GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

2001 Saddam Document: Iraqi Regime Planning Suicide Terror Missions

by

And the damning evidence about Iraq and its connections to and plans for terror attacks continues from The Saddam Files….. (via Investor’s Business Daily).

Last month the Pentagon began releasing records captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Among the documents is a letter dated March 11, 2001, written by Abdel Magid Hammod Ali, one of Saddam’s air force generals.

According to an unofficial translation, Page 6 of the letter asks for “the names of those who desire to volunteer for suicide mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American interests.”

Assuming the document’s accuracy, this shows that Saddam’s regime was not only providing aid and support for terrorist organizations of other countries. It was also planning its own bombings directed at U.S. facilities and personnel.

As counterterrorism consultant Dan Darling wrote last week on the Weekly Standard’s Web site, that would mean Russian intelligence services under Vladimir Putin were better informed about Iraq’s terrorist abilities than the U.S. spy community.

Though little noticed by the press, during a July 2004 visit to Kazakhstan the Russian president said that between 9-11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received . . . information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the U.S. and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.”

This new document, said Darling, “would seem to refute a long-standing contention among members of the U.S. intelligence community that Iraq ceased its involvement in international terrorism after its failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush.”

Where, oh where is the compilation story and series of special reports on these documents and the true picture of Saddam on the TV networks? Ah, perhaps Katie is waiting to reveal these “bombshells” to America upon her coronation to Dan’s Chair at CBS? Yeah, I know….

**UPDATE: More on the IBD story from GatewayPundit….

Here is what Investors Business Daily says the released Pentagon documents have revealed so far. To review:

– Saddam is heard on a 1997 tape predicting terrorism would soon be coming to the U.S., while his son-in-law — who was in charge of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction — gloats about lying to U.N. weapons inspectors to hide the extent of Iraq’s WMD program.

– Saddam, in a tape made in 2000, talks with Iraqi scientists about his plans to build a nuclear device. He discusses Iraq’s plasma separation program — an advanced uranium-enrichment technique completely missed by U.N. inspectors.

– An Iraqi intelligence document, released just two weeks ago, describes a February 1995 meeting between Saddam’s spies and Osama bin Laden. During that meeting, bin Laden offered to conduct “joint operations” with Iraq. Saddam subsequently ordered his aides to “develop the relationship” with the al-Qaida leader.

– A fax, sent on June 6, 2001, shows conclusively that Saddam’s government provided financial aid to Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is an al-Qaida offshoot co-founded by bin Laden’s brother-in-law. (GP Ed. Note… To those of you not following along…. al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11)

These are just a few of the revelations about Saddam and terrorism to be found in a handful of documents and tapes. This is just a small piece of the 48,000 boxes of intelligence that has been translated and released by intelligence officials so far.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. There has been little said about known Hussein regime plans to attack and assassinate American interest and diplomats and yet the libs still swear that Hussein was a great guy and never posed a threat.

    If there were a Chinese Silkworm, with a nuclear warhead, personally autographed by Saddam with a certificate of authenticity parked squarely up their ass, the libtards would still swear there were no WMDs. Pay no attention to their claims of the 1990s either.

    As we all know, history began on 21 January 2001. Anything before that matters not and should not be rememberred, especially the colossal failures of 1992-2000.

  7. It’s telling that:

    — Bruce’s last 2 posts on the Saddam documents got no comments from the many BDS people we’re familar with.

    — Bruce’s current post on the Saddam documents (this one) has thus far gotten only a one-line comment from only one of the most hateful and nutty of the BDS people.

    (BDS = “Bush Derangement Syndrome”… or here, “BRUCE Derangement Syndrome” as the case may be 😉 )

  8. LOL! Goodness, one short out-of-context incomplete sentence from some alleged general’s alleged letter and you develop a whole lengthy breathless post around it. Well, keep digging, guys. Perhaps you’ll find something to present at the Bush war crimes trial in the Hague. 😉

  9. Ian ty for the obligatory liberal response (albeit sad) are you like #1 on saddams fan club or something?….do you write to him in jail?… “that mean old mr bush had no right to do that to you”

  10. Ian’s Head says: “Hi Sand. How are you?”

    Sand answers: “I’m fine. How ’bout you.”

    Ian’s Head: “I’m pretty blissful these days. More and more people are realizing that F***ing Bush is an A**-Hat. But I’m getting worried ’cause there’s factual information from Iraqi documents seized during the initial invasion that might justify Bush’s stupid illegal war in Iraq and prove he was right all along.”

    Sand: “Hmmm. Sounds bad. Want to come in and bury yourself in ignorance for a while?”

    Ian’s Head: “Sure. That sounds great. Shall I bring some Bran Muffins…..”

    PS. Sorry Ian. I couldn’t resist.

