Case Closed on Iraq/Al Qaeda Connections

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Case Closed on Iraq/Al Qaeda Connections

Post by Brotha »

All I can say is...wow. This is truly damning.

A lot of the italicizing and spacing didn't transfer over with the copy/pasting, it goes a lot smoother if you read it at the original site.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8fmxyz.asp
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.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

No way in hell I will read a long post by Brotha. Last time I did that I went into a coma from pure stupidity for a week..
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

/hug kelshara
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

Brotha didn't type it.

It's a newspaper article, that details a leaked DoD report catalogging proof of a working relationship between Osama and Saddam.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

I know he didn't type it, but his usual links and cut/paste jobs are of the same level as Metanis'. In other words, usually a huge waste of time.
User avatar
Skogen
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1972
Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
Location: Claremont, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Skogen »

lol...what "top secret" document? ONE so-called top-secret document of yet-to-be seen if it has any ground to stand on, if at all, is THE link between Al Quada and Saddam? Yeah, ok...
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

heh, nice tactic,

If you politically disagree with the subject, demonize the messenger and the source BEFORE you read it.

It's the antithesis of an open mind and the only loser is the one who shuts himself off from the information.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Watching you murdering apologists scramble like retards for anything remotely supporting your invasion either legally or morally would actually be pretty hilarious were it not for the innocent blood dripping from your hands. I hope watching all those US troops dying stupidly and causelessly trying to occupy a country so halliburton's stockholders can get even more outrageously wealthy makes you feel like fucking garbage every time you look in the mirror. Sadly you are probably too stupid and uncaring to bother worrying about it.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

Adex.. if a person was to read all the garbage that Brotha, Metanis and at times you post here, most sane people would kill themself. And I don't have to demonize them, they do a good job of that themselves.
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

I understand Kelshara,

I don't always read everything Kelgar posts, and honestly I don't know much about the newspaper that published this piece.

I love you too Kyo.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

I read a lot :) But if I have never even heard of the source somebody posts a huge ass article from I probably wont read it until at least a few others have first and commented on it. I'm just lazy that way :p
User avatar
noel
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 10003
Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Calabasas, CA

Post by noel »

Tell me Adex, is an individuals posting history not enough to go on? Brotha has a documented history of posting politically biased drivel. Why should I suddenly take him seriously when he posts a long assed article from a source I've never heard of. Sorry, not going to waste my time. He can either source something reasonable, or post the relevant pieces, and let me decide if I want to read the entire article.

It's not my fault that he constantly posts shit. For that he has no one to blame save himself.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

I read about half of it before it had descended from its "firm evidence of cooperation" to flimsy claims involving Iraqi emigres to other countries.

Interesting stuff though. I look forward to it being reported via other sources so we can see if any of it holds water.
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

To some extent we're all guilty of channeling the truth through our biases.

I hesitate to label Brotha as "especially bad." The only reason he sticks out of the crowd here is because he has a minority viewpoint.
User avatar
Xzion
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2567
Joined: September 22, 2002, 7:36 pm

Post by Xzion »

of course dubyahs daddy and our country in the past had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with finantially supporting/training osama or saddam

other countrys that dubyah doesnt want to invade for finantial such as saudi arabia have a much "looser" connection to "terrorism" then those evil iraqis
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

This drivel is about as valid as americas proof of Iraq's nuclear program and weapons of mass destruction.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

Aranuil wrote:Tell me Adex, is an individuals posting history not enough to go on? Brotha has a documented history of posting politically biased drivel. Why should I suddenly take him seriously when he posts a long assed article from a source I've never heard of. Sorry, not going to waste my time. He can either source something reasonable, or post the relevant pieces, and let me decide if I want to read the entire article.

It's not my fault that he constantly posts shit. For that he has no one to blame save himself.
Nothing you've posted recently is worth reading, much less responding to, but I still feel the need to address this.

In the past 8 months or so that I've been posting on the subject of current events (off and on) I've posted exactly three opinion pieces that I can remember, one of which was a piece from a democratic senator that was in the Washington Times. The other two were from an author that I read a lot from National Review Online, who I admit is a bit extreme.

The other things that I've posted are valid news stories that I thought would provide some interesting debate or things that I found particularly interesting and I thought others might as well.

That is "constantly" posting shit? Or is posting shit when someone disagrees with the mainstream views of the people on this board (ie we went to war over oil, Bush is an idiot and a liar, etc etc)?

