2002 Memo Continues to Show Saddam’s Regime Tied to Al Queda

Keep beating off the dead horse kids maybe it’ll come back to life and turn into a pony!

Isn’t it odd that the White House and the GOP, the ones who would benefit the most from this nonsense being true don’t trumpet it?

Why do you think that is?

June 24th, 2008 at 7:13 am

Scott

Three reasons:
1) They’ve demonstrated time and again their complete and utter ineptitude at countering propaganda from opponents of the war (both violent opponents and political opponents).
2) With just a couple of months left…there’s no need/they’re coasting to the finish line just as every second term admin does
3) Why bother…nothing they say would ever convince you and so many others who have been so successfully misled. I mean, really, if the White House and GOP parroted this post thread…would you believe it? I doubt it.

Ya know, I do find it interesting that you mention the “dead horse” idea. As if this should be a closed issue. The 911 Commission, the Sen Intel Com and every investigation that’s looked into regime ties has ALWAYS said that the matter needs further investigation, and often they specifically say the question should not be closed; not considered a dead horse.

Interesting.

June 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am

1) The Bush Administration has actual proof of all their claims but don’t tell people because they don’t know how to tell the truth? Hmmm I can see that but how hard is it to release a memo? They used to have all kinds of WMD and AQ connection evidence before the war. Weird that the invasion and occupation hasn’t produced any that they want people to know about.

2) They’re nearly done? Huh? So they don’t care that they’re going to leave office with the majority of the country thinking they’re liars? Wow. But there have been past memos that have said the same thing (wingnuts are actually very big on recycling) for the past seven years and each time the Bush Administration has remained curiously quiet so I’m not sure if that answer works.

3) They’re worried that the people who don’t beleive them won’t? Okay, but what about all the Americans who used to support the Bush Administration who would? The ones who used to be for the invasion but turned against it when it turned out to be bullshit? You don’t think that they would be won over by actual proof?

So none of your answers make any sense and are awfully convoluted.

The actual reason why they don’t release and support this stuff is because they know it’s bullshit and would get ripped to pieces if it were released mainstream. But you guppies lap it up like crazy because it tells you want you so desperately want to hear; Dear Leader was right.

But he wasn’t and you’re a sad minority.

June 24th, 2008 at 7:49 am

I like how Salvage thinks the GOP is scanning Iraqi media outlets for stories of this type and that if they did talk about it that he’d suddenly believe it.

June 24th, 2008 at 8:19 am

Salvage, some of these documents were released via the press back in 2003/2004 via CSM and CBS. Roger Simon of Pajamas Media, and Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Journal both fought to get most or all documents released back then, and did stellar work on these ISG/Harmony docs. David Thibault of CNS news published many of these docs in 2004.

Did the MSM pick up on this? One would have thought this would be front page news even back them. But the media and anti-free-Iraq types had too much invested in their “Bush lied” rhetoric, and cried foul… stating the docs must be forgeries. To do otherwise would seriously affect their credibility. They were vested in perpetuating a lie that so many… like you… want to believe.

Fast forward to the release of books like Georges Sada’s “Saddam’s Secrets” and Ray Robison’s “Both in One Trench”, confiming Saddam’s relationships not only with the jihad movement world, but also more details on his quest for nuclear WMD, and his possession of bio/chemical WMD. Robison had the unique perspective of being one of the Iraq Survey Group members on the ground. He put together a book linking events, people and documents thru history.

Fast forward yet again to the latest release of the Iraqi Perspectives Study. Again, the documents are presented to a world filled with those, like you, uninterested in the truth.

If you don’t believe source material, presented to you time and time again for four years, what good would it do to have the WH spokepersons mention it one more time? And yes, they did mention it. It got no press, or it got press as another “GWB lie”.

So spare me your snide remarks - as if it’s proof of anything - about this news being “trumpeted”. If GWB told you it was raining outside, and it was, you still wouldn’t believe it. And obviously, you’re too damned lazy to go outside and look to see for yourself if it is. If you weren’t, you would have been up on these documents years ago.

So feel free to carry on with your baseless drivel and gullible nature. America and our military even takes care of citizens like you. You may rest easy, safe and secure, despite your political delusions. But spare us your media progressive talking points. We are well aware that your self-perceived analytical wisdom lives only in your mind.

June 24th, 2008 at 8:50 am

tillerylakelady

This evidence should shut uo the leftwing Democrats for a while.

June 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am

Wow.

Roger Simon. Gosh, he hasn’t been caught in lies / halftruths and general bullshit a dozen times over.

Howabout we ask the Commander in Chimp?

