Posted on 06/17/2004 7:05:22 AM PDT by Valin
The 9/11 Commission raises more questions than it answers.
The 9/11 Commission's staff has come down decidedly on the side of the naysayers about operational ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. This development is already being met with unbridled joy by opponents of the Iraq war, who have been carping for days about recent statements by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that reaffirmed the deposed Iraqi regime's promotion of terror.
The celebration is premature. The commission's cursory treatment of so salient a national question as whether al Qaeda and Iraq confederated is puzzling. Given that the panel had three hours for Richard Clarke, one might have hoped for more than three minutes on Iraq. More to the point, though, the staff statements released Wednesday — which seemed to be contradicted by testimony at the public hearing within minutes of their publication — raise more questions than they answer, about both matters the staff chose to address and some it strangely opted to omit.
The staff's sweeping conclusion is found in its Statement No. 15 ("Overview of the Enemy"), which states:
Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
Just taken on its own terms, this paragraph is both internally inconsistent and ambiguously worded. First, it cannot be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." If the first proposition is so, then the "[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates" who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed.
In light of the number of elementary things the commission staff tells us its investigation has been unable to clarify (for example, in the very next sentence after the Iraq paragraph, the staff explains that the question whether al Qaeda had any connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the 1995 plot to blow U.S. airliners out of the sky "remains a matter of substantial uncertainty"), it is fair to conclude that these two senior bin Laden associates may not be the most cooperative, reliable fellows in town regarding what bin Laden was actually up to. Moreover, we know from press reports and the administration's own statements about the many al Qaeda operatives it has captured since 9/11 that the government is talking to more than just two of bin Laden's top operatives. That begs the questions: Have we really only asked two of them about Iraq? If not, what did the other detainees say?
Inconvenient Facts
The staff's back-of-the-hand summary also strangely elides mention of another significant matter — but one that did not escape the attention of Commissioner Fred Fielding, who raised it with a panel of law-enforcement witnesses right after noting the staff's conclusion that there was "no credible evidence" of cooperation. It is the little-discussed original indictment of bin Laden, obtained by the Justice Department in spring 1998 — several weeks before the embassy bombings and at a time when the government thought it would be prudent to have charges filed in the event an opportunity arose overseas to apprehend bin Laden. Paragraph 4 of that very short indictment reads:
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
(Emphasis added.) This allegation has always been inconvenient for the "absolutely no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda" club. (Richard Clarke, a charter member, handles the problem in his book by limiting the 1998 indictment to a fleeting mention and assiduously avoiding any description of what the indictment actually says.)
It remains inconvenient. As testimony at the commission's public hearing Wednesday revealed, the allegation in the 1998 indictment stems primarily from information provided by the key accomplice witness at the embassy bombing trial, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl. Al-Fadl told agents that when al Qaeda was headquartered in the Sudan in the early-to-mid-1990s, he understood an agreement to have been struck under which the jihadists would put aside their antipathy for Saddam and explore ways of working together with Iraq, particularly regarding weapons production.
On al Qaeda's end, al-Fadl understood the liaison for Iraq relations to be an Iraqi named Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. "Abu Hajer al Iraqi"), one of bin Laden's closest friends. (There will be a bit more to say later about Salim, who, it bears mention, was convicted in New York last year for maiming a prison guard in an escape attempt while awaiting trial for bombing the embassies.) After the embassies were destroyed, the government's case, naturally, was radically altered to focus on the attacks that killed over 250 people, and the Iraq allegation was not included in the superseding indictment. But, as the hearing testimony made clear, the government has never retracted the allegation.
Neither have other important assertions been retracted, including those by CIA Director George Tenet. As journalist Stephen Hayes reiterated earlier this month, Tenet, on October 7, 2002, wrote a letter to Congress, which asserted:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
Tenet, as Hayes elaborated, has never backed away from these assessments, reaffirming them in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee as recently as March 9, 2004.
Is the commission staff saying that the CIA director has provided faulty information to Congress? That doesn't appear to be what it is saying at all. This is clear — if anything in this regard can be said to be "clear" — from the staff's murky but carefully phrased summation sentence, which is worth parsing since it is already being gleefully misreported: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (Italics mine.) That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate — far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."
