BRITAIN: British intelligence agencies are dismissing claims by the Bush administration that there are links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
The claims are being used by President Bush to press his case against President Saddam Hussein, amid growing unease among Americans at the prospect of a US invasion of Iraq, especially without British participation.
The allegations have already sparked off a dispute in the US about the way information and speculation by the CIA is being used by the Bush administration for its own ends.
Both British intelligence (MI6) and counter-intelligence (MI5) have been deeply concerned about unsubstantiated claims made by senior members of the Bush administration, notably Mr Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, about the threat posed by al-Qaeda. They say the claims could be counter-productive since they are plainly misleading.
Mr Rumsfeld claimed last month that US intelligence had "bullet-proof" evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. He added later: "But they're not photographs. They're not beyond a reasonable doubt."
This week Mr Bush suggested that al-Qaeda leaders were in close contact with Baghdad.
British intelligence sources firmly reject such claims.
Asked whether Mr Saddam had links with al-Qaeda, one well-placed source replied: "Quite the opposite."
The clear message from British intelligence is that, far from allying himself with al-Qaeda terrorists, the Iraqi leader is distancing himself from them.
British sources interpret the murder in Baghdad of the former Palestinian terrorist leader, Abu Nidal, in August as evidence of Mr Saddam's concern about accusations he is harbouring terrorists, especially one whose loyalty he could not rely on.
British intelligence sources also dismiss claims by Washington hawks that Mohamed Atta, believed to be the ringleader of the September 11th terrorists, met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on several occasions.
They also dismiss claims that Ramzi Youssef, convicted of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre, was in fact an Iraqi agent who studied in Swansea, south Wales.
Last October Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish US deputy defence secretary, sent Mr James Woolsey, a former CIA director, to Swansea in search of evidence to back up the theory. He returned empty-handed.
An alliance between al-Qaeda and Mr Saddam makes little sense, say British sources, since Iraq's secular regime would not appeal to al-Qaeda fundamentalists.
Al-Qaeda, the sources add, have paid little or no attention to the Palestinian struggle despite attempts by Bush administration officials and Republican politicians to establish a link between Palestinian extremists, al-Qaeda and Mr Saddam.
The sources also dismiss attempts by the Israeli government - seized on by CIA officials - to link Iranian-backed Hizbullah extremists in the Lebanon with al-Qaeda.
They also say there is no evidence that al-Qaeda fighters who fled from Afghanistan and are now reported to be in north-eastern Iraq have links with Baghdad. - (Guardian Service)
This is an edited extract of the letter from Mr George Tenet, director of the CIA, to the US Senate intelligence committee:
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States.
"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.
"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapon of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
"Regarding the October 2nd closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue: Senator Carl Levin: If didn't feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
"Senior intelligence witness: My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack - let me put a time-frame on it - in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
"Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?
"Senior intelligence witness: Pretty high, in my view."