Iraq giving chemical weapons to al-Qaida: US thinks Iraq plotting with terrorists

World Tribune ^ | 7/15/02

[truthandlife]

The United States believes Iraq has distributed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Al Qaida and other Islamic militants.

"It is likely that chemical weapons, biological weapons in the possession of the Iraqis . . . are now being disseminated to terrorists," Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, said.

Pearle warned that Iraq is coordinating with Al Qaida on plans to attack the United States, Middle East Newsline reported.

"This evidence is very powerful," Perle said. "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear: We have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office." Perle, a former assistant defense secretary, chairs a group that advises the Pentagon on national security issues. He is regarded as a leading proponent of a U.S. military campaign against Baghdad.

U.S. officials said the Bush administration has been warned of the prospect that the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has issued biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida and its allies in an attempt to deter any military campaign by Washington. The officials said Iraq hopes that the weapons, obtained during the Cold War with help from the Soviet Union, will be sent from the Middle East to Western Europe and the United States.

In an interview on U.S. PBS network, Perle said the Saddam regime has launched cooperation with Al Qaida in planning WMD attacks against the United States. He criticized a State Department report released earlier this year that did not cite such cooperation.

U.S. officials said Iraq has been bolstering its biological and chemical weapons programs over the last two years. They cite new information from an Iraqi defector who has told the Defense Intelligence Agency of more than 30 biological weapons facilities in Iraq.

The officials said Israel as well as U.S. troops in the Middle East are under greatest threat of Iraqi WMD. The officials said Baghdad might have weaponized such agents as anthrax and botulinum poison.

But Perle said that with Al Qaida cooperation Iraq could launch biological or chemical weapons attacks in the United States. He said Iraq is also working on new unspecified means of WMD delivery.

"The target could be the United States," Perle said. "It could be Americans abroad; it could be American forces deployed now in the region, and it could the Israelis or the Saudis. He has the capacity to do great damage, and at any moment he may do so."

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Misleading headline and story. Richard Perle is a former US official who currently works in the quasi-private sector.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

The time period between September 11 and November 5 should be really interesting.............

[TomGuy]

When Saddam thinks his demise is imminent, he will unleash everything in his arsenal. He doesn't care how many dead or how much destruction he leaves behind. Things could get real messy in the Middle East and in Europe and in the US. Saddam, like bin Laden, has sleeper cells thoughout the world.

[truthandlife]

That is I don't know why Bush has telegraphed our next move on Iraq. He practically told Saddam to make sure he prepares as much destruction as possible for Israel and the United States because the U.S. is coming after him. I don't think it was a very smart strategy.

[Coop]

That is I don't know why Bush has telegraphed our next move on Iraq.

Bush hasn't telegraphed anything. You can thank the media and certain leakers for that, and remember not to believe everything you hear.

[Semper Paratus]

Yesterday is not soon enought to start the attack.

[Ranger]

Once the conflict begins it really won't matter if Saddam uses surrogates or terrorists traceable to him. One thing he does need is to make this conflict look like a war between the U.S. and pan-Arab or Islamic forces. To that end, al-Qaeda terrorist actions made all the more dramatic by the use of WMD provided by Saddam is very plausible. If you look at Uday's (Saddam's son's) statements of late, he is trying to frame the pending conflict as one against all arabs instead of one against Saddam and his cronies. Saddam may also be considering using al-Qaeda and others to destablize Saudi Arabia or Egypt to throw the U.S. off balance and buy more time for his sorry regime.

[Seti 1]

This is from today's Manchester Guardian reporting on a question period:

"Mr Blair was asked whether there was any evidence linking Saddam to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation.

"He replied: 'There, as far as I am aware, is not evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the actual attack on the 11th of September.'

"Pressed on whether Saddam could be linked to the al-Qaida organisation, he said: 'There are various rough linkages there, but the issue is weapons of mass destruction, it is not what happened on the 11th of September or the al-Qaida terrorist network.'"

