This has legs and will justify the war in Iraq.

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Sunday, Aug. 8, 2004 12:53 p.m. EDT
Did Saddam Use Oil-for-Food to Bankroll bin Laden?

Saddam Hussein may have used a portion of the $10 billion he skimmed from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program to bankroll Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network, including the plot to attack America on Sept. 11, 2001.

That's the scenario outlined by the Oil-for-Food reporter of record, Claudia Rosett, who laid out the evidence for a U.N.-Saddam-9/11 connection in this week's Weekly Standard.

Story Continues Below



Rosett begins by noting that, according to the 9/11 Commission report, after bin Laden was kicked out of Sudan in 1996 he arrived in Afghanistan "pretty much bankrupt."
"His family inheritance was gone, his allowance had been cut off, and Sudan had confiscated his local assets."

Yet, just two years later, the al-Qaida terror chief was back on his feet financially - and issuing fatwahs against the U.S. that urged "death to Americans." Suddenly he had the cash to begin financing terror plots against U.S. embassies in East Africa, the attack on the USS Cole and the 9/11 plot itself.

Where did the al-Qaida mastermind get the financial wherewithal for such extensive operations?

Notes Rosett, in his February 1998 fatwa against the U.S., bin Laden railed against "the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well as "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance."

He also slammed U.S. sanctions against Iraq, calling them "the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war."

According to the 9/11 Commission, a month after bin Laden's fatwa declaration of war on America, two al-Qaida members visited Baghdad. And in July 1998, "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

The Commission doesn't have much to say about how bin Laden financed 9/11, except to cite unnamed Gulf states as possible facilitators and then conclude, "To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attack."

But Rosett makes a compelling case that bin Laden had his financial problems solved by Saddam, thanks to Oil-for-Food.

"From about 1998 on, Oil-for-Food became Saddam's financial network, a system he gamed to produce huge amounts of illicit income, in partnership with folks who helped him hide and spend it. ...

"Both Saddam and bin Laden ... had a taste for war. Both hated America. By the late 1990s, Saddam, despite continuing sanctions, was solidly back in business, socking away his purloined billions in secret accounts. ...

"Whatever the differences between Saddam and bin Laden, their circumstances by the late 1990s had all the makings of a deal. Pocket change for Saddam, financial security for bin Laden, and satisfaction for both – death to Americans."

The Iraqi dictator, however – pinned down by U.S. air patrols and hamstrung by U.N. weapons inspectors – had no way to attack the United States directly. Bin Laden, on the other hand, was operating under no such constraints.

Concludes Rosett:

"For such a deal, both Saddam and bin Laden had motive and opportunity. And if you read bin Laden's 1998 fatwa with just a little bit of imagination, those mentions of Iraq, at that particular moment, in those particular ways, carry a strong whiff of what is known in our own society as product placement: a message from a sponsor."
Editor's note:
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
(except that we know without question that neither the Administration nor the intelligence community knew of this prior to going to war. So, no, it does not justify it. The war was still preemptive, a doctrine that should worry you.)

Now, as for the Weekly Standard, my favourite punching bag ...

A. their editor is William Kristol who is the founder of the PNAC where Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld got their notion for war long before this admin ever took office. The Weekly Standard is the neoconservative mouthpiece and the neocons are the ones who wanted this war. They will do anything to mobilise public (and congressional) opinion in its favour. Their agenda goes far beyond the simple bias in Fox News or the NYTimes ...

B. One of their writers is Stephen Hayes, who wrote a book called 'The Connection' which attempts to outline an AQ/Saddam relationship. Since the 9/11 commission first began saying that Saddam and AQ did not work together, he has been scrambling to make his case. HarperCollins, his publisher, also owns the Weekly Standard, in turn owned by News Corporation ala Robert (?) Murdoch, who also owns Fox. I'm thinking book sales might not have been too good, explaining why, since the first report outlined that there was no 'collaborative' relationship, Hayes has written an article saying there was, or Clinton said there was, or hey even the Democrats believed it, every single week.

C. Bin Laden may have gotten his money from any number of sources, including Pakistani, Afghani, Lybian, Syrian, Iranian gov'ts. He could also have gotten it from individuals who just happened to jump on the anti-US bandwagon, hardly uncommon in the 90s and beyond. Or maybe he was never broke in the first place.

Grain of salt, my dear. If this were true, why the late 'outing' of such information? Why not bring this info to the 9/11 commission? Or did the 'revelation' just occur to her this past weekend?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
Is there any evidence given in the actual article? Because the story you posted above provides no evidence whatsoever for its assertion. All it says is that he was broke, he needed money, he got money and a couple Al Qaeda dudes may have met with the Taliban and then Bin Laden.

So of course Saddam must have bankrolled Bin Laden will oil-for-food. Huh? If that's all they have this hypithesis has no legs.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
While I was reading the article I was thinking the same things as xpanda wrote....

Just start a war and then look for evidence to justify starting a war....this strategy would work for invading any country on the globe....England, China, Russia....you name it, just invade and we'll drum up some reasons later....

Obviously Saddam Hussein is the only one on the planet who is rich so OBL clearly got his backing from Saddam..
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

gbm

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
196
Tokens
Since the primary objective of this Iraq thing is complete. That objective being to get muslims to kill muslims. Arm them to the teeth and bail out.

Make an occasional missile attack to freshen the fighting, but now is the time to split.

Good political move that would assure re-election.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Do you honestly think all that separates Bush from reelection is proper justification for Iraq?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,803
Messages
13,573,316
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com