According to Iyad Allawi in a report from the Italian press translated, so far exclusively, by Mystical Achievement blog, Ayman Al-Zawahiri was in Iraq in 1999.
Baghdad, 23 May – (Aki) – “Al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to participate in the ‘Ninth Islamic People’s Congress’”: revealed former Iraqi Premier, Iyyad Allawi, to the Arab daily, “Al-Hayat”. The Shiite political figure supplied to the newspaper certain information discovered by the Iraqi Secret Service in the archives of the previous regime which clarify the ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations. “Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri,” said Allawi, “[who at the time] was vice president of the Council of the Direction of the Revolution, in order to participate in the congress along with 150 Islamic authorities coming from 50 Islamic countries.”
According to Allawi important information was also gathered about the presence of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi['s presence] in the country. “The Jordanian Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi secretly entered Iraq in the same period,” he affirmed, “and began to form a terrorist cell, although the [Iraqi Secret] Service did not have precise information about his entry into the country.”
These revelations were released only following those made by the Jordanian king, Abdallah II (also to “Al-Hayat,”) concerning the refusal on the part of Saddam to transfer Zarqawi to authorities in Amman. Regarding those revelations, Allawi said: “The words of the Jordanian king are precise and important. We have proven [the fact of] the Zawahiri’s visit to Iraq, but we do not have the exact date of Zarqawi’ entry into the country, even though it probably took place during the same period.”
According to the ex-Iraui premier, Saddam’s government would have thus sponsored the birth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as coordinating other terrorist groups, be they Islamic or Arab. “The Iraqi Secret Service had communications with these groups through someone named Faruq Hajizi,” Allawi continued, “who was the ambassador to Turkey and was then arrested after the fall of Saddam’s regime while trying to sneak into Iraq. The Iraqi Secret Services were helping the terrorists enter Iraq and taking them to the Ansar Al-Islam camps in the Halbija. area.” In sum, the ex-premier maintains that Saddam’s government also tried to involve Abu Nidal in its terrorist network, and his refusal to cooperate with the Islamist groups became his death sentence, which was carried out in the summer of 2002.
This report about finishes off the argument that Saddam was not hospitable to international terrorism before we invaded. It will be interesting to see if the Mainstream Media covers this since it doesn’t coincide with their world view. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda says Zarqawi himself is wounded.
(ht: Soccer Dad)
UPDATE: Now here’s a terrific source from Iraq. (via Gerard)
MORE: Iraq the Model covered this story as well on Monday.
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.
36 Comments
1. thibaud:It’s well known that Zarqawi was treating for an injured leg – iirc, part was amputated – in one of Saddam’s hospitals long before the war began.
Not clear whether Z-man has any legs left (hold the Monty Python/Holy Grail jokes, please).
May 24, 2005 - 10:40 am 2. Ron:It is well known that Abu Nidal committed suicide in Baghdad by shooting himself in the back of the head 5 times.
May 24, 2005 - 11:28 am 3. drydock:The problem was not that he was “hospitable to internatinal terrorism” but that tens of millions of Americans falsely believe(d) that Saddam had something to do with 911. The media and the white house did nothing to correct that fundamental illusion.
Iyyad Allawi was an ex-baathist thug. He’s been on the CIA payroll for a while. Exactly why we should believe this guy isn’t explained in this post.
May 24, 2005 - 11:52 am 4. dr. sanity:We have been asked to say a prayer for Zarqawi, and as a loyal dhimmi I have, of course, complied:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/05/prayer-for-zarqawi.html
May 24, 2005 - 12:16 pm 5. Knucklehead:Drydock,
You may count me among those tens of millions of moronic Americans who labor under the notion that when the story of AQ, and 9/11 in particular, is as fully known as possible there will be a place in it occupied by the Iraqi Intelligence aparatus and Saddam.
As for the Administration or the media disabusing me of that “belief”, how do you propose they should have gone about it?
It was (and remains) reasonably well documented that Saddam was invested in (hospitable to) international terrorism. It is also pretty clear that he wanted to strike at the US in one fashion or another (plotting to assassinate a former POTUS is a good example of that).
To be honest, I don’t see how believing he had some role, however secondary or removed from direct action it might have been, no more looney than insisting, given the current state of known and public information re: AQ and its nefarious links throughout the “Islamic World”, that there is no possible connection.
Personally I wouldn’t go as far as, for example, CBS and Newsweek go when asserting that which is plausible should be considered true until proven false, but I do find the idea of a Saddam connection to 9/11 plausible.
