edit:some rough language by the writer of this article.
QUAGMIRE OF SPIN: SADDAM’S LINKS TO AL QAEDA
by Solomon Bell
What we have here…is a failure to communicate! It is an unfortunate truth of the information age that as the amount of information increases and becomes more widely available the veracity of that information becomes less discernable. It is an axiom that the first casualty of war is the truth. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Propaganda Wars of the early 21st century, and amongst them perhaps none offers a more telling anatomy than Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda.
The Mainstream Media Complex (MMC) does not exist for the reasons it purports or its individual cogs would like to believe. Its purpose is not to nobly gather, distil and disseminate news and information in order to present a vital, unvarnished, and truthful picture of socio-geopolitical reality. Rather, its purpose is to maximize profits through a narrow and exploitable band of news and information; news and information fit-to-be spun and repeated ad nauseam on the axis of its agenda.
Nowhere has the MMC’s political agenda been more evident than in the preamble to war in Iraq, the war itself, and now in the aftermath. And whether you are watching the right leaning Fox News* or the left leaning other networks makes little difference. The networks do very little serious investigation anymore, and they are no more interested in the digging out the real truths under the menacing teeth of the “Buzzsaw”* * than either political party.
Polling in late 2003 showed that 82% of Americans think Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, and that upwards of 70% think it “likely” that he had a hand in 9-11. The former percentage makes Liberals wince; the latter throws them into paroxysms of disdain and disbelief. In one spasm of superiority they point to Bush as having lied about Saddam and 9-11, and in the next they mock the stupidity of the American citizenry. But just who is lying and who is stupid here, dear Liberals?
When pressed, the Liberals in the Media Left must admit that there is no record of Bush or anyone in his administration making a specific statement connecting Saddam with 9-11. In fact just the opposite has been repeated repeatedly. They will then say that although this may be technically true, that nevertheless the administration has made the allusion that Saddam was involved in 9-11, otherwise why would 70% of Americans think he was? It is true that the allusion has been made, and the waters purposely muddied. But the reasons for it are not what the Media Left thinks or would have us believe.
Clearly the answer to the question of why so many of us think Saddam was in on 9-11 is a mixed bag. Some Americans are indeed, fantastically stupid. Most however are merely ignorant, feeding exclusively and/or sporadically as they do from the Mainstream Media trough. But since the Left dominates the content of this trough, it goes apoplectic when the majority of the country doesn’t “get” what they are slopping up. They simply cannot comprehend that there is a clear, cogent, legitimate and compelling worldview opposite their own, or that there are many millions of intelligent citizens who hold it. And there is something to be said for street smarts and a collective intuition that sees right through the fog of the Propaganda Wars, and senses truth where smoking gun proof may not be possible.
Rather than take the Left’s stance of automatically assuming that the 70% of Americans who connect Saddam, bin Laden and 9-11 are either complete morons or hapless victims of White House spin, this Rail will consider the evidence and the possibility, just the possibility, that they may be neither, and further—that they just may be right.
As you will see below, links between the Evil Duo have, by the MMC as well as both political parties, been systematically underplayed, denied, spun, discredited or willfully ignored. This is indeed a mysterious case, because media and government forces alike, both for and against the Iraq war, are in effect conspiring to keep the real truth of the matter under wraps. This on its face may sound far-fetched, but I would encourage you not to jump to any conclusions before availing yourselves of the evidence. You may be in for quite an intriguing surprise.
Here is a list of just some of the well-sourced and corroborated information available on the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, a connection that goes back more than a decade.
1992: Khartoum, Sudan: The first of numerous known meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda in Sudan involves deputy director of Iraqi intelligence Faruq Hijazi, and al Qaeda’s #2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri. Iraq had a major intelligence hub in Khartoum at the time and bin Laden was based there well into 1996. The Sudanese would later offer both extensive intelligence on bin Laden’s activities inside Sudan as well as bin Laden himself to the Clinton Administration. Clinton would deny each and every offer, later citing “legal reasons” to the press. It wasn’t until August of 2001 that the Bush Administration would receive the Sudanese files on bin Laden and Iraq.
Known to be included in the Sudanese intelligence, independently corroborated by intelligence from Iraqi resistance groups, are reports that Saddam provided training, safe houses, false travel documents, stealth communications abilities, and the movement of funds through Iraqi diplomatic channels to Al Qaeda.
