Harboring al Qaeda

[audtatious]

What the new Senate Intelligence Report says about Saddam's hospitality.

by Thomas Joscelyn 06/10/2008 12:00:00 AM

THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE has once again released a report claiming that the Bush administration hyped prewar intelligence. The so-called Phase Two report is supposed to investigate the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence. In reality, the report is little more than yet another attempt by partisan Democrats to make political hay out of flawed prewar intelligence. (The only Republicans to endorse the report were two of the Senate's most liberal GOP members.) The committee focused exclusively on prewar statements by Bush administration officials, ignoring similar statements by leading Democrats. Therefore, the report is intended to portray the Bush administration in the worst possible light. But even with this bias, the committee came to a noteworthy conclusion: The Bush administration was right to claim that Saddam's regime was harboring al Qaeda members.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report includes this conclusion at the end of a terse section on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's prewar terror ties:

-- Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorlst members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

-- Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

Regarding postwar information collected by the U.S. intelligence community, the report reads:

-- Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

These conclusions should not be surprising. In his book At the Center of the Storm, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet provided a number of details concerning the safe haven al Qaeda members received in Saddam's Iraq. For example, Tenet wrote that two of Ayman al-Zawahiri's top operatives, Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, received safe haven in Baghdad. Tenet says that there was "concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq."

The first report on the uses of prewar intelligence published by the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 also found that Zarqawi freely roamed around Iraq and Saddam's goons must have been aware of his presence. The authors of the Butler Report, the British government's investigation into prewar intelligence, found roughly the same. Even other al Qaeda members have, on occasion, been open about the relationship between Zarqawi, other al Qaeda operatives, and Saddam's regime in prewar Iraq.

Despite all of these findings, however, the myth that Zarqawi and other al Qaeda operatives lived in Saddam's neo-Stalinist state without receiving at least the dictator's tacit support has lived on. But now, even in a partisan report designed to attack the Bush administration's credibility, the Senate Intelligence Committee has admitted that Bush and his officials were right to argue that Saddam was harboring al Qaeda fugitives. Both prewar and postwar intelligence assessments confirm their view.

But no one should take the Senate Intelligence Committee's word one way or another on these issues. In fact, the only reason that we know the committee got the story of Saddam's safe haven for al Qaeda members right is because so many other sources have already confirmed it. And while the Senate Intelligence Committee got this issue right, it got many others wrong. The report is not even internally consistent and the committee simply ignored numerous pieces of information that got in the way of some of its conclusions.

One glaring illustration is the following baseless finding:

-- Iraq and al Qaeda did not have a cooperative relationship. Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaeda to provide material or operational support.

Here, the committee simply regurgitated an old storyline invented by some analysts within the CIA and other intelligence bureaucracies. The truth is that this was a prewar assumption that went untested and is contradicted by a variety of pieces of evidence discovered both in the prewar as well as postwar period. Some of this evidence is cited in the committee's own report!

For example, if Saddam was willing to harbor al Qaeda terrorists, as the committee itself admits was substantiated by "postwar information," then how can the committee claim that Saddam spurned all offers of cooperation and was entirely "distrustful" of al Qaeda members? Isn't giving safe haven to wanted terrorists--who, according to George Tenet, may have been plotting attacks around the world--evidence of a "cooperative relationship"? And if Saddam was willing to give al Qaeda members safe haven, how can the committee be sure that he wasn't willing to do more for them?

Indeed, the committee ignored the best evidence of Saddam's true attitude towards al Qaeda and other "Islamic extremists"--Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in postwar Iraq. For instance, the Institute for Defense Analyses published a study of captured Iraqi regime documents in November 2007. The IDA report's authors found that when it came to "attacking Western interests":

-- Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision.

Moreover:

-- Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Documents cited in the IDA report show that Saddam had an agreement with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman's Islamic group to cooperate in attacks against Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian regime in the early 1990s. Both of those terrorlst groups have been core members of Osama bin Laden's terrorlst joint venture. Other documents show that Saddam financed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who counterterrorism analyst Peter Bergen has called Osama bin Laden's "alter ego," and was willing to work with Hekmatyar's terrorists in attacking American forces in Somalia. Clearly, then, Saddam was willing at times to offer al Qaeda's terrorists more than just safe haven.

Another document from the mid-1990s, which was not cited in the IDA's analysis, relays Osama bin Laden's request for Iraqi assistance in performing "joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz." That is, bin Laden wanted Iraq's assistance in attacking U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. We do not know what, exactly, came of bin Laden's request. But the document indicates that Saddam's operatives "were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up." According to the regime's own documents, therefore, Saddam did not "[refuse] all requests from al Qaeda to provide material or operational support." Saddam was willing to leave the relationship open to see what avenues for cooperation between his intelligence operatives and al Qaeda's terrorists may open up.

There's more, of course, but the Senate Intelligence Committee managed to avoid any direct mention of such documents, which contradict some of its findings. The report is, therefore, hardly comprehensive. However, we can be certain of at least one thing: Saddam harbored al Qaeda terrorists.

Even the Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee now admit that.

Thomas Joscelyn is a terrorism researcher, writer, and economist living in New York. He is the author, most recently, of Iran's Proxy War Against America (Claremont Institute).

[audtatious]

Here are some statements of interest as well:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.That is our bottom line.”President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.His remarks followed that briefing.

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destructionprograms.”Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, “There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.”

“There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programscontinue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth!The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...”Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force— if necessary— to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!Senator Kerry’s comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimatedthe progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!Senator Rockefeller’s statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy hischemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!Senator Waxman’s contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biologicalweapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents aparticularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to hiscontinued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destructionSo the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!In a speech to Georgetown University.

"The restrictions imposed in 1998 are not acceptable and will not do the job. There should be a deadline and no lack of clarity about what Iraq must do. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995." -Former President Bill Clinton 10/2/02 at British Labour Party Conference