Kabul...Baghdad...
The same might, of course, be said about the deposed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Before anyone gets unhinged, I am not suggesting that bin Laden's ties to Iraq were as extensive as his connections to Afghanistan. But as is the case with Iraq, no one has yet tied the Taliban to a direct attack on the United States, although no one doubts for a moment that deposing the Taliban post-9/11 was absolutely the right thing to do.
I would point out, moreover, that al Qaeda is a full-time terrorist organization — it does not have the same pretensions as, say, Sinn Fein or Hamas, to be a part-time political party. Al Qaeda's time is fully devoted to conducting terrorist attacks and planning terrorist attacks. Thus, if a country cooperates with al Qaeda, it is cooperating in (or facilitating, abetting, promoting — you choose the euphemism) terrorism. What difference should it make that no one can find an actual bomb that was once in Saddam's closet and ended up at the Cole's hull? If al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating, they had to be cooperating on terrorism, and as al Qaeda made no secret that it existed for the narrow purpose of inflicting terrorism on the United States, exactly what should we suppose Saddam was hoping to achieve by cooperating with bin Laden?
Of course, we may yet find that Saddam was a participant in the specific 9/11 plot. In that regard, the commission staff's report is perplexing, and, again, raises — or flat omits — many more questions than it resolves.
Don't Forget Shakir
For one thing, the staff has now addressed the crucial January 2000 Malaysia planning session in a few of its statements. As I have previously recounted, this was the three-day meeting at which Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hazmi, eventual hijackers of Flight 77 (the one that hit the Pentagon), met with other key 9/11 planners. The staff's latest report, Statement Number 16 ("Outline of the 9/11 Plot"), even takes time to describe how the conspirators were hosted in Kuala Lampur by members of a Qaeda-affiliated terror group, Jemaah Islamiah. But the staff does not mention, let alone explain, let alone explain away, that al Midhar was escorted to the meeting by Ahmed Hikmat Shakir.
Shakir is the Iraqi who got his job as an airport greeter through the Iraqi embassy, which controlled his work schedule. He is the man who left that job right after the Malaysia meeting; who was found in Qatar six days after 9/11 with contact information for al Qaeda heavyweights — including bin Laden's aforementioned friend, Salim — and who was later detained in Jordan but released only after special pleading from Saddam's regime, and only after intelligence agents concluded that he seemed to have sophisticated counter-interrogation training. Shakir is also the Iraqi who now appears, based on records seized since the regime's fall, to have been all along an officer in Saddam's Fedayeen.
Does all this amount to proof of participation in the 9/11 plot? Well, in any prosecutor's office it would be a pretty good start. And if the commission staff was going to get into this area of Iraqi connections to al Qaeda at all, what conceivable good reason is there for avoiding any discussion whatsoever of Shakir? At least tell us why he is not worth mentioning.
Prague Problem
One thing the staff evidently thought it was laying to rest was the other niggling matter of whether 9/11 major domo Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed al-Ani in Prague in April 2001. The staff's conclusion is that the meeting is a fiction. To say its reasoning is less than satisfying would be a gross understatement. Here's the pertinent conclusion, also found in Statement Number 16:
We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9 [2001]. Based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred. The FBI's investigation places him in Virginia as of April 4, as evidenced by this bank surveillance camera shot of Atta withdrawing $8,000 from his account. Atta was back in Florida by April 11, if not before. Indeed, investigation has established that, on April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call Florida phone numbers from cell sites within Florida. We have seen no evidence that Atta ventured overseas again or re-entered the United States before July, when he traveled to Spain under his true name and back under his true name.
This is ground, again, that I've recently covered. To rehearse: Czech intelligence has alleged that Atta was seen in Prague on April 8 or 9, 2001. Atta had withdrawn $8,000 cash from a bank in Virginia on April 4 and was not eyeballed again by a witness until one week later, on April 11. The new detail added by the staff is that Atta's cell phone was used in Florida on three days (April 6, 9 and 10) during that time frame. Does this tend to show he was in Florida rather than Prague? It could, but not very convincingly. Telling us Atta's cell phone was used is not the same as telling us Atta used the cell phone.
