What do we know and when do we know it?: Zarqawi, Al Qaeda, and Saddam
I just finished an appearance on a local radio program (KLBJ-AM) and “Hey, is Zarqawi really wounded?” was the question du jour. Of course the real question being asked is “What do we really know about Al Qaeda, and when will we know it?” That’s not as fine a soundbite as “what did he know and when did he know it?” (from the press’ Watergate template), but it is a fundamental question (perhaps the fundamental question) in The Millennium War. (Another candidate for “the fundamental question” is American will to stick out “the long, hard slog” of war, police duty, and nation building.)
Let’s consider Zarqawi’s wound. In late April the rumors began– that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been wounded in a scrape with either US or Iraqi forces. Now a website linked to Al Qeada claims Zarqawi was wounded “for the sake of God.”
This is from the AP, via the Houston Chronicle:
The statement was posted on a Web site known for carrying prior statements by al-Qaida in Iraq and other militant groups. The Arabic word for injury or wound used in the statement, jarh, could mean that al-Zarqawi suffered either a wound in an attack or an accidental injury. But the context implies that he was wounded in an attack or battle.
“Let the near and far know that the injury of our leader is an honor, and a cause to close in on the enemies of God, and a reason to increase the attacks against them,” said the statement, posted in the name of the group’s media coordinator, Abu Maysarah al-Iraqi.
It ended with prayers for al-Zarqawi, calling on the nation of Islam to “pray for our Sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to recover from an injury he suffered for the sake of God.”
Sure, spreading the rumor of a wound could be a smokescreen, to try to sidetrack coalition intelligence (ie, direct assets to search for a wounded man). The rumor might also be political preparation on Al Qaeda’s part. Shiek Zarqawi may be in a bad way and Al Qaeda has a “mythic investment” in Z-Man. At some point we’ll know.
As for Saddam and Al Qaeda: terrorists, tyrants, and criminals all inhabit the same sewer of illicit money, covert communications, and blackmarket weapons. Though secular fascists (like Saddam) and theo-fascists (like Osama bin Laden) have very fundamental philosophical differences, they share a common enemy: the US.
As I mentioned in a recent post, Saddam and Zarqawi: Al Qaeda’s Shellgame, Jordan’s King Abdullah and his intelligence services certainly believed Saddam and Zarqawi connected. Now Roger L. Simon points to information that former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has evidence of Saddam-Al Qaeda connections (via Mystery Achievement blog).
Who was Saddam’s visitor in 1999, according to Allawi? : Al Qaeda bigwig Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
The quote is from Italy’s AKI, with Mystery Achievement providing an English translation. Here’s the lede and key information from Allawi:
Baghdad, 23 May - (Aki) - “Al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to participate in the ‘Ninth Islamic People’s Congress’”: revealed former Iraqi Premier, Iyyad Allawi, to the Arab daily, “Al-Hayat”. The Shiite political figure supplied to the newspaper certain information discovered by the Iraqi Secret Service in the archives of the previous regime which clarify the ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations. “Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri,” said Allawi, “[who at the time] was vice president of the Council of the Direction of the Revolution, in order to participate in the congress along with 150 Islamic authorities coming from 50 Islamic countries.”
According to Allawi important information was also gathered about the presence of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi[’s presence] in the country. “The Jordanian Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi secretly entered Iraq in the same period,” he affirmed, “and began to form a terrorist cell, although the [Iraqi Secret] Service did not have precise information about his entry into the country.”
These revelations were released only following those made by the Jordanian king, Abdallah II (also to “Al-Hayat,”) concerning the refusal on the part of Saddam to transfer Zarqawi to authorities in Amman. Regarding those revelations, Allawi said: “The words of the Jordanian king are precise and important. We have proven [the fact of] the Zawahiri’s visit to Iraq, but we do not have the exact date of Zarqawi’ entry into the country, even though it probably took place during the same period.”
