Stephen F. Hayes examines the evidence for a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. The evidence doesn’t conclusively show a connection, but they don’t disprove one either.
We know at least one Iraqi agent, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, was present at a Qaeda meeting on January 5, 2000 in Kuala Lumpur in which the September 11 and USS Cole attacks were planned and discussed. Intelligence shows he was at the meeting, but it is unknown what role, if any, he played in it.
When Shakir was captured on September 17, 2001 in Doha, Qatar, he wasfound to be linked to the 1993 World Trade Center attacks and the failed Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen aircraft over the Pacific. From there, investigators found several connections between Qaeda agents involved in the 1993 bombings and the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, the Qatari authorities released Shakir a few days after his capture.
Shakir was later recaptured by the Jordanians and interrogated. Amnesty International lobbied for his release, and on January 28, 2002 Shakir escaped to Baghdad.
Combined with documents found in Baghdad linking Iraq with al-Qaeda, and other evidence, there is no way one can argue that there is no evidence that such a connection exists or could exist. While there may well be no connection between Iraq and September 11, there is definitely a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda operatives. Given that Iraq had once reached out to al-Qaeda, and the al-Qaeda agents are now working with the former Ba’athists in Iraq now, to say that the threat of Iraqi weapons falling into Qaeda hands did not exist is itself a lie.
“to say that the threat of Iraqi weapons falling into Qaeda hands did not exist is itself a lie.”
Which weapons are you talking about, Jay: the piece of a centrifuge that could potentially have been used in processing uranium IF it hadn’t been buried in a backyard for a decade, or the vial of “deadly bacteria” that was found in a kitchen refridgerator and is completely benign until it produces that deadly wrinkle-killer, BoTox?
Just checking.
You do realize that bacteria can grow, and botulinum toxin is one of the most toxic substances on Earth? Which is why botox injections are a very weak solution and their effects last for years. I doubt that Saddam was keeping that bacteria around to give him a youthful appearance…
Jay, you do realize that this particular bacteria exists in every home garden in America, as well as most beehives? You do realize that this bacteria violated no UN regulations, and was probably purchased legally from a Virginia firm in 1993?
500 tons, Jay, is what we were told. One vial of something that you could eat straight up and not get an upset tummy from is a far cry from that.
And, for accuracy’s sake, the usual effective period of a BoTox injection is about three months.
http://www.ishopworld.com/skincare/article_botox.htm
Hardly scholarly, but substantiated.
Also, at this point I think it seems far more likely that Saddam was interested in altering his appearance than in using chemical weapons against the US, don’t you?
Wait, I’ve got one more thing I gotta ask:
Do you seriously believe that, during years of inspections, Saddam Hussein actually masterminded a plot to store ONE VIAL of a substance that his own scientists could get within days, in the hopes that that one vial would not be uncovered and he could get a jump start of a few hours at best on producing botulinum toxin? You like to talk about economics, Jay: what possible cost-benefit analysis could support keeping a suspicious-looking vial in a fridge for ten years instead of just getting a new sample at a later time, especially if that vial is not going to be used in the immediate future? Why would he rather have a degenerated sample instead of a recently-harvested one? It makes absolutely no sense.