Richard Perle must have information that Tony Blair lacks.

[sheik yerbouty]

No shi'ite!

[swarthyguy]

"Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, said."

Or quasi-public - The DPF is an office within the Pentagon; an advisory board to RumsfeldWolfowitz et al.

[pgkdan]

The time period between September 11 and November 5 should be really interesting.............

Give me a break. After the initial shock of 9-11 started to wear off we were all on guard for Thanksgiving, then Christmas, then Memorial Day...then everyone knew the 4th of July would be the big one. Now in the middle of July we're waiting for the 1 yr anniversary to suffer our next attack. I think they blew their wad on 9-11, not that I'm taunting them or anything, because I certainly don't want to see more murdered Americans...but I don't think we'll see anymore on the scale of 9-11.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Congress will need solid tangible proof prior to declaring war

Sorry, to disagree, but Congress does not need anything before it declares war.

[Seti 1]

Richard Perle has been junketing around the world declaring war against Iraq to be rightous and inevitable.The following is from http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/05/int2.htm

Attack on Iraq is unavoidable: US official's warning

MUNICH, Feb 4: A senior adviser to United States Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld indicated war with Iraq was likely even if Baghdad backs down and allows inspectors back in to hunt for weapons of mass destruction, according to an interview on Monday.

"I don't think there's anything (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein could do that would convince us there's no longer any danger coming from Iraq," said Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board of the US Department of Defence and a top Rumsfeld adviser.

Perle, quoted in an interview with the German edition of the Financial Times at the Munich Security Conference, said the only thing that would convince the US regarding Iraq would be a change of regime.

US President George W. Bush was now on "a very clear path" heading toward war with Iraq, said Perle as quoted by the Financial Times Deutschland.

The newspaper said if Perle was right even Iraq's meeting the US demand for the return of international inspectors would do nothing to prevent American military strikes.

Perle said Afghanistan was a possible model for a war with Iraq. Such a scenario would include massive US air strikes on Iraq, special operations units on the ground and the use of domestic opposition groups to carry the main burden of ground war, said Perle.

"The potential fighting forces would be Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south," he said.

A leadership structure could be the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he added. The INC has long been regarded as weak and divided, the Financial Times Deutschland pointed out.

Perle repeated the view expressed by American officials at the conference that Washington was little concerned over European opposition to a war with Iraq. "If we have to choose between defending the US without our allies and not defending ourselves with our allies we will choose defence," said Perle.

"If the European message is: we accept risks posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and don't (want you) to do anything about it because it makes us nervous, then the European influence will be zero," Perle noted. He added: "Up until now the European recommendations have not been helpful."

The German foreign ministry on Monday warned against a military strike against Iraq by the United States. "There are no signs and no evidence that Iraq is involved in the terrorism that we have been discussing for several months," said Deputy Foreign Minister Ludger Volmer.

The fight against terrorism should not be used to legitimize old enmities and settle old accounts, said Volmer.

Both Volmer and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer are members of the Greens party which serves as junior coalition partner to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats.

Asked about Volmer's comments a foreign ministry spokeswoman, Sabine Sparwasser, said President Bush had assured at talks in Washington on Thursday that there were no plans to attack Iraq.

GERMANY: The German foreign ministry on Monday warned against a military strike against Iraq by the United States. "There are no signs and no evidence that Iraq is involved in the terrorism that we have been discussing for several months," said Ludger Volmer, Assistant Secretary at the Foreign Ministry, on a morning TV programme.

The fight against terrorism should not be used to legitimise old enmities and settle old accounts, said Volmer.

Both Volmer and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer are members of the Greens party.-dpa

[CIB-173RDABN]

One thing he does need is to make this conflict look like a war between the U.S. and pan-Arab or Islamic forces.

He may want this, but do the leaders of the other nations in the region want this? No.

Would they like to see us embarrassed, or hurt, or even defeated, of course. But are they going to do anything that would cause the full weight of the United States military come down on them? No.

