Posted on 03/07/2003 11:05:42 AM PST by kattracks
He also offered evidence suggesting that Baghdad had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
A July 21, 2001 article in an Egyptian newspaper article headlined, "America, an Obsession with Osama bin Laden" indicated that Baghdad knew what was coming three months later, the former U.S. intelligence chief told the court. The report, written by an Iraqi, predicted bin Laden would target both New York City and the Pentagon....
....No Iraqi journalist would write such a report without his government's knowledge and approval, Woolsey testified.
FYI.
The article about Woolsey's testimony is interesting for the fact that it doesn't bother to mention several other things which have been reported as establishing the existence of a meaningful link between Saddam and Osama.
For example, the article doesn't specifically mention the Al Qaeda poison guy who is known to travel freely within Iraq and who has a production facility in Northern Iraq. It also does not mention the fact that some of the more moderate members of the Taliban once offered to give Woolsey proof of a solid connection, through Pakistan, between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
It also doesn't mention the Czech reports which have tied one of the key 9/11 hijackers (Atta?) to Iraqi intelligence.
***
Our war on terrorism is a pretty broad war involving serious national security issues, not just a narrowly selective vengeance against the 9/11 perpetrators themselves. So, I would say that we don't need to prove that the Saddam was a sponsor or accomplice in the 9/11 attack itself.
However, I think that it's interesting that some folks believe that they can prove that very connection in a court of law.
One thing that puzzles me is the line about how we will risk bringing terror upon ourselves if we attack Iraq/Saddam. Now how can that be if there are no ties between Saddam and terrorists?
Um........either the terrorists are all holding hands or they aren't. As usual, the libs want it both ways.
You make a very good point. Based on the assumptions of those that oppose war and deny Iraqi involvement in 9-11, if reprisals were forthcoming, we should have been attacked after liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The terrorist network that attacked us on 9-11 appears to have refrained from reprisals after the liberation of Afghanistan, but that same network will surely respond to an attack on Iraq.
The proof of the Iraqi role will be costly, but irrefutable.
I've been convinced of this for some time as well.
For a while I thought 1993 was when the war started, with WTCI, then the more I read and heard, it became obvious that we (that is Western Civilization) have been under attack since 1973 when the US ambassador (I think that's who it was--Buckley) was kidnapped and killed in Lebanon.
When was the first attack outside of the Middle East? Was it in Munich at the Olympics in 1972? Ever since then, the islamos have been reaching outside of their area to hit us.
The decade of the 90s saw stepped-up aggression, which went unanswered each time we were hit. (I don't need to remind anyone here about just who was negligent either.)
I think Bush knows is too but can't share the intel. That's why Saddam is going to die, he's been weighed and found wanting. Bye, bye.
If Woolsey thinks Saddam is quilty whats he think about Iran. They have a closer relationship to AQ than Iraq. Soemthing stinks about this article. Woolsey is smarter than this......... OH NEWSMAX! some source.....They should call Newsmax the Moron Daily.....
There is a reason for this -- the Persian Gulf War began in 1991. Islamic terrorism is nothing more than a cover for the real cuprit here.
Go back and read my earlier post on this thread. I am becoming more convinced by the day that Iraq has been retaliating against the U.S. over the last ten years using the only means it has at its disposal -- by waging a low-grade guerilla war on U.S. soil.
Ah, you'll get no argument from me on this. Actually, I guess I've tended to lump Iraq in with the islamos, but should have made that clear. Yes, agree with your statement--I think Iraq is the shadow behind the curtain.
And no one will ever talk me out of believing that OK City had Saddam's hands all over it. When I think of the 4000 Iraqi soldiers who reportedly were allowed to settle in the OK City area after the Gulf War, I find it easy to believe that at least a few of them could have been involved in that mess.
Back to the WTC I, if you haven't already read Laurie Mylroie's book about Saddam, it's worth looking for.
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.