Posted on 06/22/2004 7:38:47 AM PDT by lugsoul
Wow, good analysis. I had not read it as carefully as you.
Not really very probable, unless "Ahmed Hikmat Shakir" is the Iraqi equivalent of "John David Smith."
Great book and also noteworthy for being written pre-911.
There are also many connections between the 1993 WTC attack and Iraq including the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals and then fled to Iraq where Iraq put him on the payroll. The Iraqi government worker even admitted in an interview with Leslie Stahl a few years ago he was involved in the 1993 WTC attack.
Also, as Clinton has acknowledged, the Iraqi government tried to assassinate President George H.W. Bush ...only the extreme left would deny such a hit would be an act of terrorism and war! But how short the memory is on the left.
From my files:
Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols crossed paths in the Phillipines. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was Yousef's uncle. It is interesting to note that Yousef entered the United States on an Iraqi passport and had been known among the New York fundamentalists as "Rashid, the Iraqi". Another name that could be thrown into the mix is Abdul Rahman Yasin, a U.S. citizen who moved to Iraq in the 1960's and returned to the U.S. in 1992. After the 1993 WTC bombing, Yasin fled to Iraq and was given monthly salary and housing by Saddam Hussein's regime.
The Iraqi government worker even admitted in an interview with Leslie Stahl a few years ago he was involved in the 1993 WTC attack.
Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993..."[Yousef and Salameh] used to tell me how Arabs suffered a great deal and that we have to send a message that this is not right … to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia," Yasin tells Stahl. He adds that they also prodded him about being an Iraqi who should avenge the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.
60 Minutes: The Man Who Got Away
A transript of the interview is linked on that page.
You had only asked me if anyone said they think it's the same guy. Lehman has. Again, from the article: he said "new ... documents" indicated that "at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen," an elite army unit, "was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."
Now you're telling me he also says it hasn't been confirmed. Well big whoop. So he thinks it's the same guy but says it hasn't been confirmed. Where's the contradiction? More to the point, did you forget what you'd asked me? You didn't ask me if I knew of anyone who would say it was "confirmed", just that they thought it was the same guy. Here's Lehman saying the documents indicate it's the same guy and that's not enough.
It's so weird how the goalposts have different sizes for different teams. I can't point to an actual named guy on my side who thinks there's a link unless it's been "confirmed" (whatever that means). If it hasn't been "confirmed" it doesn't even count at all, doesn't get us to 85% or even 5% certainty.
Meanwhile, the other side can point to unnamed abstract people such as "the CIA", who supposedly (we hear third-hand) think or "concluded" there's no link and based on nothing but, I suppose, *authority*, I'm supposed to - without any details whatsoever of their reasoning or evidence - respect that as casting doubt on the link. Very very weird.
"And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed."
So, in your mind, "some of these documents indicate" it, but it "still has to be confirmed" is the same thing as Lehman saying "I've looked at this, and I think it is the same guy." Very, very weird.
First, I had not seen that quote as it does not seem to be from the above article.
Anyway the quote you're showing me is Lehman saying there's some evidence that it's the same guy, no more and no less. Further I presume he would not say that documents "indicate" something he believes untrue, he would be discussing why he believes the documents are fradulent or whatever. I guess I agree that it's not Lehman saying he is 100% certain that it's the same guy, so if that was your original query, my mistake. But I don't know why that (Lehman knowing for certain that it's the same guy) is the goalpost of anything. I am not certain that it's the same guy.
Anyway, let's split the difference (because really, this is not that important): Lehman has gone public saying that there is evidence of this link. He has also said it "needs to be confirmed".
In short, there is evidence, but not proof.
I am not saying anything different nor do I think anybody else is.
Meanwhile, we have "the CIA" which supposedly "concluded" they were different guys. We don't know who in the CIA, we don't know why they "concluded" this, or what information they based the "conclusion" on. Moreover we are told this third-hand, a news reporter quoting an unnamed administration official purporting to be passing along "the CIA"'s "conclusion".
And for you that's enough to say that this information casts doubt on the link. Do I understand correctly?
