Fmr Interrogator Reveals Saddam’s Regime DID Have Close Ties to Al Queda

Spread the love

Loading

This is one of those articles that I really REALLY hope people will read before just commenting on the headline or the quoted sections. In fact, I think it’s one of the best articles I’ve seen on this subject in half a decade. Yes, it’s long, detailed, and forces many readers to question their previously held beliefs about regime ties to the Al Queda terrorist network, but it’s not the typical anti-Bush/anti-war piece or a woohoo-Bush-was-right piece either. It is EXACTLY why: members of the 911 Commission, Sen Intel Com, as well as others (and why every investigation into the subject of regime ties) have called for MORE investigation (while specifically saying the matter should not be closed). Mark’s done a fantastic piece of work here, and it deserves reading.
-Scott

During a series of email and telephone exchanges Matthew Degn relayed to www.regimeofterror.com his vast array of experiences working with intelligence issues relating to the current and former situation in Iraq. Among his responsibilities during his years in Iraq Degn worked as a civilian interrogator attached to the U.S. Army in Iraq before working as a Senior Policy/Intelligence Adviser to Deputy General Kamal and other top intelligence officials with the Iraq’s Ministry of Interior. Degn, currently working on a book about his experiences in Iraq (personal website here), continues to argue against those that feel there was no link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s regime based on his involvement with hundreds of interrogations in Iraq and his involvement with many of the Iraqi Intelligence officials with the Ministry of Interior. Degn says that much of the public perception about Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorism are incorrect.

