Stephen Hayes: The Prime Minister Speaks

The Weekly Standard ^ | June 30, 2004 | Stephen F. Hayes

[RWR8189]

 

New Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi still thinks that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION Tuesday received further support for its claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda from an important source: new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Allawi, who has long claimed knowledge of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, reiterated these beliefs in an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw. Brokaw: I know you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But can't you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States? Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what happened in New York. And the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism. Brokaw: Prime minister, I'm surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al Qaeda. Allawi: No, I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al Qaeda. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can't vouch for this. But definitely I know that he has connections with extremism and terrorists. Allawi has made such claims before. In an interview with CNN on December 31, 2003, he said that al Qaeda terrorists were "present in Iraq, they came and they were active in Iraq before the war of liberation." Al Qaeda fighters, he continued, "had the backing of Saddam prior to liberation, and they remained in Iraq after the collapse, and after the vacuum was created." Allawi's claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda link have not always been credible. Earlier in December, he provided journalists with a document claiming that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had trained in Baghdad the summer before the 9/11 attacks. The three-page report, which also claimed Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, was quickly rejected as a forgery. (That last claim, however, received a boost yesterday with an article in the Financial Times that laid out intelligence suggesting that despite the fact that a key document relating to the Iraq-Niger uranium story had been forged, the broader contention was likely true.) But as the CIA's favorite Iraqi exile, Allawi was in a unique position to assess the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. And his views have been echoed consistently by the man who is now Iraq's deputy prime minister, Barham Salih. Salih's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, has interrogated several captive Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) officials who claim firsthand knowledge of the relationship between the IIS and Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda affiliate that operated northern Iraq before the war. One detainee, Abdul Rahman al Shamari, described his duties as an IIS operative to terrorism expert Jonathan Schanzer. Al Shamari, who says he served the IIS from 1997 to 2002, told Schanzer of his role as a conduit for arms and funding between Iraqi Intelligence and the Islamic radicals working in a part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam. Al Shamari says that the IIS provided weapons--"mostly mortar rounds"--to Ansar. He recalled providing one payment of approximately $700,000 to Ansar and told Schanzer that such assistance came "every month or two months." A May 2002 report from the National Security Agency, which specializes in communications intercepts, also includes intelligence on IIS funding for Ansar. According to a summary in a memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the report "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance." Says Deputy Prime Minister Salih: "Saddam Hussein, a secular infidel to many jihadists, had no problem giving money to Hamas. This debate [about whether Saddam worked with al Qaeda] is stupid. The proof is there." Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. Parts of this article are drawn from his new book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins).

[John Valentine]

You know, I am profoundly tired of hearing about how the Habboush al-Tikriti memo "has been dismissed" as a forgery.

There is no inhernet reason why this idea has to always be expressed in the passive voice. Usually the reason for the use of passive voice is to cover up the truth that the writer has no idea what he is talking about.

If someone has tested thhe memo, and proven it to be a forgery, let's hear about it in the active vioce, with a name attached. How about "The CIA has examined the alleged Habboush al-Tikriti memo and has determined that it is not authentic."

That would do it for me, but NOWHERE can this sort of authoritative discrediting of the memo be found. I have searched the web, and all I can find is "too convenient", "suspicious timing" and "has been determined"... Rubbish.

Is it too much to ask, considering the potential importance of this document, for a real authoritatve assessment of this document with no innuendo, passive voice, or third person rumor?

[kingofrock]

Allawi got my vote!

it was a forgery yet true?? what a lame forgery

[Dekan]

The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al Qaeda.

Exactly when are these reporters even going to read the 9/11 report? They explicitly said there was no evidence of collaboration on 9/11. They never claimed there was no relationship, on the contrary they said there's plenty of evidence they were working together in some fashion.

[RWR8189]

bttt

[JulieRNR21]

My comments are in these: (my comments)


6-29-04 NewsMax

The Sept. 11 Commission has found that the Bush administration's war on terror has severely impaired al Qaida's ability to organize another spectacular attack against the U.S. homeland by capturing or killing the deadly terror group's key leaders, drying up their financial resources and "severely limiting their ability to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide."

The bombshell finding, buried at the end of the Commission's Staff Statement No. 15, should have been hailed in the press as evidence that we've at least turned the corner in the war on terror - and may indeed have the enemy on the run. Instead, reporters have ignored this particular Commission finding since its release on June 16 (because it might help Americans realize that President Bush deserves re-election).

Here's the part of Staff Statement 15 that the press decided Americans didn't need to hear about, as reported by the Commission under the heading "Al Qaeda* Today." "Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money.

"Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda.

"Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income." [END OF EXCERPT]

And the good news for America - not to mention the Bush administration - doesn't end there. In the same section, Staff Statement 15 notes:

"Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." But now, says the Commission, "Bin Ladin's* seclusion [has] forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him." [END OF EXCERPT]

In other words, whether dead or alive, the prime mover behind the Sept. 11 attacks has been taken out of commission, with operational authority handed over to allies of convenience like Abu Musab al Zarqawi. (Shhhhh! Don't let Americans know because the Dems keep saying that Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq.)