I honestly don't care whether you read this piece from the weekly standard or not or what your opinion is concerning the stuff I read/post, but after awhile I admit you do get a bit grating, sort of like an annoying little dog running around frantically nipping at my ankles- hopefully after this little kick you'll realize how insignificant and ridiculous you are, although I'm not going to be holding my breath based on your "documented history" of making yourself look like a complete idiot in your quest to add two millimeters to your online penis.
User avatar
noel
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 10003
Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Calabasas, CA

Post by noel »

Brotha wrote:
Aranuil wrote:Tell me Adex, is an individuals posting history not enough to go on? Brotha has a documented history of posting politically biased drivel. Why should I suddenly take him seriously when he posts a long assed article from a source I've never heard of. Sorry, not going to waste my time. He can either source something reasonable, or post the relevant pieces, and let me decide if I want to read the entire article.

It's not my fault that he constantly posts shit. For that he has no one to blame save himself.
Nothing you've posted recently is worth reading, much less responding to, but I still feel the need to address this.

In the past 8 months or so that I've been posting on the subject of current events (off and on) I've posted exactly three opinion pieces that I can remember, one of which was a piece from a democratic senator that was in the Washington Times. The other two were from an author that I read a lot from National Review Online, who I admit is a bit extreme.

The other things that I've posted are valid news stories that I thought would provide some interesting debate or things that I found particularly interesting and I thought others might as well.

That is "constantly" posting shit? Or is posting shit when someone disagrees with the mainstream views of the people on this board (ie we went to war over oil, Bush is an idiot and a liar, etc etc)?

I honestly don't care whether you read this piece from the weekly standard or not or what your opinion is concerning the stuff I read/post, but after awhile I admit you do get a bit grating, sort of like an annoying little dog running around frantically nipping at my ankles- hopefully after this little kick you'll realize how insignificant and ridiculous you are, although I'm not going to be holding my breath based on your "documented history" of making yourself look like a complete idiot in your quest to add two millimeters to your online penis.
My online penis is irrelevant. If you don't like the way the shoe fits, stop wearing it. Just because I'm willing to say what others are thinking doesn't make it any less valid.

I post useful information all the time. I'm not surprised you (and others) miss it, and instead focus on the times when I'm flaming you (and others) in an effort to make me look like a big meanie.

In summation: I'm not going to read your post because you have a long history of posting heresay, unsubstantiated information, questionable sources, and one-sided arguments that don't even make an attempt to understand or acknowledge the other side. If you feel it's unfair that I don't read your posts, I'm sorry you feel that way.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

Aranuil wrote:In summation: I'm not going to read your post because you have a long history of posting heresay, unsubstantiated information, questionable sources, and one-sided arguments that don't even make an attempt to understand or acknowledge the other side. If you feel it's unfair that I don't read your posts, I'm sorry you feel that way.
Long history of posting heresay, unsubstantiated information, and questionable sources? Where are you pulling this out of (rhetorical question btw)? The two things that I've posted from NRO were extreme, with this last one that I posted a couple of weeks ago being a bit over the top I admit, but I never made it out to be anything more than what it was- an editorial.

Anytime I've debated someone, (from the lead up to the war with Iraq to now) I've sourced pretty much everything that I've said and have been willing to prove (as kyoukan has asked a couple of times) everything that I've posted. On one hand you claim that I post "unsubstantiated information," then on the other you post this with no proof whatsoever- the irony would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

And about posting one side of an argument, what do you want me to do, qualify every single statement I make? I read much more than NRO and foxnews.com, don't even try to presume anything about me. I like being informed and I like knowing all sides of an argument (even Dowd's and Krugman's). Someone who thinks of the BBC as the most unbiased news source out there has no business acting like he has a clue concerning bias- shut your ignorant hole before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
User avatar
Dregor Thule
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5994
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
PSN ID: dregor77
Location: Oakville, Ontario

Post by Dregor Thule »

Case closed! Next stop, invading Iraq and toppling Sadam! Oh wait..
User avatar
Rivera Bladestrike
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1275
Joined: September 15, 2002, 4:55 pm

Post by Rivera Bladestrike »

Yeah this post is filled with fact....

