The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

News, 21-27/10/01 (1)

News, 21-27/10/01 (1)

This mailing is still dominated by the argument that the war against
Afghanistan should be extebnded into a war to overthrow S.Hussein or, even
more widely, to take on, all at once, the whole Arab and Muslim world, at
least that part of it that constitutes a threat to Israel. The advocates of
this position, which seems strangely to complement the ambitions of Mr bin
Laden and his friends (an all-out Muslim jihad against the West), are still
a little vague as to how the Arab and Muslim world should be rebuilt once it
has been destroyed. For the moment, Arab Zoran Djindjics seem to be in short
supply, but who knows? As Napoleon said: ŒOn s¹engage et puis on voit¹. The
bomb Iraq lobby have scored a little coup in that the Czech interior
minister has now confirmed that Mohammad Atta met the Iraqi diplomat, Ahmad
Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, (ŒCzechs Confirm Atta Met With Iraqi Œ below)
though the details are a little vague. Its still small stuff beside the
Times of India story (12 October 2001,, recently
circulated on the Emperors New Clothers website, that the head of Pakistani intelligence
has been asked to resign since it emerged that he paid the same Mohammad
Atta $100,000. We would probably hear more about that if Pakistan was a
nearer neighbour of Israel. Recommended below are the articles on oil
politics and on Saudi politics, both in the ;¹General¹ section (news, part
2); and once again the whole Kurdish supplement, turning on the tensions
that have been created between Iraqi Kurds and Turks by the possibiity of an
imminent US assault on Iraq.


*  Saddam Shows Yank Poison Pen [This is the same story that appears
elsewhere as ŒSaddam sends condolences to the US¹. It only goes to show that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder]
*  Defence chief [Air Force General Richard Myers] hints at widening
*  With results like Iraq, who needs a coalition? [Extracts. Charles
Krauthammer argues that if the US had finished Saddam off in 1991 they
wouldn¹t have had to impose the embargo and so Arabs wouldn¹t hate them as
much as they do]
*  Security and Peace Don't Come to Faint Hearts [Extracts. The Washington
Post believes that everyone who might do something wicked should be offed
before they have a chance to do it. This seems to be Saddam Hussein¹s
philosophy as well.]
*  Advance the Story About How Saddam's Men Help the Terrorists [William
Safire feels this is the story of the moment. Note his admiration for
Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker exposing Saudi duplicity. Did he admire the
same Seymour Hersh, we wonder, when he exposed the illegal US massacre that
followed the legal massacre on the road to Basra at the end of the Gulf War?
Note also the reference to Œbin Laden's supply this year of 400 fanatic
"Afghan Arabs" to Saddam to attack free Kurds in Iraq's no-flight zone¹.
Readers will learn more about that in the Kurdish section]
*  U.S. Seems To Ease Rhetoric On Iraq [Extracts. Includes G.Bush Sr
defending his decision not to seize power in Iraq in 1991]
*  Disease is Bush ploy, says Baghdad
*  U.S. Seen Set to Resurrect 'Smart Sanctions' in Iraq [Quotes from one
Neil Partrick, head of the Middle East programme of the Royal Unit Services,
saying a major attack on Iraq after Afghanistan is unlikely]
*  U.S. Magistrate Refuses to Release Iraqi Suspect
*  Building the case against Iraq [Tough talkin¹ from J.Woolsey]
*  Poll shows public wants Saddam targeted
*  Aziz: Iraq Expects U.S. Attack

*  America holding its fire on Iraq
Chicago Tribune, 22nd October
Defence of current policy. Not to be thought of as being soft on Iraq.
*  Ex-CIA Chief Suggests Iraq Involvement
The Associated Press, 23rd October
We learn from this that James Woolsey¹s law firm represents the Iraqi
National Congress. Gosh!


*  Vietnam days shape lawmaker's distaste for war [Account of career of Rep
Jim McDermott who opposed the terrorist attacks on Afghanistan]


*  Atta Visited Prague at Least Twice, Police Say
*  German report links Iraqi ambassador to Al-Qaida terror network [The
Iranian news agency, IRNA says ŒUS investigators believe that Al-Ani
supplied Atta with deadly Anthrax spores during that meeting.¹]
*  Iraqi agent with terror link was expelled by Czechs
*  Czechs Confirm Atta Met With Iraqi

New York Post, 23rd October
[I don't usually leave in photo captions but I thought readers might
appreciate this one: Three kids in Dasht-i-Qala, Afghanistan, yesterday
snack on one of 70,000 ready-to-eat meals dropped to the Afghan people by
U.S. cargo planes Sunday night.
- Associated Press]


*  Bio-warfare Means and Motive ­ Anthrax: Is Saddam the missing link? [By
Khidmir Hamza who, it appears, in addition to directing the Iraqi nuclear
weapons programme also served Œas a director general of the Department of
Military Industry, which oversaw much of the work on biological and chemical
weapons¹ at the time of the Halabja incident. Leaving us wondering why he
hasn¹t been prosecuted as a war criminal].
*  Khidhir Hamza: Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi weapons program [Fairly
lengthy interview. His basic thesis is that we should get Saddam before he
gets us, which he is due to do, according to German intelligence, in 2005.
He argues that the Iraqi opposition should be placed in Southern Iraq where,
he thinks, they would secure overwhelming support. But Southern Iraq is
Shi¹i and the Shi¹i are not well represented in the INC. They have their own
organisation which is actually engaged in fighting without seeking US
permission. They use the only tactics possible under the circumstances ­
Œterrorist¹ tactics]
*   Iraq Seeks Anthrax Tests on 2 Letters
*  Anthrax reveals Iraq trademark: Report
*  Senate anthrax could be domestic

AND, IN NEWS, 21-27/10/01 (2):


*  Russian oil company develops cooperation with Iraq, Iran
*  Migrant Ship Sinks Near Indonesia [More victims of the US/British
sanctions policy]
*  Obituary: Ismat Kittani [This man seems quite extraordinary, representing
Iraq through several changes of regime and achieving high office in the UN
while remaining faithful to Saddam. Was this Iraq¹s Talleyrand?]
*  Malaysia, Iraq to Enhance Bilateral Ties
*  JETRO [ Japan External Trade Organization] pulls out of Iraq trade fair
*  And what about the other prime suspect? [The state of the debate in
Australia as to the desirability of going after Iraq]


*  Iran-Iraq Air Service to Resume
*  Rich Harvest of Mines Near Turkey's Iraqi Border
*  Kuwait denies air bases used for Afghan strikes [Suggests that Kuwait¹s
backing for the US war against Afghanistan is less than whole hearted]
*  [Syrian vice-president Abdul Halim] Khaddam confers with Moroccan
premier, Iraqi trade minister
*  Iraqi accusations against Kuwait
*  US paying for giving it to Iraq: Rafsanjani [Rafsanjani thinks Iraq is
the source of the anthrax in the US]
*  On Syrian- Iraqi trade exchange