Atta almost certainly would not have been able to use the cell phone overseas, so it would have been foolish to tote it along to the Czech Republic — especially if he was traveling clandestinely (as the large cash withdrawal suggests). He would have left it behind. Atta, moreover, had a roommate (and fellow hijacker), Marwan al-Shehhi. It is certainly possible that Shehhi — whom the staff places in Florida during April 2001 — could have used Atta's cell phone during that time.
Is it possible that Atta was in Florida rather than Prague? Of course it is. But the known evidence militates strongly against that conclusion: an eyewitness puts Atta in Prague, meeting with al-Ani; we know Atta was a "Hamburg student" and represented himself as such in a visa application; it has been reported that the Czechs have al-Ani's appointment calendar and it says he was scheduled to meet on the critical day with a "Hamburg student"; and we know for certain that Atta was in Prague under very suspicious circumstances twice in a matter of days (May 30 and June 2, 2000) during a time the Czechs and Western intelligence services feared that Saddam, through al-Ani, might be reviving a plot to use Islamic extremists to bomb Radio Free Europe (a plot the State Department acknowledged in its annual global terror report notwithstanding that the commission staff apparently did not think the incident merited mention).
I am perfectly prepared to accept the staff's conclusion about Atta not being in Prague — if the commission provides a convincing, thoughtful explanation, which is going to have to get a whole lot better than a cell-phone record.
What is the staff's reason for rejecting the eyewitness identification? Is the "Hamburg student" entry bogus? Since the staff is purporting to provide a comprehensive explanation of the 9/11 plot — the origins of which it traces back to 1999 — what is their explanation for what Atta was doing in Prague in 2000? Why, when the staff went into minute detail about the travels of other hijackers (even when it conceded it did not know the relevance of those trips), was Atta's trip to Prague not worthy of even a passing mention? Why was it so important for Atta to be in Prague on May 30, 2000 that he couldn't delay for one day, until May 31, when his visa would have been ready? Why was it so important for him to be in Prague on May 30 that he opted to go despite the fact that, without a visa, he could not leave the airport terminal? How did he happen to find the spot in the terminal where surveillance cameras would not capture him for nearly six hours? Why did he go back again on June 2? Was he meeting with al-Ani? If so, why would it be important for him to see al-Ani right before entering the United States in June 2000? And jumping ahead to 2001, if Atta wasn't using cash to travel anonymously, what did he do with the $8000 he suddenly withdrew before disappearing on April 4? If his cell phone was used in Florida between April 4 and April 11, what follow-up investigation has been done about that by the 9/11 Commission? By the FBI? By anybody? Whom was the cell phone used to call? Do any of those people remember speaking to Atta at that time? Perhaps someone would remember speaking with the ringleader of the most infamous attack in the history of the United States if he had called to chat, no?
Are these questions important to answer? You be the judge. According to the 9/11 Commission staff report, bin Laden originally pressed the operational supervisor of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), "that the attacks occur as early as mid-2000," even though bin Laden "recognized that Atta and the other pilots had only just arrived in the United States to begin their flight training[.]" Well I'll be darned: mid-2000 is exactly when Atta made his two frenetic trips to Prague immediately before heading to the United States to begin that flight training.
The commission staff next says, "[i]n 2001, Bin Laden apparently pressured KSM twice more for an earlier date. According to KSM, Bin Laden first requested a date of May 12, 2001," and then proposed a date in June or July. Well, what do you know: all those dates are only weeks after Atta may have had some reason to drop everything and secretly run to Prague for a meeting with al-Ani. Or maybe it's just a coincidence.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is an NRO contributor.
9/11 Panel Denies Al-Qaeda-Iraq Links
by Jim Lobe
In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the special bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found "no credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
While the commission, which has had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those appeals were ignored.
Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," according to the commission's report, which was released Wednesday morning. It added that two senior al-Qaeda officials now in U.S. custody "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
The report is the first of a series expected to be released over the coming months as the commission winds up its work.
Most of it deals with al-Qaeda's evolution beginning in the 1980s. Echoing the administration, it warns that "al-Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties."