First, there are documents containing names of Fedayeen which include a name very similar - not identical - to the name of the AQ Shakir.
Cheney, Lehman, the WSJ note these documents as an indication that an AQ guy might be an Iraqi officer, but the info has not been vetted and confirmed.
According to this article, if the information in it is true, the CIA - or people at the CIA - have looked at the issue of whether it is the same guy and "concluded" that it is not.
Now, part 2: My question to you is whether you are aware of anyone that has taken the SECOND step - trying to vet the information "indicated" in the documents - and determined that they think it IS the same guy.
As far as the quote, the article quoted Lehman on MTP. The quote I posted was from the transcript. I know what he said because I watched it.
Now, as far as the veracity of the information goes, everything we know about the AQ Shakir came through the same pipeline. Intelligence info from CIA [plus some on KL meeting from FBI], through unnamed gov't officials [with the exception of the one paragraph mention in the Feith memo], to reporter. In other words, everything we know about this issue comes through that same path.
Now, as far as what "casts doubt" - we go back to two steps. The documents indicate "X". No one has publicly determined whether X is true, but everyone acknowledges it must be vetted and confirmed. And this article "indicates" that the agency with the primary responsibility for doing so has looked at it and thinks it is not the same guy. Which leads back to my question to you, which I'll quote again: "Has anyone, at any time, said "we've looked into what we saw in the documents and we do think it is the same guy?"
Believe what you want.
Just thought I'd mention folks might want to consider the source :)
"vetted"? "confirmed"? No, apparently not (whatever those things mean exactly). It's just evidence that the known AQ guy was in the fedayeen. That evidence may not pan out, or prove to be mistaken, refer to a different guy, 3 different guys, or something, but we have no reason to believe that is the case as of now. Do we?
So as of now on the "evidence for" side, we stack this document. On the "evidence against" side, we stack.... well, nothing whatsoever of any substance. However much stock you place in that "evidence for", then, that's how confident you are that this is a bona fide link. I'll put my confidence between 65-85%. How about you?
What I will not do is lower my percentage because of this news article. There is absolutely no reason to do that I can see. Ok?
According to this article, if the information in it is true, the CIA - or people at the CIA - have looked at the issue of whether it is the same guy and "concluded" that it is not.
Right. And people in the CIA are known to have "concluded" lots of things we know to be false. We don't know *who* did this "concluding" or why. Their reasoning could have been nothing more than "but the names are spelled differently!". If so, seeing as how many ways there are to spell "Qaddafi", why would I place any stock whatsoever in such a "conclusion"? And if you have reason to believe that "the CIA" based their "conclusion" on something more substantial, where is it? It surely is not to be found in this article.
My question to you is whether you are aware of anyone that has taken the SECOND step - trying to vet the information "indicated" in the documents - and determined that they think it IS the same guy.
I would be surprised and disappointed if there is no one in the world who is "trying to vet" this information, but no I do not have firsthand knowledge of any such people. However, that is not relevant to anything I am trying to say, which is nothing more and nothing less than: this article contains no reason whatsoever to increase our doubt in the Shakir link.
Now, as far as the veracity of the information goes, everything we know about the AQ Shakir came through the same pipeline. Intelligence info from CIA [plus some on KL meeting from FBI], through unnamed gov't officials [with the exception of the one paragraph mention in the Feith memo], to reporter. In other words, everything we know about this issue comes through that same path.
Fair enough. It's possible, for example, that Ahmad Hikmat Shakir simply never existed. No such person existed because the CIA was simply wrong. Other "CIA was wrong" scenarios would lead to other possibilites.
However, provisionally accepting for sake of argument that Shakir really did exist, was in Al Qaeda, was an Iraqi, went to that meeting, etc., we now have that same name appearing on a fedayeen list or three. This is evidence in favor of a "connection" hypothesis. Which is all that I'm saying.
I certainly hope you're not confusing "evidence" with "proof". A lot of people seem to have real trouble distinguishing the two and I hope you are not one of them. When I say "evidence" I just mean "evidence", and not "proof".
It's true enough that if all the stuff about the KL meeting and someone named Shakir was just plain false, then the evidence for the connection vanishes. For what it's worth.