*  War May Help Women in Iraq
*  Iraqi Archaeologists Find Ancient Temple to Ishtar
*  U.N.: Iraqis Face Persecution, Torture [Human Rights report to General
Assembly from Andreas Mavrommatis. Refers to apparent murder of Shi¹i leader
Ayatollah Hussein Bahr Al-Aloom]
*  Iraqis ponder Afghan conflict


*  [Irish minister for Foreign Affairs] Cowen says Saddam fails to feed
people [on strength of UN Sec Gen¹s report. Ireland is currently chairing
the UN Security Council]
*  UN Gives First Evidence of Illegal Iraqi Oil Sales


*  US wants global command against terrorism [The US prepares to take over
military management of the world]
*  Media's role in war [Eric Margolis points out the obvious pro-Israeli
orientation of many of those who have been pushing for war on Iraq]
*  Interview with the Prime Minister [Very short extracts from a very long
interview. Need to do away with civil liberties; attempt to differentiate US
policy and Israeli policy; International Criminal Court; importance of armed
forces to our well-being independent of actual defence needs. And the
following outrageous exchange: ŒHave the Taliban actually tried to negotiate
at any point? Not as far as I am aware, no.¹]
*  The last oil rush [Interesting article speculating on what should be done
if Saudi Arabia closes the oil tap - as they should have done a long time
*  The United States Ought to Be Applauding Israel's Self-Defense [William
Safire argues that it is hypocritical to be tough on the Afghans and
criticise Israel for being tough on the Palestinians. One can see that he
has a point ...]
*  An unholy alliance [An interesting and coherent view of a pan-Arab
anti-US alliance which is centred on domestic struggles in Saudi Arabia and
successfully manages  to turn the tide which had been running in the US¹
favour until 1995/6]

URL ONLY:,,56-2001371246,00.html
*  A man alone
The Times, 25th October
Tony Blair appears as a lonely, heroic figure while The Times gives us a
rundown of the debate as to whether or not a new round of terror attacks
should be launched on Iraq. The Times thinks it should.


by Don Singleton
New York Daily News, 21st October

Saddam Hussein wrote an angry letter to a surprised American who had
e-mailed the Iraqi tyrant after the World Trade Center attack.

Software engineer Christopher Love, 44, of Willow Grove, Pa., sent the
e-mail to the "Butcher of Baghdad" via the official Iraqi News Agency last

Love said he was moved to write by two events ‹ the attack on the twin
towers and the death in Iraq of a friend's father.

"The image of planes flying into populated skyscrapers in our largest city
along with government buildings will be everlasting in my mind," Love wrote.

He also cited a friend's visit to his dying father in Iraq a few months ago.
"He could have been saved with penicillin, but none was available," Love

"Something must change. Someone must lead the charge for human rights. ... I
believe that you, Mr. President, would be the likely candidate."

Saddam ‹ who is suspected by some of having aided the hijackers ‹ is an
unlikely candidate to lead the charge for human rights. He heads the U.S.
list of nations supporting terrorism, gassed an entire village that had
defied him, invaded and looted Kuwait before being chased out by a U.S.-led
coalition, and is thought to be developing nuclear, biological and
germ-warfare weapons.

Despite the sympathetic tone of the Love letter, he got a rocket back from

"Do you know that your administration has been promoting terrorism against
us, calling for ending our regime by force and allocating funds for this
purpose?" the Iraqi news agency quoted Saddam as asking in response to the

Saddam also accused the U.S. of "committing acts of genocide against Iraq by
imposing the 11 years of sanctions that led to the killing of 1.5 million

Love was taken aback by Saddam's response.

"I looked at the response on the news agency's Web site ‹ it was quite long,
and I'm still trying to absorb it," Love said yesterday. "I'm amazed that he
actually wrote back."

Love says he hasn't received an e-mail yet, but he believes it was sent to
his computer at work, which he can't get to until tomorrow.

"I'm behind our government ‹ I'm not going to jump on the Iraqi bandwagon,"
he said, "but the response is enlightening. I'm thinking of forwarding it to
the White House and asking President Bush for his opinion."

Reuters, 22nd October

WASHINGTON: The top U.S. military officer has said that Afghanistan was only
a "small piece" of what he suggested might be the broadest campaign since
World War Two, possibly lasting more than a lifetime.

Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did
not answer directly when asked in a television interview whether he had
"started to prepare targets in Iraq" -- an old U.S. foe that some U.S.
officials would like to make their next target.

"This is a global war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction," he
replied on the ABC program "This Week." "Afghanistan is only one small
piece. So of course we're thinking very broadly."

"I would say, since World War Two, we haven't thought this broadly about a
campaign," Myers added, referring not just to the military action but to
multifaceted operations by emerging international alliances against alleged
terrorists and their suspected state sponsors.

By citing weapons of mass destruction, Myers seemed to set out a possible
new rationale for attacking Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Since the late
1990s, Saddam has barred U.N. weapons inspectors who had been documenting
breaches of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire pact outlawing Baghdad's biological
and chemical weapons programs.

Since the September 11 airliner-hijacking blitz that killed an estimated
5,400 people in the United States, President Bush has cast the enemy as
terrorists and their state sponsors -- without explicitly mixing
deadly-weapons capabilities into the equation.

In launching air strikes against targets in Afghanistan on October 7, for
example, Bush said: "Today we focus on Afghanistan," but "the battle is
broader." He warned states that sponsor or protect "outlaws and killers of
innocent" that they were taking a "lonely path at their own peril."

Myers said U.S. forces in Afghanistan would capture Osama bin Laden, the
U.S.-accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks, alive if possible but
"bullets will fly" if they must defend themselves.


In the ABC interview, Myers was asked about Vice President Dick Cheney's
comment to the Washington Post that the U.S.-led campaign may "never end. At
least not in our lifetime."

"I think that may be correct," he said. "I think this is going to be a long,
hard-fought conflict, and it will be global in scale."


by Charles Krauthammer
Seattle Times, 22nd October

WASHINGTON ‹ The great coalition debate rages.

On the one hand are those who argue that the key to winning this war is to
establish as broad a coalition as possible. "To succeed in the present
conflict, it is essential that we repeat the coalition-building of the Gulf
conflict," writes former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.


Scowcroft's view, expressed in a Washington Post op-ed (Oct. 16: "Build a
Coalition"), is important not just because of his distinguished service as
soldier and adviser, but because he has just been appointed chairman of the
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and thus will be influential in shaping
the conduct of the new war.

Scowcroft begins his advocacy of coalition-as-centerpiece by defending our
decision in the last war, when he was national security adviser to President
George H.W. Bush, to stop the Gulf War before going to Baghdad and toppling

Why? Because of the coalition. "Our Arab allies," explains Scowcroft, "would
have deserted us, creating an atmosphere of hostility to the United States
in the region."

