Iraq connections with bin Laden

[Semper Fi]

March 22, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which have been released by the U.S. government.

"Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1



See? There were connections...

 

[Mariner]

a very difficult position. First, he tried to tie Hussein to 9/11. Then, as waves of evidence came out that the tie was at most extremely peripheral, he was forced to admit that Hussein was in no meaningful way related, in addition to having been forced to admit being wrong on WMDs. Now, with bits of evidence like this, it's lose/lose for Bush. If he says, "Oops, we were right in the beginning," he looks like a flip-flopper. Hence the White House's silence on these documents. When you've spun and spun, hearing and dealing with truth becomes very hard.

Mariner.

 

[Semper Fi]

a very difficult position. First, he tried to tie Hussein to 9/11. Then, as waves of evidence came out that the tie was at most extremely peripheral, he was forced to admit that Hussein was in no meaningful way related, in addition to having been forced to admit being wrong on WMDs. Now, with bits of evidence like this, it's lose/lose for Bush. If he says, "Oops, we were right in the beginning," he looks like a flip-flopper. Hence the White House's silence on these documents. When you've spun and spun, hearing and dealing with truth becomes very hard.

Mariner.

The point is that the liberal cry of, "There were no connections to terrorism!!!11" is no longer valid. Nor was it ever.

 

[kgoodwin10]

a very difficult position. First, he tried to tie Hussein to 9/11. Then, as waves of evidence came out that the tie was at most extremely peripheral, he was forced to admit that Hussein was in no meaningful way related, in addition to having been forced to admit being wrong on WMDs. Now, with bits of evidence like this, it's lose/lose for Bush. If he says, "Oops, we were right in the beginning," he looks like a flip-flopper. Hence the White House's silence on these documents. When you've spun and spun, hearing and dealing with truth becomes very hard.

Mariner.

Give me a break. Bush never claimed a connection of Hussein to 9/11. This is distortions of the truth by Liberals...such as yourself. What has been stated by Bush is Hussein was a supporter of terror, had WMD, and in violation of UN cease fire agreement regarding Desert Storm. That is a fact and is undisputed by even liberals trying rewrite history. Dems want to claim that their is no, and was never, a valid reason for the war. They want to ignore Oil for Food and the corruption. The facts are Hussein was a supporter of terror, had WMD (used on his own people), contributed to instability in the mid-east, was in violation of cease fire agreement, was a murderous thug, and invaded his neighbors. Dems just want to ignore and minimize the truth, because this is a back breaker for them. Dems are on the wrong side of history....Again!


Your point is that it is "peripheral" is false. This was a point (al Qaeda in Iraq) by the administration at the time we went in. Interesting observation regarding flip flop, but again Dems have flipped and flopped all over this issue. Trust me, Bush will not be silent as more evidence becomes known, and this trap door will open on the Dems if not by mid-terms probably more likely 2008.