NYT and State Secrets

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is a letter to the editor, shared with Powerline blog, that will probably not be published in either of the Times Two.

what does iraq have anything to do with the war on terror? other the bush stating it is... so how does this banking story (already let out of the bag by bush) affec what is going on in iraq? care to delve into this question? this letter writer is obviously a partisan with an agenda.. of course the folks who have come out of bush's adminiatration have all stated we were going into iraq no matter what and were cast aside by people like you who simply labled them as partisans with an agenda..so what is the differecne now? can i dismiss the letter writer as a partisan hack?

[Yonivore]

what does iraq have anything to do with the war on terror? other the bush stating it is... so how does this banking story (already let out of the bag by bush) affec what is going on in iraq? care to delve into this question?

I'll let none other than the New York Times answer your questions...

They recently published an interesting account of the recent crackdown on al Qaeda in Iraq, (you know, the global terrorists in Iraq), including those responsible for the Samarra mosque bombing back on the 29th of June. From the Times:

An Iraqi affiliated with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia led the team that carried out the February bombing of a golden-domed Shiite shrine, unleashing waves of sectarian violence that still convulse Iraq today, an Iraqi security official said on Wednesday.

The insurgent, Haitham al-Badri, is in hiding in Iraq and being sought by government forces, said the official, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser.

Mr. Badri also personally killed Atwar Bahjat, an Iraqi reporter for the network Al Arabiya who was abducted and murdered after traveling to Samarra, the site of the Askariya shrine, on the day it was bombed, Mr. Rubaie said. Two of Ms. Bahjat's colleagues were also killed in that ambush.

Mr. Rubaie said the Iraqi government learned the details of the shrine bombing after the capture a few days ago of Yusri Fakher Muhammad Ali, also known as Abu Qudama, a Tunisian militant who confessed to be a member of Mr. Badri's team. Mr. Ali, who entered Iraq in November 2003, also said the assault team consisted of four Saudis and two Iraqis in addition to himself and Mr. Badri, Mr. Rubaie said. ...

That a native Iraqi was behind the bombing will come as a shock to many in and of itself. But, there's more. Who is Haitham al-Badri, the Iraqi who tried to incite sectarian violence by destroying such a holy shrine? From the Times:

Mr. Badri was born in Samarra and comes from a predominantly Sunni tribe in Salahuddin Province, the home region of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Rubaie said. He had ties to Mr. Hussein's government and was a member of the Army of Ansar al-Sunna before joining Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Ansar al-Sunna is a particularly violent religious group that was founded in the far north after the American invasion, but has since recruited members from all across Iraq.

What's that? Yet another one of Saddam's goons went on to lead al Qaeda in Iraq? But I thought, according to the Times, this type of cooperation was an impossibility.

That Badri was one of Saddam's goons should come as no surpise. Many of "Zarqawi's" and "al Qaeda's" top operatives inside Iraq were former officers in either Saddam's military or intelligence services.

Just as Saddam ordered, many of Iraq's senior military and intelligence personnel joined or aided Zarqawi's jihad. Many of the more prominent supporters and members of Zarqawi's al Qaeda branch, in fact, came from the upper echelon of Saddam's regime. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (aka the "King of Clubs") and his sons allied with Zarqawi, as did members of Muhammad Hamza Zubaydi's (aka the "Queen of Spades") family. Zarqawi's allies included Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi, who was an aide to Saddam's chief of staff of intelligence, and some of his more lethal operatives served as officers in Saddam's military, including Abu Ali, "Al-Hajji" Thamer Mubarak (whose sister attempted a martyrdom operation in Jordan), Abu-Ubaidah, and Abdel Fatih Isa.

THESE BAATHISTS, and others, have spilled much blood in Zarqawi's name. Their attacks were among "Zarqawi's" most successful, including an assault on the Abu Ghraib prison and the first attack on the U.N.'s headquarters. The latter strike was among al Qaeda's earliest, killing Sergio de Mello, the U.N.'s special representative in Baghdad, in August 2003.

Now, in addition to the Abu Ghraib prison assault and the first attack on the U.N.'s headquarters, we know that the Samarra bombing was also orchestrated by a former agent of Saddam.

So, I wonder, will the New York Times do a big investigative report on all of these agents of Saddam who work with al Qaeda? Don't hold your breath. Did the Times step back and ask, how is it that terrorists like al-Badri went from Saddam's regime to al Qaeda?

this letter writer is obviously a partisan with an agenda.. of course the folks who have come out of bush's adminiatration have all stated we were going into iraq no matter what and were cast aside by people like you who simply labled them as partisans with an agenda..so what is the differecne now? can i dismiss the letter writer as a partisan hack?

No, you can't. Because, as has been demonstrated; the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one in the same.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll let none other than the New York Times answer your questions...