[BUSH] The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were â€¦

Q: What did Iraqi have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing.

BUH! BUH! HUH?!!? The biggest terrorist attack of all time on America and Saddam had nothing to do with it?!?! You’d think that Saddam would have been totally in on it if he were buddy buddy with bin Laden.

So was there ever a terrorists attack by any al Qeada cell that was connecting to Iraq?

June 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am

You really are both reading and analytically challenged, Salvage. Since you’re not much of a mental giant, and must think in black and white… let’s give the more direct approach a try.

First off, I said ONLY that Roger Simon and Stephen Hayes led public charges for the documents to be released. I quoted nothing from Roger Simon. But, had you clicked on the links, you’d know that, right?

Again you prove you’re too lazy to step out of the damned door to see if it’s raining.

Iraq and 911 were never linked but by liberal progressives and their puppet media. So why Iraq? Let’s again make it 8th grade level thinking for you.

You see a cockroach in your house, step on it and think your job is done. Or perhaps you even find a nest of them in your kitchen cabinet. You use a bit of Raid, and again think your job is done.

It never occurs to you there’s another nest there, or a next door, until you’re overrun. Too late.

Which is why we don’t have mental giants like you in charge of global military strategy.

June 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Scott Malensek

“BUH! BUH! HUH?!!? The biggest terrorist attack of all time on America and Saddam had nothing to do with it?!?! You’d think that Saddam would have been totally in on it if he were buddy buddy with bin Laden.”

Please re-read. AQ and Saddam’s regime weren’t buddy buddy any more than Hitler and Tojo were. They just cooperated from time to time.

As to your dismissal of my reasons why the Bush Admin doesn’t cry to the heavens to counter your preferred propaganda, I noticed you ignored the first item: incompetent ability to counter propaganda. GWB, his press secs, and the DoD have all commented publicly and repeatedly on the captured docs, investigations showing ties, and so forth. Why the msm doesn’t carry it more…guess you’ll have to ask Chris Matthews, Dan Rather, Keith Olberman, and so forth.

To be clear, are you denying that there was a close relationship between the regime and AQ? ‘Cause, that’s kinda counter to the Clinton Admin claim that AQ and Iraq worked together to make nerve gas, to attack the US in Somalia, and more. Please tell me President Clinton’s not a liar?

June 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am

Scott, Scott… hasn’t Salvage already aptly demonstrated “reading” is either optional for facts, or just not his strong suite?

June 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am

Aye Chihuahua

There goes Salvage bringing pears to an apple festival again.

The only person trying to set up a direct connection between Saddam and 9/11 is you.

The connection of Saddam to Al Qaeda is rather obvious to anyone who chooses to pay attention.

The posting of partial quotes and carefully clipped snippets in an effort to bolster your flawed argument is dishonest.

These documents are additional proof of Saddam’s connection to Al Qaeda as an organization. They can be added to the mountains of documents and other evidence that has already been discovered and publicized.

If you knew anything at all about Al Qaeda then you would know that command, control, planning, and execution of operations are all highly compartmentalized so the chances of everyone in Al Qaeda knowing about 9/11 before it happened are nil.

In fact, if you do a little research, the hijackers themselves, with the exception of Atta, didn’t even know what the mission was ahead of time.

In other words, the right hand quite literally doesn’t always know what the left hand is doing.

In prior discussions you have demonstrated very clearly an uncanny ability to totally ignore what is put before you and/or trying to discredit the people who are bringing the information forward.

You were pounded into the ground on another thread here when you claimed that there were “no WMD” and that “Bush lied”.

This thread is shaping up to be another pounding for you but you aren’t smart enough get off the tracks when the train is coming.

June 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am

So was there ever a terrorists attack by any al Qeada cell that was connecting to Iraq?

You really are s-l–o—–w, aren’t you, Salvage.

In a word, Somalia. But for your level of education, perhaps you’ll only know the Hollwyood version of history… Black Hawk Down.

June 24th, 2008 at 10:19 am

pears/apple festivals… LOL Careful, Aye Chi or some may do you the disservice of thinking you are just another cyber moniker of me. Or maybe it’s the other way around… I’m a cyber moniker of you?

Dang, won’t that be an ugly surprise to your family!

June 24th, 2008 at 10:22 am

Mike's America

Salvage: I got your pony right here!

June 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am

Aye Chihuahua

So was there ever a terrorists attack by any al Qeada cell that was connecting to Iraq?

Salvage,

How about the first WTC bombing back in 2003?

You’re still not feeling well are you?

A nice hot enema, two aspirin, and off to bed will make everything all better.