Having said that, I will admit once military action begins events can get out of hand. I do not believe anyone knows what the final outcome (beside the death of saddam) will be.

[traditionalist]

Sorry, to disagree, but Congress does not need anything before it declares war.

Legally, you are right, but practically, Congress will not declare war without solid evidence. That is simply a political reality.

[traditionalist]

Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney have indicated numerous times, sometimes overtly, sometimes implicitly, that they plan on toppling Hussein. That is a bad strategy because it completely removes deterrence as a viable alternative.

[aSkeptic]

"This evidence is very powerful," Perle said. "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application.

YAWN

If al Qaida had WMD they'd use it the same day they got it. This sentence should read "the evidence is really just make believe wishful thinking bullshit"

[Coop]

Deterrence of what? There is no negotiating with a whacko like Hussein. We tried that in 1990, 1991 and almost every year since. Now they're letting it be known that we're done negotiating. Sounds pretty smart to me. And any messages sent out now, implicit or explicit, are hopefully being taken very seriously by the opposition forces.

I find this approach a very intelligent one.

[CIB-173RDABN]

There is a much more polictical risk to congress if they are asked for a declaration of war, and do not provide it.

My guess (but not my preference) is that the President will not request a declaration of war, but attack based on the what congress did pass just after the September 11th attack, the right to use all force necessary.

[Kermit]

I don't think we're moving as fast as we can in attacking Iraq. Why not bomb some suspected sites now? Why wait?

[MD_Willington_1976]

They don't defend the constitution now...Besides the US might as well start using up some of its ICBM's...its a lot cheaper than paying for disposal...and it reduces the arsenal at the same time..its win win..

[BigBobber]

I think we're ready to bomb Iraq right now. However, what we need first are our domestic defenses against the biological weapons that Iraq's Al-Qaida terrorists are going to unleash on this nation.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..."this evidence is very powerful," Perle said. "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear: We have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office." Perle, a former assistant defense secretary, chairs a group that advises the Pentagon on national security issues. He is regarded as a leading proponent of a U.S. military campaign against Baghdad....

"...anyone saying different is the terrorists' friend", continued Perle. "Everyone's going to win, in this one. My buddies at Martin Marietta and McDonnell will sell more rockets and fighters than they ever dreamed. The president's poll figures will go back up over 70%, on day one. And you know what a war does for network ad revenues? Hey, bombs away!"

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...when Saddam thinks his demise is imminent, he will unleash everything in his arsenal....

Yeah. Those 1970s Sov technology Scuds. All three of 'em.

Hey, give my best to the boys 'round the water cooler at Langley, okay?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...Mr Blair was asked whether there was any evidence linking Saddam to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation.

"He replied: 'There, as far as I am aware, is not evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the actual attack on the 11th of September...

Right. So....what's the war for?

Or does that question make your head hurt, Mr President?

[CIB-173RDABN]

Yeah. Those 1970s Sov technology Scuds. All three of 'em.

---

Iraq’s Scuds

If interested, you may want to read this. Iraq has a few more than three scuds.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...give me a break. After the initial shock of 9-11 started to wear off we were all on guard for Thanksgiving, then Christmas, then Memorial Day...then everyone knew the 4th of July would be the big one. Now in the middle of July we're waiting for the 1 yr anniversary to suffer our next attack....

Why, you....questioning the Fear Campaign. Do you care about the time and effort invested by media and government in scaring the pants off everyone? How hard they have worked, on the anthrax/smallpox/ suitcase nukes/cyanide in the water scares, just over the last couple of months alone? No, you don't. You guys always want more, more, more. Bigger, bigger, bigger. Alright. Since YOU asked for it...here's what Saddam and Al-Qaeda have been working on this week:

STAY HOME, GROUNDHOG DAY 2007!!!

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..if interested, you may want to read this. Iraq has a few more than three scuds...