According to the ex-Iraqi premier, Saddam’s government would have thus sponsored the birth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as coordinating other terrorist groups, be they Islamic or Arab. “The Iraqi Secret Service had communications with these groups through someone named Faruq Hajizi,” Allawi continued, “who was the ambassador to Turkey and was then arrested after the fall of Saddam’s regime while trying to sneak into Iraq. The Iraqi Secret Services were helping the terrorists enter Iraq and taking them to the Ansar Al-Islam camps in the Halbija. area.” In sum, the ex-premier maintains that Saddam’s government also tried to involve Abu Nidal in its terrorist network, and his refusal to cooperate with the Islamist groups became his death sentence, which was carried out in the summer of 2002…
I googled “AKI” and “Allawi” and turned up this link to AKI’s own English-language version (Mystery Achievement did a pretty good job.)
Unless I missed a column, William Safire of the NY Times still insists on an Al Qaeda-Saddam connection. I certainly do and I base my conclusion on the ugly way of the covert world. Saddam was a Middle Eastern tyrant, a terrorist and he employed terrorists. Al Qaeda is terrorist organization with Middle Eastern roots. At some point –a moment of mutual convenience, perhaps– the thugs connect.
Unfortunately a vast swath of the US national media “concluded” in the run up to the 2004 presidential campaign that “Al Qaeda-Saddam connections weren’t proven.” “Not proven” is accurate, at least not proven to support a court case– but we’re in a war and operating inside the fog of war. I use the verb “concluded” instead of “argued”: the cynical tone and intensity of the MSM “argument” vis a vis Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections left the impression that these connections didn’t exist at all. The truth is there were numerous indications of connections and possible collaboration, indications that would have raised eyebrows prior to 9/11 but would not have raised alert levels. But “not proven” echoed “no WMD,” and both worked into the 2004 press template “Bush lied, people died.”
A covert, terrorist organization survives via stealth. It has to cover its tracks. Some information about Al Qaeda, its people, its connections, its intentions, will take years to uncover. King Abdullah and former PM Allawi now offer evidence of Saddam-Al Qaeda connections and Allawi’s suggests potential collaboration. Abdullah’s information implies a tangential connection, but Allawi’s indicates direct dealing. Where’s the front-page reporting and 24/7 cable chitchat? Newsweek needs to follow this lead. Will Dan Rather –while he’s looking for Lucy Ramirez– try to find Faruq Hajizi, the “former ambassador” Allawi names? That’s a 60 Minutes interview we all need to hear.
UPDATE: Comment 5– Thanks for the comment. I’m sure I’ve read about that case. Al Qaeda’s left a number of “tracks.” What I’m arguing for is follow-up by major news organizations. King Abdullah and former PM Allawi are reputable leaders and a major news organization can contact them quickly. There has been no “tidal wave of interest” in their claims. There hasn’t be a rip tide. Allawi says al-Zawahiri connects to Saddam’s regime, via al-Douri. The “Islamic conference” scenario’s as simple as it is obvious — Zawahiri comes to Iraq and Saddam’s intelligence officers have the chance to chat with him about common issues and common interests. One of their common interests is the Kurds. Heavens, the Kurds had cooperated with the Israelis. Hence the Ansar al-Islam connection in Kurdistan. Saddam gets a “terror force” to fight the Kurds, Al Qaeda gets to either influence or help direct an “operational unit” of Islamist militants that might be of use to it in the future. Sure, that’s a scenario following the “rogue state with tyrant intersects terrorists” schematic. Now add the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s WMD track record– he’d used WMD. Now include 9/11, with aircraft used as ballistic missiles: the next step is a nuclear 9/11. King Abdullah’s and Allawi’s evidence should interest anyone who wants to understand Al Qaeda.
Thanks for the linkage. I updated my post with a link to yours and AKI’s English version. I was pressed for time and couldn’t find it.
Comment by someguy — 5/25/2005 @ 8:35 am
Guess some people will believe what they want to believe. No changing that.
Comment by JM — 5/25/2005 @ 9:19 am
Not proven in the sense of 90% of what you read or hear in the news media.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 5/25/2005 @ 10:29 am
And some people will ignore what they want to ignore, no changing that either. When conclusions of ‘experts’ outweigh evidence, on e has to suspect groupthink at play.