They recently published an interesting account of the recent crackdown on al Qaeda in Iraq, (you know, the global terrorists in Iraq), including those responsible for the Samarra mosque bombing back on the 29th of June. From the Times:


That a native Iraqi was behind the bombing will come as a shock to many in and of itself. But, there's more. Who is Haitham al-Badri, the Iraqi who tried to incite sectarian violence by destroying such a holy shrine? From the Times:



What's that? Yet another one of Saddam's goons went on to lead al Qaeda in Iraq? But I thought, according to the Times, this type of cooperation was an impossibility.

That Badri was one of Saddam's goons should come as no surpise. Many of "Zarqawi's" and "al Qaeda's" top operatives inside Iraq were former officers in either Saddam's military or intelligence services.

Just as Saddam ordered, many of Iraq's senior military and intelligence personnel joined or aided Zarqawi's jihad. Many of the more prominent supporters and members of Zarqawi's al Qaeda branch, in fact, came from the upper echelon of Saddam's regime. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (aka the "King of Clubs") and his sons allied with Zarqawi, as did members of Muhammad Hamza Zubaydi's (aka the "Queen of Spades") family. Zarqawi's allies included Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi, who was an aide to Saddam's chief of staff of intelligence, and some of his more lethal operatives served as officers in Saddam's military, including Abu Ali, "Al-Hajji" Thamer Mubarak (whose sister attempted a martyrdom operation in Jordan), Abu-Ubaidah, and Abdel Fatih Isa.

THESE BAATHISTS, and others, have spilled much blood in Zarqawi's name. Their attacks were among "Zarqawi's" most successful, including an assault on the Abu Ghraib prison and the first attack on the U.N.'s headquarters. The latter strike was among al Qaeda's earliest, killing Sergio de Mello, the U.N.'s special representative in Baghdad, in August 2003.

Now, in addition to the Abu Ghraib prison assault and the first attack on the U.N.'s headquarters, we know that the Samarra bombing was also orchestrated by a former agent of Saddam.

So, I wonder, will the New York Times do a big investigative report on all of these agents of Saddam who work with al Qaeda? Don't hold your breath. Did the Times step back and ask, how is it that terrorists like al-Badri went from Saddam's regime to al Qaeda?

No, you can't. Because, as has been demonstrated; the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one in the same.

were they (the insurgents) in iraq before we started the unecessary war? if they were not then we helped create the situation that allows them to flourish and kill innocent people.. so you are agreeing with me now that prior to our invading Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.. let me guess you are going to find an article that cites a guy who was there and met this other guy who knew saddam's favorite nephew.. why is saddam's former agent a terrorist now?


Can you find me an article the shows definitive proof of saddam's interaction with Osama and Al-Qaeda prior to the Iraq war? how about prior to 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

If Lichtblau had an ounce of integrity or self-respect, he would resign in disgrace, along with Bill Keller and Pinch Sulzberger.

I would agree, if you could name a right-wing journalist that has ever done similar.

[RandomGuy]

Since you can't, I will go ahead and call your hyphocritical bluff. (snorts) Extremist ideologes....

[FromWayDowntown]

Hmmm, the existence of Saddam loyalists in the midst of a group fighting against the American forces in Iraq and the new Iraqi government forces is somehow evidence that links global terrorism to pre-invasion Iraq?

From their end, it seems much more like political and personal expediency than evidence of a long-running conspiratorial relationship between Saddam and al Queda -- even if Saddam ordered that association (curiously, an assertion for which there's been no proof offered here).

From the United States' end, it seems like still another post hoc rationalization for a war that may have created more enemies than it eliminated.

[Yonivore]

Hmmm, the existence of Saddam loyalists in the midst of a group fighting against the American forces in Iraq and the new Iraqi government forces is somehow evidence that links global terrorism to pre-invasion Iraq?

From their end, it seems much more like political and personal expediency than evidence of a long-running conspiratorial relationship between Saddam and al Queda -- even if Saddam ordered that association (curiously, an assertion for which there's been no proof offered here).

From the United States' end, it seems like still another post hoc rationalization for a war that may have created more enemies than it eliminated.

It wasn't too long ago that it was an article of faith that the Iraqi Ba'athists and al Qaeda would never join forces...EVER! Now, you're telling me that it is a given that they'd do so?

Seems to me that you agree with what I said back when the invasion occurred, al Qaeda and the Ba'athists are conspiring because the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality. However, when stated before there was proof of collaberation, the Left said it couldn't happen and that there was NO al Qaeda in Iraq, period, end of argument.

It's okay, you're just a few years behind.

[Yonivore]

were they (the insurgents) in iraq before we started the unecessary war? if they were not then we helped create the situation that allows them to flourish and kill innocent people.. so you are agreeing with me now that prior to our invading Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.. let me guess you are going to find an article that cites a guy who was there and met this other guy who knew saddam's favorite nephew.. why is saddam's former agent a terrorist now?


Can you find me an article the shows definitive proof of saddam's interaction with Osama and Al-Qaeda prior to the Iraq war? how about prior to 9/11?

Obviously you're forgetting the do ented meetings that took place, between the Ba'athist regime and al Qaeda, in Sudan and other places (Bali, I believe) -- prior to the invasion and as far back as 1998 which would place them before September 11.

