A senior al-Qaeda operative deliberately planted information to lure the U.S. into invading Iraq, according to a double agent who said he spent years working inside the terror network.
The informer, a Moroccan who uses the pseudonym Omar Nasiri, made the assertion in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Newsnight program. His true identity wasn’t disclosed and his face was hidden.
Nasiri said Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, a leading al-Qaeda figure who was captured by U.S. forces in late 2001, falsely told his interrogators that al-Qaeda was training Iraqis. U.S. officials subsequently suggested there were links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the lead up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Al-Libi lied because he wanted to make a Muslim country the base for a jihad by provoking a U.S. invasion and he considered Iraq the best option, Nasiri said. Nasiri said he heard al-Libi outlining his belief that Iraq was the best country for the jihad in a meeting at a mosque months before his capture.
This is making the rounds, this afternoon. The only counter to it — so far — has been from “analysts” whining about which media sources have carried the story.
Concerning the “Bush lied…” crowd – does this mean that it’s not a lie if he believed it to be true (assuming that this is)?
Even though everyone believed it – it’s still Bush’s fault. For some, this is a foundation of their reality – it would be cruel to take it away from them.
The whole thing sounds like a movie plot. This guy wasn’t the only source of info that everyone
Makes me wonder…
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
The president, unimpressed by the presentation of satellite photographs and intercepts, pressed Tenet and McLaughlin, saying their information would not “convince Joe Public” and asking Tenet, “This is the best we’ve got?” Woodward reports.
According to Woodward, Tenet reassured the president that “it’s a slam dunk case” that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
In his CBS interview, Woodward said he “asked the president about this, and he said it was very important to have the CIA director, ‘slam-dunk’ is as I interpreted it, a sure thing, guaranteed.”
Was it lie(s), or was it wanting/pre-disposed to believe…?
Makes a whole lot of sense.
Most islams didn’t like the Iraq regime, and also didn’t like the US….get them to fight one another, kill two birds with one stone.
The utter simplicity and effectiveness of such a plan, just like Occam’s Razor, makes me totally believe this. Totally Plausible.
Why come out with this now? When there’s a definite shift in US politics, to ensure Bush goes out in flames.
What a great way to end your career, totally outsmarted.
But does this explain Afghanistan? Also part of the design?
I agree with Mike. The problem with this is that it is based on the premise that the US attacked Iraq based upon evidence, any evidence. We didn’t. We attacked because Bush is an idiot.
Afghanistan is an “aside”, Mark. Afghanis aren’t Arabs and vice versa. Al Qaeda is controlled by Arabs, mostly Saudis. Afghanistan could never be “their” country to control.
Iraq is a closer choice — because it’s Arab, because it’s even closer to Saudi Arabia and Mecca.
I think it was a Clinton plot. Just like screwing up the telephones at the White House after Bush won.
Tenet was Clintons man. He picked him for CIA and got him confirmed…..what better way to discredit your successor so your wife could be President.
Mark, Afghanistan needs no explination other than the obvious.
AQ attacked the US.
AQ commanders were in Afghanistan.
We told Afghanistan to turn them over and they refused.
We told Afghanistan that if they didn’t turn them over we would attack.
Afghanistan didn’t turn them over.
As far as Iraq is concerned had the intelligence been correct and Iraq was building WMDs and we didn’t go in and then one of those WMDs was used in the US you anti-Bushers would be calling him stupid for that.
I agree with Mike. The problem with this is that it is based on the premise that the US attacked Iraq based upon evidence, any evidence. We didn’t. We attacked because Bush is an idiot.
I recognize your facetiousness, but please, spare us. I’m no Bush fan, but the same tired jokes and slams on the him are not amusing. Contrary to popular belief, not everything in the world is his fault.
If the story is true, then US intelligence got duped. One can only use the intelligence available at the time, and Bush and congress as a whole made a decision based on that intelligence that has since proven to be wrong. It wasn’t a matter of one bumbling idiot firing his six-shooters into the air, no matter how appealing that oversimplification is to some.
Please, resist the urge to bash Bush at every trendy moment possible, and when you do, at least try to back it up and not sound like an idiot yourself.
The truth will never be known; we might as well just get over worrying about what really happened.
All the parties involved now have had years to cover their tracks, which probably includes planting evidence that the evidence was planted, and so on and so on, etc etc.
And really, it doesn’t matter anyway. Water under the dam and all that, you know.
If Al Queda really wanted to fight the United States, it would have to devise a way for us to come to them. Since they have no mode of miltary transport (to come here in number) it seems a plausible way to accomplish this. What concerns is if we have walked into a trap, with virtually all of our forces in a vulnerable position, and supposing they do have a superweapon, it would be a serious threat.