Comment by moptop — 5/25/2005 @ 11:06 am
Austin: Don’t forget that in Smith v. Iraq. et al (2003) 262 F.Supp.2d 217, a federal court found sufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaida in connection with the attacks of 9/11. (Expert testimony was provided in that case by former CIA Director James Woolsey and Dr. Laurie Mylroie).
Comment by julian biggs — 5/25/2005 @ 11:26 am
There’s no front page reporting or 24/7 cable coverage, I think, because information such as this just doesn’t fit their “world view”. This would just destroy their arguments that the war is wrong, Bush lied, etc. The media definitely has an agenda and that agenda, sadly, shines no light on the truth. A perfect example is a co-worker who thinks the war is a mistake. I have shown this person tons of evidence to the contrary, yet nothing changes. She continues to pick and choose where she gets her information and bases her entire world view only on information that supports her faulty conclusions. Most of this information comes from the Big 3 and she wouldn’t know a blog if it bit her in the butt. You could probably have Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden in the room in front of her holding hands and she would deny a connection. It is really sad that the information she relies on is not painting an accurate picture, and equally as sad that she allows herself to be blinded by it.
Comment by Palmetto Pundit — 5/25/2005 @ 11:56 am
Austin, In his testimony to the 9-11 Commission didn’t SecDef Cohen say the reason for the missile attack (Operation Infinite Reach) on Afghanistan al Queda camps & the Al Shaifa facility (Sudan) was due to actionable intelligence showing a rather serious connection between UBL (financing) and Iraq (WMD scientists)? Or was it just my imagination?
Comment by Bill Serra — 5/25/2005 @ 12:04 pm
It is worth noting that Allawi was the first Iraqi official to say the document linking Atta and Abu Nidal was authentic. Nothing since then that I am aware of has shown one way or another that the document was in fact a forgery. Isikoff and co. tried to say that the FBI understanding of Atta’s movement was contrary to the Nidal document, but we know now that the FBI has never had a firm handal on Atta’s movements prior to 9-11.
Comment by Jeff — 5/25/2005 @ 12:07 pm
No, it was not your immagination Bill. In fact, it was Richard Clarke himself who was the source of that information. There used to be a link on the DOS website that had a document from the pre-Clinton days saying explicitly that the strike was a result of a presumed link between the two. Because of restructuring at the DOS website, the link is now dead.
Comment by Jeff — 5/25/2005 @ 12:10 pm
Last Sunday, in his valedictory, the oleagenous Dan Okrent*, the fomer public editor (public appologist?) of the NYTimes wrote: “Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.”
Now Okrent had just finished spanking Krugman and MoDo* and the Safire slap was, no doubt, book balancing. What Okrent and the rest of the faithful have conveintly forgotten is that, in October of 2003, the NYTimes published the following item:
Of course the NYTimes down played it severely. “little evidence . . . exception” Which is sort of like saying that there was little evidence that he was ill except for his inoperable brain-tumor. “A group loosely linked to Al Qaeda” Contrary to popular impression, Al Qaeda is not an organization like the FBI. It is a confederacy of like minded islamo-nazi terrorists and Abu Sayyaf is part of the crew. And the relationship is not that loose. Abu Sayyaf was funded by one of Ossama’s brothers’-in-law and trained by Ramzi Yousef, who was a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
* The pseudonymous Robert Musil had the best take on the Okrent babeling:
*Okrent also said: “No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd’s way” which is wrong, MoDo has earned every bit of it by her hysterical attempts to turn the world into 8th grade gossip.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 5/25/2005 @ 12:22 pm
Coordination Via Roger L. Simon, the Posse is interested to read Austin Bay’s thoughts on coordination between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. He cuts the issue to the quick with this paragraph:A covert, terrorist organization survives via stealth. It has to
Trackback by Posse Incitatus — 5/25/2005 @ 12:50 pm
Iraq & Al Qaeda Documented Austin Bay has an interesting piece up today on Zarqawi, Al Qaeda and Saddam. His post is partially in response to two recent revelations. The first was by Jordan’s King Abdullah II stating that Saddam and Zarqawi were connected well…
Trackback by Geopolitical Review — 5/25/2005 @ 12:51 pm
It is also worth noting that Allawi was also the first Iraqi official to say the document linking Mohamad Atta and Abu Nidal was authentic. To my knowledge this document has never been officially debunked.