  11. And as for current events – what we should do about Iraq today:

    The author of this article may not be my favorite guy in the universe, but his logic is hard (for sane people) to argue with.

    He smartly exposes the Democrats’ (or John Kerry’s and Ted Kennedy’s) “strategy” for Iraq as negative, hand-wringing defeatism, plain and simple.

    How I long (in some ways) for that time when prominent Democrats would, instead, say things like “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

  13. #8 – Ian, it’s not one piece, it’s a vast mosaic, that the latest piece merely highlights and adds to.

    And you know it. But, equally obviously, you wish you didn’t. You’d prefer not to know. So I won’t try to burden your little brain with the many facts about Saddam.

    Keep working on that “trial” thingy – That’ll make you feel good and keep you occupied, while the grownups attend to what’s really going on.

  14. Actually, Ian, if you want to talk about “trials”, perhaps there should be ones for the UN diplomats and government officials who were receiving bribes from Saddam specifically to ensure that sanctions would not be enforced and that inspections would either a) never take place or b) be sabotaged.

    Those are proven facts.

    But unfortunately, this isn’t about prosecuting actual crimes and those who enabled them; it’s about punishing the administration that put an end to the liberal gravy train that made billions off the blood of millions of Iraqis.

  15. Great comment, NDT.

    We must always remember that the U.N., French, Russians, Germans, etc. – all those who were on Saddam’s payroll for billions – and their left-liberal supporters, have blood on their hands. Saddam was killing his own people at a rate of 30-50,000 per year. Yet, these anti-war people now repeat over and over, “sanctions were working”.

    Their idea of what “works” is different from mine.

    It’s true that, in the time since Iraq was liberated, some thousands of Iraqi civilians have unfortunately been killed in attacks by the terrorists and Baathist diehards. Well, even aside from the question of moral responsibility – i.e., leaving aside the fact that THE KILLERS are 100% responsible for those deaths, as they target civilians in a deliberate effort to block democracy – it is still way less deaths than there would have been if Saddam continued in power. (By a factor of ten, by my estimate.)

    It’s crucial to the anti-war people – i.e., to them maintaining their false beliefs and sense of who they are – that they not admit these things. So they keep repeating, for example, the false 100,000-civilian-death figure from that Lancet “study” that was so thoroughly debunked. As if repetition will make it so, and as if the terrorists aren’t responsible for such deaths as have occurred. “Blame America first!”

  17. #13: Look, you guys have the media arms to get this out. You also have the GOP Senate, the GOP House, and indeed the GOP Executive. You have the entire Right Wing Noise Machine at your disposal. This should be a slam-dunk… that is if there really is anything apart from a few out-of-context sentence fragments in those mounds of AT BEST questionable documents from questionable sources. You see, no one TRUSTS the government anymore. We tend to believe our own lyin’ eyes and since the Niger document forgeries, some dubious scraps of paper let alone sentence fragments just won’t cut it. I guess it’s a bit ironic that you conservatives have finally convinced the rest of us NEVER to simply trust our government precisely at the moment when it would have best suited you for us to do so. Oh well, tough.

  18. Respectfully….Why have you banned QP’s post and not those of THATGAYCONSERVATIVE or NORTH DALLAS THIRTY????

    Thank you.

    monty

    (GP Ed. Note – Because I’m tired of flame throwing liberals stalking this site. TGC and NDT are welcome here. Moonbats with no facts behind their shrillness are not.)

  21. [deleted by GayPatriot]

    (GP Ed. Note – It is no coincidence that QP and PP reappeared on the same day. The reason for the deletions… he/she is rude, disrespectful and brings nothing to this blog other than to raise the anger level.)

  23. It’s a long, long, long story with QP.

    Basically, Ian: just imagine someone with your own intellectual dishonesty, malice toward conservatives, and fear and suspicion of America being on here for a very lengthy time, and in addition, throughout that time trying to further manipulate the discussion through the use of multiple anonymous monikers.

  24. And Kewpie just gave us the illustration right there. PussyPatriot is one of his/her/its alternate monikers. (Check the blog or e-mail addresses given, purely in this thread alone, for both QP and PP. Notice the similarity.)

  26. You see, no one TRUSTS the government anymore. We tend to believe our own lyin’ eyes and since the Niger document forgeries, some dubious scraps of paper let alone sentence fragments just won’t cut it.

    But some faked National Guard documents will.

    Don’t pull that line of bull, Ian. You’ll believe and defend anything, as long as it’s anti-Bush; you’ll even lie, just like Dan Rather did, and say you’ve checked the “facts” when you quite clearly have not.

    Moreover, as I keep demonstrating in #13, you won’t even confront the facts.

