We should have just left Iraq alone to see what might have happened. NOT!


Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.




It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.




One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.


Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PRINT WINDOW CLOSE WINDOW

The King - you posted a story that had the following quote.

"It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents."

I don't know enough about Iraqi names to know how many folks may have that name. Seems like a little more legwork needs to be done on this. Of course, the WSJ (I assume that's where this comes from) is a very unbiased source so I can see why they ran this now.

Eddie,

That reminds me of the line in Dumb and Dumber. When Jim Carey asks Loren Holley what the chances are that she would go out with him. She responds "one in a million" he thinks about it and replies" so you are telling me there is a chance!"

How appropriate to quote Dumb & Dumber in relation to the War in Iraq!!!!!

(Just a little Thursday humor)

I know with Kerry here and Al Gore in the news
Dumb and Dumber just seems so natural.

Keep grasping, eventually you will wrap your grubby, evil little fingers around something.

So......this bit of conjecture and a mural are your big evidenciary bombshell?

I imagine the apologists, for years to come, will continue to grab at every straw to try and prove that the invasion and occupation was justified. (Which probably drives them nuts because it takes time away from blaming everything on Clinton) However, the administration has flip-flopped so many times on the "whys" for invasion that it's laughable to even debate further.

But just for the sake of argument let's say someone does spin a link between Saddam and Osama. Does that excuse all the mistakes made by the administration after the invasion because they wouldn't listen to expert advice? Does that excuse the repercussions from their ill-planned, ill-conceived folly? Does that excuse the relationship with Chalabi? How about being duped by Iraqi dissidents? Oh, and does that exonerate Saudi Arabia and their involvement?

Does that now mean there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11? There really are mobile chemical labs hidden somewhere? And huge stockpiles of WMDs?

Sheesh, that means the White House has to flip-flop again!

Harley,

Are they mistakes or differences of opinion? Most of what I have seen is political,opinion and in the rear view. Many say for example that Schwarzkopf is right. Well as much as I like ol stormin he did not have to hang out and rebuild the entire country like this go around in Iraq. So his opinions are completley speculative at best. We have gotton so used to remote control wars/actions like the first gulf war that we cannot fathom things being more difficult or complicated.
IMHO if this thing were not politicised and everyone rooled up there sleves and offered the current admin full support it would appear 1000x smoother if not in fact have gone a little smoother. Also people harping on broader support from the UN clearly do not understrand how the UN works and Kerry is playing games with peoples lack of understanding of the UN issues.

Another good post Harley. Not to side tract, but as I'm sure you're aware, Vanity Fare put together an article laying out how Sudan was willing to help the US capture Bin Laden, and Clinton turned them down. Since we're going down the blame game path, I think that Clinton's inability and slow approach in dealing with Alqueda needs to be pointed out as well.

TK,

I would respond to you comment about other countries rolling up their sleeves by saying that the rest of the world did not think this war was necessary and that while the sanctions against Iraq didn't result in Saddam's complete compliance, it stopped him from invading other countries and unless shown otherwise, from making new WMD's.

It's not opinion, it's historical fact of mistakes made. There's only those that won't admit them.

When people like Shinseki, Zinni, Schwarzkopf, et al express opinion, that is based on years and years of military study, experience, and practical anecdotes. Their opinion cannot be dismissed as purely speculative. Compare that to the resume of the current DefSec and his minions who have virtually nill time in uniform.

If indeed we "offered the current admin full support," it would not have had any bearing on the outcome or repercussions of what has happened - other than the public burying its head in the sand and accepting mediocrity from its leaders. The war would not have gone any better, yet the administration would have had an easier time spewing its propaganda.

Jeff -

I'm not familiar with the Vanity Fair article, but if I recall correctly, Clinton attributed his reluctance on legal reasons. I thought it was because he didn't have enough evidence to have bin Laden extradited and held - especially since he's part of Saudi royalty, who we pander to on an obscenely regular basis.

In retrospect he screwed up. But at the time, especially considering the mind-set pre-9/11, he would have been hammered by the right, accusing him of distraction from the Lewinski thing, and the left would have cried foul for jeopardizing foriegn policy.

That's one of the problems with this "war on terror" right now. It almost forces us into a reactionary mode, especially now that the splinter groups have become so autonomous. We're now seeing what being in a preemptive mode and "taking the fight to them" is costing us, both in lives and dollars.

Harley,

Shinseki, Zinni, Schwarzkopf have no expirence with such a rebuild. We took the ground in the fastest push in military history. The issues have risen out of the occupation and the rebuild. So thier opinions are speculative and in the rearview mirror. Reverse the roles and you would get a similar outcome based on military planning conventions. Looking back and assigning blame serves what purpose? Political only after the lesson is learned. The pentagon freely admits now we were not trained properly as an occupational force and we have a need for several 100k peacekeepers in the future if we are to go it alone. . As I have said time and time again. The UN Security council countries can only benefit by not helping they new it before the announcement of the war they know it now. They had zero incentive to help. Clearly showing thier lack of concern for the people of iraq before during and after this war. Any humnitarion country in this world should be concerned about a safe Iraq going forward for the people of Iraq if for no other purpose. They stood ont he sidelines for 12 years and allowed the cesspool to fester and they contiune to do the same. not people I want on my side

Ya know, I've never actually set off a claymore mine on humans, but I can give you a professional opinion on what the outcome will be. That is not speculation.