Comment by Jeff — 5/25/2005 @ 12:54 pm
Iraq & Al Qaeda Documented Austin Bay has an interesting piece up today on Zarqawi, Al Qaeda and Saddam. His post is partially in response to two recent revelations. The first was by Jordan’s King Abdullah II stating that Saddam and Zarqawi were connected well…
Trackback by Geopolitical Review — 5/25/2005 @ 1:22 pm
Zarqawi’s Trail AUSTIN BAY examines terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s past, and revisits the question of pre-war ties between the terrorist and the regime of Saddam Hussein. A covert, terrorist organization survives via stealth. It has to cover its tracks. Some inform…
Trackback by The Indepundit — 5/25/2005 @ 1:26 pm
Austin Bay, Google-sleuth par none, outsmarts the experts yet again. How does he do it?
Comment by Scot — 5/25/2005 @ 1:26 pm
Please read Stephen Hayes’ “The Connection”. It details extensively the Saddam/AQ connection. Don’t forget, that Zawahiri was head of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and received financial support from Saddam. He left Egypt in ‘99 for Afhhanistan to become UBL’s #2. Hussein funded and recruited Wahabi clerics and developed his Fedayyeen along similar lines. Even the 9/11 report agrees there’s a Saddam/AQ connection. We shouldn’t be trying to defend an obvious truth against the loony lefties who would rather see Saddam in power and us shamed.
Comment by Rob Mandel — 5/25/2005 @ 1:38 pm
I think Hayes has presented a compelling case. What is also interesting is what Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star found - a memo of a 1998 meeting between Iraqi intelligence and an envoy from al-Qaeda. There’s a chance that a lot of what Hayes and Potter have uncovered is simply coincidence, but it’s a slim one, and I don’t think Saddam Hussein is the type of person one can safely give the benefit of the doubt. Nor is Osama bin Laden, for that matter.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 5/25/2005 @ 1:49 pm
Last Sunday, in his valedictory, the oleagenous Dan Okrent*, the fomer public editor (public appologist?) of the NYTimes wrote: “Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.” Now Okrent had just finished spanking Krugman and MoDo* and the Safire slap was, no doubt, book balancing. What Okrent and the rest of the faithful have conveintly forgotten is that, in October of 2003, the NYTimes published the following item:
Of course the NYTimes down played it severely. “little evidence . . . exception” Which is sort of like saying that there was little evidence that he was ill except for his inoperable brain-tumor. “A group loosely linked to Al Qaeda” Contrary to popular impression, Al Qaeda is not an organization like the FBI. It is a confederacy of like minded islamo-nazi terrorists and Abu Sayyaf is part of the crew. And the relationship is not that loose. Abu Sayyaf was funded by one of Ossama’s brothers’-in-law and trained by Ramzi Yousef, who was a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. * The pseudonymous Robert Musil had the best take on the Okrent babeling:
*[”No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd’s way” which is wrong, MoDo has earned every bit of it by her hysterical attempts to turn everything into 8th grade gossip]
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 5/25/2005 @ 2:57 pm
I would strongly suggest to anyone interested in this line of thought to consult The Hatfill Deception, which outlines the links between Saddam, 9/11, and the anthrax mailings. The US gov’t is in fact actively suppressing information about the depth of Saddam’s involvement. Take my advice and read the entire archive.
Comment by Rory B. Bellows — 5/25/2005 @ 3:15 pm
Col. Bay, As noted on my blog (trackbacked above) there’s a little bit of a problem with the Zarqawi timeline, at least as far as Allawi’s allegations. In 1999, when Allawi claims Zarqawi was setting up terrorist cells in Iraq, we know that he was actually shuttling between Pakistan and Herat, Afghanistan establishing an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization, which would later move to Iraq and merge with Ansar al-Islam. At the same time, he was apparently setting up an operation to infiltrate terrorists from Jordan (or Lebanon?) into the West Bank. I’m sorry, but it just seems a bit far-fetched that this man, who had just been released from a Jordanian prison in April 1999, was running around setting up terror cells in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, and Iraq just a few months later. He may be an uber-terrorist now, but he was just another Usama wannabe back then. I’d have to see a lot more evidence before I put any faith in Allawi’s claims. That isn’t to say that there were no ties with Zawahiri (name confusion?) in 1999, and there’s still plenty of evidence of Saddam-Zarqawi collaboration in 2002. But the stories of Zarqawi roaming around Iraq back in 1999 just don’t jibe with what we already know (or think we know) about his movements at the time.