Its conclusion about the absence of any operational link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein not only further undermines the administration's case for going to war against Iraq, but also deals a sharp blow to the already-strained credibility of Cheney, who Monday asserted without elaboration during a speech to a right-wing institute in Florida that the Iraqi leader had "long-established ties" to the group.
Cheney insisted as recently as last January that Washington had obtained "conclusive" evidence that Hussein had biological weapons in the form of two customized truck trailers that he said was for their production.
The claim, which he has not repeated since, was discredited by, among others, outgoing Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet, as well as the head of the U.S. task force in charge of searching for alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iraq, David Kay.
Asked about Cheney's most recent remarks at a Tuesday press conference, Bush declined to answer directly, insisting instead that Hussein had ties with "terrorist organizations," of which he cited only the late Abu Nidal, a Palestinian who split from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the 1970s and created his own terrorist group.
Bush also suggested that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who is identified by U.S. officials as a leader of resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, might also have had ties to Hussein and al-Qaeda.
"Zarqawi is the best evidence of (Hussein's) connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda," Bush said. "He's the person who's still killing."
The commission's conclusion on the absence of ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda is also certain to further discredit the so-called neoconservatives both inside and outside the administration who led the march to war. Many of them were behind what appeared to be an orchestrated campaign to implicate Hussein in the 9/11 attacks themselves.
Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council (NSC) and the State Department.
Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey – both members of Rumsfeld's Defence Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Centre for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others.
A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks for an eventual strike on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al-Qaeda.
A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with 9/11 and al-Qaeda surfaced one year ago in a televised interview of General Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs program, Meet the Press. In answer to a question, Clark asserted, "there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
"It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"
While Clark has not yet identified who called him, Perle, Woolsey, Gaffney and Kristol were using the same language in their media appearances on 9/11 and over the following weeks.
"This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sept. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments."
While Kristol and company were trying to implicate Hussein in the public debate, their friends in the administration were pushing hard in the same direction. Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends before Sept. 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Hussein from power.
But the evidence about Rumsfeld is even more dramatic. According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin in September 2002, Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon.
Martin attributed his account in part to notes taken at the time by a Rumsfeld aide. They quote the defense chief asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time, not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). The administration should "go massive ... sweep it all up, things related and not," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying.
Wolfowitz shared those views, according to an account of the meeting Sept. 15-16 of the administration's war council at Camp David, provided by the Post's Bill Woodward and Dan Balz. In the "I-was-there" style for which Woodward, whose access to powerful officials since his investigative role in the Watergate scandal almost 30 years ago is unmatched, is famous:
"Wolfowitz argued (at the meeting) that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of Sep. 11 created an opportunity to strike. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: 'Is this the time to attack Iraq?'"
"Powell objected," the Woodward and Balz account continued, citing Secretary of State Colin Powell's argument that U.S. allies would not support a strike on Iraq. "If you get something pinning Sep. 11 on Iraq, great," Powell is quoted as saying. "But let's get Afghanistan now. If we do that, we will have increased our ability to go after Iraq – if we can prove Iraq had a role."
Despite the secretary of state's reservations, the neocon campaign was remarkably successful. As recently as eight weeks ago, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found that 57 percent of the U.S. public believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in carrying out the 9/11 attacks or had provided "substantial support" to al-Qaeda. Fifty-two percent said they believed that concrete evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaeda link had been uncovered by U.S. investigators since the war.
Retired senior U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have long doubted any operational link between al-Qaeda and Hussein, as noted by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, who signed a statement by former top-ranking diplomats and military officials that was released here Tuesday, denouncing U.S. policy in Iraq and the Middle East.
"(Hussein) and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies during this period," Freeman told reporters, adding that administration assertions that the two had such links before the war were regarded by specialists in the region as "ludicrous."
"Why the vice president continues to make that claim beats me," said another former top diplomat, Ambassador Robert Oakley. "I have no idea."
June 17, 2004
Wow.
Bump!
Whom did I hear quoted on the news last night? Partisan hack Richard BenVeniste. 'Nuff said!