Do your research.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm, the existence of Saddam loyalists in the midst of a group fighting against the American forces in Iraq and the new Iraqi government forces is somehow evidence that links global terrorism to pre-invasion Iraq?

From their end, it seems much more like political and personal expediency than evidence of a long-running conspiratorial relationship between Saddam and al Queda -- even if Saddam ordered that association (curiously, an assertion for which there's been no proof offered here).

From the United States' end, it seems like still another post hoc rationalization for a war that may have created more enemies than it eliminated.

You beat me to it.

Once again, it looks like the right in the form of Yonivore has taken logical fallacy to a new high.

Evidence of cooperation NOW is NOT evidence of cooperation before 2003.

This is the equivilant of saying "It is raining on July 4th this year, so it was raining on July 4 in 2002."

[RandomGuy]

Obviously you're forgetting the do ented meetings that took place, between the Ba'athist regime and al Qaeda, in Sudan and other places (Bali, I believe) -- prior to the invasion and as far back as 1998 which would place them before September 11.

Do your research.

I have done the research. You have low-level meetings that are the equivilant of mail-clerks of IBM and Apple meeting for lunch.

The evidence is simply not there for any kind of meaningful cooperation, no matter how much you will cherry-pick and magnify what IS there.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obviously you're forgetting the do ented meetings that took place, between the Ba'athist regime and al Qaeda, in Sudan and other places (Bali, I believe) -- prior to the invasion and as far back as 1998 which would place them before September 11.

Do your research.

didn't think you could find any. So now we invaded Iraq, not because of stockpiles of wmds, because meetings took place. No collaberation just meetings... as I stated previously we created the situation in Iraq under the guise of protecting our freedom.. pathetic.

[Yonivore]

It was Kuala Lumpur. Here, read this:

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

[Yonivore]

didn't think you could find any. So now we invaded Iraq, not because of stockpiles of wmds, because meetings took place. No collaberation just meetings... as I stated previously we created the situation in Iraq under the guise of protecting our freedom.. pathetic.

Well, we weren't invited to the meeting nor given minutes. So, what do you think was discussed between two factions that, according to the left, would never have a relationship?

Read the article in my previous post.

[RandomGuy]

[FromWayDowntown]

It wasn't too long ago that it was an article of faith that the Iraqi Ba'athists and al Qaeda would never join forces...EVER! Now, you're telling me that it is a given that they'd do so?

Seems to me that you agree with what I said back when the invasion occurred, al Qaeda and the Ba'athists are conspiring because the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality. However, when stated before there was proof of collaberation, the Left said it couldn't happen and that there was NO al Qaeda in Iraq, period, end of argument.

It's okay, you're just a few years behind.

I'm not sure who's article of faith that was.

Governmental overthrows do make strange bedfellows. It makes perfect sense to me that an unprovoked invasion that deposes a dictator might send the dictator's henchmen scurrying to find new allies, even if the resulting alliance might be one that had never been thought possible before. That's essentially all that you've proven; it does nothing whatsoever to prove that there was any pre-invasion collaboration between the Iraqi government and al Queda in any meaningful sense.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It was Kuala Lumpur. Here, read this:

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

--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility


Atta never went to Prague.. how much more debunked 'evidence' are you going to use?

[RandomGuy]

[Yonivore]

--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility


Atta never went to Prague.. how much more debunked 'evidence' are you going to use?

Do us all a favor because, this argument has been had over and over again -- many times before your 416 posts came along -- and read the entire article; including quotes from mainstream media in the mid-90's and statements from the Clinton administration that, at the time, said there was absolutely no doubt there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.

There's this, from the article:

"...the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was 'absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever,' told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was 'sure' that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. 'Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it,' wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. 'But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.'"

[Yonivore]

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."

[Yonivore]

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

[Yonivore]

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."

All these happened before September 11, 2001 and also before George W. Bush was President.

Would you claim that Bush and Clinton are in cahoots?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well then include the media in getting it wrong as well.. by the way do you think if I took the time I could find articles that refute the one's you do? of course I could but I am not going to waste my time because it still does not take away the fact that bush started an unecessary war..

[George Gervin's Afro]

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."

All these happened before September 11, 2001 and also before George W. Bush was President.

Would you claim that Bush and Clinton are in cahoots?

clinton didn't invade iraq on one premise to then revise the premise when hew was dead wrong.. 2527 dead wrongs as a matter of fact

[ChumpDumper]

Hey! Holiday's over.

Are the indictments out now?

[Yonivore]

clinton didn't invade iraq on one premise to then revise the premise when hew was dead wrong.. 2527 dead wrongs as a matter of fact

Okay, you're jumping around. Let's focus here.

Was there or was there not an established relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, dating back to as far as 1994, or beyond?

Because, there are many references from within the Clinton Administration alone that state otherwise. What Clinton did or didn't with that information has no bearing on whether the relationship existed or not.