Exploring
Probable Links Between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein
CBN.Com ^ |
6/2/04
Posted on 06/02/2004 10:40:29 AM PDT
Exploring Probable
Links Between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein
CBN.com – A new book called Losing Bin Laden reveals links between Saddam
Hussein and Al Qaeda, as well as missed opportunities that were presented to
former President Clinton to capture Osama bin Laden. Gordon Robertson spoke
with the book’s author, investigative journalist Richard Miniter, about those
topics, and about where bin Laden might be hiding today. GORDON ROBERTSON:
Joining us now from Washington D.C. is investigative journalist and author
Richard Miniter. He’s recently been to Iraq, and he’s written a new book called
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. Richard,
welcome to The 700 Club.
RICHARD MINITER: Thank you.
ROBERTSON: You and many others have found multiple links between Saddam
Hussein’s regime and Osama bin Laden. Why is this not being reported?
MINITER: Well, there’s a pack mentality that takes over the mainstream
media, and they want to decide what we hear and what we see, and not tell us
things that might somehow disturb us. That’s one thing. Another thing is, and
this is something really worrisome, is the major newspapers, The New York
Times, The Washington Post especially, have only one or two correspondents that
handle intelligence issues. They have become the captive of their sources. If
they have a very good source at the CIA, they’re not going to give that person up,
and they end up taking on subtly the views of that one or two sources at the
CIA or at the State Department. So really what the newspapers especially should
do, is have multiple intelligence reporters with competing sources. Otherwise
they end up serving as the mouthpiece of the CIA or State Department
bureaucracy. And the bureaucracies of the two agencies are often at great
variance with the President of the United States.
ROBERTSON: What are the links? Your book goes into the details. One thing
that struck me is your point that it’s tough to run a global terror network
without state sponsorship. You don't have the funds necessary to make it all
happen unless you’ve got a state behind you. What are the links between Al
Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?
MINITER: What’s interesting is that I’ve uncovered links that are not even
listed in Doug Feith’s memo leaked to The Weekly Standard. One of the things it
appears Iraq was doing, had been doing for more than a decade, was using its
embassies around the world to coordinate terror attacks with Al Qaeda and other
terror organizations. Sometimes those embassies were also used as safe houses.
But most startlingly of all, in 1996, the head of Iraqi intelligence left
Iraq, which is very rare, and flew to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and there
he met with Osama bin Laden. And this is confirmed by multiple sources. And
when I was in Sudan last year, I met with the head of the Sudanese intelligence
and asked him about this meeting, and he confirmed it and offered to provide
photographs of the head of Iraqi intelligence meeting with Osama bin Laden.
That was the climax of series of meetings between Iraqi intelligence, going
back to 1993, climaxing in 1996 in what appears to be a full partnership.
So we see financial links. We see training links where Abu Zarqawi, who was
the chemical weapons guy at Al Qaeda, had visited and stayed in Iraq a number
of times. And after the United States liberated Afghanistan, and after the
bloody battle of Tora Bora he fled to Baghdad where he received medical
treatment for his wounds, he apparently received money and a place to live for
a period of time in order to recover and to reconstitute part of his
organization.
So state sponsorship of terrorism is a problem. Al Qaeda is backed not only
by Iraq, but apparently by Iran, and also by extortion payments from other Arab
sheiks. But Iraq was a primary source of funds and technical expertise to help
commit global terrorism with Al Qaeda.
ROBERTSON: There also seems to be a training ground just outside of Baghdad
where there was a Boeing jet, a commercial airliner, that was apparently used
for training of hijackers?
MINITER: That’s absolutely right Gordon. It’s called Salmon Pak, it’s
southeast of Baghdad about 40 miles. And they had an entire full-scale actual
Boeing 747. That’s what they used as a school for teaching hijacking. One of
the things they taught was not to hijack with guns, but to hijack with items
that you ordinarily find on board, such as a knife in the first class cabin, or
a mop handle. Anything that can be used that would normally be on a plane that
can be turned into a weapon, they trained to turn it into a weapon to dominate
the plane.