Hell, they could have made all this up. Osama bin Laden dead or in hiding. Saddam Huissein dead or in hiding. Would anyone believe them if they were to refute the statements above if they had been alive in the first place? Knowing the U.S. government, they're doing anything and everything to justify the Iraq war.
My name is (removed to protect dolphinlovers)

Rivera / Shiezer - EQ (Retired)

What I Am Listening To
User avatar
Boogahz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9438
Joined: July 6, 2002, 2:00 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: corin12
PSN ID: boog144
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Boogahz »

F*ck it
User avatar
Xyun
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2566
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:03 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Xyun »

Brotha, let us pretend for just a second that this article is true. That the Weekly Standard has indeed obtained top secret information sent from the pentagon to the senate. Here are my questions.

1) Do you think that they would intentionally leak this information? I do. If they had such damning evidence why not put it on the table and wash their hands of the criticism they are withstanding? Which leads me to my next question.

2) Why would the defense department not leak the information to a more credible source? If they want the information to be leaked, why not leak it to a source that reaches many more people than the a small magazine no one (except you) has ever heard of. This news is important enough to be a top story on most national news agencies.

3) Why would the government not present this information earlier? If it is in fact credible, why not present this information to the nation before invading Iraq?


The reason you are looked upon as a buffoon in this forum is because you find articles that agree with your view and post them here regardless of their validity. Any schmuck can find an article that they agree with on the net. You, however, lack the ability to question the truth and validity of what you read, especially when it is something you agree with. What kind of reaction do you expect when you regurgitate this bullshit on this forum?

While you may think of yourself as a current events guru, you are an amateur when it comes to debating. You don't even understand the rules of logical steps one must take in a debate, and you don't realize that you don't understand these rules. I attribute this to your lack of education.

There are actually a few people on this forum that can present the conservative side with intelligence and some semblance of common sense. Avestan and Ashur come to mind. You, on the other hand, offer no challenge. It's like playing chess with a child. It is far more amusing to watch you scurry about the internet desperately searching for anything that gives your hillbilly views a single shred of validity, so you can defend your ignorance with the vigor of David in a land of Goliaths.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

Right as I check VV before I go to bed Xyun decides to post, I didn't have any dessert tonight but this should make up for it.

1. Much of this is from "sensitive" reporting that I'm sure they didn't want Saddam to be able to view while he was surfing the web during his time in power. There are a variety of reasons for this that I'm sure with your superior intellect you'll be able to ascertain over a nice bowl. Even now, I doubt many people wanted this leaked.

2. This author has written two previous stories detailing links to Al Qaeda where he had a variety of inside sources- I have no doubt that one of them helped here. I'll excuse you for not knowing this, however.

3. Isn't three basically asking the same thing as part of one? I'll have to pass this one off as too many brain cells being fried. The few you have left must have taken a much needed breather after performing admirably in the seemingly impossible task of attempting to form a coherent, intelligent sounding argument. If you're still reading at this point, look back at one.

I've already addressed the stuff I've posted in the past- while I'd like to think you were just trying to put it a bit more eloquently than Aranuil did, the practical side of me is forced to pass this one off as fried brain cells as well.

And the very idea of you of all people trying to lecture anyone on forming a "logical" argument is beyond absurd. I know after you managed to number down to three you thought of yourself as quite the debater, but the things you've posted in the past more resemble the trantrums of a petulant child than any kind of "logic."
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

I do find it kind of interesting that this suddenly appears when Bush' support is plummetting...
User avatar
Skogen
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1972
Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
Location: Claremont, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Skogen »

Kelshara wrote:I do find it kind of interesting that this suddenly appears when Bush' support is plummetting...
grasping for straws...

Sad to say, unless the democrates get their shit together, we might get Bush again for another 4 years.
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

I remain an optimist that 5 years from now Iraq is going to be a better place.

I'm also convinced that abandoning Iraq would a greater "evil" than trying to build representative government for them.

When I see european countries whining about it, I wonder why they place their pride at a level higher than their motivation to see 28 million people get a chance at something other than a dictorship.

Hey Mr. Iraqi I want to see you free, but I desire more to see those bullish Americans fail at your expense.

Pride is a destroyer.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Adex_Xeda wrote:I remain an optimist that 5 years from now Iraq is going to be a better place.
probably will be. I hope so.
I'm also convinced that abandoning Iraq would a greater "evil" than trying to build representative government for them.
it would be a complete disaster to expedite our departure from Iraq before the rebuilding process is complete.

