Posted on 03/26/2006 9:57:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson
After substantial prodding -- including from this paper -- the U.S. government has finally begun to release its captured Iraqi documents and is posting them at the Web site of the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. This material will take considerable time to absorb and analyze, but it may yet contribute significantly to our understanding of the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.
Most dramatically, an Iraqi intelligence report, apparently written in early 1997, describes Iraqi efforts to establish ties with various elements in the Saudi opposition, including Osama bin Ladin. Until 1996, the Saudi renegade was based in Sudan, then ruled by Hassan Turabi's National Islamic Front. One of Iraq's few allies, Sudan served as an intermediary between Baghdad and bin Ladin, as well as other Islamic radicals. On Feb. 19, 1995, an Iraqi intelligence agent met with bin Ladin in Khartoum. Bin Ladin asked for two things: to carry out joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia and to broadcast the speeches of a radical Saudi cleric. Iraq agreed to the latter, but apparently not the former, at least as far as the author of this report knew. Notably, the report also states, "we are working at the present time to activate this relationship through new channels."
This one report hints at the extensive international presence that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained. Iraq's ambassadors to Sudan and Yemen were intelligence agents, suggesting that those two countries were major centers of IIS activity. The report also mentions IIS stations in Islamabad, New Delhi and New York.
Another newly released document bears the name of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. It is a flyer from the "Committee for Arab Liaison with the Islamic Emirate" (i.e., Afghanistan) for recruiting volunteers in Iraq to fight in Afghanistan...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bump!
There goes most of the Democrat talking points for the 2006 election cycle. They put all their eggs in the "Bush lied" basket and now all this comes out.
Laurie Mylroie has done a great deal of research and maintained all along that there was a connection between Saddam and terrorism.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/mylroie.php
ping
This aint poker ya know....
Another good article by Mylroie:
SADDAM AND 9/11
Jan. 8, 2004
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1058
Mylroie: Partly, it's par for the course, particularly these days, when political discourse can be unusually ugly. Partly, it reflects the high stakes involved.
The 9/11 attacks represent the greatest US intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. That is not a controversial statement, but the nature of that intelligence failure certainly is, as it involves the question of who bears responsibility.
Bill Clinton and his top advisers are most culpable in my view, and I say that as someone who was Clinton's adviser on Iraq in the 1992 campaign. People may forget, but Clinton was tougher than former president Bush on Saddam then, saying that Bush should have got rid of him during the 1991 war.
Clearly, I didn't begin as someone hostile to Clinton, but my strong critique, indeed utter dismay, developed as the Clinton administration refused to deal with the dangers posed by Iraq, including terrorism, as they became increasingly evident during the 1990's. In fact, I experienced that first hand, because in 1993 and 1994 I had easy access to the people covering the Middle East, including Martin Indyk, Clinton's NSC advisor on the region, who the year before, had actually brought me out of academics to work for him in Washington. That is how I ended up as Clinton's adviser on Iraq.
As early as 1993, I raised my concerns with them: it appeared from the New York Times reporting that Iraq was involved in the World Trade Center bombing. Also, Massoud Barzani (head of the Kurdish Democratic Party) had told me that Saddam was hiding many things from the UN weapons inspectors (UNSCOM), including that Iraq was still making biological agents (after Saddam's son-in-law defected, UNSCOM learned that Barzani was correct)
They've already switched to the "What would Jesus do about immigration tact." They will avoid this like the plague.
I thought it was somewhat ironic when O'Reilly did his poll last week and what was it...62%?...(or more) said they thought with what they know now the war was justified. O'Reilly was NOT expecting that.
Thanks for allowing translations by jveritas to be posted in breaking news. This could be the event that drives yet another stake in the MSM.
Past my bedtime over here on the "right coast," Jim. I pinged the Saddam gatekeepers and will check back in the a.m. :) 'teasing...
Dr. Laurie Mylroie BTTT!
I will certainly ditto that!
The good news is that their take on immigration is backfiring. I've read several polls indicating that a majority of Democrats are in favor of the house bill criminalizing illegal aliens. Their leadership is a mile behind the rank and file on this issue.
I think the demonstrations this weekend got under a lot of peoples' skin and produced the exact opposite effect of what they were going for.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Malignant pustule sounds more like smallpox than anthrax.
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.