| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2004 03:13:21 PM |
| Object: |
Re : : dear mr bush |
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be
an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's
Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims
that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I
own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period
of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I
have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor
is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly
states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or
should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination -
Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can
you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect
in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have
to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops
in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different
kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme
a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members To Corrupt American Politics. LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 03:31:55 PM |
|
|
How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members To Corrupt American
Politics. LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14005
Betrayal
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 29, 2004
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Linda Chavez, the co-author (with
Daniel Gray) of the new book, Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down
Their Members and Corrupt American Politics.
FP: Ms. Chavez, welcome to Frontpage Interview. And congrats on your
book being #2 on Amazon non-fiction and #11 overall.
Chavez: Thank you Jamie.
FP: Illuminate briefly for us the union influence on elections. How
large is it and is it coming from the "hard-left"?
Chavez: Unions represent the largest source of unregulated--in some
cases, illegal-- money in politics today. Not only did unions
contribute $90.1 million directly to the Democrats in 2000, they also
spent $46 million in a grassroots' effort to mobilize Democratic
voters, registered 2.3 million new union household voters, made 8
million phone calls and distributed $14 million leaflets in the
workplace, but they also spent untold millions for paid union staff to
work directly in Democratic campaigns.
Most of this money comes directly out of the dues of union members -
usually without their permission or even knowledge. Some estimates
put the amount unions spend each election cycle in the range of
$500-800 million. It's almost impossible to know the exact figure
because unions do not have to disclose in any detail how they spend
their money (unlike publicly traded corporations, which have to
release detailed
financial statements and abide by strict auditing rules). What's
more, most unions don't pay taxes on that portion of their dues spent
on politics, even though they are required by law to do so. The
National Education Association, the nation's largest and one of the
wealthiest (almost $350 million in revenues in 2002), claims it spends
zero on politics, yet the NEA maintains a staff of 1,800 political
operatives,
more than the combined staff of the Democratic and Republican National
Committees combined.
This year, the unions will spend even more than they did in 2000. The
AFL-CIO has committed some $44 million to a "beat Bush" effort. One
New York City local of the Service Employees International Union has
pledged $35 million to defeating the president - not one penny of
which will be spent in New York, where the union's members live and
work, because New York is safely in Kerry's column.
Much of the reason for this increased political activism among the
unions has to do with the changing composition of the labor movement
itself. While unions have been losing members overall over the last
five decades (from a high of more than one third of all workers in the
mid-1950s to only about 13 percent today), public employee union
membership is sharply on the rise. Less than 10 percent of workers in
the private sector belong to unions, but almost 40 percent of
government workers do. The shift to government workers in the unions
has also accelerated the unions' leftward lurch, especially under the
leadership of AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, who proudly proclaims
his membership in the Democratic Socialists of America. Under
Sweeney, the AFL-CIO has largely abandoned its social conservatism and
staunch pro-defense views.
FP: In other words, the Democratic Party is being financed by illegal
funds? Tell us technically about the illegality.
Chavez: Unions may give money they collect through their PACs to
support political candidates and-- until McCain-Feingold banned it--
they could give "soft-money" donations from their treasuries as well,
but these must be reported. In addition to such direct contributions,
unions may also assign staff to political campaigns so long as they
interact exclusively with union households, and they can set up phone
banks, voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, print campaign
brochures and other campaign literature, so long as all such "voter
contact" is with union households. But unions routinely flout these
laws, as I witnessed firsthand when I worked at the American
Federation of Teachers from 1974-1983.
During election season, the AFT would set up phone banks in union
headquarters, but instead of calling only union households, paid union
staff used Democratic voter registration and other general population
lists to make calls. The costs of this contribution in staff time and
equipment vastly exceeded campaign finance laws at the time. In 1980,
when I was editor of the AFT's publications, I was asked to print tens
of
thousands of extra campaign brochures extolling Ted Kennedy's
education record and then deliver them directly to Kennedy
headquarters when he was running for president in Democratic primaries
against incumbent Jimmy Carter.
In 2000, I received a call just before the election urging me to vote
for Al Gore and inquiring if I needed help getting to the polls. My
phone "caller ID" alerted me that the call came from "LCLAA," an
acronym I
was very familiar with from my days in the labor movement: the Labor
Council for Latin American Advancement, the AFL-CIO's Latino outreach
group, which was confirmed when I called back the number recorded on
the caller ID. I suspect the union operatives got my name as a newly
registered voter in Virginia and assumed that with my Spanish surname,
I was a likely Democrat voter. Since our book Betrayal has come out,
we've received numerous emails from union members who tell similar
stories of union officials using union halls and paid union staff to
contact voters on behalf of Democratic candidates.