  27. The Niger forgeries are a whole ‘nother subject.

    For those not aware: Some intelligence service, most likely France’s (basing that on European media reports), knew that the British and the U.S. were getting onto Iraq’s efforts to buy uranium from Niger. So, they planted false evidence (forged documents) that they could and did later conveniently expose as false.

    It is a standard, very well-known technique of counter-intelligence services (and manipulative people) called “poisoning the well”, or “muddying the waters”.

    When British Intelligence and President Bush claimed, correctly, that Iraq had made efforts to buy uranium from Niger, they did so on the basis of other (repeat OTHER) documentation and intelligence than the French-Niger forgeries.

    All this has been coming out in bits in pieces in the media for years now, for those who have been paying attention. But Ian, as we’ve seen, is one of those who hasn’t been (and does not want to be).

    Continuing to bring up the France-Niger document forgeries is their standard tactic for dismissing all of the Iraq-Niger intelligence, i.e., for dismissing the OTHER, very REAL documentation of Iraq’s real efforts to buy uranium from Niger.

  29. #27 – P.S. – Just in case you ask me to post some links about it –

    For you, Ian? No. I know it wouldn’t do any good anyway. If you’re interested honestly, you could do the Google work yourself in about five minutes.

    For someone I respect more? OK, if one of YOU asked me, I would get out the stuff.

  30. #27: “When British Intelligence and President Bush claimed, correctly, that Iraq had made efforts to buy uranium from Niger, they did so on the basis of other (repeat OTHER) documentation and intelligence than the French-Niger forgeries.”

    Of course NONE of that other “documentation and intelligence” has been produced. We are supposed to simply trust the purveyors of this line. Sorry, no can do. In fact, the Bush administration itself backed off on this unsupported claim
    http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/whbacksoff.html

  31. #29: “Just in case you ask me to post some links about it – For you, Ian? No. I know it wouldn’t do any good anyway.”

    How convenient. Why not just admit the dog ate your “links?”

  33. #31 – Ian, quick note – citing echoes or by-products of the confusion that the “poisoning the well” technique was fully intended to produce among people, and DID obviously produce, is not proof of anything.

  34. Calarato, some are fond of using links and citing Wiki as definitive demonstrations of their intellectual integrity and debate proofs. I’ve grown tired of it because the gesture is hollow.

    But it’s excusable because they’re the same ones who would use a National Enquirer article cite for their college term paper on the JFK and the grassy knoll, cite Union of Concerned Scientists to prove global warming, reference Thos Jefferson on master-slave conduct or Kerry on military strategy or Kennedy on driving skills and dating tips.

  35. Mind you, I think links and citations are important when you want to provide evidence and persuade people.

    I simply no longer intend to persuade Ian or certain others of that extreme, like raj, Stephen or Kewpie.

    Why – because I have bad faith here? No, because I believe they do. If they saw the videotape of Saddam and Osama hugging and kissing, they would still refuse to believe it. I don’t see why I should do extra work for them.

    I’ve given enough hints on the France-Niger forgeries that Ian could Google the articles himself in five minutes. Let him do it, if he cares about the truth. I believe he doesn’t.

    But if you, V, NDT, Bruce, Dan, Eric, several others, or perhaps even Jack A. said “Hey – what’s that citation?” that would be different 🙂

  37. A (sane) Left writer…

    Christopher Hitchens is a sane Left writer? He couldn’t even best George Galloway in an oral debate. It was hilarous–Hitchens was so obviously intoxicated.

    Hitchens should have left it with his book The Missionary Position

  38. raj, you need to put down the rose colored glasses if you think the discredited and disreputable MP for Bethnal Green & Bow, aka Geo. Galloway, “bested” Hitchens in the grapple in the Big Apple.

    Here at Michigan, they showed the full tape –sans commentary– to 5 consecutive classes of freshmen PoliSci students (about 1,100 students). And even in this den of liberal inequity, students were evenly divided over who “won” the debate.

    I think the only winner of the night was Baruch College looking for some free PR and media attention –it sure wasn’t the two pugilists, nor the students and faculty who fanned Galloway’s thetorical flames, nor those who had to watch the event on tape.

    I didn’t know you were such a fan of Geo Galloway –one of the most notorious Saddam-appeasers in Britian.

  39. Matt, you might have a point, except for the fact that Hitchens was so clearly intoxicated during their performance. Given the fact that neither you nor I know the merits of the issues they were discussing, it strikes me that any judges of debate tournaments would have given the victory in the debate to Galloway. Hitchens was barely lucid in the last quarter of the debate.

    The fact is that nobody actually learns anything in a debate. I’ve noted that elsewhere in relation to “debates” regarding evolutions vs. “intelligent design”/creationism. I’ll stick to my opinion regarding Hitchens. He hit his high point with The Missionary Position, for which conservative religionists resoundedly bashed him. He used to be glib, but the fact that a back-bencher from the British Parliament would best him is hilarious.