May 24, 2005 - 12:21 pm 6. Terrye:drydock:
And exactly who are you to insult Allawi or make judgments? Do you have some special knowledge?
Considering the amound of boot licking the left was willing to do for Saddam why would you take offence to Allawi being a Baathist at some point in the past? Considering the fact that Saddam tried to have the man killed I would say it is obvious he fell out of favor which is more than can be said for many people, some of whom were more than willing to look the other way and take Saddam’s money.
I never made a judgment as to whether there were ties between Saddam and 9/11, but there were ties between Saddam and the first attack on the WTC and of course the attempted assasination of a president.
I read some very interesting stuff in the 9/11 Commission Report and it is plain that if there was suspicion of Saddam’s ties with internaional terrorism they were bipartisan. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton did not doubt it and they made sure this opinion was passed on to the Bush administration.
Therefor I find the sactimonious crap about Bush lying and all the rest to be either indicative of someone who is ignorant of the facts or indifferent to the truth.
As for Zarqawi I hope he burns in hell. No doubt if he dies it will come as a great blow to many in the antiwar movement because they had so hoped he would destroy any hope of a decent future for Iraq.
May 24, 2005 - 12:56 pm 7. mrp:OT – (sort of)
Orianna Fallaci is being sued by the head of the Muslim Union of Italy, Adel Smith.
Excerpt from the linked article:
The Force of Reason is said to have gone to print about 24 hours after the 11 March 2004 train bombings in Spain.
In it, Ms Fallaci argues that Europe is turning into “an Islamic province, an Islamic colony” and that “to believe that a good Islam and a bad Islam exist goes against all reason”.
Italian preliminary investigative judge Armando Grasso ordered the formulation of charges against the author, saying the book had expressions which were “unequivocally offensive to Islam”.
May 24, 2005 - 1:06 pm 8. Peg C.:Roger, thanks for pointing us to Michael Yon in your update. I have become addicted to his Iraq posts and get his email updates when new ones are up. What an antidote to the rest of the MSM drivel coming out of the war zone! (With a few notable exceptions…)
Yon’s writing is evocative and eloquent, he has some good and varied perspectives, he dishes on some of the MSM reporting techniques that give us the drivel, and he conveys a true respect and admiration for the soldiers he is embedded with and sees in action. Thank God we have him but I wish there were more like him.
May 24, 2005 - 1:09 pm 9. ordi:Drydock would have us believe
A guy that asks a girl to a dance ALWAYS refuses to dance with her.
May 24, 2005 - 1:27 pm 10. PeterUK:What does not seem credible is the view that Saddam Hussein would not have contacts with terrorists,why on earth not? The man is terrorist himself and his regime a concatenation of gangsters,they would want know who any possible opposition might be,that is how they stayed in power.
There is a strong tradition of blood feud in the Middle East,the example of the Lockerbie outrage,springs to mind,political assassination goes back to the Old Man of the Mountains and probably beyond.Often killings are done by third parties,great care is taken to ensure that there is no connection with those who order them.A direct order will never be found connecting Syrians or Iranians to killings by Hezbollah,it was never intended that there should be,why is it Different with Saddam Hussein.
Lastly if a psychopath like Zarqawi was walking free in Iraq, Saddam Hussein obviously knew that there was no threat to himself totalitarian rulers don’t take chances like that.
May 24, 2005 - 1:27 pm 11. Terrye:Peter:
You are right. I remember hearing one Iraqi say that if Zarqawi was in Iraq it was because Saddam wanted him there. There is no other way a man like him could have survived there.
These people all remind me of the mafia.
They never did prove that Al Capone was doing what the whole world knew he was doing.
In fact I think the reason we have an IRS today has as much to do with tracking the money has taxing it.
May 24, 2005 - 1:59 pm 12. JB:“tens of millions of Americans falsely believe(d) that Saddam had something to do with 911. The media and the white house did nothing to correct that fundamental illusion.”
Given the intelligence failure leading to 9/11, would it be reasonable for most Americans to suspect that we simply didn’t know for sure whether he had something to do with 9/11, and any categorical “disabusals” were to be taken as a grain of salt? In other words, are “tens of Americans” allowed to make their own judgements about this issue?
May 24, 2005 - 2:02 pm 13. Keith_Indy:Since when is it anyones job to disabuse people of their notions if those notions makes the case you wish to make.
Isn’t that the job of the media, to question and put in context.
And why shouldn’t the White Houses answer now be the same as the mainstream media…
It was accurate, if not correct.
