wall street journal: saddam's files show direct 9/11 link

[AR182]

i have always thought that saddam's boys trained terrorists in iraq. but never saw direct linkage to saddam & 9/11. seeing these files will help convince me about the 9/11 connection, since this is the first that i am hearing about it.


Newly uncovered files examined by U.S. military investigators in Baghdad show what is being described as "a direct link" between Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001.

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who attended a January 2000 al-Qaida summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where the 9/11 attacks were planned, is listed among the officers on three Fedayeen rosters reviewed by U.S. probers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

"Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel," the paper said.

Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak.

In a post obtained through Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service, Shakir was stationed at the Iraqi Embassy in Kuala Lumpur at the time of the 9/11 planning session.

Also in attendance were 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were piloting American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon.

Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, were also at the meeting, the Journal said.

When Shakir was arrested in Qatar on Sept. 17, 2001, he was carrying phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts, as well as information relating to Operation Bojinka, a plot devised by trade center bomber Ramzi Yousef that became the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks.

The Qataris released Shakir after a brief detention and he fled to Jordan, where he was re-arrested. Inexplicably, however, the CIA signed off on his release after Amnesty International complained.

"He was last seen heading home to Baghdad," the Journal says.

 

[Clem D]

I'm new here. Great info. I'd like to see the Communists debate that away. Keep fighting the Good fight.

 

[shamrock]

Clem-you are a complete Jack ass. People who for years don't think that Iraq was the pertinent objective and believe we should have continued action in Afghanistan and apprehended OBL, and worked on securing our own shores are now COMMUNIST, YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT. at least my friend ar reads and although his views are different from mine, I can still respect his opinion, without calling him or anyone with a educated opinion COMMUNIST.

NEARLY every decorated 4*general in the country with specific histories to the middle East now disagrees with the Pentagon Planning and strategy in the Iraq disaster. General Zinni held the same position as general Norman Schwa.& general Tommy Franks, strongly disagrees with Iraqi invasion. So does General Norman S, so does 4*general Brent ScowCroft, so does 4*general Wesley Clark & 4*general Eric Shinseki. All probably communist in your assanine opinion.

For the entire last year I have watched people like yourself rip anyone who does not blinded follow this administration with their thumb up their ass as non American or communist. Like I said at least ar, dtb, to some degree Wilson, and others have at least been reading & formulate a educated belief system that although I don't entirely agree I can respect. I don't label them Communists or any other ridiculous negative title. Do you even know what a Communist is?? It certainly isn't someone that questions issues with their government. Ctownguy was calling blue blooded liberals from Massachusetts, Red Communists in a thread couple weeks ago:shrug: that pissed me off also. Just because myself, Kosar, Stevie, slim and some others don't have exactly the same view as yourself doesn't mean their communist.

Here educate yourself reading other noted Communist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

 

[Clem D]

Easy their buttercup. No offense meant I got nothing against the way you vote. I gets sick when people question the president. Even if he is wrong, settle that in November.

 

[StevieD]

Clem, we are supposed to question the President. That is what makes us different!

 

[gardenweasel]

clem

clem

welcome.....you`ve just been initiated....

read some of tossing and dj`s threads....and you`ll be astounded that people get upset at your rather mild and i`m sure mostly tongue in cheek comments....

don`t take it personally....shamrock is a good guy...and a smart guy.......he`s a little tight-assed tonight...

the iraq situation will be debated for many years to come....and most that are wise realize that the jury is still out....

i personally disagreed disagreed with the invasion...and the exit strategy and post-war power exchange has been a fiasco....true enough.....but there were reasons for going in...did they justify an action of this magnitude?....i don`t know yet....maybe not...maybe so....

but,that`s beside the point....

don`t take the attack personally....no one drawing breath knows for sure what the end game will be...if they think they do,they are being disingenuous...

you are entitled to your opinion...

g.l. and welcome aboard...

 

[shamrock]

butter brain-for your information I voted for Bush, doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with his opinions & practices. That's what America is all about. For the record I think gw is a decent enough guy with good intentions, unfortunately he has summoned several to his cabinet that have fundamentally failed.

Even generals disagree:
?It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,? says Zinni.

?I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It?s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.?

60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined.

? MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[shamrock]

garden, your correct, I'm constipated and we're still enjoying November weather here in Massachusetts for memorial day weekend.

Clem, didn't notice you were new, my bad. My apologies, no harm intended. I'm sure you will enjoy all aspects of jacks forum. There is no better.

