Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda

The Weekly Standard ^ | March 1, 2004 | Jonathan Schanzer

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Save your keystrokes.

[nuffsenuff]

Is this actually a surprise to anyone on FR?

Powell pointed to this guy in his UN speech.

The liberals (read Bush Haters) insist that this guy operated within the no-fly zones as if the no-fly zones prevented Iraqi intelligence agents from traveling freely in the North and South of Iraq.

Why would he go to Baghdad to recieve medical treatment for injuries sustained during the invasion of Afghanistan? Because he knew where he would be safe.

Why did he know he was safe? Because he had been there before with permission from Hussein.

Only a moron would be unable to connect the dots.

[Coop]

That is what i been saying GW should be out saying..."We have the enemy coming in droves to Iraq to fight them there and not fight them in our sky or on our soil." If he did that he would get instant bump from american security moms.

The President has been saying that.

[Coop]

What the evidence, contrary to the Weekly Standard and 24 hours of Fox News, shows is that Al Qaeda is entering into Iraq after the fall of Hussein and that Hussein did not want his troops to work with the Islamic crazies. Fox News even stated that back when he was caught in some released letter IIRC.

Well, then you should have no problem coming up with this evidence for us.

[Coop]

FYI

[MHGinTN]

Christopher Hitchens was on Washington Journal Friday morning (I caught the replay Friday night) and had alot to say about this. He mentioned that it was a cassette tape or CD disc that was found on the courier, with ZAq's voice on it pushing for instigating a religious war in Iraq, to prevent democratization! Hitch called it a 'filthy plot'.

[billbears]

The fact that there is no evidence except some talking points from Kristol and friends, no WMDs found and no major terrorist connections to speak about (other than what this tinfoil article speaks of). I see also the WS has backed off it's all about WMDs and is trying another track. Wonder why? If WMDs are so prevalent in Iraq as the administration keeps telling us surely you'll be able to provide the evidence yourself.

[nuffsenuff]

I just love these contrarians, don't you?

Zarqawi recieved medical treatment in Iraq AFTER the Afhganistan invasion. In case he was wondering, that happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. No foreign terrorist could be operated on in a BAGHDAD hospital without the Mukhabarat knowing about it. Specially when he had about a dozen friends with him for security reasons.

And now it seems that Zarqawi's relationship extended further back than his hospital visit.

Another interesting note is Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri's familial relationship with another al-qaeda affiliated terrorist.

Does anyone really think that kind of stuff went unnoticed by Hussein?

[nuffsenuff]

Do you really think that Zarqawi would go to Baghdad for treatment if he had never been there before and if he didn't have some assurances from Saddam Hussein or the Mukhabarat?

[b4its2late]

BTTT so at least FReepers will see it.....

[billbears]

Do you really think that Zarqawi would go to Baghdad for treatment if he had never been there before and if he didn't have some assurances from Saddam Hussein or the Mukhabarat?

Wait a minute... nope, I don't care. To rely your entire argument on one or two men visiting Baghdad is a bit weak. Tie this also into the fact that Hussein's regime was the only secular government in the region. The man oppressed Islamic fundamentalists. Sounds a bit off for someone that supposedly had strong ties to Islamic terrorists

As to your point in #48, considering Hussein probably thought he still had WMDs I'd say a lot of things were overlooked by him. Oh, but the Weekly Standard and the NRO aren't using the WMD argument anymore are they? Wonder why?

[Coop]

As I thought. You have no evidence. Just like WMDs, with Al Qaeda you can't prove a negative. You don't know, despite all your bloviating to the contrary.

[Richard Axtell]

Billbears needs logic lessons, not evidence. His particular political bias and agenda cannot possibly allow for any connection between Al Quaida and Hussein's Iraq, heaven forbid even acknowledging even the slightest hint that Saddam had some link with 9/11.

Whenever this possibility it mentioned, these Bush haters go insane! It really is fun to watch. Anyway, nothing is going to change his mind, not even video of Saddam planning the 9/11 attack with Al Quaida members. Come to think of it, I think there was mention of just such a piece of video not long ago. But I am not convinced. It may well be another attempt to "poison the well" by anti-American interests, much like the "forged" Yellowcake papers.

It would be absurd to think that Saddam wouldn't take advantage of terrorist links with Bin Laden, and he with Hussein. Plus, Hussein's fingerprints are all over the first attack on the WTC, and Ramzi Yousef, the planner of the foiled plot to bomb international airliners in flight, was an Iraqi agent, so, it does not take the entire intelligence establishment to connect the dots. Whether Billbears wants to face the many threads of evidence that come together with Saddam, is entirely his affair. But their existence cannot be denied.

[daybreakcoming]

This is what I have said since a month after the war began. I would like to believe that GW, Inc. planned it this way.

