Documents show more collaboration between AQ and Iraq

Posted by: ST on March 25, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Via the NY Sun:

CAIRO, Egypt – A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that “Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States.” Mr. Kerrey said he believed America’s understanding of the deposed tyrant’s relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.

The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, “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.” ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission’s final conclusion in 2004, that there were no “operational” ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden’s request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.

“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

Significant indeed.

Related: Stephen Hayes’ latest piece on Saddam’s terrorist training camps is up at the Weekly Standard.

Ties ties, everywhere ties – not just to AQ to overall terrorism in general as well. The naysayers will never admit it, but we were right to go in and as more and more documents come to light about these ties, the more we know that waging war with Iraq was indeed the right thing to do.

Prior Toldjah So posts:

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Center for Sanity trackbacked with Libya, China and Syria Angered by Snub
  • 24 Responses to “Documents show more collaboration between AQ and Iraq”


    1. steve says:

      The Republican’s can spin this all they want, but in the end the war in Iraq was an illegal, pre-emptive invasion. Peace

    2. benning says:

      The Invasion of Iraq was a good thing, done for a good reason. GOD Bless the U.S. President!

    3. steve says:

      How long is the hero worship going to go on? There is an election comming up in November, and the war in Iraq will lose many, many congressional seats for both political parties. The object of this election is to completely dis-credit the Kristol,Wolfowitz,Cheney, Lieberman warmonger wing of both parties. Any politician who believes in pre-emptive war is doomed. Peace

    4. sanity says:

      Get your head out of the sand steve.

      Even the 911 commission has stated that with this new information (and only a SMALL portion has been released) that they are having to revise what they originally thought now that new information is contradicting thier original report.

      This is only a small portion of the documents and more will be released.

      I have a feeling these were not released before because we are doing a strange dance with the russians and by not embarrassing them the admiistration was probably trying to get consessions from them, most likely for help with Iran, but with thinsg going the way they are, I think the truth will out and let the Russians exaplain themselves.

      Then we need to find those who were spying and giving secret information on troop placement and troop counts and armaments…we need to find those SPIES and try them as spies and for treason against the US.

    5. Raj says:

      right in going in there? u wanna go to a war on such thin premises??? do u live in the 19th century?? no matter how much the bush admin tries to suck up with some good work like investing in nuclear energy (thus trying to end oil dependence on mid-east) and encouragement of legal immigration, i hope there will be justice one day for such a biga$$ gamble gone bad. yeah, its a gamble at the expense of many people.. err many many people.

    6. sanity says:

      Only a small portion of the translated papers have been released, and already their is startin gto see more connections, even the 911 commission admits that.

      I await for the rest fo the release, I relaly think the russians are going to be coming out with major egg on thier face, and we will seem some definitive answers finally.

    7. NC Cop says:

      Yes, expect another “The facts are completely irrelevant” argument from the left!!!

    8. Raj says:

      Yeah.. well that argument is far more realistic and rational than the right’s “this is good enough for me to drop bombs and to hell with collateral damage” and “its all connected to 9/11, some damn how” arguments, IMHO.

    9. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      After reading some of the comments on this thread, one thing is clear – the Left is running scared! Facts usually seem to have that effects on the Left.

      Maybe that explains the “Impeach Bush” fever that has gripped so many on the Left. “Depose before being exposed” might be the Left’s only hope of political survival.

    10. sanity says:

      Atlas Shrugs points out something interesting:

      Win every poll (exit polls too), lose every election. Do I spot a pattern? And so it begins.

      Interesting take on it.

    11. pat says:

      To hell with collateral damage? What in the world are you talking about? Coalition forces sat ringed around Fallujah for nearly a month, then went house to house on foot rather than risk collateral damage, however minimal.

      Now, under another administration I seem to recall a Chinese embassy getting bombed with precision munitions “by mistake”, but that was just a mistake, right?

      When are those troops coming home, by the way?

    12. – Hey if polls were the only thing you could seem to manipulate, you’d live by them too. Unfortunately, skewed polls do not translate into votes with the vast majority of the electorate, so its a fools game. Just the sort of desperate grabing for straws you’d expect from losers.