The money for these activities comes directly out of union dues, yet
members have little say in - or even knowledge of - the uses to which
their dues are being put. When Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao issued
new regulations giving the public greater access to how unions spend
their members' dues, the AFL-CIO sued and federal judge issued an
order earlier this year to stop the regulations from going into effect
for
at least one more year, making it impossible to get the information to
members during this election cycle. About 40% of union households
vote Republican, by the AFL-CIO's own estimates, so obviously these
members don't want their money going to support politicians they
oppose. But even Democrat union members may not want their dues going
to political activity rather than the core purposes of the union. In
our book, we outline a series of legislative steps that must be taken
to ensure that unions cannot continue to siphon off their members'
dues for politics and to guarantee greater disclosure of union
revenues and expenses, including audits by independent auditors using
the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices required of corporations.
But political corruption isn't the only form of fraud and abuse we
expose in Betrayal. There's plenty of old-fashioned graft and
embezzlement that occurs on a daily basis at some unions, and some
unions aren't
above busting heads if they think it will help their cause. Even when
they get caught red-handed, their Democratic patrons can sometimes
keep them out of jail.
FP: In your chapter "An Affair to Remember," you tell a great story
about Bill Clinton and his ties to a mobbed up union president - a
story readers won't get from Clinton's "My Life." Could you give our
readers a sneak preview?
Chavez: One name you're not likely to see in Bill Clinton's book index
is Arthur A. Coia, the former president of the Laborers International
Union of North America (LIUNA), even though Coia was a frequent guest
at the White House and a major contributor to Clinton and the
Democratic Party.
Clinton tried to appoint Coia to the president's Council on
Competitiveness but when the White House submitted his name to the FBI
for clearance it set off alarm bells because Coia was about to be
indicted for
labor racketeering. Investigators hurriedly wrote the White House
that "within the next several weeks" the Department of Justice "will
accuse Coia of being a puppet of the LCN [La Cosa Nostra]." The White
House dropped the idea of appointing Coia to the Council on
Competitiveness but Coia continued to hobnob with Clinton and his wife
- more than 120 recorded contacts occurred, including chummy visits to
the White House residence to watch NBA playoff games with Bill -
despite repeated warnings from the Justice Department.
Meanwhile Coia kept writing checks, much of it from the union treasury
not its political action committee, to the Democrats, $4.8 million in
Clinton's first four years in office. The mobbed up union president's
investment paid off. Coia ended up with a get-out-of-jail-free card
that staved off his indictment when the Justice Department signed a
one-page agreement with Coia that allowed him to avoid prosecution and
keep his job as head of the union - just days after Hillary Clinton,
against prosecutors' recommendations, traveled to Florida to address a
LIUNA convention. But Coia couldn't keep his hands out of the union
cookie jar. In 2000, Coia was found guilty of tax evasion for failing
to pay taxes on three expensive Ferraris he purchased. His plea
agreement forced him to step down from his job as LIUNA president, but
not to
worry - he got to keep his $250,000 annual salary for life!
FP: Is there any hope in minimizing the influence of the hard-left in
this context? What can be done to stop all of this corruption?
Chavez: The only way to stop the corruption that goes on with union
money in politics is to restrict unions from spending union dues on
anything but the core purposes of the union: collective bargaining,
grievance and contract administration, and organizing. Unions should
have the same rights as other organizations to collect voluntary
donations for use in political campaigns, so long as every penny the
collect and donate is
publicly disclosed. And unions should not be allowed to assign paid
staff to political campaigns, just as corporations are forbidden to do
so now.
Unions should also be subject to yearly, independent, audits of their
financial records, which would go a long way to preventing the
scandalous cases of abuse we talk about in our book, including
millions of dollars in money stolen by union bosses to fund lavish
lifestyles. One teacher union president was recently convicted for
stealing $5.6 million from her union, money which she spent on furs,
couture clothing, and Tiffany tea sets, among other things. Another
teacher union president stole at least $3.5 million from his union,
which he used on first class round-the-world excursions, jewelry for
his wife, and several sessions at the Sinclair Intimacy Institute so
he and his wife could share "Better Relationships, Better Sex."
All of us, not just union members, end up paying for this corruption.