And while Zarqawi has mounted dozens of operations throughout the Middle East in recent months, including a deadly chem-bomb plot foiled by Jordanian authorities in April, his focus these days seems to be pretty much on Iraq - not America.

And even there, Zarqawi seems to be feeling the heat lately. According to the recent communique he sent to bin Laden, published on Islamic web sites earlier this month, he complained about being "squeezed" by U.S. forces.

"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," he told the 9/11 chief. "The [U.S.] grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future [for our side] is becoming frightening."

To be sure, the 9/11 Commission did not attribute any success in the terror war to the president by name, though as its leader and chief strategist, that conclusion is inescapable.

And neither does Staff Statement 15 say that al Qaeda has been completely vanquished, warning instead that the bin Laden network is still able to execute smaller operations and is "striving to attack the U.S. and inflict mass casualties" - using nuclear weapons if possible.

Still, when the 9/11 Commission reports: "Al Qaeda today is more a loose collection of regional networks with a greatly weakened central organization," it's hard not to conclude President Bush's war on terror is making significant progress.

Unless you're a (biased Kerry supporting) journalist.

[Steven W.]

As I recall the CIA did ultimately dismiss the purprotedly forged document. They realized that it was signed by a particular individual who did not hold the office which was claimed on the date the document was supposedly produced. That revelation was what led the WH and Dr. Rice to redact the 17 words to the effect English intelligence folks believed there were attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger. While at no time was the broader subject dismissed absolutely nor was there any legitimate claim of "misleading" because the original statements in the SOU were carefully crafted to reflect the truth (which was that Blair & English intelligence believed the document to be accurate at that time).

[John Valentine]

You are referring to the Niger invoice or shipping document or other documentation bearing on Bush's 2003 (was it 2002?)SoU speech.

I am referring to the handwritten memo drafted in his traditional green ink from Habboush al-Tikriti, head of the Iraqi intelligence service to Saddam Hussein in June of 2001 noting that Mohammad Atta had recently been in Iraq for training and that Atta was a strong leader ready to attack "the targets we have agreed."

This memo was provided by now Prime Minister Allawi several months ago and he insisted at the time that he personally knew it was genuine.

I have looked, but I have never found a single authoritative disproving of the document even though I have seen lots of second hand and passive voice dismissals.

I can't help but wonder why, if the consensus is to unanimous, no one can point to a single auithoritative disputation.

[Tennessean4Bush]

You might be correct. However, the most damning evidence that it was dismissed as a forgery is that the Bush Administration is not trumpeting it.

[John Valentine]

You are correct that the Bush Administration isn't trumpeting it, but as far as I can tell, they aren't trumpeting much of anything.

Probably they are trying to, but they are working under a selective media blackout.

Everything they try to say goes into the media blackhole. The only things that are allowed closer to the front of the book than page 17 are the things the press can distort.

[Tennessean4Bush]

If this were an authentic document, Bush should call a press conference and demand the world's attention. He either believes it is a forgery or is not confident it is authentic.

[John Valentine]

Or he doesn't theink that the time is right to hammer this one home.

Same with the revelation that Russia had warned US that their intelligence servies in Iraq had discovered that Saddam Hussein intended to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States post 9-11 but prior to our military action in Iraq.

This is dynamite stuff, but I'd guess that 96% of Americans haven't even heard it. The New York Times put it on Page 17.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Nice to see Brokaw carrying Saddam's water, still, after all these years. Imagine how grieved he will be when the Iraqis hang him -- he'll probably spend the rest of his career inveighing against such "injustice."

Nah. He'll have moved on to support whatever enemy we have then.

As far as the links between secular sponsors of terrorism (like Saddam and the now-chastened Khadafy), I defer to deputy PM Bahham Salih: "This debate is stupid. The proof is there."

Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate, trained and operated in close proximity to Mr Salih's people, including his family.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Just mythoughts]

Watching President Bush's methods, he holds his cards close to his vest. Perhaps he is going to allow the Iraqi people to disclose to the world all these hidden connections.

Our liberals sure do not seem to anxious for the blood letting to end in Iraq, they never get too upset with it, except to blame President Bush.

There does still seem to be a great tension in the world about all things Saddam, and one has to wonder why old Chirac is still so sour.

Could be we are in store for some big shockers.

[John Valentine]

Your thought that it would be more powerful to have this come out of Iraq is very insightful.

I'm with you. They need to get the legal actions against Saddam and his henchmen underway so that the headlines can come during the Presidential campaign.

And let the bombshells go off!!!

[Just mythoughts]

"I'm with you. They need to get the legal actions against Saddam and his henchmen underway so that the headlines can come during the Presidential campaign."

There is a sense of pressure in and around liberalville, and this interview did not seem to go the way it was planned.

Can you imagine old Dan Rather's face or "madman" Tommy if he is still around going to Babylon, (which is where I hope they try old Saddam), covering trials which exposes them to have been party to lies and deception.

[windchime]

Bump!