August 29, 2005
— Ace Since "everyone knows" there was no connection between Hussein and bin Ladin, obviously there was no point in mentioning facts which would upset conventional wisdom:
AHMED HIKMAT SHAKIR IS A shadowy figure who provided logistical assistance to one, maybe two, of the 9/11 hijackers. Years before, he had received a phone call from the Jersey City, New Jersey, safehouse of the plotters who would soon, in February 1993, park a truck bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. The safehouse was the apartment of Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, who scorched his own leg while mixing the chemicals for the 1993 bomb.
When Shakir was arrested shortly after the 9/11 attacks, his "pocket litter," in the parlance of the investigators, included contact information for Musab Yasin and another 1993 plotter, a Kuwaiti native named Ibrahim Suleiman.
These facts alone, linking the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, would seem to cry out for additional scrutiny, no?
The Yasin brothers and Shakir have more in common. They are all Iraqis. And two of them--Abdul Rahman Yasin and Shakir--went free, despite their participation in attacks on the World Trade Center, at least partly because of efforts made on their behalf by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Both men returned to Iraq--Yasin fled there in 1993 with the active assistance of the Iraqi government. For ten years in Iraq, Abdul Rahman Yasin was provided safe haven and financing by the regime, support that ended only with the coalition intervention in March 2003.
Readers of The Weekly Standard may be familiar with the stories of Abdul Rahman Yasin, Musab Yasin, and Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Readers of the
9/11 Commission's final report are not. Those three individuals are nowhere mentioned in the 428 pages that comprise the body of the 9/11 Commission report. Their names do not appear among the 172 listed in Appendix B of the report, a table of individuals who are mentioned in the text. Two brief footnotes mention Shakir.
Why? Why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted his role in the first World Trade Center attack, which killed 6 people, injured more than 1,000, and blew a hole seven stories deep in the North Tower? It's an odd omission, especially since the commission named no fewer than five of his accomplices.
Why would the 9/11 Commission neglect Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a man who was photographed assisting a 9/11 hijacker and attended perhaps the most important 9/11 planning meeting?
And why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the overlap between the two successful plots to attack the World Trade Center?
The answer is simple: The Iraqi link didn't fit the commission's narrative.
Whenever you bring facts like this up, the "no operational link" crowd changes the subject.
Excuse me-- who's the "faith-based" community, and who's the reality-based community?
You can have your own opinions, as my Pappy used to say, but you can't have your own facts.
You can say the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were no strong enough to justify war, but you cannot say there were "no" links between them.
The 1993 bombing should really be a part of the investigation of 9/11, but there are quotes from members of the committee about how they weren't responsible for examining (insert-act-here), just 9/11. Hard to connect anything if you're saying "I can't see you" to half of the freaking dots.
Posted by: Al at August 29, 2005 03:14 PM (W0HY4)
Point out the terror connections, and it's "what about WMD?"
Point out the history of chemical/nuke weapons and Iraq, and it's "well, they never used them."
Point out the massacre of the Kurds, and it's "they only killed their own people..."
Point out the number of people in other countries who were killed because Hussein paid people to murder them, and "it's time for lunch..."
Posted by: cirby at August 29, 2005 03:27 PM (fY33n)
Embassies serve as the home office of intelligence operations in host countries, but it's outlandish to think in this case Iraqi intelligence was somehow involved?
It's willful denial.
Posted by: Moonbat_One at August 29, 2005 03:42 PM (p2G9i)
Posted by: Moonbat_One at August 29, 2005 04:00 PM (p2G9i)
Which sounds familiar, doesn't it? Davis doesn't come off as a conspiracy nut in her book, and her reportage sounds a lot more credible when you look at - for instance - how the CIA, in its ongoing political feud with the Bush Administration and Rumsfeld's Defense Department, keeps leaking information designed to undercut the arguments the President made regarding Saddam's WMD and support for terrorism....arguments which were based in large part on information produced by the CIA itself throughout the Clinton years and the first year or so of Bush's presidency stating that Saddam was pursuing WMD and was , in fact, supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Or - another "for instance" - look at how the 9/11 Commission has ignored the Able Danger revelations that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta was identified as a terrorist and tracked down to New York a year before the attacks, because that didn't fit the "official" timeline that Atta arrived in the States only a couple of months in advance. Similarly, they ignored testimony from a Department of Agriculture official in Florida that Atta tried to purchase crop-dusting planes a year before the attacks for the same reason.
