Yet Another Captured al-Qaeda Member Confirms UBL Had Camps In Saddam's Iraq

Flopping Aces ^ | 8-12-07 | Scott Malensk

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you and BTTT

[highlander_UW]

bump for later review

[xzins]

This is a copy of a Beirut Conference 2001 article by CNN and by ANDREA KOPPEL. It is dated, Feb 12, 2001 -- 7 months BEFORE 9/11. Note the underlined sections (underlining mine.)

It is amazing to me that Al Qaeda was at a coordinating conference with Iraq & Iran 7 months BEFORE 9/11, that it was reported by the daughter of Ted Koppel, and that it has NEVER been mentioned, but what we have been told, instead, is that there were no ties. Am I stupid, or is there something in this picture that doesn't make sense????

Anti-U.S., anti-Israeli groups meet in Beirut, U.S. says

February 12, 2001

Web posted at: 5:23 p.m. EST (2223 GMT)

From CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials are eyeing the January meeting of several anti-Israeli and anti-American militant groups in Beirut, U.S. sources told CNN.

A number of groups that U.S. officials consider the most dangerous were represented at the Beirut conference, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization; Hamas; Hezbollah; and the Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said.

All of the groups have claimed responsibility in the past for attacks on American and Israeli targets.

One State Department official called the Beirut meeting a "cause for concern" but cautioned it "doesn't indicate that we (the United States) should expect a rash of coordinated activity."

Another reason for concern, officials say, was the presence of representatives from Iran and Iraq.

Since the Palestinian intifada began last September, Iran in particular has "stepped up its terrorist activity ... and stepped up its planning" for terrorist attacks," explained one U.S. official.

U.S. officials indicate that Iran is not only providing money, weaponry and training to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, but they said there has also been a "marked increase" in Iranian support for terrorist activity in Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza.

One administration source said the terrorist meeting in Beirut and Iran's stepped-up activity confirm the administration's fears about the potential for the Mideast peace process to "come off the rails." Another administration source said Iran is "trying to capitalize" on sentiment within the Arab world that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was a mistake.

"They sense an opportunity ... to create a bloc of 'rejectionist' states to oppose the U.S., Israel and moderate Arab states," the official said.

Perhaps most worrisome to the Bush administration is the fact that the meeting took place at the same time that the peace process is effectively on ice.

Following last week's election of the conservative Likud party leader Ariel Sharon as Israel's next prime minister, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powellhave urged regional leaders to show restraint. Sharon has made no secret of his desire to get tougher with the Palestinians than his predecessor, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Powell plans to discuss this and other issues when he travels to the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Brussels, Belgium, later this month.

[George W. Bush]

It is amazing to me that Al Qaeda was at a coordinating conference with Iraq & Iran 7 months BEFORE 9/11, that it was reported by the daughter of Ted Koppel, and that it has NEVER been mentioned, but what we have been told, instead, is that there were no ties. Am I stupid, or is there something in this picture that doesn't make sense????

I assume that most every terrorist faction is present when someone hosts a terrorist convention. That doesn't mean that that every person at such a conference then becomes a co-conspirator in any event that one of the groups later commits.

There is almost a kind of reverse Trutherism that grows up around these events. I don't believe our government or the Israelis caused 9/11 and I don't believe Saddam did. I generally believe the version of events presented by the 9/11 Commission, Bush, Powell, Rice, etc. When we invaded Iraq and subsequently, our government has never said or drawn any connections between 9/11 and Saddam. You'll have to get them to do that. Daughters of Ted Koppel (or even daughters of Dan Rather) and obscure websites with corny graphics won't cut it.

In the end, you can believe what you like, I guess. I'll stick with the official accounts, keeping an open mind if more evidence surfaces later.

[xzins]

obscure websites with corny graphics won't cut it.

GW, it is NOT a corny website. It is CNN's own website. It is their own article. It is one of their leading journalists. (The link is in the title...did you notice the different color?) In any case here it is again: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/12/terror.meeting/index.html

How in the world can you just simply dismiss this?

There are a couple of arguments going around:

1. There were no Saddam/bin Laden ties.

2. There were no Saddam/Al Qaeda ties.

3. There were no Iraq/Al Qaeda ties.

You've got to admit that this proves that #3 is definitely wrong. Especially so, since Iraq knowingly harbored Zarqawi at the Salmon Pak training/poison/wmd center.

It's hard to imagine that Saddam didn't know his own agents were coordinating with Al Qaeda at the Beirut Conference, so #2 is suspect.

How likely is it that Saddam & Bin Laden communicated? Who knows. But I do know that #1 is worthy of discussion given that #2 is suspect and #3 is proven false.

[George W. Bush]

Clearly, CNN is not saying what you would like to hear on this story nor do they make the connection you suggest.

Normally, you're expected to present evidence to prove these assertions.

[Lee'sGhost]

“I think at certain point they decided not to belabor the point because it was useless - the media and Democrats would simply keep repeating their “Big Lie” line.”

I think you may be right. I also think that was a huge blunder. By not having defended their credibility on the one hand they have lost it for all other such situations on the other. I would also argue that they were not only sacrificing their (the Bush administration’s) credibility, they sacrificed that of all Republicans, conservatives, you and me.

