It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hussein/Al Queda link ignored by media

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   
In the most recent Democratic debate in Iowa, Howard Dean tested out his explanation for his widely-reported comment that Saddam Hussein’s capture has not made America safer. Dean’s argument: While Saddam was a bad guy, the resources used to oust him from power should have been used instead to track down the real threat to America, Osama bin Laden. This argument relies for its force on the unstated assumption that any alleged connection between the two was specious, unworthy even of consideration.

www.ashbrook.org...




posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
from the article:


Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, British newspapers uncovered Iraqi intelligence files from 1998 demonstrating a “mutual alliance” against America between Iraq and bin Laden.


The paper they are referring to is the conservative pro war Sunday Telegraph. The note at the bottom of the page states:



Note: An earlier version of this article referred—as a piece of possible, though not definitive, evidence—to a December 14 London Sunday Telegraph story detailing a top-level 2001 Iraqi memo praising Mohammed Atta’s training in Baghdad under the supervision of Abu Nidal. However, that memo’s authenticity has been called into question by numerous intelligence experts, and members of the Iraqi Governing Council are divided on the question; Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, who strongly asserts that there were extensive Saddam–bin Laden ties, nevertheless rejects the memo. Dr. Busch has consequently excised the reference from the current version of this article.


Thing is, the Sunday Telegraph reported both as fact. Even they can't agree agree on the validity of their own claims:

This in a front page 'exclusive' from the Telegraph on August 25th 2002:



"Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qaeda fighters basd in Iraq, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal"


... and then this in another front page 'exclusive' on the 14th December 2003:



"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11th attacks against the U.S, was trained in Bagdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist"


So.. which is it?



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I bet the reality was that Abu Nidal was somewhat involved, maybe training, maybe only offering (or was volunteered) to train alQaeda, but that he was planning on escaping to the West and talking in return for amnesty.

So Saddam iced him before he could spill the beans.

Of course a notorious terrorist wouldn't exactly be the most reliable of witnesses anyway.



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Yeah, too bad this article bases all it's lies on a Weekly Standard article that was panned by the media AND by Undersecretary Feith as FALSE.

"Then, what should have been a bombshell landed with a barely audible thud. A 16 page report—an executive summary of sorts—from Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee was leaked and reported by Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard in its November 24, 2003 issue. The report contained a combination of new and old information demonstrating connections between Iraq and bin Laden dating back to 1990. "


msnbc.msn.com...

"Case Decidedly Not Closed
The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sort
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 4:08 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2003

Nov. 19 - A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an “operational relationship” between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago—and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials...

...With a few, inconclusive exceptions, the memo doesn’t actually contain much “new” intelligence at all. Instead, it mostly recycles shards of old, raw data that were first assembled last year by a tiny team of floating Pentagon analysts (led by a Pennsylvania State University professor and U.S. Navy analyst Christopher Carney) whom Feith asked to find evidence of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda “connection” in order to better justify a U.S. invasion."



So it's been exposed as propaganda, and poor propaganda at that.

jako



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Thanks, Jako, this warrants for reading!



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News.

The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past. "

[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm[/link]

Here's another link for it...




top topics
 
0

log in

join