As the FBI notes on its website, "FBI investigations over the years
have clearly demonstrated that labor racketeering costs the American
public
millions of dollars each year through increased labor costs that are
eventually passed on to consumers." We also pay for a corrupted
political system that keeps in power those politicians determined to
protect the
union bosses who bankroll them.
FP: Linda Chavez, it was a pleasure to speak with you.
Chavez: And you, too, Jamie. Frontpage Magazine is one of my
favorites.
--
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and
not make messes in the house.
Robert Heinlein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, Case Closed!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 03:35:44 PM |
|
|
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, Case Closed!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government’s secret memo
detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11
Editor’s Note, 1/27/04: In today’s Washington Post, Dana Milbank
reported that “Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month
with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the ‘best source of
information’ an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a
relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified
information.”
Here’s the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was
referring.
JVL
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.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay
Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee
as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by
the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page
memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including
the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is
detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it
is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al
Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a
decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of
collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous
enemies.
According to the memo-which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered
points-Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through
mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered
passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in
some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source.
This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to
reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent “emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to
meet with Iraqi government officials.” At some unspecified point in
1991, according to a CIA analysis, “Iraq sought Sudan’s assistance to
establish links to al Qaeda.” The outreach went in both directions.
According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, “bin Laden wanted
to expand his organization’s capabilities through ties with Iraq.”
The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese
strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated
National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One
defector reported that “al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the
Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda
influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the
transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return,
Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors.”
One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam
Hussein’s henchmen. As the memo details:
4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi
intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly
secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al
Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence
Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS
deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al]
Zawahiri were at the meeting-the first of several between 1992 and
1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al
Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit
Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe
house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with
al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a
personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under
scrutiny from foreign probes.
A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin
Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.
5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose
reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the
“Islamic Army” of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam.
Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin
Laden came to an “understanding” with Saddam that the Islamic Army
would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive
reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy
trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an “understanding” with Saddam under
which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against
the Iraqi leader.
Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was
Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a
New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the
August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin
Laden’s “best friend.” According to CIA reporting dating back to the
Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison
with Saddam’s regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of
mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that
Abu Hajer “visited Iraq in early 1995” and “had a good relationship
with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al
Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi
government.”
Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s
comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his
dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered “the most
credible information” on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.
This source’s reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when
bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of
individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the
substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great
many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq
because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close
access provided a “window” into bin Laden’s activities, bin Laden is
seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).
Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though
multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin
Laden’s current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The
reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:
8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was
receiving training on bomb making from the IIS’s [Iraqi Intelligence
Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated
explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at
bin Laden’s farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July
1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani
abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.
9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at
the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed
the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and
operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan,
and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his
return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.
And later more reporting, from the same “well placed” source:
10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid
al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July
1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to
discuss bilateral cooperation as his “cover” for his own entry into
Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi
intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden’s farm
and discussed bin Laden’s request for IIS technical assistance in: a)
making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed
on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c)
making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that
[Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence’s premier explosives
maker-especially skilled in making car bombs-remain with him in Sudan.
The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with
bin Laden as long as required.
The analysis of those events follows:
The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the
Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a
U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the
attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which
Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.
IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence
reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in
December 1998. A “former senior Iraqi intelligence officer” reported
that “the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad’s
point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad
in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz.”
11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq
Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to
meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in
Afghanistan in 1999. . . .
14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a “regular and
reliable source,” [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative,
visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February
1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between
Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi
Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.
That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N.
inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire
agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam’s
presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions
mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18,
1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of “an unholy axis of
terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals”
and said “there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam
Hussein.”
The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April
2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch
Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein’s intelligence service wrote a memo
detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to
Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper
that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between
Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for
“all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of
the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message
from us to bin Laden.” The document set as the goal for the meeting a
discussion of “the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and
to achieve a direct meeting with him.” The al Qaeda representative,
the document went on to suggest, might provide “a way to maintain
contacts with bin Laden.”
Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous
fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily,
al Quds al-Arabi: “For over seven years the United States has been
occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian
Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating
its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the
Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring
Muslim peoples.” Bin Laden urged his followers to act: “The ruling to
kill all Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an
individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which
it is possible to do it.”
Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The
standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President
Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that
began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.
According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director
of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December
21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the
memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this
meeting and relates two others.
15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi
delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers
formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998
with bin Laden in Afghanistan.
16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with
two
Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.
