Experts Skeptical Of Reports On Al-Qaeda-Baghdad Link

USA Today ^ | September 27, 2002 | Barbara Slavin and John Diamond

[rightwing2]

USA Today
September 27, 2002
Pg. 4
Experts Skeptical Of Reports On Al-Qaeda-Baghdad Link
By Barbara Slavin and John Diamond, USA Today

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has intensified efforts to link al-Qaeda terrorists with Iraq, charging that senior al-Qaeda members were in Baghdad recently and received training in chemical and biological warfare. But several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports. A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the new assertions an "exaggeration." Other intelligence experts said some of the charges appeared to be based on old information and that there was still no "smoking gun" connecting Iraq with the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

Though the administration has long suggested a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, it has had trouble making a strong case. Wednesday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "There are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad." She also said information from al-Qaeda detainees indicates Iraq provided "some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development." Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated the charges but made them slightly more vague. He said Iraq "provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters." He said there are al-Qaeda members in Iraq, but he refused to say whether the Iraqi government is providing them safe haven.

Intelligence officials referred inquiries to the White House, then changed their stance later in the day. One official said there is credible information about discussions of safe haven between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism chief, said the only known discussion of that kind occurred in 1998 when Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and reputedly a top Iraqi intelligence official, went to Afghanistan after al-Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Hijazi offered al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, but terrorist leader Osama bin Laden turned it down, Cannistraro says, because he did not want to become a tool of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Cannistraro said it is possible some al-Qaeda members changed their mind after U.S. and Afghan forces overthrew Afghanistan's Taliban regime. But he accused the Bush administration of overstating uncorroborated information from al-Qaeda detainees. "They're cooking the books," Cannistraro said. A small number of al-Qaeda members are known to have found refuge in northern Iraq in a Kurdish area outside Saddam's control. If al-Qaeda members are also in Baghdad, they could not be there without Saddam's knowledge and consent, experts say.

A U.S. official familiar with the interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said the intelligence on the recent presence of al-Qaeda members in Baghdad is "solid," but information about Iraqi training of al-Qaeda members came from a single detainee and has not been corroborated independently. The official said detainees might be lying to U.S. interrogators to encourage a U.S. invasion of Iraq, the better to make the al-Qaeda case that the United States is the mortal enemy of Muslim countries.

Paul Anderson, spokesman for Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the senator, who has access to highly classified reports, has seen nothing that would connect al-Qaeda with Saddam's regime. Anna Perez, a spokeswoman for Rice, said the administration is not trying to overstate the case against Saddam, who is being targeted primarily because of his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. "We had dots before," she said. "Now we have a higher density of dots. Have we connected those dots? No."

Contributing: Dave Moniz

[rightwing2]

Several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports. A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the new assertions an "exaggeration." Other intelligence experts said some of the charges appeared to be based on old information and that there was still no "smoking gun" connecting Iraq with the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States... Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism chief... accused the Bush administration of overstating uncorroborated information from al-Qaeda detainees. "They're cooking the books," Cannistraro said.

Why does the Administration apparently feel the need to "exaggerate" their claims that Iraq is tied to 9-11 terrorists, resort to using uncorroberated terrorist sources and "cooking the books" if their rationale for invading Iraq is so solid? Why have they been doing the same thing in regards to Iraq's purported threat to America despite the fact that he is at best "several years away from developing nukes"..."even if left unconstrained" according to the most recent declassified summary of the CIA report on the Ballistic Missile Threat? No wonder six four star generals are denouncing plans to invade Iraq as an unnecessary, unwarranted and unwise diversion to America's just war on Islamicist terrorists. We should be bombing Iran, which has solid links to the training and arming of Al Queda 9-11 terrorists and which according to the State Department is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism for the last two years.

Iraq is a non-threat, non-issue to all unbiased observers. They may threaten tiny Kuwait and perhaps even Israel (which can defend itself and is yearning for the chance to nuke Baghdad), but they do not threaten the world's most powerful superpower--the United States of America. This plan for invasion is not about any Iraqi WMD threat which is very limited. It is not about any alleged Iraqi link to Al Queda which is somewhere between spotty and non-existant. It is not about the Administration playing politics as the Democraps have alleged and of which the Democraps themselves are guilty. Indeed, the President's crusade against Saddam is not based on any threat to our national security, but is essentially a very understandable personal vendetta against Saddam because he believes Saddam tried to kill his father in 1993.

[rightwing2]

BUMP!

[Mo1]

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[r9etb]

Why does the Administration apparently feel the need to "exaggerate" their claims that Iraq is tied to 9-11 terrorists, resort to using uncorroberated terrorist sources and "cooking the books" if their rationale for invading Iraq is so solid?

Well, look at who's making the charges: anonymous sources and former counterterror guy who's been out of the game for 15 years.

And look at the huge spate of such stories on the eve of Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq.

This is politics, rw2. Democrat politics, from the smell of it.

And you seem to be falling for it.