May I pls. add one more? Jamie Gorelick! Why wasn't she BEFORE the (C)ommission AS A WITNESS (regarding Oklahoma City, WTC-1993, and TWA # 800)? Let us home that in her case, time wounds all heels.
es
I notice you seem to be going out of your way to side with the 9/11 Commission, and are trying to get people here to not vote in the election.
I'm smelling a troll, and be assured I'll be keeping a close eye on you.
I'm just a person who believes in small government... you know, the way you "conservatives" used to.
To Freepers, anyone who disagrees with them is a troll; so, yes, I guess that makes me one.
This may well be true, but color me skeptical.
...you know, the way you "conservatives" used to.
I don't agree with every single policy of the adminstration, but I'm voting for Bush whether you like it or not, and putting conservatives in quotation marks isn't going to change that.
To Freepers, anyone who disagrees with them is a troll; so, yes, I guess that makes me one.
Your not-so-subtle attack on all Freepers and reference to us as "them" shows that clearly you don't agree with us. So if that's the case, what exactly are you doing here? By the way, what you say isn't true, we have a couple of honest and open liberals that are permitted to post here. A troll is a faker, a poser, someone who's just here to antagonize others, or someone who's playing games such as posting under multiple identities and user names.
After your last response, I'm even more convinced now that you're probably someone who's been banned before in the past and is back to cause more trouble. I'm going to politely suggest to you that you just go away and don't come back.
Ping
Whatever, troll. Like I said, I'll be keeping a close eye on you.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (Updated)
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html
ping
I appreciate the heads-up, lemming.
Does that include the ones I gave you?
I would like to combine them if you already separated them out! :)
Race - I've responded on so many threads that I just don't know for certain.
What I do know is that I tried to find every link that was sent to me on multiple threads and add them to mine.
Thanks for the ping, Cindy. Great article.
You're welcome Fair Opinion.
INTERNET HAGANAH.US.: "SPEAKING OF THE AL QAIDA THREAT AGAINST COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Note the anti-aircraft missile and the flags of Japan and the European Union. The text beside Osama on the first graphic reads "We shall not forget Japan's support of the Crusader Zionist alliance in the war against Islam and the Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries."") (June 12, 2004) (Read More...)
INSIGHT On The News online: "IRANIAN GROUP SEEKS RECRUITS FOR 'MARTYRDOM OPERATIONS" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Insight Online has obtained a shocking recruitment appeal seeking Iranians to commit suicide in deadly attacks on Israel, against American-led coalition forces in Iraq, and on U.S. citizens around the world. Obtained from an Iranian recruiting group, the deadly appeal is unmistakable and to the point.") (June 8, 2004) (Read More...)USinfo.state.gov: "STATE DEPARTMENT ON NORWAY'S DISMISSAL OF MULLAH KREKAR CASE United States 'remains seriously concerned' about links to terrorism" (June 16, 2004) (Read More...)
AFTENPOSTEN.no - News from Norway: "MULLAH KREKAR SHALL GO" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "The deportation process against the former leader of militant Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam will formally begin on June 30, the date given by occupation forces for the transfer of autonomy to Iraqi leaders.") (May 6, 2004) (Read More...)AFTENPOSTEN.no - Search Term: "KREKAR"
GOOGLE Search Term: "KREKAR"
YAHOO.com - News (AP): "TESTS CONFIRM SARIN GAS IN BAGHDAD BOMB" (May 25, 2004) (Read More...)
INSIGHT On The News online: "U.S. INTELLIGENCE TRACKED IRAQI WMD CONVOYS TO LEBANON" (May 21, 2004) (Read More...)
ABC News.go.com (REUTERS): "SPAIN JUDGE LINKS QAEDA SUSPECTS TO IRAQ INSURGENCY" (May 19, 2004) (Read More...)
FOX NEWS.com: "SARIN, MUSTARD GAS DISCOVERED SEPARATELY IN IRAQ" (May 17, 2004) (Read More...)
INSIGHT On The News online: "IRAQ HAD TIES TO 9/11 RINGLEADER" (May 11, 2004) (Read More...)