Degn is currently the Director of the Intelligence Studies Program and a professor at American Military University currently a professor at American Military University whose testimony about events in Iraq has been cited by NPR, ABC News, the Washington Post and elsewhere.

~~~

Another reason for conflicting reports that Degn pointed out is both the chain of command in the U.S. government’s many agencies and compartmentalization of information (“need to know”). Degn said he saw firsthand how these two factors led to vital wartime information being “watered down” before it mades its way to official reports and investigations.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Let’s look at what you’ve posited (ad nauseum)

1 Baath party has NEVER been religious, al la some sort of mideast athiest club.

2 Saddam was baathist, ergo he NEVER COULD work with Al-Q, or by default, any other “religious” group, even when it would have served his interests.

3 No Baathist belongs to Sunni Islam.

4 Bush sucks, and we’re stupid rubes.

5 Read undefined and unspecified books.

And we’re supposed to take you serious?

Yeah…You and Juan Cole.

Patvann,

I told you that I am not going to engage in a pointless conversation with an angry, smug egomaniac, who is just looking to stoke their own ego at someone else’s expense.

Been there, done that. No more.

Bye.

You know, I’v always wanted to discuss the ramifications of the repercussions of…what? You’re leaving? MF’r. 😉

Sounds like you just described yourself there, GE.

*snif*

Well I, for one, appreciated the HUGE volume of supporting documents, and verifiable data you supplied during your stay. The references to the best books on the subject were helpful to me as well, along with your vivid descriptions of the situations during your stay in the M/E.

I can now see why you are the one true source of all things Middle-Eastern and Islamic.

I do wish we here, and indeed the whole world, would recognize the shear brilliance of a person such as yourself, and that they all refrain from any and all questioning of your infallible body of knowledge.

It was truly an honor to bask in your greatness. It was 5 minutes I’ll never forget.

@Patvann:

Didn’t take long to get to the bottom of that bag o’ guano, eh?

@Aye 😉

But I was serious!!

That dissertation pertaining to regional political developments since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, vis a vie historical tribal associations and the influence of Nazism therein was riveting, especially with all the newly discovered evidence he supplied!

Breathtaking…Just ask him.

Actually, Saddam didn’t follow all of the Ba’ath party customs, and in fact he went against many of them. He frequently chose different paths than what many Pan Arabists(and ultimately Ba’ath members since they were Pan Arabists) would have chosen. This is why many Ba’athists outside of Iraq did not like him, aside from all of the intrusions.

For example, in the neighboring country of Syria, the Ba’ath party had many problems with Saddam. Some of them involved trade, and border disputes. However, one issue stuck out like a sore thumb and that was how Saddam had continually given support to Mujahideen(religious fighter) members. Which the Al Asad family sometimes felt threatened by due to how close Iraq was, and the possibility that Mujahideen members who were aligned with Saddam could be operating in Syria.

Don’t take this statement out of context, I am not saying that this was the only reason or the original reason why the Husseins and the Al Asads had problems. But, it certainly was a key factor in perpetuating much of the disdain between the two.

Good view, Ryan.

Too many people are too quick to claim absolutes, and to “put things into boxes”. If any one “box” in called for in the matters of the M/E it’s the box labeled: “Power”. All things derive from that starting point.

By the way, when I say Mujahideen. I am refering to the Mujahideen Al Shura group. Not trying to sound rude or anything of the sort, but if one doesn’t know who they are and that they are a part of the Al Qaeda network, then seriously, read up on it. Just a suggestion.

Ryan,

Of course, I agree with you about Saddam not being particularly concerned with Baath precedents; he was a bad man who would do just about anything that would benefit himself. What would not benefit him was an Islamist movement which would threaten his legitimacy (such as it was,) and in this regard it suited his convenience to follow this particular Baath precept.

Does it mean that Saddam, or Hafez Assad would never stoop to alliances of convenience with Hamas or Hezbollah? No, but Saddam certainly would not share power with a group which he saw as Saudi-backed, and which was a direct threat to his rule, should it ever become established in the mideast.

I was in no way confused by your statement, as I am familiar with Saddam’s tactics in keeping his neighbor “in line”. In fact it only show even more strongly the willingness of Saddam to use whomever to support his goals, even if those “tools” are religious in-nature, and are used against an entity whom many people thought of as his ideological/political-twin.

Saddam knew that Assad only remains in power because of the fear he and his father have lorded over the country for lo these many years. His tribe (the Kalbiyya, an offshoot of Alawi, which is Shia in creed, but considered heretical by all Moslems, and members of Ba’ath) have long been a small, but rich and powerful force in the country, but because of their size and exposure, are susceptible to overt/covert violence which if successful, would let the non-moderate, non Ba’ath Shia, (which are far more numerous, and backed by Iran) threaten Assad’s power.

Saddam would regularly use this weakness to push Assad into doing what he wanted done, when he needed it done. The Assad’s have played their chess-pieces in all this as well, alternating “loyalties” to Ba’athist Saddam, Khomenist Iran, Wahib Saudi, and the feckless, bleeding-heart Europeans… meanwhile using Lebanon as a “Queen” for/against all of the above, plus Israel and America.

Again…It’s all about the Power, and the survival.

GreenEagle’s very first post:

Anyone with the most superficial knowledge of modern Arab history would know that Saddam and Al Qaida would have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I suggest you try acquiring some knowledge on this subject before falling for this ludicrous assertion.

I repeat: no one with any real knowledge of the Baath party and of Wahabism could possibly imagine an alliance between these people. Don’t let yourselves be suckers for Bush’s nonsensical claim.

(Notice the harshness, and the insulting nature)

Aaaand his last post:

Does it mean that Saddam, or Hafez Assad would never stoop to alliances of convenience with Hamas or Hezbollah? No, but Saddam certainly would not share power with a group which he saw as Saudi-backed, and which was a direct threat to his rule, should it ever become established in the mideast.

I submit, that NO ONE in this thread has put forth the position that Saddam was somehow open to powersharing.

I also submit that GreenEagle has now turned, and accepted the premise put forth, that Saddam “stooped to allianaces of convenience”, which is what everyone else has just spent 60 some-odd posts telling him.

I futher submit that opening with insults, usually results in counter-insults.

Patvann,

I have nothing to say to you. You are here not to discuss the issues, but to stoke your ego at the expense of others, and that is a game I will not play.

Green Eagle, Al Qaeda is not considered Saudi supported. In fact, the terror group shares a distaste of the Saudi government and the royal family with Saddam Hussein. Some of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi, and had a history of operating against the Saudi government and royal family when they were being learning in the Madrasas.

Here is a good article for your scrutiny, it’s from the New York Times newspaper and even though it does offer a tiny amount of evidence supporting the 9-11 families’ lawsuit against the Saudi government, it goes on to say that as lawyers study the documents being used to support a case against the House of Saud, they are finding no connections between the two or the charities that are supposedly aiding Al Qaeda. Either way, it provides a pretty balanced view on the subject.

Here is the URL if you would like to take a look for yourself rather than have me tell you what’s in it; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html. Also, here are some pretty good articles that show why Michael Kellog (a lawyer from the 9-11 families’ lawsuit against the Saudi royal family mentioned in the New York Times article) believes that the Saudis aren’t responsible for the 9-11 attacks. The URLs are; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html, and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/29/saudi-royal-injured-by-al-qaeda-suicide-blast/

I think it’s also quiet relevant to mention that the Saudi royal family shares a common enemy with the U.S. and that’s Al Qaeda. At the same time, they’ve done a lot to help us capture and fight members who were trying to carry out attacks.

-Here are some additional articles that I thought were interesting;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/08/30/2009-08-30_al_qaeda.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aapKi2HaofqU

Sorry, hope my comment isn’t too hard on the eyes with the big URLs. I don’t know how to make links like everyone else.

@Ryan:

Sorry, hope my comment isn’t too hard on the eyes with the big URLs. I don’t know how to make links like everyone else.

Here’s how to embed links:

See the little right arrow under the word “Comment” above the comment box? Click on that and you get an HTML menu with shortcut buttons.

The one that says “Link” is that one that you are interested in.

Type your text, then highlight the words that you want to use for the embed. Once highlighted, click “Link” and paste the link in the pop up box and click “OK”. (Make sure the “http” portion that is in the popup box disappears when you paste your link.)

Also, here are some pretty good articles that show why Michael Kellog (a lawyer from the 9-11 families’ lawsuit against the Saudi royal family mentioned in the New York Times article) believes that the Saudis aren’t responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Hope that’s clear as mud.

Here’s an

Yes, The Iraq War and the 911 Attacks ARE Related

6″ rel=”nofollow”>excellent response Wordsmith did a couple of weeks ago on the al Qeada/Saudi relationship

________________________________________

Thanks Aye!

Oops, guess I did something wrong, that old dog thing I guess.

Yes, The Iraq War and the 911 Attacks ARE Related

Oops, guess I did something wrong, that old dog thing.

Oops, guess I can edit stuff, I don’t know what’s going on.

@Missy:

In your embed your “http” portion is doubled up.

When it comes up automatically in the little popup link box delete it, then paste in your link.

Sorry, I missed that step in the instructions.