How can you govern when every time you attempt to do something our adversaries whip up the great whine — “How can we believe you when you were so wrong about Iraq?”

[Lee'sGhost]

Can anybody find this being reported at a more recognized/traditional source?

[xzins]

GW, it was a Feb 2001 article. It was BEFORE 9/11.

The connection was made in the article by the common sense that prevails when one sees folks walking into a coordinating conference together.

It is obvious that #3 is falsified. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Did you go to CNN’s website to see the article? I posted the link to CNN itself. Did you see that it is not some “kooky” website?

[George W. Bush]

I don’t grasp why you think a CNN article based on what CNN’s State Department beat reporter, Koppel, is somehow more important than all the official statements made by the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, National Security Adviser, Bush/Powell/Rice, etc. The article is just a CNN write-up of a routine Foggy Bottom press conference.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the news media let the world down by not adequately looking into either the Bush Administrations or the UN claims about WMD in Saddam's Iraq, and now they're doing it again by not (FIVE YEARS LATER) examining a question that's only been reported on by politicians and not by intelligence agents. So the American people and the world are left to look at the videos themselves as ABC, NBC, CBS, even Fox just won't report on the connection and adequately describe it. We're Big Journalism is letting politicians, (professional lawyers; trained, professional liars and spinmeisters) tell us what is real and what is not depending more on their political needs than on what is fact. Why does the media parrot the political distortions rather than the truth?

Why? because journalists are entitled to be, and motivated to be - and consequently are - "professional liars and spinmeisters." And everything you have ever heard to the contrary was and is baseless propaganda.

[xzins]

This article is not referenced, cited, or explained by anyone. It is a write-up of a conference held in Beirut in early 2001.

It CLEARLY shows Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same room in a coordinating conference roughly 7 months BEFORE 9/11.

It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to claim they had no ties.

If General Motors, FOMOCO, the UAW, the AFL/CIO, and the Labor Relations Board, all had a conference, would you accept the notion that GM has absolutly ZERO ties to the AFL/CIO?

[George W. Bush]

Your CNN article:

---

A number of groups that U.S. officials consider the most dangerous were represented at the Beirut conference, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization; Hamas; Hezbollah; and the Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said.

All of the groups have claimed responsibility in the past for attacks on American and Israeli targets.

One State Department official called the Beirut meeting a "cause for concern" but cautioned it "doesn't indicate that we (the United States) should expect a rash of coordinated activity."

Another reason for concern, officials say, was the presence of representatives from Iran and Iraq.

Since the Palestinian intifada began last September, Iran in particular has "stepped up its terrorist activity ... and stepped up its planning" for terrorist attacks," explained one U.S. official.

U.S. officials indicate that Iran is not only providing money, weaponry and training to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, but they said there has also been a "marked increase" in Iranian support for terrorist activity in Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza.

One administration source said the terrorist meeting in Beirut and Iran's stepped-up activity confirm the administration's fears about the potential for the Mideast peace process to "come off the rails." Another administration source said Iran is "trying to capitalize" on sentiment within the Arab world that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was a mistake.

---

CNN's article which you cite as some kind of proof actually denies the interpretation you place on it. If you search the archives of transcripts at the State Department website, perhaps you can find more. I checked a bunch in January and up through February 12 when CNN published their article. I didn't find anything yet.

If you thoroughly google it, you'll find a lot more attention was paid to the Beirut conference of holocaust-deniers that was to be held in March, which the State Department did condemn along with many others. From what I can gather, that one was canceled and held later in Jordan. It was a forerunner of the more recent Iranian deniers conference.

It isn't my fault if the transcripts from State and the CNN article don't prove what you would like them to prove.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Where is your article?"
I was refering to the posting.

[CutePuppy]

Correct. It was the deliberate strategy of Democrats since the beginning of Bush presidency to deny him moral authority and destroy his credibility, in part to neutralize real Clinton’s legacy, and as a way to undermine presidential authority and put Bush and his administration and, by extension, entire Republican party and advocates of conservative philosophy on the defensive.

[xzins]

I don’t care if Al Qaeda and Iraq met at the same conference to discuss new rules for Chinese Checkers. The point remains that the meeting itself is obvious proof of ties between the two. Maybe “tie” (singular) between the two, but it doesn’t matter.

They could discuss anything — holocaust, oil, hot cars, cold women, pastrami on rye — but they would be together in the same space at the same time.

Tie.

Ties.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Thank you for the ping, X.... but this is kindofa non-issue to me. I agree with GWB's assessment that just because a bunch of different Evil Terrorists and a bunch of Representatives from Evil Governments (Iraq, Iran) meet in the same place, does not in and of itself prove that they actively plotted together on a specific nefarious atrocity (9/11) -- HOWEVER...

I do think that at least some Casus Bellis did exist prior to the US Invasion of Iraq:

• The attempted assassination of former President George HW Bush. At the time a private citizen (no longer President), and more of a botched Iraqi fantasy that didn't come to fruition than a real, Mossad-style, die-hard assassination attempt -- but still, as an "attempted" assassination of a US Citizen, it could be argued as a legitimate Casus Belli under international law.