I'm interested, and thank you. The article says that Iraq has between six and sixteen of these totally obsolete missiles. When the full might of the US military is brought to bear they'll be about as helpful as a wooden leg in a bushfire.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I very much hope you are correct, however, I do not believe anyone in range of these missiles would want to trust on luck, that A. They don't work, or B. Saddam does not fire them, or C. He does not put Chemical or Biological warheads on them.

Since we can not be 100% sure, it is only prudent steps be taken to neuralize them.

I haven't a clue what those steps may be, but I am certain we have been on a scud hunt for months.

I believe these missiles will be on the top of any target list being made up.

[Kermit]

Interesting. Can you expand on your point? Thanks.

[traditionalist]

My guess (but not my preference) is that the President will not request a declaration of war, but attack based on the what congress did pass just after the September 11th attack, the right to use all force necessary.

That won't work. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the WTC and Pentagon attacks, and the congressional authorization was only to go after those responsible for these two attacks.

[traditionalist]

Deterrence of what?

The aiding and abbetting those who would attack us.

There is no negotiating with a whacko like Hussein.

What's there to negotiate? My only claim is that a wiser course of action would be to put Saddam on notice that if he tries anything against us he's history. Otherwise we let him alone. Saddam is not a wacko. He would not have survived in power this long if he were. He's a cold, brutal, calculating dictator, but certainly not an irrational one. He knows that if we wanted to we could topple him before you can say Baghdad.

[Kermit]

"Richard Perle must have information that Tony Blair lacks."

You know, it might not be information, but the willingness to talk about it. Why does the FBI and Mayor of LA say that the July 4th shooting at LAX was an isolated incident and not related to terrorism? They discredit themselves with this kind of nonsense.

The Czech government from the Prime Minister to their Intelligence Chief say that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence Al-Ani at the Prague Airport. They stand by that information, inspite of the CIA and US Gov trying to discredit it. I guess Al-Ani was just an old Atta family friend.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I disagree. War is not the same as crime. I believe the administration knows more than it is telling. Either way, waiting for Saddam to do something (when that something could cause a large number of American casualities) is no longer an option.

Like it or not, their are some in the middle east who have declared war against us. Saddam may or may not have had direct hand in WTC, but he is providing financing for terrorist groups.

Not doing anything (other than warning him) will not stop terrorism against this country. Taking out the source of finacial aid, and base for operations will.

[traditionalist]

Either way, waiting for Saddam to do something (when that something could cause a large number of American casualities) is no longer an option.

So by that logic, we have to take out every regime that has the capacity of harming us. Good luck.

Saddam may or may not have had direct hand in WTC, but he is providing financing for terrorist groups.

I have not seen any reports or evidence that he's financing Al Qaeda. He finances homicide bombers in Israel, but that's Israel's problem, not ours. If you have any evidence that he's financing anti-American terrorists, I'd love to see it.

Not doing anything (other than warning him) will not stop terrorism against this country.

Whoever said it would? It would stop him from attacking us because he knows he would be history if he ever did it.

Taking out the source of finacial aid, and base for operations will.

If you think taking out Saddam is going to stop terrorism, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Coop]

My only claim is that a wiser course of action would be to put Saddam on notice that if he tries anything against us he's history.

Sit back and wait to be struck with weapons of mass destruction by a WHACKO. "Wise" is not the four-letter word I would use to describe your chosen COA.

[CIB-173RDABN]

By your logic we do nothing until they kill us all.

Sorry, but I am sure the truth is somewhere in between killing everyone that "may" harm us, and doing nothing until it is too late.

One reason we have a government is so they can make these types of descisions.

If you do not see the difference, then you do not want to see the difference.

[mhking]

No...y'think!? [rolling eyes]

[Seti 1]

"One reason we have a government is so they can make these types of descisions"

Hitler would have loved you.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Boy that is really a very clever response, you just tiggle me, where do you come up with such clever stuff. Seti 1, you win, you are just too clever for me there no way I can argue with logic like that.