The documents indicate "X". No one has publicly determined whether X is true,
What is "publicly determining whether X is true"? I don't know what that means.
Again, the documents list someone with the same apparent name as a known, Iraqi-national, AQ member. Let's just stick with the raw data then. It is what it is: evidence that this AQ member was in the fedayeen. Not proof, but evidence.
Contrary evidence, consisting for example of evidence that there is or were some other A.H. Shakir person/people to whom these entries actually refer, would indeed demolish this "evidence". But we don't have it, and we have no reason to believe anyone else does. The CIA "concluding" the people are different could be based on anything, or nothing, for all I know; it could even be disinformation. So I'm sticking with the raw data we actually have, which is the document.
And this article "indicates" that the agency with the primary responsibility for doing so has looked at it and thinks it is not the same guy.
Yes but that could mean any number of things some of which boil down to "Valerie Plame says no!" So again, lacking further information that's no reason in and of itself to discount the evidence. Keep in mind, again, that "the agency" cannot "think" anything. "The agency" is not a person.
Which leads back to my question to you, which I'll quote again: "Has anyone, at any time, said "we've looked into what we saw in the documents and we do think it is the same guy?"
When you say "think" you really mean "think and vetted and confirmed", right? I'm still pretty sure Dick Cheney thinks it's the same guy, FWIW. And I have no reason to believe what he thinks is any less reliable than what "the CIA" supposedly, we are told, thinks. But it would be equally fair, I suppose, to assume that he probably hasn't "vetted" and/or "confirmed" the link.
So if that's what your question means then I think the answer is no, I know of no one who's "vetted" the link and "confirmed" it. But that's irrelevant to anything I'm saying and I'm puzzled why you ask this. Best,
Shermy .....I bet this is coming from the Wilson/Plame faction of the CIA.
All Royce sites is an "Administration Official". SOP, unnamed sources.
Big game afoot, media compliant.
So, if we "know" [again, assuming the CIA can, at times, be correct] that a guy named John McVeigh is stockpiling weapons in NYC and meeting with known domestic terrorists, and we have a document indicating that Jon McVay is a member of ANSWER, we can conclude that it is the same guy and ANSWER is involved in a pending terror attack on the Republican convention? That's all we know. That the document shows a very similar name not spelled the same way. That's it. It you think that takes us to 65% or better, then you've got a pretty low threshold.
It really shouldn't be that hard to figure it out. We have pictures of the guy in KL. If this officer was a Lt. Col. in the Fedayeen, I'd bet there are some pictures of him floating around somewhere. We got phone numbers for the guy [Al Qaeda Shakir] when he was picked up in Qatar after 9/11. The CIA even interrogated him when he was being held in Jordan. I'm guessing they probably know something.
Me, I'll take it with a little more salt, especially if all we have is a name. Hell, if you believe Mylroie, Ramzi Yousef is not even Ramzi Yousef, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not Khalid Sheik Mohammed. We know these guys adopt aliases with more ease than rappers, so how can we determine any association based only upon a "close" name?
As far as Plame goes, I'm sure that a "White House official" is passing along info from Valerie Plame.
Yep ......they need to discredit what is about to come out. Once that AQ/911/Saddam connection is cemented in the public eye.....the game is over for the media and Rats.
Without regard to who gets discredited or what the political implications may be - does anyone here care whether this is the same guy? Or is everyone just willing to accept that it is because that helps the Administration? 'Cause you've got to know that this information, if true, ups the ante far beyond anything claimed by the Administration. If it is true, that doesn't simply mean there is an Iraq/AQ connection. It would mean there is an Iraq/9-11 collaboration. I don't really believe that people wouldn't be pointing that out if they had a strong indication that this is the same guy.
She may be right..........what people are forgetting is Saddam invaded Kuwait......and had access to all passports, birth certificates, visas.... of that government until we took it back.
She may be right. And, if she is, some document that has the name "Ramsi Yusef" on it would mean absolutely squat. That's the point.
No the point was/is Ramsi Yusfi an Iraqi agent using a Kuwaiti cover........same for KSM.
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.