1993: The first World Trade Center bombing occurs. The FBI strongly suspected Iraq was behind the plot, concealing its involvement behind Islamic dupes. We know this to be true because the FBI’s own lead investigator on the case, deputy director James Fox, told us so. We also know that Clinton did not want the case against Iraq made, shown by the immediate suspension of Fox when he spoke out to the press. Clinton also shut the CIA completely out of the investigation, making it a matter for law enforcement only. The administration was quick—too quick—to dub the terrorists “a loose network”, veering sharply from decades of proven and presumed state sponsorship of Arab/Islamic terrorists. We now know that “loose network” affectionately as—Al Qaeda. We also know Al Qaeda has always, at least in part, been state sponsored.
What else do we know? We know that Ramzi Yousef, the convicted bombmaker in the plot, was known by his fellow conspirators as “Rashid the Iraqi”. We know that the other known bombmaker, Abdul Rachman Yasin, was an Iraqi living in Baghdad just before the bombing and that he was harbored back in Iraq soon afterwards. We know that Yasin is an expert in a notorious Iraqi specialty—souping up the post-blast killing power of bombs by lacing them with hydrogen-cyanide gas—which is exactly what he did with the Trade Center bomb. Only a miscalculation in the force of the blast, which resulted in most of the gas being incinerated upon detonation, saved untold lives when smoke filled the tower.
We know what ABC News knew in 1994 when it reported that Yasin was living in Baghdad and was on Iraq’s government payroll. A few months after taking Baghdad in 2003 the ABC report was confirmed when the FBI discovered documents showing that Saddam had ordered regular monthly payments and housing for Yasin.
1995: Al Qaeda begins training at Salman Pak, a terrorist training center outside of Baghdad. According to CIA Director George Tenet, as testified before a 2003 Senate Intelligence Committee, Al Qaeda members were trained by Iraq in advanced bomb-making (possibly with help from infamous terrorist and master bomb-maker Abu Nidal, a Baghdad resident on the government payroll) the use of poisons, gases, and document forgery.
Most notable of all about Salman Pak was the Boeing 707 parked on site, which was being used for skyjack training by 1997. Al Qaeda soldiers were taught how to takeover commercial aircraft using bare hands or small knives only. This and more is corroborated by multiple sources, including five Iraqi defectors who worked at Salman Pak, and two UNSCOM inspectors who saw the aircraft and were told that it was used for COUNTER-terrorist training. (A claim only Janine Garofalo and her ilk would believe).
One Iraqi defector, a former colonel with Iraqi intelligence, reported to the London Observer that there was a special “foreigners camp” within Salman Pak that was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein. “It was a nightmare! A very strange experience," the Iraqi agent said. "These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying." (So much for the continuing media myth about secular Saddamites and fundamentalist Al Qaeda hating each other too much to cooperate. Beware of Talking Heads that are still forwarding the myth and know that they are shills, fools or both.) He also corroborated the use of small knives in skyjack training, as well as working in groups of four and five, the very same modus operandi used on 9-11.
Another high ranking defector told the Observer that the hijacker-trainees at Salman Pak were from several Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco. "We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States. The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this."
Finally, and most chillingly, in an October 2001 interview with PBS, another former worker at the terrorist training center, Khodad Sabah, said he was sure the 9-11 attacks were carried out by “graduates of Salman Pak”.
1995: The Oklahoma City bombing. Seven weeks prior to the bombing the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare issued an official warning to government agencies that an Islamic terrorist attack in the American heartland may be imminent. Not included in the official warning but part of the Task Force record, is information from Israeli intelligence that Iraq may be involved, and that “lily whites” may be used as dupes to carry out the attack.
Despite this, and despite eye witness reports (later to become signed affidavits) placing a Middle Eastern man (the infamous John Doe #2) with Timothy McVeigh riding shotgun in the Ryder truck the morning of the attack, Clinton/Reno, suddenly and without explanation, ordered the FBI to cancel its All Points Bulletin on John Doe #2.
A subsequent investigation by Oklahoma City television reporter Jayna Davis identifies John Doe #2 as Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini. Al-Hussaini bears a tattoo marking him as a member of the Estikhabarat, unit 999 of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Unit 999, dear friends, was based at Salman Pak. Davis’ investigation has gathered 22-signed affidavits and more than 2,000 pages of documents making the case for Iraq’s involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing. Many have praised her work, including former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey and senator Arlen Specter. Specter met with Davis and after reviewing the evidence told her he’d look into launching a senate investigation. Not surprisingly, this Warren Commission co-conspirator then saw to it that no such investigation would occur. (See jaynadavis.com for news story links).