[alnick]

Why are you taking a USA Today report from an unnamed "expert" as gospel? I'll tell you something about experts. For every expert one side can come up with, the other side can come up with an expert to say the exact opposite.

[riri]

because he believes Saddam tried to kill his father in 1993

Nah, I don't believe that for a second.

[adam stevens]

I see that Iraq is a threat. Of course I'm "biased" I love America and want to see all of her enemies defeated!!!

[dighton]

Iraq is a non-threat, non-issue to all unbiased observers.

In other words, all whose biases coincide with rightwing2's.

[Orual]

Why does the Administration apparently feel the need to "exaggerate" their claims that Iraq is tied to 9-11 terrorists, resort to using uncorroberated terrorist sources...

Like these?

Several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports. A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the new assertions an "exaggeration." Other intelligence experts said some of the charges appeared to be based on old information and that there was still no "smoking gun" connecting Iraq with the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States...

[mass55th]

"But several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports."

Probably the same experts who expressed skepticism about terrorists using planes to commit acts of terrorism.

[Maigret]

Experts? You mean like Barbra Streisand, Jim McDermott, Jesse Jackson and all other non-interested parties?

[rightwing2]

I see that Iraq is a threat. Of course I'm "biased" I love America and want to see all of her enemies defeated!!!

As do I. I merely disagree with who poses the greatest threat to US national security and who we should be hitting first. I think terrorist enemy #1 is Iran which incidentally is far closer to developing nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US. According to several sources they already have nukes since they bought 17 tacnuke warheads from Kazakhstan in 1991. What about North Korea? Why doesn't the President bomb them. North Korea arguably pose the greatest nuclear missile threat to America with their nuclear tipped Taepodong 2 ICBMs and their very real and frightening threats to turn the US into a "sea of fire."

Could it be that the reason that the President has promised not to attack 9-11 terrorist supporting Iran and nuclear missile armed Communist North Korea is because he knows that they are already nuclear powers? Is that why he is appeasing North Korea with the largest annual taxpayer funded foreign aid giveaway of any country in Asia except Israel and is sponsoring the construction of two large new nuclear reactors so they can increase their nuclear warhead production from a few a year to sixty a year according to House Republican Policy Committee expert testimony? What about Communist China? Why does the Administration continue to appease Communist China with $115 billion in US taxpayer subsidized trade, aid, credits and dual-use military technology including supercomputers 50-100 times more powerful than those Clinton allowed to be sold to Communist China in 1998? Conservatives want to know. Compared to these other three countries, Iraq poses very little threat indeed.

[rightwing2]

Several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports. A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the new assertions an "exaggeration." Other intelligence experts said some of the charges appeared to be based on old information and that there was still no "smoking gun" connecting Iraq with the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States...

These are exactly the sources which I cited as stating that the Administration was hyping up alleged and as yet unproven Al Queda links to Iraq. Thanks for backing me up. The uncorroberated terrorist sources I was referring to were the Al Queda prisoners saying that Iraq was training them in the hopes that a US invasion of Iraq would ignite the entire Muslim world against the US, which is exactly what may well happen if we do engage in an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

[dighton]

Compared to these other three countries, Iraq poses very little threat indeed.

Duck, weave, squirt ink, change the subject, sing in a different key.

Iraq is a non-threat, non-issue to all nonbiased observers.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the new assertions an "exaggeration."

Peter Jennings aired an incredible hit piece on Bush, Cheney and Rummy the other night-even by ABC's standards. After showing clips of the three talking about a connection, their female correspondent, Martha Radish, quoted unnamed members of the intelligence "community" saying that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were liars. "There's nothing to the story,Peter."

[rightwing2]

Well, look at who's making the charges: anonymous sources and former counterterror guy who's been out of the game for 15 years. And look at the huge spate of such stories on the eve of Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq. This is politics, rw2. Democrat politics, from the smell of it. And you seem to be falling for it.

I agree that the Democraps led by Dashill (sic) are playing politics with the Iraq issue and I have been the first to defend the President against accusations that he is doing the same, but there is no shortage of very persuasive arguments why the US should not engage in a risky diversion from its just war against Islamicist terrorists with an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The fact that the Democraps are using these arguments does not make them any less valid. Six four star generals believe that the US would be foolish to engage in an ill-considered invasion of Iraq at this time. As an Army vet, those generals are all the sources I need to back me up against claims that I am somehow falling for liberal anti-war propaganda.

[Lion's Cub]

This is why Bush should stop with the political correctness. He doesn't need anyone's permission to defend us. He should have just struck.

Think about this for a moment: if we have to have a coalition of our enemies to take out another enemy, why is that so? Why the hell aren't we strong enough that we don't need their "help"?

[buffyt]

"But several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports." --

Same ones who always fiddle while terrorists plan their next attacks????

[adam stevens]

I agree. We should attack all of our enemies!

[Austin Willard Wright]

A rare voice of reason on FR!