Revisiting the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda Relationship
What did the CIA know, not know, and agree upon when analyzing the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda connection?
Assertions relating to the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda controversy have filled countless news articles and books and cannot be completely recapped and answered in a few articles. But despite all of the ink and bandwidth spent on the topic, there are additional questions yet to be fully explored in the eyes of many.
When one attempts to dig on questions, such as what meetings actually took place between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda members — where they took place and when, and what was discussed — the CIA emerges as one of, if not the major, intelligence players involved in public discussion of the topic.
Two former CIA members with relevant experience go on record below with their analysis of the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda question and the CIA’s role.
Before reengaging this topic it is important to be aware that different interpretations of events, affiliations, and terminology greatly affect the analysis, and are the reason opinions can appear to be so far apart. Some issues:
– Are reports relating to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda being put through a filter of comparisons with what Bush administration officials and others said?
– Are reports being compared with what analysts deemed to be enough to warrant a costly, deadly war?
– Who determines if someone is a member of al-Qaeda and what is the criteria for membership?
– What constitutes “support” from a state?
– What constitutes a “relationship” between a terrorist group and a state?
– What constitutes an “operational relationship” between a terrorist group and a state? Is something less than an “operational relationship” still worthy of concern? A war?
– Are relations between the former Iraqi regime and terrorist groups compared with other state and non-state actor relationships, such as Iran and Hezbollah or al-Qaeda and other states?
– Did the CIA have access to all the reports on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and terrorism, or were reports scattered throughout many Department of Defense branches, intelligence agencies, and non-government entities?
Because of how conflicting the evidence is and how difficult it is to explain those conflicts, it is understandable why much of the press condenses the topic down to “no links” stories or simply provides anecdotal examples of something more without providing the proper context. It is also understandable why many media accounts only skim the surface of this topic because there are real intelligence sources that refuse to discuss it — or simply say there was “no operational relationship” but might not have been pressed on what exactly that term means.
With approximately 50 years of combined CIA analyst experience, former CIA officers Paul Pillar and Bruce Tefft provide a window into what the public, press, and elected officials have heard on this topic from the CIA and why multiple interpretations persist.
Paul Pillar has 28 years of experience with analysis at the CIA, and has often been cited on this topic:
Mark Eichenlaub: Mr. Pillar, how much did the CIA know about what went on at these reported Iraq, al-Qaeda meetings (by many accounts, more than a few meetings) and how much was unknown?
Paul Pillar: I think what has come out publicly is pretty much the extent of what was known. Nobody had a fly on the wall.
M.E.: Do you think it is possible that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq could have been converted, like Pervez Musharaf in Pakistan, to become an ally against al-Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups? Why or why not?
P.P.: Saddam’s regime had its own reasons for being opposed to such groups. Even adversaries — and the United States and Iraq under Saddam still would be regarded mainly as adversaries — can have common enemies, and parallel interests in opposing those enemies. That doesn’t mean a U.S.-Iraqi relationship would develop into anything that could be considered an “alliance.” Iraq was not as dependent on the U.S. as Pakistan has been in several respects.
M.E.: Recently released FBI files show that Saddam Hussein reportedly admitted only one or two meetings between his regime and al-Qaeda and that it was al-Qaeda who reached out to him and he rebuffed them (as opposed to reports of al-Qaeda rebuffing Iraq and there being more than just a “few” meetings). Is it your understanding that it was al-Qaeda pursuing the relationship and Iraq denied them or is there more to the story?
P.P.: That’s pretty much my sense. I don’t think there’s anything more to the story.
M.E.: What do you make of allegations of al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad affiliates being in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein’s rule? Were they only allowed to be there because of the impending U.S. invasion as you were quoted as stating for the New Yorker? Is it possible that Ayman al Zawahiri had cultivated ties with the Iraqis? Who were the other groups that the intelligence community was aware of Iraq supporting before the invasion and what other regional terror plots against Western interests?
P.P.: It is well established that the only Islamist groups with a presence on Iraqi territory before the invasion were in the part of Iraq not under Saddam’s control, in the largely Kurdish north. Zarqawi spent some time in central Iraq, but there is no indication he ever had any contact with the regime. There are indications that they did not even know where he was located.
Saddam’s regime supported some largely moribund Palestinian terrorist groups: The Palestinian Liberation Front, the Arab Liberation Front, and the Abu Nidal group.
M.E.: What do you make of allegations of Iraq training al-Qaeda in CBW or permitting them to experiment with CBW in Iraq?
P.P.: That all stems from embellishments of statements from the detainee al-Libi, who later admitted that his statements about this were a fabrication.