Since WWI military generals have been trained extensively on occupying and rebuilding nations. They've seen anecdotal evidence from Germany, Japan, and Korea.

The bottomline is that Rumsfeld & Co were warned, but they didn't listen.

"Looking back and assigning blame serves what purpose?" It educates the public to make informed decisions at the voting booth. And that is not partisan politics, that's democracy.

aka 'common sense'

Harley,

The last time we occupied a country at the conclusion of a war was 50+ years ago. a bit has changed since then. As evidenced in Vietnam. We tried to fight that war with a WWII mindset. The NVA forced us to rewrite that book ASAP. Was that negligence on the part of the Military and the president? Or just a new development in fighting wars? I feel that if it were a democrat in office you would change your tune and be supportive.

As Friend and Mentor, Rumsfeld Rules Tuesday, May 25, 2004 By Ken Adelman “The better part of one’s life consists of friendship.”

This adage comes from Rumsfeld’s Rules (search), which the Defense Secretary currently under fire attributes to that other Illinois politico Abraham Lincoln, who was once under even more fire than Rumsfeld is today.

Don Rumsfeld is seldom portrayed as a friend. He’s had so many roles in public life — and been so public in that life — that little ink is left for personal pieces on the man, up-close-and-personal.

I’ve been lucky that “the better part” of my life has included friendship with Don Rumsfeld.

It goes back to 1970, when we first met at the Office of Economic Opportunity (search), which he then headed. His special assistant was a 28-year-old Dick Cheney. A galaxy of other talent was carefully selected and recruited by Rumsfeld — Frank Carlucci, Christie Todd Whitman, Bill Bradley, Jim Leach, and (certainly not least) my future wife.

Notice that even this abbreviated list encompasses staunch conservatives, moderate Republicans, liberal Republicans, and a centrist Democrat. Rumsfeld back then was good friends with Allard Lowenstein (search), a far-leftist Democrat.

Obviously, the man was open to different viewpoints and quite eager to hear — even to befriend — smart folks from any perspective.

Three times I’ve been lucky to work for him. Untold hours we’ve spent together, traveling 35,000 miles around the world in 1982, whirling around Vietnam for a week in 1995, and during family weddings and sundry celebrations.

On such occasions I’ve seen how Rumsfeld soaks up information from everyone, and nearly every publication, around him. While other folks collect things, he collects ideas and thoughts. Even with his crushing official load, and the personal devastation of the Iraq prison scandal (search), he still reads outside material. It was thus no surprise that, during his one-day trip to Iraq last week, he mentioned a biography on General U.S. Grant he’s been reading.

Rumsfeld still flies through newspapers and magazines before tackling the stacks of official memos awaiting his decision. Those around him are considered sources of knowledge — yes, even congressmen and senators. While pundits may snicker at the notion of learning anything from the likes of them, Rumsfeld — in his Rules, assembled over the years — reminds us that each “managed to get” in Congress “for some reason.” What special feature the politician has reveals something “important about them, about our country, and about the American people.”

Moreover, Rumsfeld has an operational bent. While he likes to know something, he prefers doing something with that knowledge.

Hence, his willingness to return to Washington in 2001 as the once-again U.S. Secretary of Defense. At 69 years old, with more money that he could ever imagine, who needed it? (I imagine that’s the operational question in his mind about now).

But Rumsfeld needed it. He believes in public service, and feels a compulsion to join an administration when asked.

During a constantly bustling life, Rumsfeld pauses long enough to ask about family and mutual friends. When our daughter attended a summer music camp outside of Taos, N.M., the Rumsfelds drove out to fetch her for weekends, and made her part of their close family.

And when that daughter won a seat at a major symphony last year — around the time the Iraq war was launched — Joyce and Don Rumsfeld came over for dinner to celebrate. Though Iraq was the sole topic around Washington then, it was not mentioned around our table. Only the music audition was.

Over the years, when our former colleagues have passed away, or been wounded (like Jim Brady), Rumsfeld has swiftly organized efforts to assure that their families were secure, and memories of them remained vivid.

I could go on for pages with stories over these 34 years. But I fear sounding like someone giving a eulogy, and Don Rumsfeld is still very much alive. He is not only lively in himself, but brings out liveliness in others.

Throughout my adult life, I’ve not only learned so much from Rumsfeld, but I’ve felt better being around him — livelier, smarter, funnier, even more patriotic than I really am.

Rumsfeld’s personality, and especially his character, somehow enhances the best qualities of those gathered around him. While I’ve gained a lot of insights from him, I’ve become better being around him — as a friend, luckily for me, over ah-these many years.

