Rummy's Zarqawi Rowback

After yesterday's big bombing, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, described per usual by WH flack Scott McClellan as a "associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden, was again trotted out as the likely villian.

Now I have no idea whether Zarqawi is responsible for this or other bombings--and judging by previous reports, the U.S. military doesn't either. But I know that Zarqawi's connections to Saddam have always been thought to be glancing to non-existent, and his connections to AQ itself --contrary to how it's mostly portrayed by the media--seem darn murky.

I'm no expert on this, but consider:

Foreign Policy, not exactly a pinko-rag, recently wrote that Zarqawi "set up his al Tauhid group in competition with bin Laden (rather than, as is frequently claimed, in alliance with him."

In Feb. 2003, before the war, the Chicago Tribune reported that a former Zarqawi recruit arrested by Germany insisted in interrogations that Zarqawi was no fan of Osama. "He is against al-Qaida," said the prisoner. (The Trib saw interrogation transcripts and names the prisoner.)

All this stuff is far from definitive. But if you're confident Zarqawi and AQ are tight, let's turn to what our Secretary of Defense said yesterday when he was asked about the connection:

I guess I don't know if I should say this or not, but I -- I suppose I can -- it appears that Zarqawi -- who is, everyone in the intelligence community seems to agree, is engaged as a significant leader of a network in Iraq and has in his past been identified by at least some intelligence as being a leader with respect to terrorist activities in other countries, not just Iraq -- may very well not have sworn allegiance to UBL. But he -- maybe, because he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be “The Man” himself, and maybe for a reason that's not known to me.

Now, therefore you probably -- someone could legitimately say he's not al Qaeda. On the other hand, as many people have testified to in open hearings, the linkages in the relationships and the similarities, in some cases of financing as well as methods of operation, are such that even though he may not have sworn allegiance, he clearly is someone that is doing work of a very similar nature.

Someone that is doing work of a very similar nature. Is that what you say when you believe there's a strong connection?

Comments

[praktike]

Eric, I think much is being made of this "sworn allegiance" thing. I mean, at the end of the day, the guy is a terrorist, and a pretty dangerous one at that.

[TX Pundit]

If we was in fact ordering hits on Americans in Jordan and elsewhere from Baghdad under the eyes
of the Mukhabarat as Powell claimed, and the letter he sent to Bin Laden is authentic, then yes
you are in fact splitting hairs.

It sort of reminds me of the 9/11 Commission staff conclusion that only the Taliban supported Al-Qaefda before 9/11. Who do they think funded the Taliban? Or Jim Lobe's insistence to me in a personal email attempting to answer my questions re: Zarqawi "Saddam funded the FAMILIES of suicide bombers" i.e. not the bombers themselves. Ok. Lobe, he of the "anti-neocon cabal" fame, also wrote to me, "So Saddam harbored Zarqawi...so what?" I don't imagine that's your position, is it?

It will be interesting to see what they have to say about Shakir and this other stuff that Cheney dumps on the Commission. No doubt the nameless, faceless "intelligence community" sources are already leaking hard to their pals poo-poo it all.

[ongho]

"So Saddam harbored Zarqawi... so what" Frankly this seems to be a relevant question. As I recall, what "harboring" really amounts to is the U.S. allegation that Zarqawi had his leg amputated in a Badhdad hospital. (Of course, the U.S. also says the guy with two legs in the Berg video was Zarqawi. Hmmmm.)

Heck, the U.S.A. probably had more "connections" (many more) to al-Qaeda than did Saddam. If any old "connection" amounts to satisfactory justification for launching a war against another country, then perhaps the U.S. should *first* bomb Washington, and regime-change the Bush Administration.

[John Tabin]

"Zarqawi's connections to Saddam have" NOT "always been thought to be glancing to non-existent." The Cam Simpson Trib piece you link to to back this up is riddled with errors on a number of topics, and I won't dissect it here, but there is plenty of evidence, if not exactly hard proof, of a Zarqawi-Saddam connection. A couple of points:

Zarqawi appears to have received treatment (possibly for a leg injury, though later reports suggest it may have been nasal surgery) at a Baghdad hospital reserved for the elite of Saddam's Republic. As recounted in Stephen Hayes's book (I have a review on TechCentralStation today), terrorism expert Jonathan Schanzer, researching a forthcoming book, interviewed a prisoner in Kurdish custody in February who claimed to be a Mukharabat agent; this prisoner spoke of an agreement during the run-up to the war between al Zarqawi, the Mukharabat, and Qusay Hussein that Ansar fighters would "go south" if the US struck Ansar camps in Iraqi Kurdistan. According to Kurdish authorities, a senior Ansar al-Islam terrorist has seperately corroborated many of the details from the interview with this prisoner.

[Hoyt Pollard]

TX Pundit,
Apparently, the Shakir allegation has fallen apart.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html