17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek
closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source
reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation
with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim “elements” to
sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence
officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made
for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and
bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in
Afghanistan in late 1998.
18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with
several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source
claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam’s explicit
direction.
An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an
explanation of these reports:
Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different
sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings
between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details
or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship
would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.
Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so
widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream
press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline:
“Saddam + Bin Laden?” The story cited an “Arab intelligence source”
with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. “According to
this source, Saddam expected last month’s American and British bombing
campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that
as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world,
making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more
effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region,
Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to
support Washington. Saddam’s long-term strategy, according to several
sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the
embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift
if formally.”
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq
and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior
Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah,
“said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July
1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent
back from Saddam’s office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to
refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The
source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda.”
The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One
report states that “in late 1999” al Qaeda set up a training camp in
northern Iraq that “was operational as of 1999.” Other reports suggest
that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin
Laden throughout 1999.
23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe
haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The
source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of
Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in
frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden. Some of the
most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat
Shakir:
24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi
national
(Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for
an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting
indicates Shakir’s travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network
of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur
airport-a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy
employee.
One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala
Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later
identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the
USS Cole.
25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000
by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to
the CIA, “fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement.”
26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior
al
Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was
tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi
intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole
bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for
CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in
Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was “encouraged” after the embassy and
USS Cole bombings to provide this training.
The analysis of this report follows.
CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh’s timeline is consistent with other
sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for
advanced weapons, including CBW and “poisons.” Additional reporting
also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al
Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:
27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National
Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after
learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K.
interests in Saudi Arabia.
And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker
Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The
reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as
four. What’s more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta’s
activities by Iraqi intelligence.
The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11
hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief
in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions.
During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer
to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.
And the commentary:
CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague-in Dec. 1994 and in June
2000; data surrounding the other two-on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April
2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI
cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister
Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information. It’s not just
Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the
Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al
Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention-April 9,
2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish
Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al
Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged
meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters
of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level
of sloppiness that doesn’t fit the pattern of previous high-level
Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.
Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech
counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service
officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead
hijacker’s determination to reach Prague, despite significant
obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of
confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the
IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague
from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not
have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly
directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took
pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he
traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a
bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after
arriving in Prague for the second time.
Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin
Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:
31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret
agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members
and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly
prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The
report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent
passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi
and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.
The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report
fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration:
References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of
safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered
reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi
support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining
passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by
including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the
aftermath of 9-11.
Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N.
Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
Reporting in the memo expands on Powell’s case and might help explain
some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq.
37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and
close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance
with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts
with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including
surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to
sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in
Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city,
suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have
deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS
provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms
and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al
Zarqawi’s procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda
operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.
38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access
who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi
intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was
providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq,
including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to
IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that
the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated
assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.
The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which “claimed that an
Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with
$100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance.”
CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda
connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White
House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror;
that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been
routinely “exaggerated” for political purposes; that hawks
“cherry-picked” bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these
to the American public.
Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made
those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on “Fox News
Sunday.” Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look
at the administration’s “exaggeration of intelligence.”
Said Levin: “The question is whether or not they exaggerated
intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make
the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty
that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists
that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that
there’s a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Was there a basis for that?”
There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin
serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence.
Not that you would know this from Al Gore’s recent public statements.
Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new “evidence”
that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York
University, Gore claimed: “The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam
did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him
weapons of mass destruction.” Really?
One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is
that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be
available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For
one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their
cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on
an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden’s name.) For
another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for
such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA’s
1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of
mass destruction.
Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi
intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These
documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are
in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and
Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime’s long history of
brutality. It will be a slow process.
So Feith’s memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as
sort of a “Cliff’s Notes” version of the relationship. It contains the
highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.
One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat
Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers
through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have
extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September
11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview
suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface
of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.
Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but
two September 11 hijackers-Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi-through
the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on
January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala
Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the
masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days.
Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again.
Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy.
(Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its
intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged
“diplomats” were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his
employer, controlled Shakir’s schedule. He was detained in Qatar on
September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact
information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole,
and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that
Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993
World Trade Center attacks had been plotted.
The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21,
2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a
flight to Baghdad. He didn’t make that flight. Shakir was detained in
Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His
interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in
counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained,
according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi
regime began to “pressure” Jordanian intelligence to release him. At
the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being
held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002,
at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq.
Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam
Hussein and September 11? We don’t know. We may someday find out.
But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot
against Americans.
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