M.E.: Did you get a chance to read the Institute for Defense Analysis report, based on Iraq document exploitation and detainee interviews, which reported that Saddam Hussein’s regime used a number of regional Islamic groups throughout the 90s, as you told PBS Frontline, to undermine Western allied governments? The study found links to al-Qaeda affiliates but no “smoking gun” linking Iraq’s government to al-Qaeda in major attacks.
P.P.: I have not read that report. (Note: Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff cited Pillar for comment in his story on the report.)
Page 1 of 3 Next ->
Mark Eichenlaub is the manager and editor of Regime of Terror, a site discussing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorism.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
41 Comments
1. Moho:Revisiting the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda Relationship
Why not? Its apparent the people who read this thing will believe just about anything.
Aug 14, 2009 - 5:51 am 2. Jack Okie:Mr Eichenlaub:
Thank you for a thorough and well researched disquisition on Saddam / Al Quaeda. Anyone who would assert that cooperation between enemies is impossible should consider the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact).
The central and overriding point, however, is that those links, and the presence or absence of WMD, are secondary motivations for our invasion of Iraq. I believe the overriding concern was that the regime of non-proliferation was crumbling, and absent the global community’s willingness to enforce it, we had to step in. Unfortunately it seems we only postponed the day when many of the current players will nuke up. A nuclear-armed Iran will put enormous pressure on the other Middle East countries to protect themselves by acquiring their own nukes. The UN is toothless; if the US will not guarantee the peace then MAD becomes the most rational solution. One of the more vivid descriptions I saw of that Middle Eastern future was “think 1914, only with nuclear weapons”.
Aug 14, 2009 - 6:23 am 3. AThinkingPerson:It’s still to early to close the case on linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We’re much to close time wise to view any of the information through anything but a political lens and should not base a conclusion on the “findings” of a political party with a known agenda and bent on a witch hunt. Gather information and let history sort it out. That’s what will happen regardless of what we decide at this point in time anyway.
Aug 14, 2009 - 6:29 am 4. Mark Eichenlaub:Moho,
Aug 14, 2009 - 7:35 am 5. barfosaurus:What exactly is written that people should not believe?
If all of the evidence of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam can fill book, the evidence of connections between Al Queda and the Saudi royal family will fill library. Why not examine that to expose the past accomplice and potential future supporter of terrorism.
Aug 14, 2009 - 9:14 am 6. Todd S.:It may be safe to assume that the CIA was in the administrations pocket on the run-up to the war. Look at the preinvasion, slam-dunk evidence presented that was proven false. Chemical weapons vans, trying to procure weapons grade nuclear material from Africa, etc… Administration players touted the AQ/Saddam connections at every turn without presenting much proof while down-playing the mounting case against our Saudi “friends”.
I think you would have a way more compelling, productive and impacting(future)story there.
“The person [being waterboarded] believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866
“Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts.
- Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link. There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/
You folks can continue to do your pathetic little dance to defend the Bush Administration as long as you’d like. It doesn’t matter. History has already been written; the book’s been closed:
We now know for a fact that the Bush Administration, under the direction of Dick Cheney, instructed the CIA to brutally torture Iraqis until they got a forced confession that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda that would provide the Bush admin with a “smoking gun” case for invading Iraq.
The evidence is all there and it’s compelling.
But clearly, if you’re the kind of person who believes that the President was born in Kenya, that FEMA is building concentration camps, or that death panels will be established to turn your granny into Soylent Green, then I’m sure you’ll have no problem believing that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were holding weekly tea parties to gossip, share anthrax recipes, and mastermind the nuclear destruction of the United States.
Aug 14, 2009 - 9:14 am 7. Mark Eichenlaub:Bar,
Aug 14, 2009 - 9:23 am 8. Mark Eichenlaub:I don’t doubt that the Saudis supported al Qaeda at one time but al Qaeda as actually attacking the Saudis and Saudis were rounding up killing al Qaeda after 9-11, unlike Saddam.
Todd,
I am curious if you even read the piece. I said that examples of limited cooperation, NOT a full blown alliance, were something that was missed by the CIA, which those folks basically admitted.
Why the ad hominem non related comments? Pretty irrelevant to me.
Also, the evidence came from docs, intercepted calls, defections and lots of interrogations, interviews. To claim the only evidence was from “torture” is flat out wrong.
Aug 14, 2009 - 9:42 am 9. davidt:Salman Pak
Aug 14, 2009 - 9:42 am 10. barfosaurus:ME, The Saudis also released 60,000+/- political prisoners(many AQ linked, many Shiite)and gave them a one-way ticket to the Syrian/Iraqi border in the aftermath of the invasion. They fully understood that these would become jihadi against the US. Saudi Foreign Legion?
