Skip to comments.Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing
Posted on 06/01/2003 3:40:37 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing
Sunday, June 1, 2003
Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said by some to be the architect of America's war on Iraq, reportedly suspects that Saddam Hussein played a significant role in the three worst terrorist attacks ever on the U.S. - the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Discussing his soon-to-be-released Vanity Fair interview with the top Pentagon official, Sam Tanenhaus told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley on Saturday: "Wolfowitz states that there's a very strong connection, he's convinced, between Saddam and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. This is a very controversial idea and yet Wolfowitz embraces it and has for quite some time."
The Vanity Fair writer added, "Also I was told by a source very close to him that Wolfowitz entertains the possibility that Saddam was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995."
While a media firestorm has erupted over Wolfowitz's comments suggesting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction played a smaller role in the decision to go to war than previously thought, Tanenhaus said the press has missed the real news in his report.
"[There are] allegations he made or that others close to him have made that, to me, are much more startling," the author told WABC's Crowley. "That's what I thought was going to be the news [coming out of this interview]."
In a transcript on the interview released by the Pentagon, Wolfowitz also indicates that he suspects Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Asked why Iraq was at the top of the U.S.'s list when it came to taking action in the war on terror, Wolfowitz told Tanenhaus that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction played a role, but then added:
"Plus the fact, which seems to go unremarked in most places, that Saddam Hussein was the only international figure other than Osama bin Laden who praised the attacks of September 11."
Discussing the secretary's comments on MSNBC on Friday, Tanenhaus said that the reason Saddam's role in 9/11 never became the centerpiece of the Bush administration's rationale for war was because there was no consensus on the issue.
"The secretary himself has said both in his interview with me and at other times, particularly in the interview with me, that there were sharp disagreement[s] about, for instance, Saddam's involvement in other acts of terrorism," Tanenhaus explained. He cited the "World Trade Center in '93 and in 2001, September 11, and other connections with al Qaeda."
President Bush's supporters have been mystified over why the administration never spotlighted the claims of two Iraqi defectors, who, two months after the 9/11 attacks, detailed to U.S. intelligence evidence linking Saddam to training in 9/11-style airline hijacking operations.
Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer awarded the families of two World Trade Center victims $104 million based on evidence linking the 9/11 attacks to Salman Pak, a terrorist training camp located 25 miles south of Baghdad.
Her foremost critic was flown into the Pentagon.
The radar plot shows a single fast boat speeding away from the crash scene.
A hundred witnesses saw the missile--the CIA cartoon to the contrary notwithstanding.
As for OKC, Laurie Mylroie indicates Ramzi Yousef of WTC I and his supposed uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed of WTC II/911 were Pakistani Baluch with Kuwaiti passports--indicating they were sheepdipped by Saddam's intel post Kuwait invasion.
Saddam's intel met with Osama and envoys as far back as 1997 and met with Mohammed Atta in Prague no matter what the worthless Deutch appointee Tenet says.
Saddam has been bankrolling other terrorists as well, viz the Palestinian bombers.
To take down Iraq is a blow against the anti-American, anti-Israeli terrorist cartel--witness the rabid fulminating of the anti-Semitic, anti-U.S. crowd worldwide.
Senator Butch touts renewing the assault weapons ban, yet the only mass importation of AK-47s attempted was by her and traitorrapist42's donor Wang Jun.
We have met the terrorists and they have the same last name.
Well, if Wolfowitz says WMDs was one of several justifictaions for war weighed against each other, there must have been others.
It was frustrating that 9/11, WTC '93, TWA 800, etc. were not the original reasons used, but I suppose it is simpler for that to come out afterward, when there is no question of war vs. trial.
Course he had no compassion for the Iraqi people now free either.
I'm sure when we do find them, he will say they were planted.
Click on anyones name and hope they have a state flag flying. Click the flag and it will take to that state's home page. Click "other locations" and find the state you want.
There are other ways but this will get you there.
Janya Davis, then of the NBC affiliate, named John Doe number two as a former member of the Iraqi National Guard living in OKC at the time.
Thank you for this... I've suspected that not only Wolfowitz, but Cheney has some good knowledge on this as well. He just won't let it slip out yet, like Wolfowitz evidently has.
I think there is a gigantic hair ball of information embarrassing to the United States of American from the failed Clinton, Clinton & Gore administration that a whole lot of people are frantically trying to keep under wraps!!!
If the administration came out and said there was a connection to specific terrorist attacks on the US by Iraq such as 9/11 or OkCity the world would not have baulked at us taking action against them so I wonder why they did not do so int he first place. After the fact at a time like this makes it look as if they are searching for a justification since the WMD claims are not around as we claimed them to be.
Even though I do not support the US roll of global policeman and our interventionist policies I would have supported a strike on Iraq if they took out our embassies or the trade center, etc. Personnally I do not think we had to be at odds with Iraq all these years or back in 1990 either but even so a country can not allow a strike like we took without taking substantial counter action (not Clintonian tokanism). I supported our action against Afghanistan but not Iraq because as you said the justification given were "irrelevant" for the latter but substantial for the former.
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.