Ken Adelman was a U.N. ambassador and arms-control director in the 1980s, accompanying President Reagan on his superpower summits with Mikhail Gorbachev. He now serves on the Defense Policy Board, and co-hosts http://www.TechCentralStation.com.

Since I am making my first post here, I will probably garner some criticism but as some of you will soon find out, I really don't care.

A lot of people from the left seem to think that this whole operation has been a complete failure. You would be wrong.

Nobody, and I mean nobody in the current administration said it would be easy. These "Monday morning quarterbacks" sure can speak up after something bad has happened to make themselves look good and sell a book for personal profit. To bad most were not speaking the same tune before the war. We have done more, with less than at any other time in the history of warfare. Have minor mistakes been made, yes but to continue to harp on them like the left likes to do, you are placing our troops into needless harms way.

I would say that the success far outway the failures and it is a complicit, liberal press that that only spreads the negative news to further their man, John "F'n" Kerry.

Hey, welcome Mount10man!

You should fit right in - as long as you brought some hip boots. The crap gets pretty deep in here at time

Oh, and please, don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel! LOL

Harley...If you were president for the rest of the year what would you do about mounting threats from terrorists? Looking forward without lapsing into blaming anyone for what has happened prior to today. Secondly do you consider terrorist acts as legal issues ? You tried to defend Clinton for passing on Bin Laden saying he had legal concerns. Should the efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks on the US center around law enforcement? Lastly, what changes would you champion after the next terror attack inside the US...If massive casualties result would you still advocate revoking the patriot act? If so would you replace it with anything different?

GP2,

To begin with, we can't focus completely on the threat of terrorism because we've first got to resolve the mess we've created in Iraq. We've left ourselves quite vulnerable here and in other parts of the world because so many of our assests are deployed or refitting.

Are terrorist acts legal issues? As opposed to what? If a guy comes here and blows a few things up taking lives with him, well, yeah I'd say that is a legal issue. Is it an act of war? From whom? McVeigh, Nichols, Kazinski (sp), Bundy, were terrorists; do we declare war on their home states? The majority of 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, no declaration of war there.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a country. You can't very well wage war against a tactic. However, those responsible for employing those tactics should be hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent.

I didn't defend Clinton. Matter of fact, I said he screwed up. I did say, though, what I remember his reasons being and what I thought the reaction from the public would have been. That neither condones nor condems his actions.

The efforts to prevent future attacks are centering around law enforcement. The news today reports that a radical cleric was arrested in the UK and will be extradited to the US. Granted we had to make some affirmation to the stipulations of no death penalty or military tribunal, but either way it's one less radical on the streets.

I've never advocated revoking the Patriot Act in whole. I do believe it needs to be tweaked, however.

Finally, once the mess in Iraq is squared away, I think the DoD may need to take a look at restructing the force in such a way that more Black Ops are available for "search and destroy" type missions. This of course would require tremendous diplomacy and a revamped foriegn policy. But I'd like to see Task Force 21, or something like it, utilized in such a way, in conjunction with Homeland Security, to go from country to country and root out the terrorist cells.

It doesn't seem that invading a country with our full military force is very effective in quashing an ideology. It seems to rather be strengthening their resolve. Although some say, "I'd rather fight them over there than here," imagine what the innocent inhabitants of "there" feel about that. Think it improves our image any or fosters a will of cooperation?

911 happened because we treated terrorism as a crime. It is a crime until it is state sponsored. Once that happens we need to deal with that state in wahtever fashion is effective. On the ideology side. This country has a low tolerance for religous zealots when the combine that with guns. All the way back to Joseph Smith and the Mormon movement. Once they built an army and became a threat we mobilzed force and put them down. David Koresh was fine until he started stockpiling wepons. Once he did that we killed him and burnt his church.

David Koresh? Dang that intolerant Bush, he'll attack and kill anyone one, even in his own people like Sadamm did - without even being attacked first.

Oh yeah, that was Clinton\Reno wasn't it?

Which state (country) sponsored 9/11?

Gh,

You know which ones you want me to say Yemen and SA and then ask why we did not attack them diretly. Yemen and SA where smart enough to play ball with us and for the most part did not allow training camps and other activities on their soil. I believe they play big roles in the sponsorship of terror and need to be dealt with. polotics dictate later rather than sooner. SA will have to be taken down from the inside out IMHO. A cultural change. A successful Iraq plays a big part in that getting started in SA and Iran.

How do we go about proving with enough credibility which acts are state sponsored and which are not? How paramount would that be before declaring war on a country versus hunting down and prosecuting those responsible?

I would use the next door neighbor test myself. Would I want someone acting like Sadam living next door to me? Would I want some one acting like Saudi Arabia living next door to me? I would arm myself and react to the threat with a neighbor like Sadam. With a neighbor like SA saying and appearing to do all the right things while his kids created problems I would suspect and investigate and then take action or not take action depending on what I might find.

Hey, that sounds kinda like what Iraq was doing with neighbors like Iran and Turkey.