• Iraq really did shelter known Anti-American Terrorist Abu Nidal for years in Baghdad, until he died shortly before the Invasion under mysterious circumstances (not that there's ever a bad time for a Terrorist to die). Abu Nidal's crimes were long in the past by 2003, but they were unavenged acts of Terrorism against the US nonetheless, and Hussein never offered to hand him over. So, again, I think it could be argued as a legitimate Casus Belli under international law.

• Iraq was training Terrorist airliner-hijacking teams at Salman Pak -- uh, well, maybe. After conquering the place in 2003, we were never able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had trained Terrorist airliner-hijacking teams there; it's possible that that site was used for what Saddam had always claimed: ANTI-Terrorist training, for use against Kurdish rebels and the like. However, when even the UN inspectors (no supporters of the Invasion) said that they strongly suspected the place as a Terrorist training camp, and Saddam didn't exactly offer to host an "open house" to prove otherwise, it could be argued as a legitimate Casus Belli under the "With Us or Against Us" doctrine. Call the pre-2003 evidence "close enough for government work", I guess.

Now: What did I think was NOT a Casus Belli? UN Resolutions and possession of Chemical Weapons. I don't care of France or Israel possesses Nuclear Weapons, for that matter; as long as a Country does not use WMD's against us, the mere possession thereof is NOT a Casus Belli. And I don't think we should EVER go to war to enforce UN resolutions, even if and when they do align with our own National Security interests, if any; in fact, I think that we should always make it painstakingly clear that US foreign policy is conducted according to United States National Security interests and NOT the interests of any overarching supra-national organization.

So I did NOT agree with the stated reasons we went to war (or "police action", since Ron Paul's resolution to Constitutionally Declare War was ignored).

But I do think that there were several at-least-arguable Casus Bellis prior to the 2003 Invasion. That being said, a Casus Belli provides a justification for War, not a requirement for War -- according to Christian Just War theory, even when a legitimate Casus Belli exists, War should always be a Last Resort. Perhaps a targeted assassination of Hussein and his sons, leaving some wary Baathist hierarch in charge of the remaining Iraqi government (Baghdad Bob?), always looking over his shoulder; or even an Afghanistan style Proxy War, giving money, ammunition, and US Air support to every anti-Saddam faction within Iraq... these options might also have worked to acheive "regime change" (and if not, well... there's always War as a last resort).

ALL that being said (sorry, running long-winded again), I do think that a Case could be made for War in 2003 (though I don't believe it should have been our first choice, one could at least make a case for it). My problem has never been primarily with the War, but with the now over 4-year long Occupation -- something I hoped we would avoid from Day 1. Someone else said it best...

"Go in, cuss, break some stuff, and then Leave." -- Xzins, circa 2003

I never, in my wildest dreams, imagined that we would see patriotic FReepers arguing that our nation's continued existence, indeed even that of the entire Christian West, utterly depended upon the US Federal Government giving virtually-unlimited military and financial support to an Anti-Christian Iraqi Thug Regime run by self-confessed, and even Convicted, Al-Dawa Terrorist Scumbags like Nouri Al-Maliki and Jamal Jafaar Mohammed (Prime Minister and Member of Parliament, respectively; former head of the Al-Dawa Terrorist Jihad Office in Damascus, and former member of the "Dawa 17" who blew up the US Embassy in Kuwait). It's... Bizarro World, man. I just can't get my mind around it.

I'm wary of the US sticking it's foot into the snake-pit of the Middle East to begin with; but I guess if you can stomp down quick enough and hard enough to crush one serpent's head, I can't complain. But I do NOT think it's a good idea to leave your foot in the snake pit long enough for the other vipers to slither up your trousers and bite you in the arse. I'm just not seeing the wisdom, there (and neither did Ronald Reagan).

[xzins]

I have no problem with your analysis of staying in Iraq. As you posted, I have for a long time believed our best course was to strike, clean the government’s clock, look for and destroy Iraq’s means to PROJECT POWER, and then depart with a threat to return if they try the same stunts again.

I do wish you’d read my #65. In it, I clearly state that coordinated effort between Saddam & bin Laden is not proven by the 2001 Beirut Conference. On the other hand, I also clearly state that the Beirut conference clearly does demonstrate TIE(S) between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no idea how anyone can conclude otherwise.

These are essentially the major terrorist states meeting with the major terrorist organizations. They weren’t there just to sit in rooms with not a single soul uttering a single word.

You make my case, actually, when you point out all the terrorist organizations harbored by Saddam — one run by Zarqawi, head of an aiding and abetting group to Al Qaeda. (According to the Sep 19 2001 Congressional Resolution, that alone gave Pres. Bush authorization to attack both Saddam and Zarqawi. The resolution said ANY nation or group aiding or abetting the attackers (al qaeda) on 9/11.)

Let me repeat my point so it is not misunderstood. “The meeting of these groups and nations at the Jan 2001 Beirut Conference means that Iraq and Al Qaeda had tie(s).