Aug 14, 2009 - 9:50 am 11. Mark Eichenlaub:Bar,
Aug 14, 2009 - 10:10 am 12. Thomas_L......:That is interesting. I didn’t know that. This article wasn’t meant to be exclusive as to what states assisted al Qaeda. Thanks for sending that along.
Knowing that Saddam paid the family of Palistinian suicide bombers $25K each, how is a Saddam/Al Qaida connection difficult to contemplate?
Aug 14, 2009 - 10:11 am 13. Mark Eichenlaub:Good point Thomas. Knowing a lot of what Saddam and his goons did with the acid baths and whatnot make it hard to disbelieve him capable of any evil.
Aug 14, 2009 - 10:43 am 14. paul_unalaska:Todd S, thank you for giving us such ‘great’ information from the Human Rights Watch and ABC.
I hope Human Rights Watch will be available in California when, not if, the state releases tens of thousands of inmates early to society. You know, the same state controlled by progressives and rinos, running the World’s 8th Largest economy into the ground. You think unemployment, crime is high now Californians, wait until thousands of parolees are denied a job, denying visitation rights to the parolee’s children, et al..
As for your reference to Paul Krugman, oh I forgot, ‘Nobel Prize Winning Economist’ – is no different than ‘..spread the wealth around’ Teleprompter Guy’s tactics.
He too is a globalist, defends the use of child labor in 3rd World countries, et al. You can find writers falling over themselves in admiration at counterpunch.org, socialistworker.org, etc., Wow, what an inspiration!
Here’s a great article in the National Review in regards to Krugman’s intentions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406080847.asp
Aug 14, 2009 - 1:16 pm 15. Bob:I stopped reading when I saw the name Paul Pillar. He’s the CIA leftist who traveled the country giving “private” talks during the 2004 election to benefit Kerry.
Aug 14, 2009 - 2:39 pm 16. Dave:Mark: About Saudi Arabia: Yes, the Saudis carry some baggage. That is a discussion for some other time.
But do note that Saudi Arabia has a common border area with Iraq. I have heard no reports of terrorist support coming from that area. Only from the Syrian and Iranian border areas.
Now that ought to tell you something.
And as a person who successfully interrogated over 200 prisoners in the past, let me tell you that interrogation techniques, both coercive and non-coercive, are N-O-T for the purpose of eliciting “confessions”. They are for the purpose of gleaning information. Said information has to then be refined into intelligence. Interrogation reports are written in a manner that reflects this procedure. Should the interrogator(s) feel the need to venture an opinion, that will be offered as an appendum, not as part of the report itself.
The procedure is such that the very concept of ordering torture to manufacture grounds for a war is preposterous. Doing things that way is tantamount to manufacturing a cast-iron airplane. Within the bounds of theoretical possibility but not exactly a useable product.
Thanks for your write-up. Your interviews with the two show how tricky gaining both accurate information and precise intelligence can be.
Your two subjects are Fine Spooks and Christian Gentlemen! (ahem)
Aug 14, 2009 - 2:52 pm 17. Pierre Legrand:Mark, great work!
Would have been interesting to ask about the meeting in Prague between Atta and Al Ani. Also Salmon Pak as one other commenter mentioned.
Aug 14, 2009 - 3:00 pm 18. Occam's Taser:Todd S:
Sorry, but anyone who quotes ABC News or Krugman in polite society immediately looses all credibility. I would suggest you please contribute something of substance to the discussion beyond the usual “progressive” talking points, but it appears likely that’s beyond your skill-set.
Thanks,
Aug 14, 2009 - 4:15 pm 19. Joseph Kempton:Occam
What an excelent interview. I would love to talk to these guys, so many questions, what justifies the disapriy between the view-points of these two veterans and so on….
Aug 14, 2009 - 4:59 pm 20. Joseph Kempton:One issue I always wanted elaboration on was regarding a Stephen Hayes article in which he asserts Zawahiri visited Baghdad in 1998 and was given $300,000 by the Iraqi government. Knowing Saddams support of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the association of Zawahiri to that organization and Al Queda it would be intersting to understand how one draws the line between support of one terrorist group from another. Did this $300K pay-off truly occur? Was is to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al Queda or for some other purpose? If you follow up with either of Pillar or Tefft, be sure to ask.
Aug 14, 2009 - 5:11 pm 21. David W. Lincoln:It is very easy to conclude that Langley is monolithic. It isn’t. There are those like Valerie Plame who bedevil, and torment the Joel Mowbray’s in this world (Dangerous Diplomacy is the playbook).