      – Bang **==

    13. Lorica says:

      ABSOLUTELY PAT!!!!! The Chinese embassy was moved to that building 2 years earlier, but somehow the intelligence community missed it. Riiiigggght!!!! That was a hit for some stupid wag the dog Clinton BS. – Lorica

    14. steve says:

      As for impeachment, bush said on saturday that,”We are a nation of laws”, while speaking about the illegal immigration issue. Right on bushie, and spying on Americans without first getting a warrant is against the law. In order to put things back into balance bush must be impeached. It’s the law. Peace

    15. NC Cop says:

      “Yeah.. well that argument is far more realistic and rational than the right’s “this is good enough for me to drop bombs and to hell with collateral damage” and “its all connected to 9/11, some damn how” arguments, IMHO.”

      Far more realistic and rational than the facts???? Thanks for proving my point.

    16. steve says:

      Here’s a fact, there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Now a question: If bush really thought that Saddam had WMD’s why weren’t the projections of war dead off the charts? If Saddam had weapons he would have used them, don’t you think? Wouldn’t the Pentagon have released big numbers on invasion force deaths and general population deaths? A dead fish rots from the head and that’s where bush sits. Peace

    17. CavalierX says:

      >Here’s a fact, there were no WMD’s in

      Well, those who supposedy died of WMD use in the Anfal genocide campaign and the war with Iran will be very pleased to hear that they are, in fact, alive and well! On the other hand, you may wish to explain why you consider UNSCOM and UNMOVIC to be complete liars.

    18. CavalierX says:

      >spying on Americans without first
      >getting a warrant is against the law

      You might want to explain to the 2002 FISA Court of Review, which stated unequivocally that FISA can not encroach upon the President’s inherent Constitutional right to order wiretaps to gather intelligence without needing a warrant, why they know nothing about the law and should listen to you. Make sure you let us know how that goes, okay?

    19. CavalierX says:

      >u wanna go to a war on such thin

      Are you really saying that the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, voted into law overwhelmingly by Congress, was “thin?” Please, read it and point out for us exactly what was “thin” about it. Your problem is that you’re listening to what the media wants you to think about the case for war, not looking at the actual reasons we removed Saddam from power.

    20. steve says:

      The gas that Iraq used against Iran, was given to Iraq by the United States. That is why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam’s hand and they both had big smiles on their faces. They had just agreed to gas the Iranians. bush, is not above the Constitution and bush ignored the First and Fourth Amendments, when he allowed the NSA to wiretap American citizens without warrants. bush, needs to be impeached. Peace

    21. NC Cop says:

      I always love that excuse. “We gave them the gas”. It doesn’t matter steve. It’s completely irrelevant, much like your arguments. In 2004 a 155mm shell exploded that contained almost a gallon of sarin gas. Nobody was hurt because the insurgents probably did not know it was a chemical shell and failed to mix the components completely. The sarin, however, was part of the WMD that Iraq claimed it destroyed. So right there is an illegal WMD that was found.If properly mixed and properly delivered that much sarin could have wiped out more people than died on 9/11.

      So what now steve, do you blame the Jews for planting it there or will you claim that it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t a huge stockpile???

      Saddam fooled the inspectors time and time again and even the inspectors reported that they were not getting the necessary cooperation from Iraqi authorities. Why do people believe that after 12 years of fooling the UN and skirting sanctions that suddenly Iraq was going to play fair and tell the UN and US everything they wanted to know??

    22. Severian says:

      The US did not give poison gas or any WMD materials to Iraq steve, where do you continue to get that idiotic information? Or is it just something you KNOW, the same way you just KNOW the Jooooos are behind everything?

    23. steve says:

      If bush was serious about getting rid of Saddam, without a war, I’m certain that Iran would have helped him out. As a matter of fact the way out of Iraq is through Iran. We should immediately re-establish full diplomatic relations with Iran. As for the Jews, God loves the Jews, but he condemns the Zionists. Peace