[billbears]

I don't need anything. This war was begun with the premise that WMDs existed. To date no WMDs have been found. It's not on me to prove anything. However it is on your end to prove that WMDs existed. Just because Bush, Feith, Wolfowitz, or even the Democrats 'said' they existed does not make it so. The same with the terrorist connections. Innuendoes and anecdotal stories do not make up factual evidence

[billbears]

Secondly one would imagine with all this 'evidence' you speak of we would have heard about. Perhaps Fox News? No they're too busy covering the schools in Iraq or other nonsense. How about any other major news organizations? Or even the administration? Interesting isn't it that for some reason or another we haven't had Bush, Cheney, or what's left of the neocons he brought on (hopefully the administration has had enough of them) present hard documented evidence of this 'massive' buildup of WMDs. Or at least some high tech labs other than the third world garage labs Kay supposedly found. One would think that to produce as much as Bush outlined in his 2003 SOTU speech one would need just a bit more. Oh, there have been first reports of 'found' WMDs but strangely those don't meet the muster for even Fox for more than a few days. Of course we have hangers on like the Weekly Standard still trying to drum up support and provide one man accounts of 'I saw them I just don't remember where' stories but no major press coverage, even from Fox. I'm telling you it's a conspiracy!!

The President's man, Kay, even has stated more than once that perhaps they weren't there at the levels we were told. When exactly will you accept that WMDs just aren't there at the levels we were told?

[nuffsenuff]

My argument does not rely on one or two men visiting Baghdad.

You are aware that Iraq was on the list of "terrorist sponsoring regimes" long before Bush was elected in 2000, right?

Secondly, Hussein oppressed IRAQI'S. Some of which happened to be fundamentalists. You are as confused as the liberals are about this issue. When it came to FOREIGN terrorists, though, he would work with the ones he thought he could keep tabs on and drive out or kill the ones who got out of hand.

It has NEVER been about his own personal religious beliefs. It was ALWAYS about who he could use to accomplish whatever he wanted to accomplish.

[Richard Axtell]

For once you are right. Put the 300,000+ decaying bodies back in their mass graves, and cover them over, as we had no reason to dig them up now did we? Saddam should be in power right now, regardless of what he has done, or what he will do. All those homeless orphans in those children's prisons? Perhaps they WERE better off there, who's to say? And Clinton was satisfied in leaving Saddam in power as his legacy, why should Bush be so picky? The 25 million citizens of Iraq don't really know what freedom is, since they have never experienced it, so what's the hurt in putting things back the way they were? I am only glad that Saddam is still alive, and we can correct this terrible injustice. Get him a shave, clean him up, even press his uniform, and put him back in his palace. Then, we can ask his forgiveness and hope he just lets bygones be bygones, eh? Certainly, we won't have to worry about any connections he might have had or still might use with terrorist organizations like Ansar-il-Islam, Hezbolla, The Al-Aqsa Brigades, Fatah, Hamas, the Egyptian wing of Islamic Jihad, or Al Qaida itself, as there never was any connection, right?

This whole thing is Bush's fault, as he incorrectly assumed there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in a country that in the past had used Weapons of Mass Destruction more than ten times in both massed battles against its neighbors, and against its own people, and that every international intelligence agency that had an opinion regarding this issue said exactly the same thing, and that the Democrats were almost in unison about this also, until the Presidential campaign started of course, and that Saddam could have defused this entire war if he just admitted that he hadn't retained any WMD's, instead of continuing a campaign of deception as if he were hiding WMDs, as the UN determined from their inspections. I mean, anyone could have seen through all that. Thanks for setting me straight.

[billbears]

Put the 300,000+ decaying bodies back in their mass graves, and cover them over, as we had no reason to dig them up now did we? Saddam should be in power right now, regardless of what he has done, or what he will do. All those homeless orphans in those children's prisons? Perhaps they WERE better off there, who's to say?

Of course. If it's a humanitarian issue, I'm sure we can expect the neocons in the administration to advocate 'regime change' in every dictatorship in the world. Right? Where are 'we' going next? Southeast Asia again? I'm sure there are a few governments in power there that deserve to be thrown out of power because of their lack of care for the citizens? Heck, how about China? We'll just pick them off on the way up to North Korea, right? Of course mind you, I can't seem to find 'spreading democracy and 'American' values' listed as a power in the Constitution. But heck we haven't let that document seriously bother the foreign policy of this nation of states since before Wilson. So let's get going!!

Certainly, we won't have to worry about any connections he might have had or still might use with terrorist organizations like Ansar-il-Islam, Hezbolla, The Al-Aqsa Brigades, Fatah, Hamas, the Egyptian wing of Islamic Jihad, or Al Qaida itself, as there never was any connection, right?

Another good point that you bring up. Watching Fox this afternoon, one of the talking heads stated that Al Qaeda was coming into Iraq. Funny, that. Since according to you the bases and contacts were well established.

[Richard Axtell]

You misunderstand. I said you were right. Now you agree with the neocons? hehehe.