Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear faulty

The Miami Herald ^ | 3/3/04 | By WARREN P. STROBEL, JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND JOHN WALCOTT

[JohnGalt]

Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear faulty

The administration's case on ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda relied on intelligence that was weaker than that on Iraq's illegal weapons programs.

By WARREN P. STROBEL, JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND JOHN WALCOTT

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's assertion that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda -- one of the administration's central arguments for a preemptive war -- appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration's claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Hussein's links with al Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Hussein's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war.

''We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda,'' a senior U.S. official acknowledged.

The administration's allegations that Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction have been the subject of much greater public and political controversy than its suggestions that Iraq and al Qaeda were in league. They were based on the Iraqi leader's long history of duplicity regarding such weapons, which appeared to be confirmed by spy satellite photographs, information from defectors and electronic eavesdropping.

But the evidence of Iraq's ties to al Qaeda was always sketchy, based largely on testimony of Iraqi defectors and prisoners, with limited reports from foreign agents and electronic eavesdropping.

Much of the evidence that's now available indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Hussein or bin Laden; and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 attacks probably never happened.

A Knight Ridder review of the Bush administration statements on Iraq's links to terrorism and what's now known about the classified intelligence has found that administration advocates of a preemptive invasion frequently hyped sketchy and sometimes false information to help make their case. Twice they neglected to report information that painted a less sinister picture.

The Bush administration has defended its prewar descriptions of Hussein and is calling Iraq ''the central front in the war on terrorism,'' as the president told U.S. troops two weeks ago.

But before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

• Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was ''overwhelming evidence'' of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

• Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he would consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al Qaeda leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because ``if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.''

• The administration linked Hussein to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al Qaeda appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an ''al Qaeda-affiliated'' group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al Qaeda leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al Qaeda ``associate.''

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al Qaeda rebuffed.

• Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

• Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.

[JohnGalt]

"Senior U.S. officials"

Un-named sources, likely in the CIA that received such scorn from folks like Richard Perle in recent weeks, will continue to undermine the Administration for the remainder of the election season. Perle has since resigned but it appears his indictment of the intelligence community over the lack of WMDs has turned the intelligence departments against the Administration.

[Coop]

Funny, because last night I remember hearing Bret Baier report that a Monday raid on a Zarqawi safe house revealed some ties to Iraqi intelligence. I look forward to more details on that.

[angkor]

Gotta' love these unsourced stories.

[azhenfud]

Did President Bush and our intelligence agencies decieve America and the world, or did Saddam Hussein's deceitful shell game finally catch up on him?

No absolute link between Saddam Hussein and Al Queida has or probably ever will be made - or if it ever is, at best it'll most probably be some fragment of a rogue cell with a past attempt to have overthrown him, now training their focus on Americans. He hated Al Queida, and they reciprocated the admiration.

A Middle-Eastern born friend of mine said if anyone from President Bush's Administration and our intelligence agencies had known as much about Al Queida, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein as they had claimed and had evaluated the situation more thoroughly, they would understand 1) why the link between the two would not be substantial, 2) why Hussein was such a ruthless dictator, and 3) why Al Queida could not effectively operate in/from Iraq. He said that they too would realize Saddam would never outrightly state to the world he had no WMD's because he feared losing his control over Iraq to organizations like Al Queida more than he feared the US, because the US, with the UN, allowed Hussein to remain in power in 1991. Surely there was no commendable intention inherent of Saddam to keep Al Queida at bay. Saddam's only interest was keeping his power over Iraqi's secure. If Hussein continued to have any idea he could return to power, even the most remote threat of WMD's use was his insurance policy against those seeking to oust him.

My friend stated to understand Al Queida, you have to understand one thing foremost. Al Queida insists "Allah" has given it the sole and total responsibility to rule, to execute judgement, and/or wage war (or terror) and by its very nature, could never have shared power with Saddam. He said a basic understanding of Hussein's greed as a dictator and of the control Al Queida's religious zealots demand, made the two like an oil and water mix. Saddam would never have given Al Queida control of Iraq and acted only as a "figurehead"; Al Queida would never allow a dictator to have as much control over a people as Saddam had. He said the pre-war differences between Afghanistan and Iraq rule should have been a clear indication to that reasoning.

He also said as horrible as it seems from a Western POV, for Saddam to have kept his power intact within the country, many of those killing fields were an (unexcusably sick) necessity for him with an offended Al Queida and similar Islamic fanatical cells within and on the borders. Iraq and battling Islamic factions cannot be fully understood based on Western standards. It just doesn't work.

America's intelligence failures in this area could result in a negative/opposite effect from our intentions because there is no longer the ruthless control of Iraq to resist the insurgence of Al Queida or other terror cells. Their main target is Westerners (Americans) and now Iraq is full of American targets. Al Queida's history has demonstrated the only muzzle it fears is the iron glove - that will take years for the Iraqi people to accomplish in Iraq even with America's help.

Were Americans and the world decieved? I believe so - but the deceit originated in Iraq. No amount of intelligence could have determined Saddam had no WMD's if he intended the world to believe he may have still had them.

I'm not saying his is a totally correct POV, but on the other hand, I'm guilty of having viewed Iraq and Saddam from Western eyes, myself..

[secretagent]

Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was ''overwhelming evidence'' of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

Iraq might have wanted an official denial, but it wouldn't affect the truth of whether Iraq had anything to do with 1993 WTC.

