Iraqi document: Official rep of Iraq govt met with Osama Bin Laden

[Montgomery Burns]

Hot on the heels of Naji Sabri (Saddam’s foreign minister who became a CIA informant before the liberation) stating that Saddam desperately wanted a nuclear bomb, and that Iraq had stockpiled weapons and poison gas left over from the first Gulf War (in typical MSM-style, this info was buried in the bottom of the March 20 MSNBC article) and the documents showing Saddam's financial support for an al Qaeda terrorist organization in the Philippines comes this:

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from 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 Laden 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 worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

I'm sure this will be the top news story for the next while.

Yeah right.

If only Clinton had taken up the Sudanese when they offered Osama to him. Perhaps those were the classified documents that Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives during the 9-11 commission hearings.

Oops, I did a no-no. Any critisizism of Dear Leader is not allowed, according to some on this forum.

[Riverwind]

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship.

The fact that Iraq talked to Bin Ladin was duely noted in the 9-11 commisioners report and is not news. What is still missing is any evidence that Iraq actually did anything. Even if it can be established that Iraq had some marginal involvement with Bin Ladin activities that in it itself does not justify the invasion since there is already overwhelming evidence that Sudan was working extremely closely with Bin Ladin and represented a much bigger threat.

No matter how the right try to spin it they cannot escape the fact that the Iraq invasion was mainly an excercise in ego gratification for the wannbe cowboys in the Bush administration who tricked the American public into supporting the war by manipulating the post 9/11 fears.

[Montgomery Burns]

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship.

The fact that Iraq talked to Bin Ladin was duely noted in the 9-11 commisioners report and is not news. What is still missing is any evidence that Iraq actually did anything. Even if it can be established that Iraq had some marginal involvement with Bin Ladin activities that in it itself does not justify the invasion since there is already overwhelming evidence that Sudan was working extremely closely with Bin Ladin and represented a much bigger threat.

No matter how the right try to spin it they cannot escape the fact that the Iraq invasion was mainly an excercise in ego gratification for the wannbe cowboys in the Bush administration who tricked the American public into supporting the war by manipulating the post 9/11 fears.

WTF? You were arguing the other day that one of the 9-11 commissioners had obviously not read his own report that Al Qaeda and Iraq had links.

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....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 worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.

No matter how hard the left tries to spin it, they cannot deny that Saddam and Al Qaeda had links and worked together--as we saw when those documents showed that Saddam funded an Al Qaeda terrorist group in the Philippines. The reason why so many on the left supported Saddam staying in power is because they almost always take the position that undermines US security. Only an arrogant elitist would claim that the American public was "tricked".

[Riverwind]

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

So what? Bin Ladin wanted Iraq's help and Iraq agreed to talk with him. That much was in the 9-11 report. The 9-11 report also said Iraq and Al Queda worked together fighting Kurds. However, none of these things means that Iraq helped Al Qeuda launch terror attacks on the US. To be honest, I kind of expected to see evidence that the was some collaboration, however, the conclusions of the 9-11 report and the extremely speculative nature of the 'evidence' you present now leads me to believe that Saddam's fear of Islamic radicals like Bin Ladin was stronger than his hatred for the US.

[geoffrey]

Saddam gives money to suicide bombers that kill innocent people, there is little doubt in my mind that he is linked beyond belief with terrorism whether al-Qaeda or Hamas.

What's the difference? We need to get over the "he has to attack American's before its justified." Whatever happened to protecting those that struggle to protect themselves, from terrorist financeers.

This is one argument I think its a moot point. Does it justify war in Iraq, nope, does it condemn it, nope.

Find other reasons to discredit or advocate the war. These reasons have little to do with the subject besides being partisan talking points.

[Riverwind]

This is one argument I think its a moot point. Does it justify war in Iraq, nope, does it condemn it, nope.

I agree. Whether Saddam was involved on not does not change the fact that there is a mess in Iraq that is not going to be resolved any time soon. However, there is a debate about the best way forward and the credibility of the people who started the war is important to think about before accepting their recommendations for concluding it.

[Montgomery Burns]

Writing a constitution and having 3 elections a mere 2 years after Saddam was overthrown is a "mess"

I wonder what you would call Japan and Germany after WWII. A colossal super-duper mess?

[KrustyKidd]

Find other reasons to discredit or advocate the war. These reasons have little to do with the subject besides being partisan talking points.

Exactly. It's playing checkers on a three d chess board. Same with WMDs. Pure hubris and to go on with where they were or if they were there or not is to miss a good political scene played by some very good players on all sides.

Writing a constitution and having 3 elections a mere 2 years after Saddam was overthrown is a "mess"

I think it is phenominal. Sides that cannot sit together are helping each other with under the table concessions both triablly and internationally. It is unreal to see the cooperation that is happening.