Aug 14, 2009 - 5:20 pm 22. BC:*Sigh* There was no “relationship” — the best intel indicates that there was a few tentative discussions of cooperation back in 90’s between lower level reps, but nothing came of it. And why should it: Hussein was running a secular state and had no use for Islamic fundamentalists like al-Qaeda and their supporters. Bin Laden himself was on record labeling Hussein an infidel, which probably normally translates into a death sentence unless you have an army to protect you. Bush knew all this going in, making all of his and his people’s attempts to tie in Hussein with bin Laden, and therefore 9/11, all big time, lying-ass BS.
Hussein and Reagan, though, now *that* was a relationship.
Aug 14, 2009 - 5:40 pm 23. Mark Eichenlaub:Dave, Can you please shoot me an email through my website, http://www.regimeofterror.com?
Thanks, Mark
Aug 14, 2009 - 8:47 pm 24. Mark Eichenlaub:Thank you to all who read and commented…even if you didn’t like it.
Aug 14, 2009 - 8:48 pm 25. Peter Montbriand:Just as money is the mothers milk of politics, so to is it for terror. If Iraq ever handed money to AQ, then that to me is no different than the narrowly defined “operational relationship”. Further, if Iraq funneled money to someone who in tern handed it to AQ, then where is the difference in that? Arbitrary lines, nothing more. Money is money and OBL isn’t going to turn away money just because it’s from an “Apostate”.
Aug 15, 2009 - 3:20 am 26. Mark Eichenlaub:Good points Peter. I’ve asked that question to those who argue “no links” and usually am told that “it’s complicated” or doesn’t mean “operational” and won’t really elaborate.
Aug 15, 2009 - 7:40 am 27. usafirst:How about Hussein’s links to the US? You know, Rumsfeld and company under Reagan supplying them with chemical weapons.
How about Bin Laden’s links to the US? You know, Cheney and company under Reagan supplying weapons to the Taliban.
Or you could go with the Bush family’s strong ties to Bin Laden’s brother and the Saudi’s. You know, Saudi Arabia where 17 or the 19 highjackers came from.
All you guys know damn well if the ties were to the Democrats you’d be ALL over this. Why the silence now? Is partisan politics above patriotism? Apparantly so. TREASON is a word you guys should be familiar with. You should look up ACCOUNTABILITY as well as JUSTICE.
When you ignore all of these things, it’s hard to take you serious when you whine about Obama. Can you see my point at all?
Aug 16, 2009 - 11:34 pm 28. uburoisc:BC, so why, as his grip on power became more uncertain after the first Gulf War, did Saddam Hussein turn increasingly to displays of religious piety? Because he understood the value of images and symbol in the Muslim mind. Islam is littered with secular rulers who are given wide powers by a cowed religious establishment provided the religious authorities bless the rulers political decisions; the same could be said of the Saudi government and it’s relations with the religious figures there. To say that a “secular” ruler in the Muslim world will not work with religious fanatics is simply wrong; just look at Syria, a regime very similar to Hussein’s, they’ve been using religious thugs to do their dirty work for decades. Actually, history is filled with “allies” who form but have no natural affinity whatsoever.
Part of the point that ME seems to be making is that what you know does not constitute “the best intel”.
Aug 17, 2009 - 1:12 am 29. Joseph Kempton:usafirst:
I think you make a great point. For decades the world intelignece agencies reported that Iraq possessed various wmds. How did they know? In part because the world supplied Iraq the capability; the United States (my country) in particular had a dubious relation with Iraq regarding Iran. Ishan Barbouti, Walter Bassoon, the Iran/Iraq conflict, Gulf War Syndrome and Amerithrax; there’s a linkage that has been broken by the assertion that Iraq possessed no WMDs. Is that the truth? Iraq possessed no WMDs? If it is then it buries questions of who supplied the non-existant WMDs.
Aug 17, 2009 - 9:04 am 30. paul_unalaska:usafirst – I’d like to see the proof of Rumsfeld and the U.S. supplying CHEMICAL weapons to Iraq.
Please, don’t use ‘counterpunch’, ‘greenleft’ or NYT’s infamous, ‘quoting ANONYMOUS Senior military intelligence officers, the NYT revealed’ byline of every , ahem, political fiction newsflash story their infamous for. Total crapola.
BTW, Reagan’s Congress was heavily controlled by Democrats.. how could this happen?
Yeah, I know. We didn’t go to the moon either. I saw the proof in the picture with O.J. Simpson..
