About | Portfolio | Backup | Archives | PayPal Tip Jar | Amazon Tip Jar | Shop@Amazon
Advertising


Search BillHobbs.com
Stats, Etc.


TTLB Ecosystem Stats
Powered by FeedBurner


« President In Town | Main | Mosque Marquee »

May 27, 2004

Saddam Agent Helped Plan 9/11?

BlogsForBush pointed me to this story from the Wall Street Journal, which identifies very strong evidence of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda - and specifically the planning of the September 11 attack.

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.

Al Gore and John Kerry and the anti-War/anti-Bush Left all insist there was no link. It appears we may soon know otherwise.

Posted in War on Terror | Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com
Comments

I, for one, do think there were links between the "secular" Saddam and Osama. A common hatred of the US is more than enough to overcome their differences.

As of now, I don't think there were any direct links between Iraq and 9/11, and I don't think anyone in this administration has stated such a thing (although many Bush haters have attempted to paint it that way). However, is this information pans out, I think it could a clincher of Saddam/911 links.

Before all the anti-war Bushbashers go nuts, no one is saying Saddam PLANNED 9/11...this guy could simply prove Saddam's government knew about it and played some part. Unfortunately, if proven undeniably true, I think many on the left would STILL scream "Liars!"

Posted by: Ivan at May 27, 2004 09:14 PM

Bill -

We've seen these "new evidence" items before. They're brought out with great fanfare and then die an unnatural death because it was bogus. Let's see how this plays out.

Posted by: Al Hedstrom at May 27, 2004 10:23 PM

Is the strong evidence what's underlined?

Posted by: Wm D at May 28, 2004 05:29 AM

There is reason to be cautious but the new evidence does not exist in a vacuum.

Recently uncovered documents from Iraq's embassy in the Czech Republic have tended to confirm a meeting between a top Iraqi intelligence officer named al-Ani and Mohammed Atta. Czech officials have always maintained that the two men met, a few months before 9/11.

If Shakir's rank is confirmed, that will represent a second strong link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.

If Shakir was indeed a lieutenant colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen, his presence at the Kuala Lumpur meeting would make sense. The Fedayeen were in charge of jetliner hijack training at Salman Pak, and there have been reports of Saudis training at the site. His presence would by itself constitute evidence that Saddam was actively involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by: lyle at May 28, 2004 05:45 AM

Wm D - the evidence is laid out in the last 4 paragraphs of the passage I quoted from the WSJ. Also, read Lyle's comment below yours.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 28, 2004 07:25 AM

More bait-and-switch BS from you.

You don't have identity established, and your rely on anonymous sources. You proceed from a name on a list to assume confirmation.

You're wacked.

Cheers!

Posted by: Superskepticalman at May 28, 2004 07:39 AM

"We've seen these "new evidence" items before."

Sure. Just like we saw one story in the London Telegraph right after we invaded Iraq that they were having to import special water filters to get the traces of mustard gas and sarin out of the Tigris and Euphrates. Of course, there's more

Just like we see story after story about Abu Ghraib, but the only things we see about Nick Berg is his father blaming it on Bush. Nope, no media bias here.

Posted by: SDN at May 29, 2004 07:05 AM

Um, can I clear one thing up here? Saddam had a copy of the Koran written in his own blood. I would hardly call that secular. He might not have been a religious nutcase like Bin Ladin, but "secular" isn't the right wording.

Posted by: Raging Dave at May 31, 2004 07:11 PM

Plus, Dave, Saddam claimed to be a direct male-line descendent of the Prophet Muhammed. Saddam used religion and religious terrorists when it suited him.

Posted by: Reid at June 1, 2004 05:24 PM
Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!









Remember personal info?






Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):




back to top
Advertising

Lamar!

Find the Good
and Praise It
I Also Blog At...
button-fcs-blog.gif
Archives
Blogroll