[Puppage]

The administration's case on ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda relied on intelligence that was weaker than that on Iraq's illegal weapons programs.

Yeah, and Abu Nadal & Abu Abas were just VACATIONING in Baghdad, hmmm.

[rhombus]

Un-named sources tell me that John Kerry is beaten by his wife daily. Who? Sorry I never reveal my sources. Are you calling me unpatriotic?

[blanknoone]

WARREN P. STROBEL, JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND JOHN WALCOTT TIES TO REALITY APPEAR FAULTY.

Unnamed sources in the Miami Herald cite increasing evidence that these 'reporters' are acutally both delusional schizophrenics, as well Democrat Party operatives.

[KJacob]

Interesting stuff.
A lot of people seem to think that the war on terror is actually a war on AQ. It is not. Terrorists may be a part of different groups but they are still terrorists.
To my mind Saddam supported terrorists. It makes no difference rather they were AQ or another group. They are all part of the war on terrorism.

[anniegetyourgun]

Strobel = a fellow 1994-95 at the United States Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan institution created by Congress to research resolution of international conflicts.

Landay = Former writer for UPI and Christian Science Monitor.

Walcott = former national editor, U.S. News & World Report. Quote from 2003/Philly Inq.: "While American military planners have concentrated since the 1991 Persian Gulf War on making more and better use of high technology, their Iraqi counterparts appear to have been taking lessons from every battle the United States, Britain and Israel have failed to win."

Now, I don't mean to suggest that these, the darlings of "Why War" website, might be leftists, but.....

[JohnGalt]

Thank you for that thoughtful post, I enjoyed the read.

I think the headline is a fair statement: "Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear faulty", but I posted the article to illustrate the nature of our government when the CIA is in thinly veiled conflict with the Administration.

Rather than deal with the past, look at the article from a third party perspective about what is going on here. Bush will have to deliver a satisfactory remedy (fire a few folks or something) or this death by a thousand cuts will go on through November.

[anniegetyourgun]

See #10

[hobbes1]

No absolute link between Saddam Hussein and Al Queida has or probably ever will be made ....

Correct. That iw why, prior to 1992, and after 2001, (what's curious aobut those dates) U.S. Foreign Policy was unequivocal about terrorism being a STATE SPONSORED ACTIVITY, rather than a criminal one.

[secretagent]

Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he would consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al Qaeda leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because ``if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.''

This confirms that such a meeting took place and that Saddam offered aid to his supposed absolute enemy. Also, Bin Laden refused when he had the luxury of staying in Afghanistan. Did Saddam offer refuge again, after 9/11/01?

[zook]

This is nothing more than anti-Bush spin, courtesy of the Washington Post and waterboy John Galt. Let's view three key segments:

"Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was ''overwhelming evidence'' of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

Note that the VP said "evidence," not "proof." Intelligent people understand the difference. Honest people understand that protecting national security doesn't always allow the luxury of waiting for "proof." We must often act on the basis of evidence.

"Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Hussein's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings."

The misrepresentation and contradiction contained here screams out at the reader. The misrepresentation occurs when the WP writers use the term "in league" as a synonym of Vice President Cheney's term "relationship." These terms are not synonymous.

The contradiction lies in how the writers report "no relationship" on one hand, while suggesting there were "occasional meetings" on the other. Both assertions cannot be true at the same time.

''We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda,'' a senior U.S. official acknowledged.

Again, the key word here is "provable." No serious person can doubt the symbiotic relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaida.

This is not serious journalism but merely another example of the WP -- and John Galt -- running interference for John Kerry and the left.

[roses of sharon]

The Saddam defenders, are the new OJ jury.

They hate the police, so Saddam is innocent of any terroist connections. He openly paid suicide cults (Hamas), but not AQ?

Sure.

[azhenfud]

I believe you're right. I think though, President Bush needs to outrightly tell the American people that 1) yes, there was WMD's in Iraq at one time and the known stockpiles had not been fully accounted for 2) there were links of Al Queida cells in and around Iraq, but the CIA intelligence "misunderestimated" the connection to Hussein 3) the deceit originated from the Iraqi dictatorship and the increasing beligerance of Saddam gave suspicion that there were substantial evidences to wage an invasion.

I believe that's the only way President Bush can put the issue aside - by being as bold in admitting Saddam duped the world as we were to wage war. I believe Americans will accept that far quicker than a continuum of the current "you blame me, I blame you" game.

[Gothmog]

Just in case people are interested, an article on testimony on the Hill yesterday as reported by the Washington Times (3/4/04):

"Asked about links between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, [Peter] Rodman [assistant defense secretary for international security affairs] said documents are being translated that may shed light on the ties.

"'We have put out information. It does not demonstrate a connection with 9/11, but there is already, I think, significant evidence that there's a record of exchanges and contacts and some degree of cooperation between the Iraqis and al Qaeda,' he said."

[secretagent]

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al Qaeda rebuffed.

This reveals that Zarqawi had similar goals to al Qaeda.

[JohnGalt]

Professor Kantorek weighs in to parse words.

Brilliant defense.

But I am not interested in the past, I am interested in the alliance between the liberal media and the intelligence community to undermine the administration and the need for a remedy that will satisfy the intelligence community so they will stop waging war in the print media.