May 24, 2005 - 2:02 pm 14. JB:This is the hypocritical liberal epistemology in play: when it leans left, the barest standard of proof is required (“fake but accurate”); when it doesn’t, not only must proper evidence be presented, the uncertain must be stated in terms which categorically favor the left-leaning conclusion.
May 24, 2005 - 2:06 pm 15. PeterUK:Terrye,
It seems to be ignored that Zarqawi is a significant figure in the “insurgency”,that he has sworn loyalty to al Qaeda and that he was in Iraq before OIF began.It is more than a little odd that a Jordanian should take it upon himself to liberate the Iraqi people in the name of…… who exactly?
May 24, 2005 - 3:12 pm 16. Bostonian:PeterUK,
I’ve thought more than once that the Left’s view of the war is completely piecemeal. They refuse to look at the whole thing and try to understand what’s happening. (They’ve already got their quagmire narrative handy so why bother?)
As a result, they cannot see the strategies employed by either side, and figures like Zarqawi are random, interchangeable actors with no real role.
May 24, 2005 - 4:17 pm 17. Terrye:Peter:
Yes, any rational person should wonder why Zarqawi was in Iraq. After all he is not an Iraqi and there had to be a reason he went there in the first place.
It is rather like ignoring the fact that Chirac sold Saddam a nuclear reactor while ranting and raving about the fact that Rumsfeld actually shook Saddam’s hand once upon a time.
These folks just extract information that is useful to them and ignore the rest without any concept of the whole.
In other words they can not see the forest for the trees.
sometimes cliches fit.
May 24, 2005 - 5:10 pm 18. richard mcenroe:Bostonian รณ The left’s perspective on the war is deconstructionist in the extreme. If you break the totality down far enough, eventually you can ignore the inherent meaning of the whole and comment on the insignificance of the individual fragments.
May 24, 2005 - 6:00 pm 19. PeterUK:Another ludicrous myth is that Shia and Sunni would never co-operate,which is somewhat like saying Catholics and Protestants would never serve together in the same units.
Saddam Hussein would have colaberated with the Devil himself if it would have kept him in power.
My view is the “insurgency” was plan B if the Iraqi Army collapsed,Zarqawi was introduced like a virus to poison any stability in Iraq.He was picked because Saddam Hussein recognised a killer like himself,a fanatic who could not be bought,a foreigner who had no kindred feeling towards Iraqis,one who had contact throughout the terrorist world who could bring in foreign fighters.Lastly someone who was dispensable, who had no political base in Iraq.
May 24, 2005 - 6:56 pm 20. Curt:I blogged about some other connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda recently here
http://floppingaces.blogspot.com/2005/05/connection.html
There is a ton of information and proof about the links but of course, those on the left wont admit it.
May 24, 2005 - 9:04 pm 21. richard mcenroe:Get out of my foxhole, you Episcopalian swine!
May 24, 2005 - 9:10 pm 22. Buddy Larsen:Well Hard Howard Dean said over the weekend that Osama “i did it” bin “I DID IT!” Laden had ‘nothing to do with 911″.
May 24, 2005 - 9:15 pm 23. Buddy Larsen:Why bother
I’m four foot seven
Howard be my name
A king-sized bum
Viciously dumb
Inert
And way unpleasant.
May 24, 2005 - 9:31 pm 24. Sandy P:Forget 9/11, I still want to know about Oklahoma City.
May 24, 2005 - 10:59 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:and I want to know why we DON’T know about Oklahoma City. Not to start a fight, but if McVeigh was still alive, we’d have the possibility of him talking someday, wouldn’t we. Executing the principle in a wide open investigation really sets wrong somehow.
May 24, 2005 - 11:22 pm 26. JenLArt:Sandy P and Buddy, get “The Third Terrorist” by Jayna Davis;
it explains all about the Iraqi connection to OKC and very likely ties between OKC and the first bombing of the WTC in ‘93.
We, the American public, “don’t know” what really happened in Okla. City because the Clinton Administration had the “foreign terrorist” angle shut down.
Ms. Davis’s book makes this very clear.
Same thing with the investigation of TWA Flight 800–the one that blew up off the coast of New York.
Clinton just didn’t want to deal with (Islamist/Al Queda) terror attacks on American soil in his term of office.
May 25, 2005 - 2:31 am 27. Terrye:Jen:
My family still lives in Oklahoma [and even though my brother is that rarest of things, a moonbat in Oklahoma] I think most of the people down there really wonder about that bombing.
Out of nowhere comes an attack that kills all those people and then that is it. Before it and after it there are attacks on the World Trade Center.
odd.