We saw similar techniques used on September 11th. No one has been able to
prove conclusively that the hijackers of 9/11 trained at Salmon Pak, but it is
possible because a number of Iraqi sources have stepped forward, including the
former commander of the Salmon Pak training camp, who said Al Qaeda trained
there. So if the hijackers of 9/11 themselves didn’t train there, their
commanders or their trainers probably did.
ROBERTSON: Your book goes into detail about the Clinton administration and
how they had actual intelligence of these various contacts, and then on top of
it, the government of Sudan actually made an offer to hand over all their
details while Osama bin Laden was still living in Sudan. Why didn't they act on
this?
MINITER: That is one of the great questions. I’ve talked to a lot of the top
Clinton people, both of his National Security Advisers, Tony Lake and Sandy
Berger. I talked to his counter-terrorism czar Richard Clark; Jim Woolsey, his
first CIA Director. And no one has been able to give me a straight answer to
that question: "Why didn’t they accept the Sudanese offer?"
Let me back up a little bit and give you a little bit of the history
quickly. Sudan was in the early to mid-90’s a very dangerous place. It was an
open invitation to all of the terrorist organizations of the world that were
Muslim. So Hamas was there, Hezbollah was there, and of course Osama bin Laden
went there in April of 1991. But in early 1996, the Sudanese were getting tired
of him. They had basically shaken him down for all the cash they could get — it
was a very corrupt government, everything was run by bribes — and also because
of the sanction imposed on Sudan, they wanted him out.
Finally, Osama bin Laden was backing a guy, Hassan al-Turabi, who was the
head of the Sudanese legislature, but he was also a fiery Muslim cleric who
thought that everyone in the world should be converted to Islam at the point of
a sword. Turabi would say it’s going to happen at the end of time anyway, so
wouldn't it be glorious to Allah to speed up the process? He preached a very
old-fashioned, very angry form of Islam.
And the President of Sudan was a guy named Omar Bashir, and he was more
moderate. Of course, he was a Muslim and serious about his faith, but
ultimately he wanted to run a prosperous country because he wanted to make some
money. And since bin Laden had allied with Turabi, he realized if he could turn
bin Laden over to the United States, he would end a major diplomatic problem
between the U.S. and Sudan, he might get sanctions lifted which would improve
his economy, and it would also weaken his rival, Turabi. He had a lot of
self-interested motives for turning bin Laden over.
Some people from the Clinton administration say that the Sudanese weren't
serious. Well, maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. But they did turn over to
the French a top terrorist named Carlos the Jackal. And that was a seamless
operation and Carlos is now sitting in a French jail. Where is Osama bin Laden?
ROBERTSON: That’s a good question, where is Osama bin Laden? Do you have any
ideas on this? Do you think he’s dead or alive? Where is he?
MINITER: My intelligence sources say he’s alive and has most likely left
Afghanistan and is potentially inside of Iran. If that is true, that means the
Iranians have really stepped up in helping Al Qaeda in their war against us,
and that is a very worrisome development.
ROBERTSON: Are we winning this war on terror. We’re running out of time, I
could talk to you for a long time, but this has to be the last question. Are we
winning it and drying up their funds or are other states like Iran and Syria
joining in now on this global terror network to be state sponsors of it?
MINITER: In terms of plots stopped, we are winning. In terms of people
captured or Al Qaeda killed, we are winning. In terms of drying up the funds, I
don't think there’s any way to really know. Sometimes you see media reports
that say, you know, 50 percent of Al Qaeda’s funds have been seized. Well, if
you don't know what the total is, you don't know whether you’ve seized half, or
just one percent. So those kinds of reports I don’t seem to credit. Also, bin
Laden has never really moved large sums of money through banks, with the one
exception being 9/11 when most of the funding went through Standard Chartered
Bank in Dubai. Since they moved the money outside of banks, it’s very hard to clamp
down. And let’s be honest, a lot of these Arab governments are paying off bin
Laden in the hope that he won’t bomb them, he’ll bomb us. These backdoor
payments, these blackmail payments, are a continuing source of funds for the
world's most dangerous terrorist.
ROBERTSON: Richard, thank you for being with us. If you’re interested in
getting a copy of his book, Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures
Unleashed Global Terror, it’s available on CBN.com and available in bookstores
across the country. Richard, once again, thank you for being with us.
MINITER: Gordon, thanks for having me on.