JIHAD WATCH.org (NY POST): "BUSH BOMB PLOT" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "A terrorist bomb plot to kill President Bush was thwarted yesterday when Turkish police nabbed 25 members of an al Qaeda-linked cell who planned to assassinate world leaders in Istanbul next month - then flee to Iraq. Investigators yesterday announced that they seized 16 of the men in the Turkish town of Bursa last Thursday, along with guns, explosives, forged ID documents, bomb-making booklets - and 4,000 CDs featuring training instructions from Osama bin Laden. Turkish TV said three of the suspects had been planning for as long as a year to blow themselves up with a bomb that would also kill Bush and other Western leaders.") (May 4, 2004) (Read More...)REWARDS FOR JUSTICE.net: WANTED: "ABU MUS'AB AL-ZARQAWI" (VIEW POSTER HERE NOW)
NewsMax.com: "FOILED AL QAEDA ATTACKERS CAUGHT RED-HANDED WITH WMDs" (April 17, 2004) (Read More...)
NewsMax.com: "KING ABDULLAH: AL QAEDA WMDs CAME FROM SYRIA" (April 17, 2004) (Read More...)
WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "U.S. SEES SYRIA 'FACILITATING' INSURGENTS" by Rowan Scarborough (April 21, 2004) (Read More...)
MENS NEWS DAILY.com: "SYRIA SHIPPING WMD COMPONENTS TO SUDAN by Jim Hauser, Talon News (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "According to Middle East Newsline, "western intelligence sources said the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has been flying shipments of Scud C and Scud D extended-range missiles as well as WMD components to warehouses in Khartoum since at least January 2004. The sources said the Syrian shipments to Khartoum were placed on civilian airliners but authorized and directed by the Defense Ministry."") (April 13, 2004) (Read More...)INSIGHT On The News online - Fair Comment by Uwe Siemon-Netto: "FALLUJAH GETS LOUD SILENCE FROM WORLD'S MUSLIM LEADERS" (April 12, 2004) (Read More...)
WASHINGTON TIMES.com - Editorials/OpEd: "IRAQI SCIENTISTS SILENCED" (April 9, 2004) (Read More...)
MENEWSLINE.com: "IRAN OPERATES 18 SPY CENTERS IN IRAQ" (April 9, 2004) (Read More...)
MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE Special Dispatch Series No. 692: "IRAN'S ROLE IN THE RECENT UPRISING IN IRAQ" (April 9, 2004) (Read More...)
NewsMax.com: "BUSH SANCTIONS CHINESE FIRMS' WMD EXPORTS TO IRAN" -Column by Charles R. Smith (ARTICLE SNIPPET: " The Bush administration has imposed new sanctions against companies dealing advanced military technology to Iran. The sanctions include Chinese companies that manufacture chemical and biological systems critical for the development of weapons of mass destruction. The newly sanctioned companies include several Chinese Army owned firms, as well as companies in Russia, Belarus, the United Arab Emirates, North Korea and Taiwan.") (April 8, 2004) (Read More...)WASHINGTON TIMES.com (UPI): "JORDAN ABORTS ARMS SMUGGLING FROM SYRIA" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "A ministry statement said Suleiman Khaled Darwish, Azmi Abdel Fatah al-Haj and Mowafak Ali al-Adwan, are dangerous criminals wanted by the security authorities and urged citizens with information about their whereabouts to contact police. Two Arab television channels also reported Jordanian authorities discovered a booby-trapped car smuggled into Jordan to be used in a terrorist attack.") (April 1, 2004) (Read More...)INSIGHT ON THE NEWS Online - Fair Comment: "FOREIGN JIHADISTS ADD FUEL TO THE ANTICOALITION FIRE IN IRAQ" by Notra Trulock (March 29, 2004) (Read More...)
REWARDS FOR JUSTICE.NET - WANTED: "ABU MUS'AB AL-ZARQAWI" (VIEW PHOTOS and READ MORE...)
THE AGE.com.au: "SECRET BUNKERS HELD CHEMICAL WEAPONS, SAYS IRAQI EXILE A Scientist Describes Saddam's Weapons and Stealth Technology Programs, reports Russell Skelton" (April 1, 2004) (Read More...)GOOGLE Search Term: "AL-SADR" (Read More...)