When I see european countries whining about it, I wonder why they place their pride at a level higher than their motivation to see 28 million people get a chance at something other than a dictorship.
quite a few countries are 'on-board' with the rebuilding effort. The manner in which the US went about approaching the UN a year ago damaged some relationships, and some countries are not eager to lend a hand to the US, now that we need the financial and military aid.



I am curious about Brotha's post, and later today hope to try to check it out in more detail. i would be happy to admit i was wrong about the war, if this sort of thing was indeed true. That being said, in keeping with the overall pattern of events and the totality of information i have been shown to this point, i doubt that it is true. but who knows. would be happier if a real news outlet had picked this story up as well.

I agree with you that "pride is a destroyer". The combined hubris of our administration and that of some European countries destroyed any chance of the UN being a place where this could have been resolved in a manner in which the US would have lost some credibility in the region.
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

Quote:
I'm also convinced that abandoning Iraq would a greater "evil" than trying to build representative government for them.
it would be a complete disaster to expedite our departure from Iraq before the rebuilding process is complete
Yet you'll be out by next summer, cos GW is getting antsy about his election performance if US soldiers are still dying over there.
When I see european countries whining about it, I wonder why they place their pride at a level higher than their motivation to see 28 million people get a chance at something other than a dictorship.

quite a few countries are 'on-board' with the rebuilding effort. The manner in which the US went about approaching the UN a year ago damaged some relationships, and some countries are not eager to lend a hand to the US, now that we need the financial and military aid.
Even those that are "on board" for the rebuilding got the finger from Bush and handed a few table crumbs - as has been covered before the closed bidding system for the contracts ended up with them all going to Haliburton, and countries like the UK _still_ had to raise something of a fuss to even get the piffling concessions we did after sending our troops. And this is how you treat your supporters, so no wonder those less in favour are even more hostile.
The US has a history of unilateral invasions followed by handing over the cost and hard work of rebuilding the peace to the UN (Haiti, Somalia etc). This time it looks like you don't get your way. As that French guy said "The feeling is that those who broke Iraq can put it back together again". And I have to say I agree in principle. The behaviour of the US administration during the run-up to the war was a fucking disgrace. You cannot flip the bird at various nations then come around for a handout when the going gets tough. US commentators would be insane with fury if the situation were reversed. And even then you have to remember the US requests for help came with conditions: Help was offered by European nations but in return a reasonable request to increase the influence of the UN in the process was asked for. The US's blank refusal to countenance that and insisting on remaining in full control of Iraq is why we are where we are, not because those nations simply refused to offer help.
And to anyone who wants to retort with the question "But what about the 28 million Iraqis who suffer?" - well you should have thought of that before you started, shouldn't you?

edit: typo
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

Dude, you have this whole Haliburton thing is way out of perspective.

There are TWO oil service companies big enough to handle the Iraq's oil infrastructure problems.

Haliburton and Schlumburger and GUESS WHAT?

Schlumberger is FRENCH OWNED!

OF COURSE Haliburton won the contract given the state of US-French relations at the time.

It's no dark-roomed conspiracy.
Last edited by Adex_Xeda on November 18, 2003, 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Department of Defense's response:

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
No. 851-03
IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 15, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.



A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.



The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.



The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.



Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.



-END-

so basically the Pentagon is denying the "Case CLosed" aspect of it, and more or less saying the jury is still out.

now perhaps that is just a matter of being prudent. none of us can speak to whether or not 'raw' intelligence data presented in this fashion is accurate or not.


---

i havent found too much beyond the above as far as anything else on the subject. Basically some of the conservative outlets (Washington Times, Fox News, NY Post) ran with the story when the Standard made it public.

A report on the same topic from a different source did also reach publication at the same time, in the Washington Post. (free just have to give age and zip code)
CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page A20


The CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former president Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military and intelligence expert.



Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in a report released Friday. It was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq; L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator there; and military officials.

"No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists," Cordesman wrote of Kay's briefing. "Only possibility was Saddam's Fedayeen [his son's irregular terrorist force] and talk only."

One of the concerns the Bush administration cited early last
so conflicting reports on the nature of the relationship.

the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq existed, but was it meaningful is the question. What i mean by that is, that the United States has a relationship with North Korea (we do have conversations with them, etc), but that doesnt mean we are "doing business" with them.

