Jun 25 2008
In 1999, Saddam Linked To Al Qaeda
One of our readers (Vince1974) reminded us of this January 1999 ABC News special on the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda posted last year on Powerline.
When a liberal claims there never was any evidence of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda (like coordinating attacks in 2002 with AQ number 2 Ayman Zawahiri) don’t believe them. They simply are exposing a deadly ignorance.
You forgot this one (and there are plenty others)
“Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/
I think I am the reader.
Vince1974,
Probably so! I have had the link up for days on my browser waiting to post on it.
Cheers, AJStrata
Conman,
Your blog name is not apt. No one buys your manure. A more accurate name would be ‘useful idiot’.
The point of this post and others is to show that the MSM reported on their own about links between Al Qaeda and Saddam before the invasion, then conveniently forgot their own reporting afterwards. Clearly a BIASED move to bash a sitting president. BTW, there is a lot of evidence to show that Saddam and Al-Zaqawi, leader of AQI, were in communication before 2003. Just don’t look for it with the MSM. They chose not to report it, along with the thousands of chemical and biological weapons that were discovered and destroyed. Or the reporting of tons of yellow-cake uranium found in bunkers in Iraq.
And for ricin or botulinum, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see terrorists contaminating a local water supply or food warehouse. But, I guess it does take someone above the level of liberal hack.
What happened to conman’s dumbass comments?
This is the text that went along with the video.. It explains the mindset of Iraq that followed Clinton’s bombing of Iraq in 1998.
Just like Clinton’s bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, it served to only motivate our enemies to work together and gave them more reason to want to hit us again
==========================
The original ABC News report you linked to was from January 1999, I believe, and not 2000. The report was similar to numerous accounts in the worldwide press following Operation Desert Fox. That Clinton-ordered air campaign lasted from December 16 to December 19, 1998. Its purpose was to degrade Saddam’s WMD and intelligence capabilities. Reports from more recent years indicate that the campaign nearly plunged Saddam’s regime into chaos. In any event, Saddam’s response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam’s most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime’s terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in “The Four-Day War.” Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam’s conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.
The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.
The reports from late 1998 and early 1999 are tough for naysayers to explain away for a variety of reasons, but that hasn’t stopped them from trying. For example, last year’s Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda (the report was written, primarily, by a former John Kerry for President campaigner) unhesitatingly cited Hijazi’s testimony, in which he claimed that he did not meet with bin Laden again after a lone incident in the mid 1990’s. The Senate Intelligence report did not cite any of the voluminous reporting, by ABC News and other outlets, following the meeting in December 1998. Obviously, that reporting demonstrates Hijazi is a liar. I asked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff about this after the report came out. They said they didn’t have any evidence that contradicted Hijazi’s testimony and that is why they cited it unquestioningly. I think that is a good demonstration of the ignorance or bias or both that clouds this issue.
Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden’s possible “boogie to Baghdad.” A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam’s VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies’ Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media’s late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.
Such is the state of affairs in today’s Washington establishment.
Phil,
AJ deleted my original comment because he doesn’t like it when people make him look stupid. He deleted another one of my comment yesterday as well.
As for your claim about all of the evidence of WMDs we found in Iraq that the MSM is hiding from the public, I’m wondering if you have taken all of your medication today. How can you possibly believe that the MSM could hide all of that so-called evidence without people finding out about it? Do you think the MSM is Oz – controlling all of the information like big Brother? Please, give me a break. The White House has a massive and sophisticated media relations department that could easily get this information out in the public domain. Heck, Bush could have simply called a press conference and laid out all of the evidence and accused the MSM of surpressing it. Fox news, which is clearly biased toward Bush and the GOP, would make sure that it gets reported on. Your conspiracy theory is a joke. The reality is that there is no evidence of WMDs in Iraq as evidenced by the fact that Bush isn’t even clinging to that theory.
I’ve seen all of the claims on conservative blogs about this fantasy. I’ve even disected AJ’s theory in a post a few weeks ago, showing that his claims were undermined by the same report he was relying on to support his theory.
As for your comment about for ricin or botulinum, I’m truly amazed by your ignorance. Yes, I’m aware that these components can be used to contaminate water sources. Homeland Security has been talking about that possibility since 9-11. What you appear not to understand is that they are relatively easy to make and can be made by terrorist right here in the US. That is why it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that terrorist would make this material in Iraq and ship it overseas to be used here in the US. They would simply make it here. That is why this activity, assuming it was true and the US intelligence agency decided not to confirm it, is not evidence of a WMD program.
I hope he deletes this new conman message too.
Conman,
I have not deleted any comments. We moved the site to a dedicated server and my guess is your comments came in on the old site after they took the image for the new site.
Why would I delete the comments of a raving liberal lunatic? No better example of why the GOP is the party of choice!