Comment by SMASH — 5/25/2005 @ 4:06 pm
What Would MSM Investigate If They Weren’t Busy Making Stuff Up? Maybe a story like this? The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to…
Trackback by GOP Bloggers — 5/25/2005 @ 4:07 pm
What Would MSM Investigate If They Weren’t Busy Ma If this proves to be true, it’s gonna be huge.
Trackback by Generation Why? — 5/25/2005 @ 4:21 pm
I thought the Saddam-AQ connection had already been established. Google-Abu Wael. I’ve not seen this rebutted anywhere.
Comment by The Apologist — 5/25/2005 @ 4:26 pm
Safire had other evidence of a link last year. A U.S. Federal Court found sufficient evidence of a link. ABCnews reported in 1998 on the link. Richard Clarke said the U.S. was “sure” of a link in 1998. And what about the memo? Another day, another link. Will MSM ever follow up on this stuff? Now that’s a 60 Minutes story I’d be interested in.
Comment by Jason Smith — 5/25/2005 @ 4:56 pm
It’s interesting to contrast the effort the MSM puts into investigating something like an al-Qaeda/Iraq connect vs. the Gitmo/Koran desecration allegations. You would think the former would be infinitely more interesting, and certainly more relevant to our national security.
Comment by profligatewaste — 5/25/2005 @ 5:07 pm
Media’s Sins of Omission With all the heat the media is rightly taking for fake stories about National Guard documents and Qurans, their sins of commission are overshadowing their sins of omission. Austin Bay:[Jordan’s] King Abdullah and former [Iraqi] PM Allawi now offer evi…
Trackback by GOP Bloggers — 5/25/2005 @ 5:42 pm
One note: Ansar Al-Islam changed their name to Ansar Al-Sunah when they merged with other Islamic groups in Iraq.
Comment by Minh-Duc — 5/25/2005 @ 7:32 pm
The enemy of my enemy is my friend and it’s someone I should soperate with. Many other references in forum: http://groups.msn.com/currenteventsii/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=119978&all_topics=0 Bombshell Report Links Saddam & Ossama in Detail I especially like the ABC report in 1999 when they didn’t have a reason to cover it up) http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3
Comment by Dakota Freedom — 5/25/2005 @ 8:37 pm
Ooops: Osama surely believed: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend and it’s someone I should cooperate with.”
Comment by Dakota Freedom — 5/25/2005 @ 8:39 pm
Very interesting, I am with William Safire, and nothing has convinced me otherwise, I believe even the Senate Intelligence Committee report didn’t say there was no relationship, they said there was a relationship but not an operational one that could be proven, certinaly not vis a vis 9-11, and ironically, there was more proof that Al Queda and Iran were working together and yet still that Committee report also outlined that Osama asked Saddam for safe haven when he was first kicked out of Sudan, and Saddam said no, but then later Saddam offered Osama safe haven in Iraq and Osama said no, he already set up shop in Afghanistan….I cannot remember of they noted Ayman’s trip to Baghdad as well…… first of all the Stephen Hayes article is one of the best summaries out there, I had come across another on the internet which has since eluded me, I think it was from one of the strategic think tanks that lists a number of little items chronologically which you can add all up to either there was a relationship or Saddam or someone was trying very hard to make it look like there was a relationship between Saddam & Al Queda, in the late 1990’s, and given the way we now know Saddam’s regime operated, who knows….maybe he was trying to freak Clinton out…… first of all, funny how the fact Clinton was convinced there was an Iraqi Al Queda connection is always ignored by the press, which I believe did come out of testimony in a few trials of Al Queda operatives, amongst other evidence, some of which I am sure we haven’t been privy to secondly, Farouk Hijazi did admit to meeting with Osama Bin Laden a few times when they were both in Sudan in 1994, I’m sure they were just trading recipes for coucous…..he would not admit to any meetings after 1994 - I think that is because there is documentation for those meetings so Farouk had no choice but to fess up….. thirdly, read Yousef