And as for an Al Qaeda connection…
Terry Nichols, a man with little if any bomb-making expertise, took several trips to the Philippines in the months leading up to the attack. He went to Cebu where, lo and behold, fugitive bomb-maker Ramzi Yousef and Al Qaeda #3 man Khalid Sheik Mohammed were hiding out. Philippine police document at least one meeting between Nichols and Mohammed.
Let’s not forget that the indictment against McVeigh and Nichols included a conspiracy with “others unknown”. When sentencing Nichols, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said, “It would be disappointing to me if the law enforcement agencies of the United States government have quit looking for answers.”
1998: President Clinton delivered a speech from the Pentagon in which he pointed to Iraq’s involvement with “an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." He went on to say that “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century…they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
The day after Clinton’s speech, Iraqi intelligence issued a memo laying out a plan to step up contacts with bin Laden. The memo, dated February 19, 1998, was recently unearthed in Baghdad by Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore of The Toronto Star.
In May Saddam warned the United States of “dire consequences” if UNSCOM weapons inspectors are not called off and UN sanctions not lifted. Bin Laden issued several contemporaneous warnings to the US himself, all of them citing and supporting Iraq. It was shortly after this that Saddam paid $300,000 to bin Laden's #2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri. In August, just two days after Saddam forced the evacuation of UNSCOM, Al Qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. The day was August 7, the eighth anniversary of Bush 41 announcing the deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia—to protect the kingdom from Iraq.
In December, first reported in Europe by Rome’s Corriere della Sera, Saddam sent Farouk Hijazi (later named Iraqi ambassador to Turkey; now in US custody) into Afghanistan to formally offer asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The report describes Hijazi as “the person who has been responsible for nurturing Iraq's ties with the fundamentalist warriors since at least 1994.”
1999: Newsweek, who now generally denies any serious connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, ran an article titled “Saddam + Bin Laden” with the subhead, “America's Two Enemies are Courting." Christopher Dickey and three others wrote the article. Dickey now calls the connection, as little put forward by the Bush team as it has been, an “egregious smokescreen.” What’s egregious Christopher; is your masquerading as an unbiased journalist. If you want to write Leftist opinion pieces, then do so.
2000: January, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. An Iraqi airport employee named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, placed in the job by operatives at the Iraqi embassy, escorted two future 9-11 hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi, through Malaysian customs in Kuala Lumpur. Shakir then escorted the Al Qaeda men to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they held a three-day meeting with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the major Al Qaeda planners in the 9-11 plot.
2000-2001: The often-refuted meetings in Prague in June 2000 and in April of 2001 between 9-11 hijack captain Mohammed Atta and Iraqi “diplomat” Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, did indeed take place. The August 2, 2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times quotes an unnamed high official in the Bush Administration as saying that
evidence of the Prague meetings “holds up.” A Czech intelligence agent has stated publicly that he witnessed and reported al-Samir and Atta hugging goodbye in the airport following the 2001 meeting.
No matter what the MMC repeatedly says, since Czech interior minister Stanislas Gross made it official on October 26, 2001 and was later corroborated by prime minister Milos Zeman, the only wavering on the matter has come from Vaslav Havel after intense pressure from the Media Left in Europe (and possibly a tad from the White House). All Havel finally said was that the meeting “MAY” not have happened. Naturally the MMC has taken this one inconclusive statement as conclusive evidence that the meeting never happened, conveniently ignoring far weightier evidence to the contrary.
Some in the media also cite CIA sources that say there is no record of Atta leaving the country during April 2001, and that he may have rented a car in Florida at that time. First, this completely ignores the June 2000 meeting, which the CIA itself has confirmed publicly. Second, it conveniently ignores that Atta routinely traveled on false passports and that his operatives may have purposely rented a car with his ID to establish an alibi presence in Florida, when he was indeed in Czechoslovakia.
The Czechs, it should be noted, spurred by the last Atta meeting with al-Ani, expelled the Iraqi agent not long after he saw Atta off at the airport. The reason was his suspected involvement in a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe. Radio Free Europe is an icon and entity of the United States of America.
2001: In August, less than a month away from the 9-11 attacks, the CIA and FBI met with Israeli intelligence services and were reportedly told of an impending large-scale terrorist attack against America on American soil. A senior Israeli official later told the Sunday Telegraph “there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement.”
2002: Babil, the official Iraqi state run newspaper controlled by Uday Hussain, in its November 16 edition, identifies Iraq’s ambassador to Pakistan, Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad, as an "intelligence officer…in charge of the regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group…” Oops!
