Regards, Ivan
Posted on 04/26/2003 4:16:43 PM PDT by MadIvan
Today, The Sunday Telegraph reveals a remarkable cache of documents, discovered in Baghdad by our reporter Inigo Gilmore, which provide the first hard evidence of the direct links between al-Qa'eda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Since September 11, the Bush administration and, to a lesser extent, the British Government have been struggling to prove that this deadly relationship existed. The papers, which concern a clandestine visit by an envoy of Osama bin Laden to Baghdad in 1998, do just that.
Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to comply fully with UN weapons inspectors meant that there was a perfectly legitimate casus belli for the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the inability of President Bush or the Prime Minister to demonstrate a clear link between the Iraqi dictator and al-Qa'eda has always been a source of political embarrassment, not least because some of the attempts to prove such a link by politicians and the intelligence agencies were so feeble. The weakness of this forensic case was often - and understandably - seized upon by opponents of the war on terrorism.
The new papers transform that forensic case: they show beyond reasonable doubt that the Ba'ath regime was taking active measures in 1998 to develop a strong relationship both with al-Qa'eda as an organisation and bin Laden personally. The common cause at this point appears to have been the battle to bring down America's regional ally, Saudi Arabia. But it would be odd if this was the only issue which Saddam's henchmen and bin Laden's representatives discussed.
Our disclosure today does not, of course, amount to evidence that Saddam was directly involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center. But it is a tantalising glimpse of a relationship which may have spawned the most appalling atrocities. We can only speculate about what new revelations - still more explosive - will be made by resourceful journalists in Baghdad.
This is the third week in a row that The Sunday Telegraph has published documents retrieved from the ministry buildings once occupied by the Ba'ath regime. A fortnight ago, papers which our reporter David Harrison had retrieved from the bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service, showed that Russia had passed intelligence to Saddam Hussein's regime about Tony Blair's private conversations. Last week, we disclosed details of a dossier found in the same building, which revealed that German intelligence officers had offered co-operation with the Iraqi dictator in the build-up to war last year. Two days later, The Daily Telegraph disclosed documents it had found in the Iraqi foreign ministry which produced an outstanding scoop: George Galloway, the papers purported to show, had received at least £375,000 a year from Saddam's regime, money syphoned off from the country's oil-for-food programme.
Mr Galloway, who denies the veracity of the documents, has been quick to insinuate that such stories are being spoon-fed to the press by sinister intelligence agencies. On Monday, he told the Daily Telegraph: "Maybe it's the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture … It would not be the Iraqi regime that was forging it. It would be people like you [Telegraph journalists] and the Government whose policies you have supported." In an article in Thursday's Independent, Mr Galloway warmed to his theme, hinting that it was odd that the Telegraph Group should have "broken three major 'intelligence' stories in two weeks out of Baghdad".
The truth is that these stories are not the result of orchestration or manipulation by the military coalition and Western intelligence agencies, but precisely the opposite. The media has been presented at these ministries with something approaching a free-for-all; a combination of journalistic initiative and serendipity have contributed to the best disclosures. If, indeed, MI6 had got to the Galloway file first, it is highly improbable that the British intelligence service would have leaked it to the press. The practice of such agencies is to keep precious information of this sort to themselves - not least as potential leverage with those, such as Mr Galloway, suspected of questionable dealings with a hostile regime.
What is striking, in fact, is that the coalition apparently had no plans to secure these government buildings - with the presentationally unfortunate exception of the oil ministry. It would seem self-evident that those seeking Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would want first sight of what documents had survived at the dictator's intelligence HQ, the foreign ministry and the agriculture department (vital for biological and chemical technology). However, no attempts were made to seal off these departments, or even to give them a minimal military guard.
That organisational failure was echoed in the failure to heed explicit warnings about the risks of looting. On February 11, for example, the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group wrote to the Prime Minister specifically warning of the risks to Iraq's cultural treasures if Saddam's regime collapsed. The group was told that their letter had been passed to the Foreign Office. But the ransacking of the Iraqi National Museum shows that no action was taken in response - an error for which President Bush apologised on behalf of the coalition in an interview with NBC last week. Such failures of foresight do not detract in the slightest from the greater triumph of Iraq's liberation. But they do show how much the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance headed by Jay Garner still has to do.
Today's disclosure adds weight to the case which has underpinned the war on terrorism since September 11. It adds lustre to the argument - long made by the President and Prime Minister - that rogue states and international terrorist groups share both ambitions and resources. The veil has at last been lifted on the long-suspected relationship between a terrible dictator and the world's most blood-soaked terrorist. It is good that journalistic talent and persistence should have yielded such a discovery. But it is a matter of undeniable concern that the coalition's intelligence agencies were themselves unable to produce comparable information when it was most needed. The most important question posed by the September 11 attacks - was Saddam linked to bin Laden? - has now been emphatically answered. But it should be a source of grave embarrassment to the British and American governments that it has taken a newspaper, trawling through the files in a burnt-out building, to finish the job.
Regards, Ivan
I love The Telegraph....they exposed the the whole Galloway affair and even the BBC had to acknowledge it.
IRAQCORNUCOPIA
as a keyword!
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Well, I don't know about that, I clicked the link and didn't see any Page 3 Girls! A guy has to have some standards you know.
HOLD IT! This cad is fussing about three major intelligence stories in two weeks? Would he be one of the whiners who has been wondering where the WMD are and complaining that we haven't found some proof in two weeks?
On a good day Mr. Galloway is a half-wit.
That is giving him credit for half a wit that he has never shown. ;)
Regards, Ivan
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.