INATODAY.com - INTERNATIONAL NEWS ANALYSIS -- TODAY by Toby Westerman: "THE SECRET OF FALLUJA Foreign State Support and the Allies of Terror" (April 5, 2004) (Read More...)
AFTENPOSTEN.no - News from Norway (English Version): "MADRID TERRORISTS LINKED TO KREKAR" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "One of those arrested last week is believed to be connected to an al-Qaida group that tried to establish itself in Norway in 1995, reported Norwegian newspaper VG on Monday. VG reported that Spanish investigators think Jamal Zougam, age 30, has ties to Imad Barakat Yarkas, alias Abu Dahdah, thought to have taken part in the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001. The group allegedly sought help from Mullah Krekar's brother, Khalid Faraj Ahmad, to obtain visas to Norway.") (Updated March 15, 2004) (Read More...)WorldNetDaily.com: "9 IRAQI SCIENTISTS MURDERED IN PAST 4 MONTHS U.S. Believes Killings Effort to Conceal Scope of Iraq's Nuke Program" (February 26, 2004) (Read More...)FOX NEWS.com (AP): "REPORT: BINALSHIBH ADMITS MEETING 9/11 LEADER ATTA" (March 1, 2004) (Read More...)
REWARDS FOR JUSTICE.net: WANTED: "ABU MUS'AB AL-ZARQAWI" (VIEW POSTER HERE NOW)
CPA-IRAQ.org - COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY: "INTERCEPTED PLAN REVEALS AL-QUAEDA'S FEAR OF DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Baghdad -- Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Governing Council officials today released the text of an intercepted letter written by Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist with al-Quaeda affiliations, to al-Quaeda officials. In the document, Zarqawi acknowledges that "time is running out" for the insurgents and terrorists as the transition to Iraqi soverignty draws nearer. The only solution, according to Zarqawi, is to force a civil war between Sunni and Shi'a. Reward for Info Leading to Zarqawi's Arrest Doubled to $10M") (February 12, 2004) (Read More...)
MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 164: "THE SADDAM OIL VOUCHERS AFFAIR" by Dr. Mimrod Raphaeli" (February 20, 2004) (Read More...)WEEKLY STANDARD.com: "SADDAM'S AMBASSADOR TO AL QAEDA From the March 1, 2004 Issue: An Iraqi Prisoner Details Saddam's Links to Osama bin Laden's Terror Network" by Jonathan Schanzer, Issue 24 dated March 1, 2004 (Read More...)NEW ZEALAND HERALD.co.nz: "SIS SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AHMED ZAOUI The Following Document from the Director of New Zealand's Security & Intelligence Service was Released by Ahmed Zaoui's Lawyers on 20 Feb 2004:" (Read More...)GOOGLE Search Term: "AHMED ZAOUI" (Read More...)
WASHINGTON TIMES.com (UPI): "TERRORISTS PREPPED FOR A LONG CONFLICT" by Anwar Iqbal, UPI (February 14, 2004) (Read More...)
CPA-IRAQ.org - COALITON PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY: "TEXT FROM ABU MUS'AB AL-ZARQAWI LETTER" (February 12, 2004) (Read More...)
ISLAMONLINE.net - Live Dialogue - Guest Name: "Mr. George Galloway, an Independent MP for the City of Glasgow in Scotland" - Subject: "IRAQ: THE WAR AND THE LIES" (February 9, 2004) (Read More...)HERALD SUN.com: "COURT CONVICTS 15 IN JORDAN TERROR PROBE" (June 16, 2004) (Read More...)
AFTENPOSTEN.no - News from Norway (English): "COURT ORDERS MULLAH KREKAR'S RELEASE" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "An Oslo city court ordered the release on Monday of Mullah Krekar, the controversial former leader of guerrilla group Ansar al-Islam. State prosecutors had arrested him Friday on charges tied to at least two suicide bombings.") (January 5, 2004) (Read More...)AFTENPOSTEN.NO - News From Norway (English) - Search Term: "KREKAR" (Read More...)
MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE: "IRAQ" (Read More...)
WHITEHOUSE.gov - In Focus: "IRAQ" (Read More...)
Ping
Thanks for the ping!
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.