Was there a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq? On the Conservative side a link between the two would make President Bush even more right if not more justified in taking Saddam's Iraq down. On the Liberal side zero links makes it look as if President Bush mislead the American people in building the case to go into Iraq and gives the far-left crazies a foundation to spread more propaganda.
There have been known terrorist groups all over the world who have set up bases in certain countries without said countries assisting them but acting complacent in these groups existence. These countries do not have an operational link with the terrorist groups but have a link and their complacency would make them slightly responsible for the actions these terrorist groups take.
The main stream media has fogged the difference between an operational link and a link with sweeping headlines, assumptions, and false criticisms. This has lead to blanket statements like: Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie. This statement implies there was never ever any connection between the two and is misleading.
There is very scant evidence that Saddam's Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and an operational relationship with Al Qaeda. When we went to war with Iraq our President made the case that along with all the other atrocities Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Lets look at a Wall Street Journal article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046
"Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq."
It then says: "About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story."
And:
"Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found."
And:
"Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts."
And:
"The February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden's name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri $300,000"
So the article states Al Qaeda did have ties to Iraq, Iraq had terrorists who were training inside the country, and Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi associates prior to 9/11. Now lets look at a Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html which points to the 9/11 Commission.
The article says: "Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff's finding, noting that the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, agrees with the administration on key points. "Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."
The article quotes President Bush: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
The article then quotes John Kerry who salivates over a couple words from the commission because he at the time was running for President.
"The president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts," Kerry told reporters at the Detroit airport. "That is the finding of this commission."
This wasn't the finding of the commission and there was no misleading. The WSJ article above shows how restrained the Bush administration was in presenting its case for war. There was no rush to war, they believed that Saddam's Iraq was a threat based on the information they had. To take this a step further lets look at The Weekly Standard (a conservative publication) who paints a far different scenario:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
They say: "OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "
Another great article written by Andrew McCarthy, a prosecutor in the Abdel Rahman terrorist case and contributor to National Review Online (conservative publication) has a take on this as well: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
McCarthy points out the commissions statements: "Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Then of course the famous letter from Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, who states Mohammed Atta trained in Iraq with Abu Nidel a notorious Palestinian terrorist. No-one knows if the letter is a fake and now it is being spread that the CIA forged and planted the letter. The story was broke by the London Telegraph, (hardly conservative) right around the time Saddam was captured. While I don't know if the letter is real I certainly don't believe the CIA would try to forge a letter to prove an operational link. If the CIA wanted to falsely prove such a link there are far better ways of doing it.
My take on all of this is yes there is a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but there is no operational link that can be substantiated. This doesn't mean we can just write the whole subject off and doesn't mean there is a no possibility of an operational link. Abu Nidel supposedly the terrorist who trained Mohammed Atta committed suicide, he was found with four bullets in his head in Iraq. I would love to know how someone committing suicide can pump four bullets into his own head.
There is also the scrutiny is kind of pointed in the wrong direction. Saddam Hussein was a radical Muslim with a publicly declared hatred for America as was Osama bin Laden. It is naive and dangerous to assume just because two radical Muslim extremists who both hate and want to destroy America didn't at some point collaborate or would in the future based on the fact they had different ideological opinions.
The bottom line in all this is the media practices selective outrage by pulling out-of-context statements and making them headlines. There is massive list of outrageous, terrible, and evil things that Saddam Hussein did in all his years in power. I point this out because is shows there was no nead for anyone in the Bush administration to mislead anyone. The logical reasons to remove Saddam from the earth were there and it was the right thing to do.