The Pentagon may have been downplaying the initial report to protect "sources and methods"

Interestingly, this is the 2nd leak from the Senate Intelligence Committee that favored Republicans in the last month.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Adex_Xeda wrote:Dude, you have this whole Haliburton thing is way out of perspective.

There are TWO oil service companies big enough to handle the Iraq's oil infrastructure problems.

Haliburton and Schlumburger and GUESS WHAT?

Schlumberger is FRENCH OWNED!

OF COURSE Haliburton won the contract given the state of US-French relations at the time.

It's no dark-roomed conspiracy. It's just an unfounded accusation.
Haliburton charges the US $2.65/gal for gasoline, while the Iraqi contractor charges its clients $0.97

quick question Adex, how does one "win" a no-bid contract?

Source: Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/iraq/newswire/200 ... 37056.html
Last edited by Voronwë on November 18, 2003, 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

Haliburton isn't an oil distribution company. Their specialty is construction.

Why bid on two companies when one of the two choices is from a country that is opposing your reconstruction efforts?
User avatar
Skogen
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1972
Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
Location: Claremont, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Skogen »

Adex_Xeda wrote:Haliburton isn't an oil distribution company. Their specialty is construction.

Why bid on two companies when one of the two choices is from a country that is opposing your reconstruction efforts?
Yeah and Cheney was chairman & CEO of that company for 5 years The m,an has vested interest, and his company won the contract by default.
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

Long before the war, long before he was vice president. RIGHT as he started campaigning for the job he divested himself from Haliburton.

Unless he had Ms. Cleo as an advisor, you're not linking cause and effect.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Adex , why not have the army then control the distribution of feul into Iraq instead of Halliburton?

which interestingly now that Congress has scrutinized the situation is what is about to happen.

I believe Cheney still has some sort of deferred compensation from Halliburton, as well as stock options.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/ ... 5356.shtml
According to Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president's Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares. He also has a 401(k) retirement account valued at between $1,001 and $15,000 dollars.

His deferred compensation account was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, and generated income of $50,000 to $100,000.

In 2002, Cheney's total assets were valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million.
Last edited by Voronwë on November 18, 2003, 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Forthe
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1719
Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:15 pm
XBL Gamertag: Brutus709
Location: The Political Newf

Post by Forthe »

Adex_Xeda wrote:Haliburton isn't an oil distribution company. Their specialty is construction.

Why bid on two companies when one of the two choices is from a country that is opposing your reconstruction efforts?
Why couldn't a joint venture or conglomerant bid on the contract (assuming your 2 choice statement is correct)?
All posts are personal opinion.
My opinion may == || != my guild's.
"All spelling mistakes were not on purpose as I dont know shit ." - Torrkir
User avatar
Skogen
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1972
Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
Location: Claremont, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Skogen »

Adex_Xeda wrote:Long before the war, long before he was vice president. RIGHT as he started campaigning for the job he divested himself from Haliburton.

Unless he had Ms. Cleo as an advisor, you're not linking cause and effect.
Long before the war? Long before being vise pres? Yeah, right. What do consider "long before" to mean?

He stepped down to run in the 2000 election with W. Bush. He still draws compensation of up to $1M/year from Halliburton.

EDIT:

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

The forbes article you provided answers your own question.

Haliburton went into the effort not expecting to be in charge of oil distribution. They got stuck with that job after the fact. I'm sure that affects their pricing.
User avatar
Skogen
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1972
Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
Location: Claremont, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Skogen »

Adex_Xeda wrote:The forbes article you provided answers your own question.

Haliburton went into the effort not expecting to be in charge of oil distribution. They got stuck with that job after the fact. I'm sure that affects their pricing.
I personally wasn't talking anything about oil. Just the fact that Mr. Cheney is directly profiting from the war is very much on purpose.

"Stuck with it"??
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Adex_Xeda wrote:The forbes article you provided answers your own question.

Haliburton went into the effort not expecting to be in charge of oil distribution. They got stuck with that job after the fact. I'm sure that affects their pricing.
wrong.
that is absolutely not what the article said.
Asked to comment on the Army's latest plans, Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the job of importing fuel into Iraq was never expected to be a long term mission.

"We will continue to deliver fuel until a smooth and timely transition takes place," she said.
Halliburton went in as the initial supplier, which was the plan from the outset. They were not meant to be the long term supplier.

Not being the long term supplier does not mean that you are not prepared to be the initial supplier.