Bodansky’s Bio on Osama Bin Laden - most of it was written before 9-11 and he reports similar things to Hayes and others, his own book says Saddam realized he was on the outs with the Muslim brothers after Gulf War I, so besides looking like he was becoming more Muslim, Bodansky claimed Saddam reached out to the global jihadist movement, spearheaded by one Hassan al Turabi, the Sudanese cleric that gave Osama Bin Laden shelter in Sudan oh by the way, another thing always ignored Sudan and Iraq and in particular al Turabi and Saddam have had a long and friendly relationship, imagine that, Saddam has an Islamist cleric friend named Hassan al Turabi who is a mentor and friend to Osama Bin Laden now how could an Islamist cleric and Saddam be friends? well Turabi was a practical Islamist, he was the one holding all these terrorist conferences trying to get the gang together, Sunni and Shia, Iran, Iraq, etc all together to fight the larger enemy who are the US and Israel, Bodanksy goes as far as to say al Turabi was the one trying to get Saddam and Osama together, or was acting as the liason, Osama was reluctant at first but Bodansky claims a meeting was arranged, Bodanksy also reports a trip by Zawahiri to Baghdad when Saddam was reaching out in the early 1990’s, Bodanksy claims Saddam sent men and money to to Somalia to help in the Al Queda- Global Jihadist plot to disrupt the humanitarian efforts there and to support Aideed Bodansky goes even further and claims Saddam offered to help Iran in its terrorist efforts. He also said that Saddam offered Bin Laden safe haven as the Senate Intelligence Committee report confirms but that Osama said no thanks because he had a good gig in Afghanistan but then Saddam offered to set up training facilities - Salman Pak had a 707 jet that an Iraqi officer claims was used to practice hijacking technqiues using small utensils and he claims there were Arabs attending the camps, that were religious and they were not allowed to mingle with. Lastly I remember hearing some scuttlebutt that Saddam was allowing Zarqawi free reign of Iraq before the war and in fact Zarqawi was already getting organized, but alas I cannot remember where I heard that tidbit and if that came from Iraqi government or what. Still I say there are too many little pieces out there….I wonder that many in the CIA made the mistake of thinking Saddam and Al Queda would never be allies and I wonder how much intelligence was thrown out or not collected because of that mindset - hello, Bin Laden was on on the same side as the Americans in the Soviet Afghan war and Bin Laden had no real moral compunctions about the mujahideen taking money and weapons from the Americans, Bin Laden even said in an interview, yes America was Satan but the Soviets were a bigger threat, though he claimed he himself never took a penny from the US, just the Saudi government but that it was important to do whatever it took to defeat the Soviets and we would worry about America later…..no matter what you have to realize Bin Laden, though disapproving of Saddam’s behaviour as a secularist and a socialist, would still be impressed by the fact that Saddam was a constant thorn in the side of the US…….
Comment by wannabe — 5/25/2005 @ 8:48 pm
Yossef Bodansky’s 1999 book, “Bin Laden–the Man Who Declared War on America,” had dozens of references to contacts and cooperation between Saddam and Osama. It is implausible to think that they are all inaccurate.
Comment by PD Quig — 5/26/2005 @ 12:38 am
Closing The Loop Following up on Monday’s post on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, Austin Bay had this to say about the verifiability of such connections:
Trackback by Mystery Achievement — 5/26/2005 @ 4:47 am
WAR: Those Pesky Connections We just keep getting more pieces of the puzzle connecting Saddam’s regime to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups (via Instapundit), although as always, there are questions of how much we really know (see questions raised here by Smash). I,…
Trackback by Baseball Crank — 5/26/2005 @ 6:43 am
What about the Charles Taylor connection with terroist coming from Nigeria? The use of mining diamonds and controlling oil as a cover for grabbing power?
Comment by Sandy M — 5/26/2005 @ 8:44 am