Rice: Iraq providing shelter, chemical weapons help to al-Qaida

Associated Press | September 25, 2002 | JOHN J. LUMPKIN

[HAL9000]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's national security adviser on Wednesday accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime of sheltering members of the al-Qaida terrorist network in Baghdad and helping Osama bin Laden's operatives in developing chemical weapons.

Condoleezza Rice's comments -- by far the strongest statements yet from the U.S. government alleging al-Qaida contacts with the Iraqi government -- were aired Thursday on PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.''

Her accusations came as the Bush administration continues to make its case to a skeptical world that Saddam should be removed from power, by force if necessary. The charges also came as the White House sought to fend off accusations from Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that Bush was playing politics with the debate over war in Iraq.

"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time,'' Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development.''

Previously, the widely held view has been that while Saddam and bin Laden both oppose the United States, their motivations are too different for them to work together. Saddam seeks secular power; bin Laden's drive comes from religious motivations and his opposition to the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world.

But Rice said, "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here.''

She suggested that details of the contacts will be released later.

Previously, U.S. intelligence officials have said that some al-Qaida members have been detected in Iraq, but that they appeared to simply be crossing the country after fleeing Afghanistan for their native countries on the Arabian peninsula or in North Africa. U.S. intelligence has also received information that some al-Qaida leaders are hiding in Iran, and the U.S. government is looking into reports that al-Qaida operatives are conducting training just over the Iranian border from Afghanistan.

Rice said that much of the information is coming from al-Qaida operatives captured since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. This includes several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges organized terrorist attacks.

"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more,'' Rice said.

"And there are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad,'' Rice said.

Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made a vague reference to Iraq-al Qaida links during a NATO meeting in Warsaw, Poland, but didn't offer details.

Administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Rice's disclosure was significant because it marked the first time that the White House claimed that al-Qaida operated in Saddam-controlled Baghdad. It was an effort to counter suggestions that al-Qaida operatives were solely in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, which he doesn't control. The disclosure is part of an effort to strengthen the case against Saddam, the officials said.

Previously, it's been known that Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic extremist group in northern Iraq, sent about a dozen of its members to bin Laden's camps. The group is largely composed of ethnic Kurds and had experimented with biological weapons, U.S. officials have said. But any links to Saddam's government were dubious.

Bin Laden has sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for a decade, U.S. intelligence officials have said. His followers are believed to have experimented with rudimentary chemical and biological weapons, but they lacked the sophistication to use them in a way that would kill large numbers of people.

Saddam's military used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and on rebelling Iraqi Kurds. He has also researched biological and nuclear weapons -- previously, the key complaint of the Bush administration against Saddam.

Saddam's government denies having any of these weapons.

After Sept. 11, officials in the Czech Republic said that chief hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, which some viewed as a link between Iraq and the attacks. But U.S. officials have since said they doubt the meeting took place.

The Iraqi government has been linked to other groups labeled terrorist by the United States -- primarily those that oppose Iran and Israel.

Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

[hchutch]

Why do I get the feeling we'll be using this war to settle all the old scores?

It'll be the "Godfather" writ large.

[mikhailovich]

Tommy's fisted tirade was due to frustration over the FACT that this whole gig gottem (dems) standing in tar. The elections are in the way and they need something for leverage, just can't seem to find any.

Heehhheeeeee

[Former Proud Canadian]

Personally, I don't think the administration has even started to present the evidence of how obl and his pals are wedded to sadam. The facts are clear to anyone who wants to understand them. It is obvious that, at least, obl and saddam are on the same side, against us.

I think the administration is still waiting, gearing up, letting the dems hang themselves. Trust GW, he knows what he is doing.

[mikhailovich]

They weren't really allies in WW2, but both had plans on other neighboring countries. More of a co-op you might say, until Germany dropped a turd in the punchbowl.

What do you make of the recent tendency of history shows to present Russia much more valiant in WW2 than previously ever discussed?

[Wordsmith]

There is no "window of opportunity" for removing Saddam -- Saddam's removal is militarily a trivial exercise for the United States. What isn't trivial is ensuring that Saddam doesn't kill millions of Americans with anthrax during the end game.

While not completely convinced, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know of any "mainstream" media analysts that take this position, except Andrew Sullivan and possibly Stan Kurtz at NRO. But I think this is what's likely going on.

Assuming this is true, why the elevated Iraq talk now? If Bush is genuinely open to not moving against Saddam for another year, the current Administration campaign to increase the attention on him doesn't seem to make sense. How can, for example, Bush make another SOU Address without there having been any visible move against the "Axis of Evil"?

I think, for whatever reason, Bush has decided to move against Iraq very soon, and is going to try to ride out the possible terrorist counterattack. Perhaps because the intelligence is clear that Saddam is not going to allow us to root out his deterrent that is already in position in America, or that he might even be able to augment it. And what civil defense measures can prevent - rather than just mitigate - a massive bioterror attack anyway? We know we're not going to see sealed borders or mass deportations. We won't find the caches, or at least all of them - and it seems reasonable that if this plan has been building for 10 years there's more than enough in place as a contingency.

I think we're looking at an attack on Iraq, and poised internal security ready to pounce on terrorist perpetrators in the act. This would mitigate, hopefully, the worst damage from the attack. But it sure won't prevent massive civilian deaths.

Bastards.

[finnman69]

bump

[finnman69]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development -- information she said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism.

The comments by Condoleezza Rice were the strongest and most specific to date on the White House's accusations linking al Qaeda and Iraq.