A December 12 report by the Washington Post based on information pulled from the CIA threat matrix, says that Iraq successfully smuggled out VX nerve gas to Al Qaeda through Turkey. The intelligence comes from a “sensitive and credible source” according the CIA.
2003: Here’s a little blockbuster you probably haven’t heard—on Wednesday, April 2 a United States district court in Manhattan ruled that Salman Pak played a material role in the attacks of 9-11. Judge Harold Baer’s $104 million dollar judgment against Saddam Hussain and Usama bin Laden is the first legal decision tying the evil duo to 9-11.
Now, wouldn’t you think this court decision would be plastered all over the MMC? The New York Times and the Washington Post didn’t just bury the story as you might expect. Their April 3 editions didn’t report it at all! And the television networks, including Fox News, if they reported it at all just glossed over it. It was a non-story after the first day. Of all the major newspapers and wire services, only the Philadelphia Enquirer and the Chinese news service Xinhua bothered to mention Salman Pak by name. Isn’t it strange how George Tenet, in his aforementioned senate testimony, also failed to mention Salman Pak by name, not to mention its role in the training of Al Qaeda skyjackers?
What on earth is going on here?
* * *
So there you have it: a brief overview of the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, including a recent court decision linking them to 9-11. Now how stupid is the 70 % of the American public who think Saddam was likely involved?
The Left would have us believe the Bush Administration has mislead the public into thinking Saddam was involved in 9-11 when they know he wasn’t. I submit that the Bush Administration has ‘mislead’ the public into thinking Saddam was involved in 9-11 because they know he was.
That the MMC and the Democrats refuse to admit or even honestly investigate the strength of the evidence concerning the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection comes as little surprise. The surprise is that Bush is playing rope-a-dope with the Democrats and allowing them to hammer away when clearly, if he chose to fight back, he could knock them out with a quick flurry and a thunderous overhand right. The strategy, that the Democrats will eventually punch themselves out, is risky in an election year. For now Bush has enough of the American public behind him to keep pushing forward. If that support should begin to crumble however, look for the Bush team to leak just enough “new” information out the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection to shore things up.
But why “just enough?” Why wasn’t the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection put front and center from the beginning, when it would have given Bush nearly universal support for the war on Iraq?
Clearly there must have been vital and compelling reasons. And thus we arrive at the heart of the matter:
Imagine if you will, that you have become president of the United States and inherited federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies in turmoil and disrepair. Imagine discovering that your predecessor was largely responsible for this, and that among other things had subverted the system and successfully covered up the state sponsorship of a major terrorist attack on American soil. And when other attacks involving the same state sponsor ensued over the years, the inertia of previous cover-ups (CYA) forced new cover-ups. Imagine in the midst of discovering all this your nation is hit with a 9-11 magnitude terrorist strike, a strike likely sponsored by that very same state entity.
You know what you must do. You also know that you must bite the bullet of your inheritance and move forward because if the previous administration’s cover-ups were exposed it would create a political and media firestorm that would virtually eviscerate the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies involved—the very agencies you now so urgently need to defend the nation.
Vital and compelling reasons indeed.
I am confident that this is exactly what GW Bush is dealing with. He and his cabinet and a fair chunk of Capitol Hill know full well that Saddam and Al Qaeda have worked together in committing terrorism against the US. (Which makes the phony partisan vitriol of the Democrats all the more reprehensible.) There may be of course, additional reasons for the Bush team’s reticence. They may be waiting until all their ducks are in a row, for a smoking gun, and then to spring it before the 2004 election. Then again they may be covering their own collective ass concerning what they knew before 9-11. Clearly there was warning, as stated above, from Israeli intelligence in August ’01. We do not know how detailed that warning was. We do know that they played dumb about it after 9-11.
In any event, if Bush were to make a full fledged case connecting Saddam and bin Laden the MMC would then be forced to investigate, likely opening a titanic can of worms that would slither right back to the original Clinton cover-ups. The resulting mega-scandal would send enough Washington ass scurrying for cover to virtually paralyze the FBI, CIA, DOJ et al, just when they’re needed the most. Bush as we have seen, has been very protective of these agencies failures.
Bush has with commendable courage risked his presidency over Iraq because he believed it was the right action to take. Further, he has chosen to take the virulent onslaught of misplaced hatred from the Left rather than further endanger the nation by exposing the true legacy of his predecessor, a legacy so violently thrust upon us that clear September morning of two thousand and one.
~Solomon Bell
Rails from the Radical Middle
TheArtichoke.org |