If this is true then Al Qaeda probably regrets it. They were already fighting in Afghanistan, but Iraq led to thousands more of their side dead, and Bin Laden calling for a truce. This would be another miscalculation on their part just like wanting Democrats to be elected.
Sounds like another excuse to me.
I’m confused: Does this mean that terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion?
If the Bush administration really knew there were no WMDs in Iraq would have the 1st or 2nd transport over have been carrying WMDs that they could display?
so, I’ve been thinking about the Bush Bush presidencies and the idea of the clinton clinton presidencies… I think we need a law banning direct relations from taking the presidency… no more child-parents, siblings, or spouses. To allow such things opens a door for corruption. no?
I remember a video where a man said US citizens were responsible because they put Bush in office. The level of blame shifting with this and that becomes remarkable. Citizens are responsible because they elected Bush who is responsible because he acted on (potenially) intell from a (potential) liar who was responsible because he lied, because (potentially – #7) Clinton told him too.
Not saying its true or right, but how crazy would that be?
I think the administration fully expected to find WMDs in Iraq, even despite the fact that inspections uncovered nothing. That’s why they had no ethical misgivings about fudging or cherry-picking the evidence, and exaggerating its credibility. They didn’t see this as something that would come back to bite them on the ass. Had the WMDs actually been there, the evidence on which they based the war would never have come under such scrutiny, and their claims that it was solid would go unchallenged. Our President would have looked much more heroic, perhaps even giving himself a medal for his flight suit.
>no more child-parents, siblings, or spouses.
Let’s see that would eliminate FDR, Bush Jr., Hillary, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Harrison, who repealed the original Voting Rights Act.
If you extend siblings, I think you lose many more like Carter.
Sounds like a workable deal.
lolololololol!
Please tell me? who planted the satellite pictures full of wmd at that compelling presentation we made at the UN before going into this mess alone? (with the UK, wait they confirmed those pics were valid proofs)
Anyway have a good week-end!
“I recognize your facetiousness….”
Nope, I was and am absolutely dead serious. Bush is an idiot and that’s the reason we got into the war.
How could anyone seriously have believed that we could have implemented a stable democratic form of government in Iraq?! Only an idiot would believe such utter nonsense. Muslims willingly living in democratic countries such as the Netherlands reject it, why would they accept it when it’s imposed on them?!
Now that Hussein is out it’s only a matter of time before Islamic extremist control it and all of its oil. Wow, what a freaking great idea that was! “Let’s defeat Islamic terrorism by giving it a HUGE reserve of oil and a population that hates America for killing so many friends and family!”
hmmm Al-Libi??? alibi? You’ve got to be kidding me. I’m surprised no one else has caught this. And Nasiri is suspiciously close to the name of the trickster character in Sufi tales of Nasrudin. Great disinformation campaign from one side or another methinks.
#23, I was doubting this story all along. Then I came to your post and just burst out laughing. Your al-Libi connection made all the sense in the world. Thanks for your observation.
And Bush might not be an idiot, but he does try.
Lakelady
Great, just Great!!
No alibi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi
>who planted the satellite pictures full of wmd at that compelling presentation we made at the UN
I don’t think it was clearly wmd, just trucks being loaded as inspectors were on the way.
Is definitely a possibility. It would not take a whole lot of planning to lure Bush and his goons into a Jihad arena 1/2 way around the world.
Sapping the US of $1/2Trillion, 3,000 dead and no way out. This will go down as the mother of all spider web traps.
27 I don’t think it was clearly wmd, just trucks being loaded as inspectors were on the way.
Which I find amusing, because we [via Powell] claimed this was proof of Saddam trying to hide evidence of an active WMD program from inspectors.
While, in hindsight [always 20/20, don’t cha know?], I believe it was Saddam trying to hide evidence of an inactive WMD program. One that had been inactive for years.
He enjoyed keeping his hostile neighbors, and the World, guessing as to how much WMD he had – while also being able to honestly claim he didn’t have any… knowing his neighbors would be just sceptical enough to avoid calling his bluff…
If everyone had discovered the truth earlier, he would have lost the illusion of him holding a “trump card”.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if those trucks weren’t trying to remove evidence before everything was bulldozed flat – but were actually trying to leave some fresh residues at a long-inactive site, and thereby keep the illusion of an active WMD program alive? 🙂
Bullshit, the only one to blame is Bush Jr.
For those with illusions of Bush Jr’s intelligence, here’s a well documented book to read, covering the “regime” (his own term) of the world’s most powerful moron: http://tinyurl.com/yf69bu
With a mind like that, the real wonder is that anything at all went right under Dubya. Something did go right. Didn’t it?
Oh – that’s right, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class went into a fade. I suppose that’s what was intended all along.