None of those things will make you smarter, but you’ll feel better.

pears/apple festivals… LOL Careful, Aye Chi

LOL.

I’m just trying to “be kind to the language” and “find new ways to express the same ideas” in deference to our more sensitive participants.

I saw it when you posted it so I commandeered it as my own.

June 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am

>Please re-read. AQ and Saddam’s regime weren’t buddy buddy any more than Hitler and Tojo were. They just cooperated from time to time.

You are very good a history.

>How about the first WTC bombing back in 2003?

Saddam was behind that? Really?

June 24th, 2008 at 10:40 am

Aye Chihuahua

So was there ever a terrorists attack by any al Qeada cell that was connecting to Iraq?

How about the first WTC bombing back in 2003?

Saddam was behind that? Really?

I never said Saddam was behind it.

You asked for a connection between an Al Qaeda cell and Iraq.

You are not very good at history are you?

June 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am

Iraq made monthly payments and sheltered Yousef prior to his US entry to bomb the WTC in 1993. He entered the country on an Iraqi passport, Salvage. The link to AQ, who contracted Yousef, who was nurtured and supported by a Saddam regime, and no doubt sent off with his tacit blessings to down his hated enemy, the US.

You, of course, think that Saddam knew nothing about who’s in his borders and what they are doing, right?

You, of course, believe that Saddam would never help a militant attack his bitter enemy, the US… especially when the bread crumbs to his own involvement could be denied. i.e. Schultzie in “Hogan’s Heroes”… “I know nuthzing….”

Both the above scenaris reflect a bumbling despot… not the very clever and ruthless tyrannt that was Saddam. Saddam’s blind eye to militants who share his goals was mutual benefit and convenience, as I said here on an eerily parallel thread about the “memo”.

Aye Chi… my words and language are always for sharing if desired. Pilfer and commandeer anything you like. :0) Just made me laugh when I think of the accusation that we are “the same” poster.

June 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am

Nope.

Allegations of Iraqi involvement

In October 2001 in a PBS interview, former CIA Director James Woolsey claimed that Ramzi Youssef worked for Iraqi intelligence.[13] He suggested the grand jury investigation turned up evidence pointing to Iraq that the Justice Department “brushed aside.” But Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation, noted that despite Yasin’s presence in Baghdad, there was no evidence of Iraqi support for the attack. “We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government.” CNN terrorism analyst Peter L. Bergen writes, “In sum, 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.”[14]

Claims of direct Iraqi involvement are based on the research of Laurie Mylroie of the American Enterprise Institute. Her research has been heavily criticized and terrorism experts consider her theory baseless. Bergen calls her a “crackpot” who claimed that “Saddam was not only behind the ‘93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself.”[15] Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes: “The most knowledgeable analysts and investigators at the CIA and at the FBI believe that their work conclusively disproves Mylroie’s claims.”[16] Dr. Robert Leiken of the Nixon Center comments on the lack of evidence in her work: “Laurie has discovered Saddam’s hand in every major attack on US interests since the Persian Gulf War, including U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and even the federal building in Oklahoma City. These allegations have all been definitively refuted by the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other investigatory bodies….”[17]

In March 2008, the Pentagon released its study of some 600,000 documents captured in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (see 2008 Pentagon Report). The study “found no ’smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”[18]

Among the documents released by the Pentagon was a captured audio file of Saddam Hussein speculating that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center had been carried out by Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction. Saddam said that he did not trust the bomber Yasin, who was in Iraqi custody, because his testimony was too “organized.” The Pentagon study found that Yasin “was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq.”[19] Mylroie denied that this was proof of Saddam’s non-involvement, claiming that “one common purpose of such meetings was to develop cover stories for whatever Iraq sought to conceal.”[20]

Granted it’s from Wikipedia but all the points are sourced. The connection between Iraq and any WTC attack has been discredited for a very long time. The only ones who keep on trying to make it are ones trying to justify the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Try again kids.

June 24th, 2008 at 11:52 am

Aye Chihuahua

LOL.

Wiki?

I know you didn’t just try and use Wiki as a valid source.

Your quoted portion changes from one last name in the first black section to different last name in the red section.

Come on. Even you are smart enough to know better than to use Wiki.

Here is Wiki’s entry on Abdul Rahman Yasin.

This entry contradicts the one that you posted which goes to show that you cannot trust Wiki for accurate info.

I am at work for just a little while longer and my research materials related to this matter are on my computer at home.

June 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Saddam’s support for Yousef was the same as it was for all militant jihadists… a blind eye and the ability to plan and harbor… remember those words, a state that “harbors terrorists”?.