May 25, 2005 - 3:36 am 28. Cecil Turner:“We, the American public, “don’t know” what really happened in Okla. [. . .] Same thing with the investigation of TWA Flight 800 . . .”
I’d be careful equating these to Iraq’s and 9/11. There are some clear indications of links between the IIS and Al Qaeda, many detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report. (And the liberal tendency to misreport “no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship” as “no links” is fairly easily disproven.) The same cannot be said for OK City, where the links are suggestive at best.
TWA 800 was almost certainly a mechanical, caused by an undetermined fault in a center tank fuel boost pump (turning off those pumps when the tanks are empty has been the subject of several technical directives since). Lumping those in with Iraq and 9/11 tends to discredit the argument on the latter.
May 25, 2005 - 6:06 am 29. Buddy Larsen:Cecil, tho I concur with the principle of sobriety on these things, there’s a rather large problem with each investigation, related to the odds. A mechanical problem suddenly surfacing OOTB. What, thousands of flights per day for how many years with that mech configuration, one would think the problem would’ve arisen far far back in the equipment’s history. I know, that’s tin-hat proof but it raises questions because of those odds. On the other, Ramsi Youssef of ‘93 WTC and Terry Nichols the Kansas farmer being simultaneously at the same hotel in the Phillipines is rather amazing. What’re the odds of two US Large-Building terror-bombers hitting the same way-the-hell-off-the-beaten-path spa at the same time? Big, big odds.
May 25, 2005 - 6:59 am 30. PeterUK:Buddy,
The problem in casting the net too wide on this will be that weak evidence or surmise will be included,this the obvious suspects will pick up on and in their usual fashion use this to discredit the whole.Don’t forget this is the “I smoked it but didn’t inhale crowd”.
May 25, 2005 - 7:24 am 31. Cecil Turner:“A mechanical problem suddenly surfacing OOTB. What, thousands of flights per day for how many years with that mech configuration, one would think the problem would’ve arisen far far back in the equipment’s history.”
It’s not terribly farfetched if the problem requires several simultaneous conditions: an empty fuel cell; boost pumps left on and overheating; a malfunction in the pump; and an electrical short causing a spark. The alternative theories are much harder to credit: a bomb would have left explosive residue (none was found); a missile would have left distinctive damage to the aircraft (pictures show none). Similarly, the Philippine Nichols/Al Qaeda claims I’ve seen are all dated and thinly sourced. The Iraq/Al Qaeda (and even 9/11) connections are an entirely different order of probablility.
Besides, the Iraq connection is relatively important (both as an indication of the threat and a casus belli); the others might make us more inclined to pursue Al Qaeda (which we’re already doing), but really aren’t in the same league.
May 25, 2005 - 8:50 am 32. Buddy Larsen:Good points, both of yez. The airplane fragmentatation, as I understand, is such that tho no missile shoot-down could be proven, an airburst SAM fragment can’t be totally disproven, either. And as far as Ramsi Yousef & the ‘93 WTC, this article, from the well-connected Benador people, rounds up a pretty good Saddam/WTC connection coming two years after Gulf War I, when Saddam would’ve needed to show some vengeance in order to maintain his warlord pecking-order. Inexplicably, such info as this was never picked up in the MSM, tho it seems like almost a duty for concerned investigative reporters for entities such as the NYTimes to’ve done so.
May 25, 2005 - 9:33 am 33. Buddy Larsen:If not the whole article, try to scan to the paragraphs related to the Kuwaiti public info records robbery. It is the vital missing link.
May 25, 2005 - 9:38 am 34. Cecil Turner:“The airplane fragmentatation, as I understand, is such that tho no missile shoot-down could be proven, an airburst SAM fragment can’t be totally disproven, either.”
I saw pictures of the pieced-together airplane during the reconstruction–in the area of interest, there were large, relatively flat, unmarked pieces of fuselage. Certainly not what you’d expect from a proximity-fuzed missile warhead (which all large AAMs are). Perhaps not totally disproven, but IMO vanishingly improbable.
I’d certainly agree on the Times’ lack of investigative interest. And for all the mea culpas over the war coverage (and whining from the left over Judith Miller’s focus on irrelevancies like aluminum tubes), when the Times posted a sampling of their coverage, it almost entirely minimizes the evidence, not the other way ’round.
May 25, 2005 - 1:22 pm 35. Buddy Larsen:That it does, Cecil. Alas.
May 25, 2005 - 9:49 pm 36. ikez78:More on Saddam’s links to al Qaeda are available at http://www.regimeofterror.com
Dec 26, 2006 - 2:30 pm