made saddam.

Yeah, we helped make him. I want argue that point. But we also helped
make Castro in the beginning and others. And want to know something else,
we will repeat the error again, I am quite sure.

There was a thing at the beginning of WWII. About us selling
scrap iron to Japan. It was a political nightmare of the pols. And what
happened later. We made Japan into a power again. Along with Germany.

Politics is a strange mixture. You never know how much of what to
put in where. The only thing you can be sure of is that you will get
the recipe wrong somewhere down the line. And that is a fact.

[Please_dont_ban_me]

So Saddam and Osama kicked it back in '94.

[DarkReign]

I don't know what's more pathetic. You thinking this means anything to anyone or you wasting your time run around behind a poster that's already admitted to stealing his material (for economy of time).

You're too much.

Well, with a source as objective as RIGHTWINGsparkle.com, who could ever argue.