The accusations followed those made by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier in the day said the United States has evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda, but they did not elaborate. And the charges came as the White House sought to dispel accusations by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who blasted the administration for an "outrageous" effort to seek political gain from the Iraq debate.

Meanwhile, President Bush will meet with House Democrats and Republicans this morning at the White House to specifically discuss Iraq. Bush is expected to speak in the Rose Garden immediately following the meeting.

In an interview with PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Rice said the U.S. government clearly knows "that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

"We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said.

"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."

At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."

Rice added: "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."

With the administration trying to build support at the United Nations and in Congress for possible military action against Iraq, the White House in recent days has sought to place its push to depose Saddam in the context of the war on terrorism, warning that Iraq could give nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorist groups like al Qaeda -- the group responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans in four attacks September 11, 2001.

Bush Wednesday warned that al Qaeda could become "an extension of Saddam's madness."

"Both of them need to be dealt with," Bush told reporters at the White House. "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

Seeking to fend off criticism from Democrats, he called the Iraq issue "a legitimate national security concern."

"I view it as my main obligation -- that is to protect the American people," he said.

Speaking in Poland, Rumsfeld said U.S. officials shared information linking Iraq and al Qaeda with NATO defense ministers meeting in Warsaw.

"The deputy director of central intelligence briefed on that subject. I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes," Rumsfeld told reporters.

Daschle blasts White House
Daschle accused the White House of exploiting the threat of war with Iraq for political gain and demanded that Bush apologize.

"We've got to rise to a higher level," Daschle said. "Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we're giving now." (Full story)

Rumsfeld told the allies that Bush has made no decision on whether to attack, but argued that a decade of sanctions and occasional aerial bombardment has failed to deter Iraq from attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

"Everyone is on notice," he said. "All now have a clear understanding of the threats that are posed."

The White House quickly dismissed the demand for Bush to apologize.

Asked by reporters at the White House whether he was politicizing the war, Bush responded, "My job is to protect the American people."

At a fund-raising dinner later Wednesday evening for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the president seemed to respond to Daschle's comments.

"Unfortunately, some senators -- not all senators -- but some senators believe it is best to micromanage the process, believe the best way to secure the homeland is to have a thick book of regulations which will hamstring this administration and future administrations from dealing with an enemy that could care less about thick books of regulations," Bush said.

"Unfortunately, some in the Senate -- not all in the Senate -- want to take away the power that all presidents have had since Jimmy Carter, and I'm not going to stand for it."

"The Senate must hear this, because the American people understand it -- they should not respond to special interests in Washington, D.C. They ought to respond to this interest: protecting the American people from future attacks," he added.

In the PBS interview, Rice said, "The president has never politicized this concern about war and the national security of the American people."

[The Great Satan]

Assuming this is true, why the elevated Iraq talk now? If Bush is genuinely open to not moving against Saddam for another year, the current Administration campaign to increase the attention on him doesn't seem to make sense.

I've been fooled before, and you're getting fooled right now -- these things take much longer to play out than you think. Talk now is necessary to keep up the Big Mo, after a summer of saying nothing. If I had a dollar for every post I've seen over the last year predicting an attack on the next full moon....

Militarily, nothing is going to happen until the new year. It will be jaw-jaw in Congress and the UN for the next few months. Bush's opening position is he wants an answer in "weeks" -- but you know how opening positions work. My guess is we'll get congessional authorizations and a UN resolution towards the end of this year, and we'll dick around with Iraq over the resolution for a few months.

In the face of Iraqi "intransigence," Bush will launch a military camapign next spring. There will be token strikes on alleged WMD facilities, but the main push will probably be on the periphery of Iraq. My guess is that the military strategy will be a mixture of what we've seen put into play against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Arafat in Ramallah. We'll slowly and methodically isolate Hussein, while we work with local opposition to gradually take over the country. Again, I would guess we are going to put him in a vice, tearing off the territory under the Northern and Southern no-fly zones, where his ability to project power is already limited. We'll set up interim governments and forward bases as we conquer the territory.

All this will be the work of 2003 and 2004. It will amply fill the time we need to build up our civil defenses. Bush will look strong. Saddam will look weak, just like Arafat does now, as his dominion shrinks to a strip of land around Baghdad. At the same time, he'll still have an incentive to stay in the game. If he doesn't take exile by late 2004, that's when I'd push it to the brink, assuming we have our defenses in place domestically. If necessary, he could be flushed at that time by the simple expedient of parking a B52 nuclear bomber over Baghdad and going public on the anthrax. That will clear the place out in no time. Game over.

[fivecatsandadog]

"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here.''

I sincerely hope that all the hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals in Ann Arbor, who submit their weekly whiney-mouth anti-war/anti-Bush editorials to the local paper and preach "diplomatic negotiations" with Saddam Hussein, sit up and take notice. You can't even negotiate a marshmallow roast with this psychotic liar.

[fivecatsandadog]

Oh wait, there are some lib/dems who would say that, aren't there? But then, they aren't really serious about this whole thing, have forgotten 9/11, and really don't take this President at his word.

I sincerely hope that all the hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals in Ann Arbor, who submit their weekly whiney-mouth anti-war/anti-Bush editorials to the local paper and preach "diplomatic negotiations" with Saddam Hussein, sit up and take notice. You can't even negotiate a marshmallow roast with this psychotic liar.

[fivecatsandadog]

YIKES!!!! double whammy

[anniegetyourgun]

I hope we roast his marshmallows without negotiation.