Shamrock

 

[AR182]

iraq &9/11: what a judge who heard evidence said

iraq &9/11: what a judge who heard evidence said

In light of Thursday's Wall Street Journal report detailing new evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, it's worth noting that the only time the question of an Iraq-9/11 connection has been legally tested, the verdict was affirmative.

In a woefully underreported decision on May 8, 2003, Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled in favor of two 9/11 victim families who had sued Iraq and others claiming they were culpable in the attacks. The court awarded plaintiffs $104 million based on the Baer's findings.

The ruling by Judge Baer - a Carter appointee, by the way - was quite detailed. In fact, we suspect that the reason for the media's near-blackout on the case is because most Americans would consider his findings to be very persuasive.

Here, in part, is what Judge Baer had to say about the Iraq-9/11 connection:

"The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11. . .

"Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts."

Judge Baer continued:

"[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey reviewed several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq's involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in general and likely in the events of September 11 specifically.

"First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway.

"The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.

"Second, Director Woolsey mentioned a meeting that allegedly occurred in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammad Atta, the apparent leader of the hijackings, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent. According to James Woolsey, the evidence indicates that this was an 'operational meeting' because Atta flew to the Czech Republic and then returned to the United States shortly afterwards. The Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic, Stanislav Gross, stated on October 26, 2001:

"'In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Muhammad Atta in the Czech republic there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi Intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status . . . '

"Third, Director Woolsey noted that his conclusion was also based on 'contacts,' which refer to interactions between Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda that are described in a letter from George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Senator Bob Graham on October 7, 2002. Director Tenet's carefully worded letter included in substance the same allegations, but with less detail, that Secretary of State Colin Powell made before the U.N. Security Counsel on Feb. 5, 2003, in his remarks about 'the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network. . . .'

"Both Director Tenet and Secretary Powell mentioned 'senior level contacts' between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to the early 1990s [although both acknowledged that part of the interactions in the early to mid-1990s pertained to achieving a mutual non-aggression understanding]; both mentioned that al Qaeda sought to acquire poison gas and training in its use from Iraq; both mentioned that al Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, after September 2001. . . .

"Finally, plaintiffs also place considerable weight on an article that appeared in a regional Iraqi newspaper in July 2001, two months before the disaster of September 11. This article, a paean to bin Laden, mentions that bin Laden 1] 'will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House,' 2] 'is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,' and 3] 'will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.' See Exs. 16-18, Naeem Abd Muhalhal, America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin, Al-Nasiriya, July 21, 2001 [original, translation, and certificate of accuracy of translation].

"Because, according to Director Woolsey, 'all publications in Iraq really appear at the sufferance of and with a full vetting by the Iraqi regime,' see Tr. 158, and because of the coincidences and the fact that '[t]here is a certain propensity, I think, on bin Laden's part and on Saddam's part ... to try to communicate in somewhat vague terms,' Director Woolsey concluded that there is a probability of a vague foreknowledge of what was contemplated. See Tr. 159." [End of Excerpt]

Judge Baer also found the testimony of terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie persuasive, writing:

"Dr. Mylroie described Iraq's covert involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in the past, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Dr. Mylroie testified to at least four events that served as the basis for her conclusion that Iraq played a role in the September 11 tragedy:

"First, she claimed that Iraq provided and continues to provide support to two of the main perpetrators of the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Specifically, Abdul Rahman Yasin returned to Baghdad after the bombing and Iraq has provided him safe haven ever since. See Tr. 175-76. Also, Ramsey Yusef arrived in the United States on an Iraqi passport in his own name but left on false documentation - a passport of a Pakistani who was living in Kuwait and whom the Kuwaiti government kept a file on at the time that Iraq invaded Kuwait. See Tr. 174.

"Second, she noted bin Laden's fatwah against the United States, which was motivated by the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia to fight the Gulf War against Iraq. See Tr. 177.

"Third, she noted that threats by bin Laden in late 1997 and early 1998 which led up to the bombing of the U.S. embassies [on August 7, 1998] were 'in lockstep' with Hussein's threats about ousting the U.N. weapons inspectors, which he eventually did on August 5, 1998. See Tr. 178-79.

"Dr. Mylroie concluded that 'Iraq, I believe, did provide support and resources for the September 11 attacks. I agree with [Iraqi defector] Captain [Sabah] Khodada when he said that ... it took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on September 11.' See Tr. 182." [End of Excerpt]

To be sure, Judge Baer also noted that the case for Iraq's involvement in 9/11 is far from a slam dunk, concluding, "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda."

Nevertheless, that's a far cry from media claims - not to mention President Bush's incredibly ill-advised statement last fall - that there's no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11.