Aug 17, 2009 - 6:22 pm 31. usafirst:Paul:
Ever hear of GOOGLE? Look it up. I assure you I am not making it up. Hell they have videos and picture of them shaking hands. As an envoy under Reagan, Rumsfeld helped shore up Saddam’s arsenal with chemical weapons, including anthrax. It happened, and it was a mistake. As was arming Bin Laden, and trading arms for hostages with Iran. Hell, I liked Reagan, but that didn’t make him infallible. Mistakes were made. Everyone makes them.
The facts behind the invasion of Iraq should be uncovered. Any wrong doing, by anyone regardless of rank or party affiliation should be exposed. Denying and blocking the truth from coming out is not so much being loyal to your ideology or party as much as being unpatriotic and treasonist.
People make mistakes, and can be forgiven.
People break the law, and should be punished.
The truth should be exposed.
Do you disagree?
Aug 17, 2009 - 10:10 pm 32. snowball:As an envoy under Reagan, Rumsfeld helped shore up Saddam’s arsenal with chemical weapons, including anthrax.
———————————————-
“chemical weapons, including anthrax”
Aug 18, 2009 - 1:19 am 33. Mark Eichenlaub:Links, proof of U.S. sending chem weapons to Saddam?
Aug 18, 2009 - 6:21 am 34. usafirst:I stand corrected as anthrax is a biological weapon. Good catch. Of course it doesn’t change the facts that Rumsfeld working under Reagan supplied these nasty little things to Iraq.
Aug 18, 2009 - 6:53 am 35. Mark Eichenlaub:Are you saying that it never happened?
USA,
Aug 18, 2009 - 7:57 am 36. snowball:Can you please provide some evidence?
biological weapons had not been used during the iran-iraq war,
United States didn’t give iraq such weapons.
Aug 18, 2009 - 10:23 am 37. snowball:usafirst,you’d better stop talking about Reagan’s links to the Taliban(which didn’t exist prior to 1994 )
why not go to my website and listen to the music instead?
Aug 18, 2009 - 10:48 am 38. usafirst:so you guys are saying that when Rumsfeld himself admitted to all of this he was lying, and when even Fox news reported it they were lying because we all know they are the ‘left wing media’
None of this is new. It’s all documented. Why all the denial?
Reagan worked with Saddam because he was at war with Iran
same as why he worked with Bin Laden (Taliban name or not) because they were fighting the Russians. No one knew at the time that it would later bite us in the ass. It was an honest mistake. I said so. But to later pretend that we didn’t make that mistake is dishonest. To torture people to confess to something because it meets your political or financial objectives is evil.
Why would you defend this? It’s not about politics, it’s about right and wrong.
Is there nothing that is more important than political ideology?
PS: you may attack me all you want, but it doesn’t change what happened.
Mark: look it up. Do your own homework. Be objective about it. Don’t just pick my arguments apart, find out the truth, whether you like it or not. Then tell me Rumsfeld had no connection whatsoever to Saddam.
PSS: another thing, why defend Rumsfeld at all? He was terrible at his job. Even by Bush standards he was horrible and was fired. Where exactly do you guys draw the line?
Aug 18, 2009 - 3:40 pm 39. Mark Eichenlaub:USA”first” still waiting for a single link or piece of evidence.
Aug 18, 2009 - 9:45 pm 40. snowball:United States gave saddam the intelligence which saved him.
United States openly condemned the use of CW by Iraq.
Saddam had CW long before Rumsfeld met him.
Saddam did not use BW in any war.
Rumsfeld did not condemn the use of poison gas when he talked to saddam,that’s the only thing he “admitted”.
Aug 18, 2009 - 10:25 pm 41. Joseph Kempton:I haven’t seen any proof “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq chemical or biological weapons. There is definitive evidence that the US Department of Commerce, a cabinet level department under the export authority of the US Senate, provided US suppliers export liscneces to Iraq of of items considered “dual use” that could have been used by the Iraqi Chemical and Biological weapons industry.
This information came out during hearings in 1994 over Gulf-War syndrome (GWS), notably the Riegle Report.
Other countries, most notably Europeans countries which protestsed agaisnt the Iraq War the loudest supplied Iraq much more, even primary items. That effort even continued after the Gulf War as revealed thru investigation into Oil for Food episode.
The only way to truly proove that a US supllier’s items were used to make Iraqi weapons, would be to either find the Iraqi reciepts or to examine the chemical signatures within the weapons themselves. Barring a recorded converstaion or document discussing the intent to provide Iraq WMDs the issue of dual purpose items allows credible doubt. To me there’s more evidence that Saddam was reposnsible for 9-11 than “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq WMDs, there’s evidence but simply “not enough to convince everybody”.
Aug 19, 2009 - 2:10 pm