Or look at how the 9/11 Commission and the CIA have ignored the report from Czech Intelligence that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence operatives in Prague in April of 2001. Or how the CIA tried to undercut - in the guise of "verifying" - the British Intelligence report that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. And when the feckless Joe Wilson actually found evidence that the Iraqis were trying to do just that, he came home and lied about it in a New York Times op-ed piece attacking President Bush.
At least the 9/11 Commission exposed Wilson as a liar. Which is surprising, because the problem here is that the 9/11 Commission has also exposed once and for all that "official Washington" isn't interested in truth, or at least that truth that threatens the preconceived notions, ideological worldview, petty bureaucratic fiefdoms and/or party line of the overwhelmingly Democratic Washington Establishment.
(pauses to take deep breath)
Whew. Sorry about the extended rant. I now return to you the remainder of your bandwith, and thank you for your patience.
Posted by: Wes S. at August 29, 2005 05:17 PM (Banpg)
Posted by: Megan at August 29, 2005 06:05 PM (s22mC)
Posted by: Iblis at August 29, 2005 07:01 PM (WkM2y)
In my opinion, it would be a slam dunk. If I was Rove/Bush, I would haul out the few CIA personnel I could trust and make them the mouthpieces. Tenet would be a good candidate.
Hell, if nothing else, make them read this verbatim:
Posted by: Dogstar at August 29, 2005 07:13 PM (KgeNY)
Posted by: Dogstar at August 29, 2005 07:15 PM (KgeNY)
Posted by: Megan at August 29, 2005 07:28 PM (s22mC)
(what? you thought I was going to be decorous?)
Posted by: Megan at August 29, 2005 07:30 PM (s22mC)
Posted by: Harry at August 29, 2005 07:30 PM (lul6E)
Posted by: Megan at August 29, 2005 07:39 PM (s22mC)
Yup, Cindy Sheehan is coming to Maine to protest the Blue Angels. An air show. At a base already slated for closure.
Yup, that'll show those warmongering "evil bastards" in the White House!
Posted by: Slublog at August 30, 2005 04:36 AM (V7NgR)
Kos, Atrios and TPM, though, are loading just as fast as can be.
Not that that means anything, of course.
Posted by: Slublog at August 30, 2005 06:34 AM (V7NgR)
The fact that 9/11 Commission Suppressed Evidence of Links Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein should come as no surprise, for this comic opera bouffe might be funny if it weren't so deadly serious a matter.
God how I hate Liberals! I am forced to say the Liberal Serenity Prayer again:
God, grant me the Serenity to accept the Liberals I cannot eradicate from public life.
The Courage to eradicate those that I can,
And the Wisdom to know the difference.
Posted by: 72 FLYING HALLUCINATIONS at August 30, 2005 07:25 AM (dhRpo)
The Commission appears to have included every data point that supports the popular notion (even before their start) that the 9/11 attacks came with almost no state support other than the Taliban in Afghanistan, and even then only in sheltering the al-Qaeda strategists who ordered the attacks. The "dots" that the Commission excluded from even a mention -- if only just to debunk them -- all seem to point to state assistance from either Iran, Iraq, or both. Most of them show that the intelligence community actually did uncover some interesting data, on which the bureaucracy either explicitly blocked further investigation or discouraged action. Why would the Commission want to do that? Could it be that the collection of bureaucrats that comprised the panel wanted to believe that the bureacracy could save America, and that the intelligence communities needed more constraints, post-9/11? Or could they have wanted to underscore the meme, during a presidential election, that our "unilateral" approach to policy regarding the two potential state actors had no basis in national-security requirements?
Emphasis in the above is mine.
Posted by: Wes S. at August 30, 2005 08:47 AM (bYsGI)
62 queries taking 3.6709 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.