You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
2003-09-18
U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
No links, huh?
The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."
Just a little aid and comfort...
Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced. He asserted that the campaign in Iraq is striking at terrorists involved in the attacks. Cheney also disclosed the new evidence about the 1993 suspect on the program, but he did not name Yasin. Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.
That's aid. That's comfort.
Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture. The bureau questioned and released him in New York shortly after the bombing in 1993. After Yasin had fled to Iraq, the FBI said it found evidence that he helped make the bomb, which killed six people and injured 1,000. Yasin is still at large.
And that makes me wonder where he learned to make bombs...
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative. The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established.
I think USA Today's being a bit legalistic here...
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#8  Igs: No worries. When the Democrats elect Wesley Clark there will never, ever been any misleading. Who, after all, could ever claim that such Democratic stalwarts as LBJ(Vietnam), Jimmy Carter (1979 authorizes covert CIA war in Afghanistan), or Bill Clinton (Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc., etc., etc.) ever misled the American people?
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-9-19 1:10:20 AM  

#7  Steve with regards to 9/11 and Saddam, the Bush administration has deliberately allowed the misconception of the two being related and in many cases has implied a direct link. Knowing full well that there was no link betweenSaddam and 9/11 they had the obligation to state this before the Iraq invasion. Failure to do so is simply misleading the public.
Posted by: Igs   2003-9-18 9:10:46 PM  

#6  Igs, Bush was referencing 9/11 specifically, and he's correct: there is no firm evidence that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. However, NRO is also correct, in that Saddam has sponsored, aided and abetted terrorists for quite a long time. His sheltering Yasin is just one more example of that.

Thanks for allowing me to clear that up for you!
Posted by: Steve White   2003-9-18 11:59:22 AM  

#5  The Bush PR machine needs a good swift hard kick in the ass. They need to push the word out and not just on 'meet the press' or Sunday morning TV (which I dont think most people watch ) but on the evening news. Don't they see that the liberal media and democratic party bootlickers are walking all over them with their half-truths?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2003-9-18 9:45:29 AM  

#4  You have to wonder why the Bush administration just sits on this kind of info even after all the scrutiny they've been under since the end of the Iraq war. This is the kind of info that helps to justify the war from a security standpoint, but Bush just mentions is matter of factly as if it's common knowledge. Does he think the liberal media is talking about this all day? Bush's PR machine needs a major shakeup. Unless they're that confident about winning the next election then I guess they can continue not responding to their critics.
Posted by: g wiz   2003-9-18 8:58:04 AM  

#3  I think it's important to establish how comforatble the guy was made. Did he get to party at the Uday's rapem parties? Was he turned away at the door? Did his accomidations include a colonial, ranch or just a double-wide. We need to have all the details to judge how deeply Sadaam was in-bed with some of these terrorists.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-9-18 8:49:56 AM  

#2  rofl I didn't realise that they still had some credibility.

How about those 70% of americans that believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, pmsl

Was reading the National Review Online earlier and some dickhead was saying that the link was proven and now Georgie comes up with a denial...love it :)
Posted by: Igs   2003-9-18 4:24:39 AM  

#1  I'm not interested in the aq role, I want Iraq's role.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-9-18 12:42:34 AM  

00:00