Posted on 05/27/2004 7:33:19 AM PDT by sathers
Newly uncovered files examined by US 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 September 11, 2001.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who attended a 2000 Al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia where the 9/11 attacks were planned, is listed among the officers on three Fedayeen rosters reviewed by US probers, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
'Our government sources, who have seen the translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lt. Colonel,' the paper said.
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 Mukahbarrat intelligence service, Shakir was stationed at the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur at the time of the 9/11 planning session.
Also in attendance, 9/11 highjackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi who piloted American Airlines Filght 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon.
Ramzi 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 boming, were also at the meeting the Journal said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Bookmarkilation!
NOW, this is what the President SHOULD be saying on TV! Right now. The evidence is overwhelming for at least a CASUAL link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and now this? It's time to go on the offensive Mr. President, big time.
Arrghh! Bwaahaaa. Excellent visual...
I am afraid that as long as Rove is there, you will never get your wish.
Very interesting. Entirely possible. I still think it'd be in his best interests to report the connection, but this very well may be the reason he's not. Without this explaination, in other words, I'm left to wonder about his political "strategery" abilities.
So if the evidence is compelling, why did three different friendly governments including our very own CIA let him go?
"What you won't see on national news"....
Hard to believe, but I know people, who aren't even leftists per se, who are convinced that Bush has already captured Bin Laden and is just waiting to spring it right before the election.
Lots of conspiracy theorists around.
I think there are lots of conspiracies, but not the same ones these people believe.
Damn!
That is the best reason I've heard yet. So you're saying that the threat of lawsuits against the U.S. is preferable to Bush exposing to not only the U.S. - but the rest of the world that we had justification for the war in Iraq?
One could reason that he wasn't responsible for what happened then, because he wasn't president. I'm still not totally convinced that on a cost benefit analysis that it wouldn't be preferable to expose this.
What say you?
yeah, blump
"Bush's big chance will be at the debates when he points out what the media won't talk about."
Yup... more great poker moves.
I am not sure of the legalities of such, but once Iraq is turned over, would the new Govt. still be liable for actions by Saddam? Does anyone know the answer? IMHO, I would think not, and that would be the best time to slap the lefties upside the head with this info.
Yup. That's how we know that Saddam didn't REALLY send money to the families of the suicide bombers of Islamic Jihad and HAMAS!
Liberals are such gullible idiots.
I also quickly read through the WSJ and never made it to the editorial page. My question is why is this only reported on their editorial page? If the WSJ doesn't think this is important enough for page one, who will?
I believe it will get exposed...in time. IMHO, it depends on the legalities involved in the pending transfer of power in Iraq. Once Iraq is governed by the Iraqis, can they be held responsible for what Saddam perpetrated in the past? I would think not...and it would be foolish for anyone to attempt to blame the Iraqi people when they were clearly victims of Saddam themselves. As I stated above, the best time to b***h-slap the lefties with this info would be right after the transfer of power. That may be what they are waiting on...strategery...don't ya know : )
Even if this pans out and becomes even more definitive, the critics will say, "Yeah, but Bush never claimed a Saddam-9/11 link as a justification for war, so the war is still immoral and unjustified." Of course, they will say this even though they've been saying all along that Bush falsely claimed a Saddam-9/11 link.
Kerrorists are those who practice kerrorism. They are eltitists who seek to destroy America from within and will block any and every action that advances America. Kerrorism is especially vicious because it is supported by most of the nation's ultra-left wing media. Kerrorism's connections with international kerrorism give it special knowledge of blasts and disasters planned world wide.
Good point, I agree. Hopefully that is the plan. (because the answer to your question must be "no". How could an entirely new country be responsible for the atrocities of an old one? I don't think, for example, the German government is still responsible for the Holocaust. There are still Holocaust lawsuits, but they're against companies that were around then. Not the government itself, at least as far as I know)
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.