Being the initial supplier was part of their contract, and was not unexpected.
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

According to a UK newspaper the Guardian 7/02/03:
The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (?600,000) a year.

When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.

An aide to the vice president said yesterday: "This is money that Mr Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time."

The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest.

"Also, the vice president has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pentagon bidding process," the aide added.
So far I see Cheney getting paid for past work as the top guy for a huge corporation. I see his payments being locked in at a set rate separated from the company's current profits.

I am wrong about one thing however, Cheney does still own Haliburton stock the article mentions:
Mr Cheney sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8m. He arranged to pay any profits to charity
Even here he does not gain from any new Haliburton business.

Haliburton has been performing goverment contracts since the 1940s. It is unrealistic to expect it to suddenly stop doing government business because the VP used to work there.

America paid a cost in lives to protect itself. France opposed this act. There was a limited set of bidders capable of handling the task. It makes better sense that the American company would win the bid over the French company due to those political reasons than to reason that Cheney "pulled some strings."

I remain unconvinced that this was a drummed up war for personal profits.

I do appreciate however, you showing me things that raise your suspicions on the matter.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

i dont think the issue is that the war was fought to make Dick Cheney rich. I think that is not at all true. I think there were calculated geopolitical goals that truly pressed for the war.

but hey if people in the petrochemical industry make a killing off of the American taxpayers in the process, that will only help the administration fund their reelection. whats a few hundred million, i mean its only a couple dollars per citizen, who cares?!?! So i dont say that is the principle motivation for the war, but it sure is a great side benefit, huh?

I am happy that Cheney's promise to give all his "after tax proceeds" from sale of stock options - in your mind - eliminates any conflict of interest. i dont know what to tell you if you refuse to believe that a man who has hundreds of thousands of shares in a company doesnt have a vested financial interest in that companies performance. Because he does.

oh well he is promising not to make money from it. OH KAY

A. did i say "riiiiight" yet?

B. he has a vested financial interest in Halliburton. period. that is 100% unequivocal.

C. Halliburton made $300 million off of US taxpayers in gasoline overcharges alone in the last 6 months

but hey at least Halliburton went through a competitive bid process and the US taxpayers got the best deal possible to get the job done, because we no longer have a budget surplus and we have to have fiscal discipline, etc.

riiiiiiiiight
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

I'm not big-wig CEO, but if I'm supposed to transport oil on trucks while left and right my equipment is being bombed and my drivers are at risk of being shot. I might charge $2.50 a gallon to make it worth my while.


If the competition can do it cheaper, the next time the contract is up for grabs I'm sure they'll choose the more affordable firm. That is if the other firm can handle the task.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Adex_Xeda wrote:I remain unconvinced that this was a drummed up war for personal profits.
Dick Cheney could walk right up to you, grab you by the throat and say "Hi there! I'm Dick Cheney and I'm a fucking scumbag that uses his political connections to make myself and the corporation I work for even more wealthy." and you would argue with him that he isn't.

Seriously look at yourself. You're such a fucking ignoramous that it makes me want to slap you. It absolutely fucking staggers me that anyone would be so fucking unbelievably partisan that they would sit there and defend people actively RIPPING YOU OFF. Every dollar that Halliburton and the Bush administration spend on Iraq is stealing money right out of your pocket. You don't just bend over and let them give it to you up the asshole but you actually defend their right to do it! I can't even begin to understand someone so stupid.
Last edited by kyoukan on November 18, 2003, 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:I remain unconvinced that this was a drummed up war for personal profits.
Dick Cheney could walk right up to you, grab you by the throat and say "Hi there! I'm Dick Cheney and I'm a fucking scumbag that uses his political connections to make myself and the corporation I work for even more wealthy." and you would argue with him that he isn't.

Seriously look at yourself. You're such a fucking ignoramous that it makes me want to slap you.
Threat?
User avatar
Krimson Klaw
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1976
Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm

Post by Krimson Klaw »

She's pretty much right, but she has not learned yet how not to be a bitch about it. Calm the hell down, even sometimes when you make absolute sense, it's drowned out by your hysterics. For once, make a sound point that's not diluted with your tantrums....
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

Ah Kyo,

I do my best to treat you in a respectful manner.

Some days are harder than others.


To the rest of you, thanks,

You have presented quite a few compelling arguements that definately make one wonder if Cheney isn't tied in a conflict of interest.
Post Reply