Creating? We did not go to Baghdad and yet, regardless, the hostility toward
us is such that it inspired the worst massacre of Americans in our history.

Much of that hostility derives from that fateful decision to leave Saddam in
power in Baghdad in deference to our coalition partners, because we then had
to spend a decade containing him with sanctions that have clearly hurt the
Iraqi people and inflamed anti Americanism in the region. Bin Laden himself,
in giving reasons for his jihad on America, never fails to cite the starving
and bombing of Iraq.

Scowcroft goes on: "In addition, the situation of the United States' being
in hostile occupation of an Arab land" ‹ i.e. Baghdad, had we kept going ‹
"might well have spawned scores of Osama bin Ladens."

Good grief. What spawned the real Osama bin Laden ‹ his oft-repeated, No. 1
reason for his war on America ‹ was the infidel's "occupation" of Saudi
Arabia, home to Mecca and Medina, the holiest cities in Islam. And why are
American soldiers still there 10 years after the Gulf War? It is precisely
because we stopped short of Baghdad, allowing the very regime threatening
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to remain in power, that we need to retain an
American garrison in the region.

Thus, if we wish to make a "why do they hate us" inventory, we have from bin
Laden's oeuvre that the gravest U.S. offenses are the very policies ‹ the
American military presence in Arabia and the sanctions on Iraq (his love of
Palestine is a recent, post-Sept. 11 flourish) ‹ that are the direct
consequences of our failure to finish off Saddam in 1991.


by Fred Hiatt
The Washington Post, 23rd October

WASHINGTON: Just four years ago, in September 1997, a UN inspector grabbed a
briefcase from two Iraqi officials running out the back door of their
laboratory building. In the case she found reagents used for testing
biological weapons such as anthrax, and documents about Saddam Hussein's
secret biological weapons program. When other inspectors tried to follow up
by visiting the headquarters of the agency referred to in the documents,
guards blocked them at gunpoint. The inspections were never completed.


The Australian diplomat Richard Butler, who led the UN inspection effort for
a time, described in a book published last year the possible consequences.
His fictional scenario is worth recalling now: "A hit squad from somewhere
in the Middle East travels to New York City carrying a one-liter bottle
filled with one of the several chemical weapons agents we have long known
Saddam Hussein to be developing. Using a simple sprayer (like one that a
gardener or house painter might own), they diffuse the contents into the air
over Times Square on a Saturday night or into the main concourse at Grand
Central Station at 5:30 p.m. on a weekday evening. Hundreds, maybe thousands
of people die agonizing deaths as a result. "Because of their own handling
of the substance and the strategic concern to maintain ambiguity over the
source of the attack, the terrorists may have to be prepared to die
themselves. ... Identifying them ... may prove difficult, but even if their
identities became known quickly, it may not be clear whom they represented
... Under these circumstances, it's quite possible that Saddam could get
away with the act."


The Bush administration, pending further evidence, is right to make Osama
bin Laden's networks its first priority in the war on terrorism.

But the attacks clarify two points. One is that there are people evil enough
to use the basest of weapons. (Saddam Hussein is credibly alleged to have
tested germ weapons on prison inmates in 1994 and 1995, but when UN
inspectors visited the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad the files covering
those two years had been removed.) The second point is that avoiding
conflict cannot always be the primary objective. As Iraq increasingly
resisted inspection, because inspectors were drawing near the weapons that
Saddam most wanted to protect, the goal for many became avoiding another
war. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special UN envoy to Iraq called in June
1998 to avoid "at all costs the potential for any conflict situation that
might involve the use of military force in the region."


In Iraq, conflict was avoided, save for a few days of largely ineffective
U.S. air strikes, but the absence of conflict does not mean that peace was
served. Saddam Hussein has had three years to work unimpeded on his weapons.
Osama bin Laden's terrorists similarly have had years to train and plan
unimpeded in Afghanistan and many other places. The United Nations vowed
after Sept. 11 to deny them such sanctuaries from now on, but you already
see wavering as to what that means. It is by no means ensured that
governments will stick with this war any longer than they stuck with
inspectors in Iraq.

This time, though, no one will be entitled to claim any surprise at the
consequences of faintheartedness.

by William Safire
International Herald tribune (from The New York Times), 23rd October

WASHINGTON: Veteran reporters and creaking commentators have a single goal
in writing about great events: Advance the story. Unearth facts that
policymakers do not want to know.

For years, U.S. officials kept mum about the duplicity of Saudi Arabia in
financing anti-U.S. incitement. But because The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh,
the oldest investigative reporter alive, held his ear trumpet to America's
ultra-secret Big Ear, we now have telephone intercepts between Prince
Bandar, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, and his father, the defense
minister. The Saudis never have been on America's side in the war on terror.
American leaders have long known it but most Americans did not.

What about a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Because
the Scowcroft set at the National Security Council is still in denial about
its blunder a decade ago that permitted Saddam to stay in power, the CIA
professes to see no collaboration in Baghdad.

That wearing of blinders by U.S. intelligence agents was recently revealed
by the Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland, who interviewed a defector
from Saddam's elite militia now in the United States who recounted the
hijacking and assassination training carried out in the Salman Pak suburb of
Baghdad. This was independently confirmed by an Iraqi ex intelligence
officer now in Turkey who reported "Islamicists" training on a Boeing 707 in
Salman Pak only a year ago.

Both sources were unsought or dismissed by CIA and FBI officials aware of
topside resistance to evidence of Saddam-bin Laden connections.

Allow another journa-geezer to dodder in with a few more details to advance
the unwelcome story. Faruq Hijazi, in 1994 Saddam's secret service director
and now his ambassador to Turkey, has had a series of meetings with bin
Laden. These began in Sudan and continued in Afghanistan. The conspiracy was
furthered in Baghdad in 1998 between bin Laden's No. 2 man, Ayman
el-Zawahiri, and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan. To strengthen
Saddam's position in the Arab world during his 1998 crisis with the United
Nations, bin Laden established the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against
the Jews and the Crusaders." The Muslim-in-name Iraqi dictator reciprocated
by promising secure refuge in Iraq for bin Laden and his key lieutenants if
they were forced to flee Afghanistan.

Bin Laden sent a delegation of his top Qaida terrorists to Baghdad on April
25, 1998, to attend the grand celebration that week of Saddam's birthday. It
was then that Saddam's bloody-minded son Uday agreed to receive several
hundred Qaida recruits for terrorist training in techniques unavailable in

That Baghdad birthday party, according to an unpublished spying report,
celebrated something else: Uday Hussein's agreement with bin Laden's men to
formally establish a joint force consisting of some of Qaida's fiercest
"Afghan Arab" fighters and the covert combatants in Iraqi intelligence unit

This information does not include reports of the most recent contacts
between the terrorist group and the terrorist state. However, combine that
late-'90s groundwork with what is known of (a) bin Laden's supply this year
of 400 fanatic "Afghan Arabs" to Saddam to attack free Kurds in Iraq's
no-flight zone, and (b) this summer's observed contacts of Qaida's
suicide-hijacker Mohammed Atta with Iraqi spies under diplomatic cover in
Prague. A pattern manifests itself.

Does this web of eavesdropped-upon communication provide proof positive of
Saddam's participation in the Sept. 11 attack? No indisputable smoking gun
may ever be found. But it is absurd to claim, in the face of what we already
know, that Iraq is not an active collaborator with, harborer of and source
of sophisticated training and unconventional weaponry for bin Laden's world
terror network. "One war at a time" goes the coalitionaries' mantra, which
U.S. spymasters take to mean "Don't follow leads to Iraq."

Nobody has come close to my New York Times colleagues in covering the
cataclysm and the war it triggered, but it would be good to see a new wave
of reporters beat the old media bigfeet in advancing this story.

by Karen DeYoung and Rick Weiss
Washington Post, 24th October


Asked Monday if he believed the anthrax came from al Qaeda, or if he had any
idea of the source, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld answered
succinctly: "I don't. And no."

Former president George Bush, who rarely gives public counsel to his son's
administration, said in a CBS interview yesterday that the United States had
to be "very careful about what we do now" in the Persian Gulf region, "and
I'm sure the president is being and will be."

Asked if he had any regrets about not going after Saddam Hussein in 1991,
Bush said: "The answer is no. What would have happened if we'd have done
that is we would have been alone. We would have been an occupying power in
an Arab land. . . . And we would have seen something much worse than we have
now, because we would have had the enmity of all the gulf. Egypt would have
been gone. Jordan, who came back, would have been gone; Turkey, you name it.
So I think we did the right thing."

A similar argument was made last week about the current conflict by the
former president's national security adviser. If anything, Brent Scowcroft
wrote in a Washington Post opinion article, Washington needs Arab support
now more than it did in the Gulf War.


by Anton La Guardia
Daily Telegraph, 24th October

IRAQ accused President Bush's government of spreading anthrax as a pretext
to widen its bombing campaign.

As American officials suggested Iraq as a possible source of bio-terrorism,
Baghdad newspapers printed denials that the country had anything to do with
letters and packages containing anthrax spores.

"It is a joke," said Al-Thawra, the mouthpiece of the ruling Ba'ath Party.
"All evidence and details prove that the United States is the source of the
anthrax. This anthrax has been prepared in American laboratories and the
packages have been sent from inside the United States - and this
incriminates the American authorities.

"American authorities do not wish to kill Americans but are seeking to
spread a scare around the world." The paper added that the aim was to create
suspicion around countries listed by America as sponsors of terrorism "in
order to commit aggression against them".

Iraq has sent mixed signals about the September 11 attacks. At first
President Saddam Hussein gloated. Later, as some senior American officials
signalled that the war against terrorism could be extended to Iraq and other
countries, he kept a lower profile.

In an e-mail to an American citizen at the weekend, he sent a personal
message of condolence over the deaths at the World Trade Centre. But he said
he would not say the same to the government.

This week Iraq has criticised the bombing as a repetition of the 1979 Soviet
invasion. Washington and London have said that there is no evidence pointing
to Iraq's involvement in the New York and Washington attacks or the anthrax

Western officials have said that Iraq is working on a biological weapons
programme, but no biological agents have ever been found. Iraq has not
re-admitted United Nations weapons inspectors since they left in 1999.

by Nadim Ladki
Yahoo, 23rd October


Neil Partrick, head of the Middle East program at the London-based Royal
United Services Institute, agreed that military action did not appear to be
in the offing.

``Even if it turns out to be a quick operation in Afghanistan, it is
unlikely the United States would decide now to overthrow Saddam and commit
forces on the ground in Iraq,'' he said.

Partrick expected the United States to increase military pressure on Iraq by
``toughening up'' its air patrols of two no-fly zones over north and south
Iraq, a measure the Bush administration had been keen on even before last
month's attacks.

He said discussions on a reformed sanctions package at the U.N. had been
overtaken by the attacks but that Washington would try to get it passed in

Although there were no guarantees of success this time, Russia might find it
in its interest to lift its objections but Partrick doubted the five
permanent members at the Security Council -- the United States, Britain,
France, China and Russia -- would agree to force Iraq to take back


Reusters, 24th October

PITTSBURGH: Ignoring the advice of federal prosecutors, a U.S. magistrate on
Wednesday refused to release an Iraqi immigrant jailed in a crackdown on
hazardous materials haulers after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and

Fadhil Al-Khaledy, one of 22 men of Middle Eastern descent to be indicted
for fraudulently obtaining commercial driver's licenses from Pennsylvania,
has pleaded not guilty to the charge against him but was jailed as a flight
risk after his Sept. 27 arrest. The 33-year-old lives in Detroit.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Teitelbaum told a hearing on Wednesday that
Al-Khaledy could be released to house arrest with electronic monitoring
equipment that would allow the man to return to his industrial cleaning

"Home confinement with electronic monitoring and work release would assure
his appearance at future hearing," Teitelbaum told Reuters.

But U.S. Magistrate Robert Mitchell was not satisfied and refused to release
the suspect from custody in an Allegheny County facility, the prosecutor

William Schmalzried, Al-Khaledy's lawyer, plans to appeal the magistrate's
decision to a federal judge. "Quite frankly, this is very unusual,"
Schmalzried said. "It definitely has to do with the tone and tenor of the

Al-Khaledy moved to the United States in 1993 as part of a
government-sponsored refugee program. He has returned to the Middle East
twice, including last month when he traveled to Jordan to be married, said
his lawyer, who believes Al-Khadey has probably lost his business franchise
in Detroit because of his detention.


by Toby Harnden
Daily Telegraph, 26th October


Mr Woolsey said: "We ought to seriously consider removing Saddam's regime,
if he has been involved in any terror in recent years against us."

Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush Snr in 1993. He had also
defied UN mandates by developing weapons of mass destruction.

He added: "In my judgment that's enough."

President Clinton's response to the assassination attempt was "to shoot some
Cruise missiles back into empty buildings in the middle of the night" but
this type of limited, ineffective action had been discredited by September

Mr Woolsey said: "Some of the states, such as Iraq, and some of the people,
such as bin Laden, saw our behaviour over the last decade or two and may
have a false impression that they can bludgeon the United States into

He added: "I think some day - hopefully soon - they will come to the same
conclusion that Admiral Yamamoto did after Pearl Harbor, which was to remark
that Japan had awakened a sleeping giant.

" If the government chooses, based on the information that it has, to take
military action against any other state outside Afghanistan, I believe that
the world will see our reaction in that case will be ruthless, relentless
and devastating.

He concluded: "In the American vernacular - you ain't seen nothing yet."

Coming from the man entrusted with gathering that "information", Saddam
would perhaps be well advised to mark Mr Woolsey's words.

by Joyce Howard Price

Americans overwhelmingly support making Saddam Hussein a target of the U.S.
war on terrorism, with three-quarters of those contacted saying the Iraqi
dictator should be attacked, according to a new Reuters/Zogby poll.

The survey of 1,023 registered voters found that 56 percent of respondents
"strongly agree" and 18 percent "somewhat agree" the war against terrorism ‹
now focused on Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan's Taliban regime ‹ should be
expanded to include Saddam's regime in Iraq.

In contrast, 10 percent said they "strongly disagree" and 12 percent said
they "somewhat disagree" with the idea of going after Saddam. Four percent
of respondents said they were not sure how they felt.

Neal Boortz, talk-show host on Radio WSB-AM in Atlanta, is not surprised by
those findings. "My callers say that if the war on terrorism doesn't include
Saddam, it's a fraud," Mr. Boortz, one of the nation's most-listened-to
radio-talk hosts, said in an interview yesterday.

Mr. Boortz said he has not heard from one caller who favors giving Saddam a
pass in the U.S.-led anti-terrorist campaign.

 In fact, he said, "They all say we should be taking care of Saddam at the
same time" as U.S. troops attack Afghanistan.

Mr. Boortz said his callers compare the current situation to one in which
there is a neighborhood fire in which a house is threatened by houses on
both sides that are burning.

It doesn't make sense to put out one fire and delay acting on the second, he


Las Vegas Sun, 27th October

LONDON (AP) - Iraq's deputy prime minister says "it is just a matter of
time" before Britain and the United States attack his country, and accused
them of trying to remove Saddam Hussein's government under the pretext of a
war on terrorism, a British newspaper reported Sunday.

Tariq Aziz also denied any Iraqi involvement in anthrax attacks on the
United States and said Iraq's anthrax supply had been destroyed during
United Nations inspections in the 1990s.

In The Sunday Telegraph's interview, carried out last week in Baghdad, Aziz
reportedly said Iraq was aware of plans for Western countries to strike "300
targets with 1,000 missiles."

"We know they are preparing for such an attack," he was quoted as saying.
"We are watching what is being said and what is being done in the United
States and Britain and we know it is just a matter of time before such an

He said that would be a "very grave mistake," and although he did not expect
Arab military retaliation to follow an attack on Iraq, he believed the
coalition against terrorism would fall apart as a result, the newspaper

The report said Aziz claimed that Iraq's armed forces had recovered from the
devastating effects of the 1991 Gulf War and were "capable and in a position
to defend the country."

He said suggestions of Iraqi involvement in the release of anthrax in the
United States were "baseless" and "ridiculous."

"When America decides to attack Iraq, it will be for their own agenda," he
added. "It will be because they want to replace this government. ... It will
not be because of what is happening in the United States. Although they
might use that as a pretext."

Iraq has already strongly denied any involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks that the U.S. government has blamed on the al-Qaida network led by
Osama bin Laden.

In the interview, Aziz rejected the confirmation Friday by an official of
the Czech Republic that Iraq's consul in Prague had met there with Mohamed
Atta, one of the alleged hijackers of the airliners used in the attacks,
before the consul was expelled in April for conduct incompatible with his
diplomatic status.

Aziz said he had checked with the diplomat about the allegations and "I can
say categorically that they are false."

"We do not know bin Laden in person," he said. "We cannot make a judgment
about him. We simply do not know enough about him."


Baltimore Sun, 23rd October

WASHINGTON (Associated Press): As a Navy psychiatrist during the Vietnam
War, Rep. Jim McDermott determined whether young men were fit to fight. The
job left him with a distaste for war and an appetite for politics.

Three decades later, those feelings were manifested in McDermott's public
questioning of President Bush's decision to attack Afghanistan less than
four weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes.

The Washington state Democrat said he's unsure the Bush administration spent
enough time looking at alternatives.

"Sure, people are angry and upset. I am angry and upset," he said. "But that
doesn't mean what you do is go out and immediately fly off and bomb the
other side."

McDermott's stance has made him a target of conservative commentator Rush
Limbaugh and others, though constituents in his liberal-leaning district
have been supportive.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, is the only other member of
Congress to directly and publicly question military action. She was the only
House member to vote last month against a resolution authorizing the use of

McDermott voted for the resolution, but said he's uneasy that the bombing
occurred so soon afterward.

"It's a very complicated situation," McDermott said, sitting at his roll-top
desk that was once used by Rep. Davy Crockett of Alamo legend. "The hard
part is figuring out how you come out of it in a situation where you haven't
made more enemies."

McDermott, 64, spent two years in Vietnam and saw a long line of soldiers
who felt the government wasn't behind them. The experience shaped his life
and his political philosophy.

"If you are going to run a war by polls, what happens if things don't go
well?" McDermott said. "You better be sure you are doing what you really
believe is right."

After Vietnam, McDermott moved to Seattle in 1970 and almost immediately won
a seat in the state Legislature. After 14 years and three unsuccessful bids
for governor, he went to Zaire to practice psychiatry in 1987.

McDermott returned to run for an open House seat in a Seattle district in
1988. McDermott, the only psychiatrist in Congress, has easily won
re-election six times.

His medical background makes him a key player on health care issues -- he
favors a national health care plan that would provide universal coverage.
And his experiences abroad have given him a voice in foreign policy debates.

He also has gained notice as the defendant in a lawsuit brought by a fellow
House member, Republican Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio.

Boehner sued, claiming that his free-speech rights were violated, when
McDermott allegedly leaked a secretly recorded phone conversation in 1996
among Boehner and other House GOP leaders.

McDermott now is focused on Afghanistan. He has traveled extensively in the
region, and is concerned that the United States will only make more enemies
with its military action against the Taliban. He points to Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein as evidence that military might doesn't always produce the
political changes the United States favors.

"The destruction of the infrastructure did not work in Iraq a decade ago.
It's deja vu," McDermott said. "This sounds an awful lot like Iraq. Saddam
Hussein is still in power."


Excite, 23rd October

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (Reuters) - Mohammed Atta, one of the suspected
hijackers of the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center last
month, visited the Czech Republic at least twice, police said Tuesday.

"Czech security units have proof that Mohammed Atta was in the Czech
Republic two times, one of which he was only in (Prague airport's) transit
area," police spokeswoman Ivana Zelenakova told Reuters.

A U.S. source recently told Reuters Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence
official in Prague in June 2000 and April 2001, but cautioned that the
meeting was not evidence Iraq was connected to the attacks on New York and
Washington on September 11.

U.S. officials have made similar cautions in private, but U.S. diplomats say
a second visit to meet an Iraqi intelligence official would provide a more
compelling clue to possible Atta links to Baghdad.

As recently as last week Czech officials said Atta had made only one visit,
in transit in summer 2000, and that they have no evidence he met Iraqi

Zelenkova gave no details of the second visit.

"If there were further cases (visits), he did not use documents in his own
name, and police and other security agencies are investigating," she added.

Atta, an Egyptian suspected of being at the controls of one of two aircraft
that crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, lived for much
of the 1990s in the northern German port of Hamburg where two of the other
suspected lead pilots of the attacks were also students.



Berlin, Oct 24, IRNA -- The Berliner Morgenpost reported Wednesday on a
terror link between Iraq's current ambassador to Turkey, Faruk Al Hijazi and
Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida network.

Hijazi, a trusted confidante of President Saddam Hussein and former deputy
head of the Iraqi intelligence service, met on at least two separate
occasions with Osama bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan, dating back to 1994
and 1998.

The Iraqi envoy is considered an expert in the weapons of mass destruction

Hijazi also worked in the past with Iraq's consul to the Czech Republic,
Al-Ani who met twice last year with one of the September 11 terrorist
pilots, Mohammad Atta, in Prague.

US investigators believe that Al-Ani supplied Atta with deadly Anthrax
spores during that meeting.

by Anne Penketh
Independent, 25th October

An Iraqi intelligence agent who is believed to have had two meetings with
Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the World Trade Centre attack, was
expelled from the Czech Republic earlier this year, it emerged.

Foreign ministry official Hynek Kmonicek informed the Iraqi chargé
d'affaires in Prague last April that his number two, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim
Samir al-Ani, would have to leave the country within 48 hours. "His presence
was not in the security interests of the Czech Republic. He was not behaving
like a diplomat," Mr Kmonicek said yesterday.

However, Mr Kmonicek, who is now his country's UN ambassador, added that
reports the Iraqi agent had met Atta in Prague would remain "media
speculation" until Czech police publish the results of their own

"Atta went to Czechoslovakia twice. Once was in transit, the second time he
entered the country and remained there for 24 hours. Of course, if they did
meet it would be suspicious," the ambassador said.

According to US officials, Atta met Mr al-Ani in June 2000 and April 2001,
but they have cautioned that the meeting was not evidence Iraq was connected
to the 11 September attacks. Czech police are now investigating whether he
may have taken more trips to Prague, possibly using a false name and

The Iraqi was expelled after he was seen photographing the Radio Free Europe
building in Prague, which had broadcast programmes critical of Saddam

The Czech counterintelligence agency said in a report yesterday that
terrorists could have established a covert infrastructure in the country
thanks to Prague's former ties to Iraq and Afghanistan under communism.

The Associated Press, Sat 27 Oct 2001

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) ‹ A Czech cabinet minister on Friday became the
first official to acknowledge that suspected suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta
met with an Iraqi intelligence agent during a trip to the Czech Republic.

Interior Minister Stanislav Gross said the meeting between Atta and Ahmad
Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani took place several weeks before Al-Ani was
expelled from Prague on April 22, 2001 for conduct incompatible with his
diplomatic status.

``We can confirm now that during his ... trip to the Czech Republic he did
have a contact with an officer of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Ahmad Khalil
Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani,'' Gross said.

Gross would not reveal the precise date or venue of the meeting but his
comments confirmed a link between Baghdad and those who carried out the
Sept. 11 attacks. Iraq has vehemently rejected suggestions that it was
involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

A Czech intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity,
indicated that his American counterparts had been told of the meeting, but
he did not provide specifics or say whether U.S. intelligence was tipped off
about the meeting before the Sept. 11 attack.

``If we have any information which could be of interest for our U.S.
partners, they will learn it from us,'' the intelligence official said.

Atta, an Egyptian who studied in Germany, is believed to have been on
American Airlines Flight 11 that smashed into the World Trade Center.

Czech officials are investigating the number of trips Atta made to the
country. Gross said he first entered the Czech Republic by bus from Germany
on June 2, 2000 and then flew to the United States from Prague the next day.

Gross did not provide further details or reveal al-Ani's whereabouts.

A Czech official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they were
investigating whether Al-Ani may have also met with another hijacker in the
Czech Republic.

Government officials told The Associated Press earlier this month that
Al-Ani had been under the surveillance of Czech intelligence, which believed
he might have been involved in plotting an attack on the headquarters of
Radio Free Europe.



by Khidmir Hamza
San Francisco Chronicle, 21st October

Washington -- There has been much talk, but little proof, of Iraq's
connection with Osama bin Laden since September 11. With the frightening
appearance of anthrax, however, it's useful to know now what Saddam Hussein
can bring to the germ- war table.

Having spent two decades as a senior official in Iraq's Atomic Energy
Commission, I learned a great deal about Baghdad's bio-warfare capabilities.
>From 1987 until the Persian Gulf War, I directed the Iraqi nuclear weapons
program, as well as serving as a director general of the Department of
Military Industry, which oversaw much of the work on biological and chemical

When Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Iraq possessed a vast bio-
warfare arsenal and was but a few months from having a working nuclear
device. Despite its defeat in the Persian Gulf War, Iraq still has the
capability to produce bio-war agents, including anthrax, in large
quantities. Not just raw anthrax in liquid form, which is not difficult to
produce, but as a sophisticated, highly milled powder, which can be a deadly
terrorist tool. Washington knows this not only from discrepancies between
Iraq's records and what United Nations' inspectors found, but also from the
testimonies of a constant stream of defectors who followed my own escape
from Baghdad in 1994.

Now we have the appearance of a highly sophisticated powder form of anthrax
in the Washington office of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. At first,
anonymous law enforcement sources told ABC News it was "weapons grade."
Later, ABC backed off slightly, saying it "was definitely not the work of an
amateur. " Reports late Friday were that the anthrax sent to Daschle's
office was not only "not weapons grade," but "indistinguishable" from
samples that turned up in New York and Florida.

The proliferation of anonymous sources on such an important public health
issue not only adds to our alarm and confusion, it obscures the fact that,
outside of domestic cranks and rogue Russian scientists, only Iraq has both
the means and motive to unleash professional level bio-war agents on the
United States.

Hussein, moreover, is the only leader who has actually ordered the use of
chemical and biological weapons on humans -- and not just on a battlefield.

The tests began in 1984, when about 100 Iraqi Shiite prisoners were
transported to a West German-built pesticide factory at Samara, about 65
miles north of Baghdad, and subjected to chemical agents. None returned. In
March 1988, the Iraqi regime dropped nerve gas on the Kurdish village of
Halabjah, a name that became synonymous with My Lai when pictures of some
5,000 corpses, some of them of mothers holding their infants, were published
in the West.

Less well known is that Hussein also tested biological weapons on Kurdish
villagers. In 1987 typhoid agents were dumped into the water supplies of
villages around Sulimaniya, a city in the remotest part of the Kurdish
region of northern Iraq. Deaths, estimated to number between 100 and 400
people, were calculated from the testimony of victims who showed up at
Turkish hospitals with a particular strain of the disease.

Iraq's germ warfare equipment and stocks were supposedly destroyed under the
direction of U.N. inspectors after the Persian Gulf War. But Hussein managed
to hide much of his arsenal and some of the biologists who worked on the
weapons. An UNSCOM inspector told me years later that he tracked one of them
to Baghdad University, where he found her hiding in a class pretending to be
a student.

Most of the equipment for the production of bio-war agents was, and still
can be, produced in Iraq, including fermentation tanks and dryers. Moreover,
Iraq did not turn over much of the precision manufacturing equipment, such
as computer-controlled lathes, that it imported from U.S. and European
vendors in the 1970s and 1980s for its nuclear program. Such equipment would
enable Iraq to reconstitute its bio-warfare program with only minor imports
from abroad. Indeed, every Iraqi defector in recent years has reported that
Iraq rejuvenated its programs for the manufacture of weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear weapons, which German intelligence officials
have estimated could produce three atomic weapons by 2005.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, crop dusters came under special
scrutiny when the FBI discovered many of the hijackers and their associates
had taken flying lessons and had inquired about crop-dusting planes.

Here, too, there's a connection to Iraq, which managed to modify crop
dusters for spraying bio-warfare agents, even before Desert Storm. Another
reason to worry about Iraq: It still possesses a huge, underground network
of spies and purchasing agents abroad. I became intimately acquainted with
it during my 20 years in the nuclear weapons program, both as an end-user
and active purchaser myself. For example, Iraqi agents have illegally
purchased 130 classified reports from Germany alone on the manufacture of
centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

Bin Laden's operatives -- most notably, Mohammed Atta, one of the September
11 suicide pilots -- were reportedly in contact with this Iraqi network, and
could well have received both the material and expertise to unleash bio-war
attacks on the West.

There is no proof yet that any such exchange has taken place, nor that the
anthrax attacks here are the work of bin Laden -- with or without Iraqi
support. But any such attack requires both means and motive, and Hussein
most certainly has both.

Not just anyone can mix up a batch of chemical or biological weapons, much
less deploy them effectively on a target. That takes a reliable supplier,
skilled scientists and practice. Hussein has plenty of that, too.

Khidmir Hamza is the author, with Jeff Stein, of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The
Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda"
(Scribner, 2000) which has just been issued in paperback.

CNN, 22nd October

Dr. Khidhir Hamza was educated in the United States, then was deceptively
persuaded to return to Iraq by Saddam Hussein, where for over 20 years he
was forced to work at developing an atomic weapon. In 1994, he defected to
the U.S. Embassy in Hungary. Dr. Hamza now works as a consultant to the U.S.
Department of Energy, and is the author of "Saddam's Bomb Maker: The
Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda."
Hamza joined the chat room to discuss the Iraqi weapons program and
Saddam Hussein

CNN: As a nuclear scientist educated at MIT, how did you end up returning to
Iraq and working for Saddam Hussein?

HAMZA: I was teaching at Florida State University in 1969 when I was
contacted by one of his pointmen here who was enrolled as a student,
although he was too old to be a student. He told me that if I don't go back,
there could be problems for my family. I was enticed to go back this way.

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear,
biological and chemical. The nuclear program is his primary weapon, and that
would give him the ability to use the biological and chemical better.
According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three
nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window (actually, he's being careful right
now), will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive
with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons.
Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll
use them more aggressively then. There could also be the angle of him using
nuclear weapons through surrogates also, if he can achieve it.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Is it possible that Saddam or Iraq is supplying the
terrorist with the biological agents that are being found in different parts
of our country as well as the world?

HAMZA: I believe he [could be]. There are several points that indicate that
the biological agents used are of the more sophisticated kind, and that a
state is behind it. The states that produce anthrax and the required specs
that can be used to spread the disease widely, say in the powder form, very
few states can do that. The others are not U.S. antagonists, like Russia,
some of the European countries, and the U.S. So it could only be that Iraq
is the state behind supplying that expertise, which is the same thing as
producing the anthrax spores. There are also many biologists that inspected
the Iraq programs, like Dr. Richard Spertzel, including Richard Butler, the
head of ANSCAM [sic - PB]. There are several experts, not just me, who have
detailed knowledge, who are pointing fingers toward Iraq, too.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: How many Iraqis support Saddam Hussein?

HAMZA: I don't believe many. I think most Iraqis have suffered so long under
Saddam, that if there is a supported opposition that can go into Iraq, they
will defect to it and go against the regime. That happened in 1991, when
Saddam lost 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq. Only the lack of support to the
insurrection or rebellion helped Saddam to crush it with his tanks, and the
U.S. allowed him to fly military helicopters to crush the insurrection, and
he used that opportunity to crush his enemies. We believe now that the
situation is even worse, and that Saddam has cut food rations to the north
and south. In the north, the UN took over, and started supplying the Kurds
with part of the money generated by the oil for food program, so the Kurdish
region is a little better off, because of the UN and U.S. assistance.

However, there is no such program in the south, which is the majority of the
population, and Saddam already cut rations in the south, especially the
rural areas. The Iraqi opposition believes that any small nucleus of army,
U.S. trained, will be able to take over in the south, because they're
already in a desperate situation. All it needs is U.S. air support to
prevent what happened in 1991, and that is Iraqi tanks, Saddam's tanks, and
heavy artillery, bombarding the areas of the rebels.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Did the U.S. succeed in getting rid of many of his weapons
over the years the teams were there?

HAMZA: This is a false security. The security of taking a number of
equipment from a state and destroying them, leaving the total
infrastructure, the knowledge base, the scientist, the military structure
intact, only means that the state will just rejuvenate its program,
especially a state with huge resources, like Iraq. The whole structure of
the biological program is there. What the U.S. destroyed is some of the
product, biological agents, some fermenters, and some dryers, which can be
replaced very easily, and most of them actually through local engineering

Much of the precision machinery, computer-controlled machines that can
machine anything you want, are already there. They were not delivered to the
inspectors, so Iraq can easily, and probably already did, remake the
destroyed equipment and put them in place, but in different locations than
those the inspectors knew. So, we believe it was a false security to just
destroy a few pieces of equipment, and take away some of the weaponized
agents, and believe that's it. The scientists are there, the agents are
there, and most of the infrastructure is there in addition to Saddam's
network of purchasing agents and front companies that can smuggle back into
Iraq the needed critical parts.

CNN: You were in Iraq for 24 years. Describe personal encounters with

HAMZA: I met him a few times, and he is not what he seems on TV. In private,
he is an abrupt, overbearing bully. There is not much nice about him in
private. All you see is the arrogance of power, in the true sense. He knows
that you have to do everything he says, and he's not nice about it. So, one
limits encounters, usually. I used to deal with him through his son-in-law,
mostly, though despite his reputation of a bloody butcher, he was much nicer
to work with in person. He was my boss. [Saddam Hussein] is really the sole
dictator, the ultimate power. He's under pressure, he's tired, edgy,
nervous. Meeting him is not a pleasure in any sense of the world. He keeps
his smiles for TV appearances, and there is nothing nice about him in

CHAT PARTICIPANT: If America could just do one thing in Iraq, what would you
like see happen?

HAMZA: I would like to see the Iraqi opposition better trained, some two or
three thousand persons, trained and sent back into south Iraq, and supported
by U.S. Air Force, no U.S. troops, just Air Force, doing what it is doing
now, but a little more intensely. By watching Saddam's troop movement and
making them stay in their box, is all that's required right now. Just send
the Iraqi opposition trained militia, and support them there. That's the
only thing we need now. That's the official position right now of the Iraqi
opposition, they want to be supported this way, with some resources
provided, say food and some equipment. Minimal cost opposition. Much less
than is being done in Afghanistan right now, for instance. This way, the
U.S. would eliminate the major terrorist government in the Middle East right
now, probably the world.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Who is Saddam's successor?

HAMZA: Saddam's successor right now is designated to be his younger son,
Qussay. His oldest son, Uday, has been put aside and relegated to the
control of the media. He controls the Iraqi media. He has a newspaper,
magazine, and a TV channel. He speaks in the name of the government. Actual
control of the special security organization, Saddam's body guards, is now
headed by Qussay. Through this, he controls all Iraqi military and
intelligence services, and the military industry. So he's in control of the
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. He is as vicious as his
father, even more if that's possible. He's been doing the actual killing
when he goes out on forays against rebellious areas. He surrounds towns,
kills everybody. He's been experimenting with all kinds of control
mechanisms, such as blockading areas from getting food and supplies. He's
doing the real dirty work for the government right now, and it's his
government. He's the heir to the throne in Iraq. It's a monarchy of some reality.

CNN: Do you believe there is any link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein? If so, should the U.S. resume attacks on Iraq in the name of
stopping terrorism?

HAMZA: I think there are several links between Osama and Saddam. The Iraqi
ambassador in Turkey, Hajazi, visited Afghanistan, and met with Osama and
his associates. He's a powerful figure in Iraq. There are several reported
meetings between him and Osama's associates. Osama was sighted in an Iraqi
hotel in 1996, by the lawyer for Arkan, the Serbian leader. [Regarding] the
reported sighting by the Czech intelligence of Mohammed Atta, and the Iraqi
intelligence agent -- to do this meeting, Atta had to drive from Germany and
Czechoslovakia, a long drive, meet him, and go back. Which means it was an
important meeting for supplies, coordination. It couldn't have been by

Many other meetings were reported between Osama associates and Iraqi
intelligence. There are reports by Iraqi defectors of bin Laden's people
being trained in Iraqi terrorist camps. They are credible stories, because
they don't contradict each other. They confirm each other in types of
training, places, the people trained. In a covert operation like this, you
don't expect much more information. There will be no smoking gun. All
sightings confirm a multi layered coordination between Saddam and bin Laden,
in terms of training, support, and supplies. That could have included

CNN: Do you have any closing comments to share with us?

HAMZA: Just that this is the new probably type of war the U.S. will be
waging. The U.S. is too powerful to fight directly by terrorists like
Saddam. [They] tried once and failed miserably, in the Gulf War. So the
efforts and energies of people like Saddam will be channeled to these types
of dirty terrorist acts. We believe that the best way to deal with it is
eliminating the source, not chasing after the foot soldiers, but not just
limited to chasing soldiers. Go to the source. Even in Afghanistan, the U.S.
goal should be to remove the Taliban group that supported bin Laden, and get
a new government, and not leave the situation unresolved.

CNN: Thank you for joining us today

HAMZA: Thank you very much.

Khidhir Hamza joined the chat room via telephone from Virginia and
provided a typist. The above is an edited transcript of the interview on
Monday, October 22, 2001 at 1 p.m. EDT.

by Colum Lynch
Washington Post, 23rd October

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 22 -- Iraqi diplomats in New York and Washington have
asked American authorities to test two letters containing white powder for
contamination with anthrax spores, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

U.S. diplomats said they suspect the Iraqi government is the target of a
hoax but that federal and local law enforcement authorities have not
provided a definitive explanation of what was in the letters.

A U.S. official said the U.S. mission to the United Nations expected to
receive an official response from the New York Police Department on the
results of its tests as early as Tuesday.

A State Department official, saying he was unaware of the anthrax concerns
at the Iraqi interest section in Washington, referred calls to the FBI.
Calls to the FBI press offices in New York and Washington tonight were not

The episode provided an unusual twist in the ongoing anthrax scare. Some
observers, citing Iraq's weaponization of anthrax in the late 1980s, have
suggested that Baghdad may be a source of anthrax spores in letters to media
and government officials in Washington, New York and Florida. But there is
no evidence Iraq obtained the strains of anthrax bacteria found recently in
the United States, and the FBI has said it has found no link among the
letters, Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The letters arrived Friday at the Iraqi mission to the United Nations on
East 79th Street in New York and the Iraqi interest section on P Street NW
in Washington, said an Iraqi official, who requested anonymity.

The official, who works at the Iraqi mission, said police officers and FBI
agents arrived at the diplomatic mission in New York on Friday and took the
letter for testing.

"We did receive a package that contained some white powder; it was handed
over to the New York police," the official said. "They haven't really
informed us whether they have found anything. They told us if it contains
something serious, they would be on top of it."

Times of India, 27th October

WASHINGTON ( AFP ): Initial tests on anthrax sent to Senator Majority Leader
Tom Daschle found a chemical additive that keeps the spores airborne and is
a trademark of Iraq's biological weapons program, ABC News reported Friday.

Three well-placed but separate sources told ABC News World News Tonight that
the chemical agent, called bentonite, helps keep the tiny anthrax particles
in mid-air by preventing them from sticking together.

Bentonite is a trademark of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's biological
weapons program, the report said, although it could be used by other

The report said the substance was discovered during a series of tests
performed at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and at other sites.

by Bill Sammon
The Washington Times, 27th October

The White House yesterday revealed that anthrax sent to the Senate last week
could have been made in a small laboratory without the help of a
nation-state sponsor, while President Bush approved a set of tough
anti-terrorism measures that the Justice Department began using immediately.
Top Stories

"It could have been produced by a Ph.D. microbiologist at a small,
well-equipped microbiology lab," said White House press secretary Ari
Fleischer of the anthrax sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,South
Dakota Democrat.

"On the good news side of it, that would indicate that this is not
necessarily state sponsored," he said. "On the bad news side of it, it does
indicate there is a broader universe of people, individuals, groups that
have the know-how to produce it."

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
CASI's website - - includes an archive of all postings.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]