Yousef lived and planned in Iraq, then entered the US on an Iraqi passport. Iraq was a revolving door of a cockroach nest for terrorists, including training camps.

Wiki? Pathetic… Wiki’s source links lead to other Wiki pages most of the time. However that aricle you quote does exist. Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t employed by the IIS. What mattered was that Saddam, just like the Taliban, harbored AQ and actually provided funding to his residence there. The world didn’t mind that the US coalition removed the Taliban regime for harboring AQ. But Saddam harboring AQ? Feh…

The only “discrediting” is done in your flawed thought patterns, Salvage. But like I said, our troops protect even the likes of you.

June 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

>Saddam’s support for Yousef was the same as it was for all militant jihadists… a blind eye and the ability to plan and harbor… remember those words, a state that “harbors terrorists”?.

Then by that thinking America turned a “blind eye and harbored” Timothy Mcvay.

And Wiki is a fine source for established facts and one of those facts, confirmed by the American government, is that Saddam had no ties to terrorism against America. The House of Saud, the guys that your Dear Leader has over to his place for sleepovers on the other hand do.

June 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Aye Chihuahua

Then by that thinking America turned a “blind eye and harbored” Timothy Mcvay.

Now that’s a stretch, even for you.

To prove that you’ll need to show that America knew what McVeigh was up to and chose to ignore it.

That’s what “turning a blind eye” means.

Yousef is just one place to look for the connections. You need to also look at Yasin. He’s the one who returned to Iraq after the bombing.

June 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

McVeigh had not commited a crime prior to be held on, Salvage. When he did, the US “removed” him and put him to death.

Had we known he was planning the OK bombing, he would have been removed sooner.

And I see Aye Chi came in with much the same thoughts.

The Saudi princes fund charities, of which some of found to be funneling cash to AQ in March of 2003. Rather like Aye Chi states, were they aware of this when contributing? Not likely, as they ostrazied OBL from their midst. They do not knowing pass funds to his cause.

I guess spelling, as well are reading, are not your forte either. Or did you just never know how to spell McVeigh’s name?

June 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Scott Malensek

No regime ties? I’m interested to see comments on the Zimmerman Telegram post and thread.

btw…
“In March 2008, the Pentagon released its study of some 600,000 documents captured in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (see 2008 Pentagon Report). The study “found no ’smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”[18]”
CLASSIC example of Wiki or any source using a half quote to market not only a half truth, but a fact opposite of what the entire report said. The report cited goes on to list numerous documented examples of ties between Saddam’s regime and AQ groups. The wording in cited refers only to the meetings and communications alleged by the Clinton Admin and others that were held between the regime leaders and AQ senior council members. Interestingly enough…there’s a doc showing that kinda connection right here in the very OP to this thread (to say nothing of the 1998 Clinton Admin UBL indictment [sec4btw]). Yeah, Wiki misled w that quote. Curious, before buying someone else’s opinion based on a misrepresented, false, half quote…did ya bother to even look at the report it talked about?

June 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

SoCal Chris

[Granted it’s from Wikipedia but all the points are sourced.]

I hate to break it to you, but I’m pretty sure that Wikipedia is left leaning in their facts. Getting their facts to be objective is not their objective.

By the way, I’m a Republican and I still support Pres. Bush, and still support the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Curiously, though, I have also never been “polled” on my opinion. Hmmm…

[Did the MSM pick up on this? One would have thought this would be front page news even back them. But the media and anti-free-Iraq types had too much invested in their “Bush lied” rhetoric, and cried foul… stating the docs must be forgeries. To do otherwise would seriously affect their credibility. They were vested in perpetuating a lie that so many… like you… want to believe.]

Thanks, Mata, for your perceptiveness and ability to articulate the truth.

June 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

You’re oh so welcome, and thank you for the kind words, SoCal Chris. However I apologize for myself today. I do have an “edge” and considerably less patient with humans than usual…. So far Salvage is getting just a smidgen of my general wrath. I shall endeavor to keep it in check, but think I’m losing the battle.

June 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

SoCal Chris

LOL, Mata…I have no problem with a woman who speaks her mind, especially when it’s the truth.

June 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

To be fair to salvage I actually think Yasin was grabbed by Saddam’s guys (the 93 WTC chemical mixer) and held to be used in a trade or a threat to the U.S. and I remain skeptical of Iraqi involvement in that attack though not in an al Qaeda - Iraq relationship.

June 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Yasin was the Iraqi who we looked for in Iraq post invasion and haven’t found. Yousef is in custody now but denies Iraqi sponsorship according to released testimony.

June 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm