PDA

View Full Version : It's official: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties



BrianS
09-08-2006, 09:14 AM
Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report)

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new."

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war.

RebootedCorpse
09-08-2006, 09:23 AM
Suddenly the info about the "key terror suspects" makes sense, from a timing standpoint.

BrianS
09-08-2006, 11:11 AM
Where are my Repub shills? No comments from the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly crowd?

RebootedCorpse
09-08-2006, 11:13 AM
Where are my Repub shills? No comments from the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly crowd?
Snow's only comment was that there was "nothing new."
Fucking fucks.

Caley Tibbittz
09-08-2006, 11:20 AM
This was official before America invaded.

BrianS
09-08-2006, 11:23 AM
Snow's only comment was that there was "nothing new."
Fucking fucks.

FoxNews.com has the headline: Senate Report on Prewar Iraq Intel Questions Saddam Link to Terror

I like how they use the word "questions..."
what motherfuckers.

Frozen Sooner
09-08-2006, 11:30 AM
The official neocon spin is that nobody ever claimed that Iraq was part of 9/11.

Greenville 90210
09-08-2006, 11:34 AM
The official neocon spin is that nobody ever claimed that Iraq was part of 9/11.

It's like professional wrestling. Something that happened years ago didn't happen unless you want to build a new angle around it...

ds9
09-08-2006, 11:35 AM
wheres Ray and Ethan?

Frozen Sooner
09-08-2006, 11:36 AM
It's like professional wrestling. Something that happened years ago didn't happen unless you want to build a new angle around it...

Gwen Stacy never had sex with Norman Osborn, you mean?

Greenville 90210
09-08-2006, 11:40 AM
Gwen Stacy never had sex with Norman Osborn, you mean?

Yes!

Ethan Van Sciver
09-08-2006, 02:25 PM
I'm here. I don't understand how this is relevant to our war aims. So what?

Doc Randy
09-08-2006, 02:37 PM
I'm here. I don't understand how this is relevant to our war aims. So what?

Well...

First, from your perspective, what exactly are our war aims?

Second, if our leaders lied to us about this, whose to say what else they are lying about? They lied about the WMDs. They lied about the secret CIA prisons. They lied about about the aluminum tubes. Now their lies about the links betwen Saddam and Zarqawi have been exposed.


FOX News: "No Ties - Saddam had no prewar link with Al Qaeda, Senate report says" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212897,00.html)
Yahoo News - "Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report;_ylt=AqIg7euQ3qNWEtWP72AO0h6s0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Here are some nice excerpts:



Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat

Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq. The report also newly faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats contended that the administration continues to use faulty intelligence, including assertions of a link between Saddam's government and the recently killed al-Zarqawi, to justify the war in Iraq.

They also said, in remarks attached to Friday's Senate Intelligence Committee document, that former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers.



...

A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.

It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.

The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians."

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

...

They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

...


Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he planned to ask for an investigation into the amount of information remaining classified. He said, "I am particularly concerned it appears that information may have been classified to shield individuals from accountability."

Just as a reminder... here is a picture of Chalabi behind Laura Bush as Bush's guest at the State of the Union Address:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il05_emanuel/chalabi.sotu.jpg


And for Ray...

Nobody could produce a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Zarqawi, but we always have this: :twisted:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

Ethan Van Sciver
09-08-2006, 02:49 PM
Well...

First, from your perspective, what exactly are our war aims?

Second, if our leaders lied to us about this, whose to say what else they are lying about? They lied about the WMDs. They lied about the secret CIA prisons. They lied about about the aluminum tubes. Now their lies about the links betwen Saddam and Zarqawi have been exposed.


FOX News: "No Ties - Saddam had no prewar link with Al Qaeda, Senate report says" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212897,00.html)
Yahoo News - "Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report;_ylt=AqIg7euQ3qNWEtWP72AO0h6s0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Here are some nice excerpts:



Just as a reminder... here is a picture of Chalabi behind Laura Bush as Bush's guest at the State of the Union Address:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il05_emanuel/chalabi.sotu.jpg


And for Ray...

Nobody could produce a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Zarqawi, but we always have this: :twisted:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

I can produce a picture of Harry Truman shaking hands with Josef Stalin. The picture of Rummy with Saddam looks like damn good proof of some attempted diplomacy on our parts. Sometimes things just don't work out.

I always thought that this wasn't a war of revenge on Al Quaida or Osama Bin Laden. I thought we were out to attempt to destroy an ideology. This is supposed to be a war on terrorism, and I'm under the impression that Iraq is part of a staging ground from which a much larger war will be fought later on down the road, perhaps with Iran or Syria. We didn't need Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction or to have a connection with Bin Laden. He was an asshole, and he was in our way.

It's good he's gone.

NATE!
09-08-2006, 03:12 PM
I'm curious. Where was it ever said by any public official that Saddam was responsible or had ties to 9/11? I knew from the get-go that Bin Laden was behind it, just from watching the news. Not once did I ever see Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in the same sentence.

mario
09-08-2006, 03:30 PM
The picture of Rummy with Saddam looks like damn good proof of some attempted diplomacy on our parts.
you mean this?
Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm)

jhz1963
09-08-2006, 03:46 PM
Iran wouldn't be so uppity if Saddam was still in their way. With the possibility of an Iran-like regime ultimately taking power in Iraq, and the U.S. fulfilling many Arabs' notion of what Western imperalism looks like, we have many new problems in that region which we'd never have if we had continued with threats and regular inspections. Now we have a severely strained military, a horrible image on the world stage, much more anger directed our way, thousands upon thousands dead and a bunch of neo-conmen who are wondering what happened to their fantasy of a transformed mid-east. Way ta go, righties!

Ray G.
09-08-2006, 04:36 PM
wheres Ray and Ethan?

What makes you think I have to jump into every loaded thread to state my opinion and get jumped on for it?

And as for this, I don't believe I ever said Saddam was tied to 9/11. Just that he was a sympathizer, as he made very clear on 9/11 when he made a statement supporting the attacks. He was a murderer of millions, an enemy of America, and I'm glad he's gone. I hope his own people swing him from the gallows for his crimes.

Greenville 90210
09-08-2006, 05:47 PM
What makes you think I have to jump into every loaded thread to state my opinion and get jumped on for it?

And as for this, I don't believe I ever said Saddam was tied to 9/11. Just that he was a sympathizer, as he made very clear on 9/11 when he made a statement supporting the attacks. He was a murderer of millions, an enemy of America, and I'm glad he's gone. I hope his own people swing him from the gallows for his crimes.

Yeah. Saddam is a shitty dude. A fucking tyrant. But guess what- there's tons of them. Ones a lot worse than Saddam- their countries just aren't in strategic locations. That's fine. The US wants to be there so they can stage their next phase of war against the middle east. Ok. Just admit that. Cause they gave 10 different phoney, bullshit excuses why we went. That's the problem.

Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with islamic terrorists before we started bombing them. Now, we've created a new breeding ground to ensure the bogus "war on terrorism" lasts forever. Yay!

Ryan F
09-08-2006, 06:57 PM
I'm curious. Where was it ever said by any public official that Saddam was responsible or had ties to 9/11? I knew from the get-go that Bin Laden was behind it, just from watching the news. Not once did I ever see Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in the same sentence.

Hmmm, well Cheney basically maintained plausible deniability with some careful wording, but he certainly implied it. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Also, it's been out there:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

Doc Randy
09-08-2006, 07:09 PM
I'm curious. Where was it ever said by any public official that Saddam was responsible or had ties to 9/11? I knew from the get-go that Bin Laden was behind it, just from watching the news. Not once did I ever see Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in the same sentence.

How about this:

On the Sept 14th, 2003 Meet The Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/), Cheney said that Iraq was the "geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

BrianS
09-08-2006, 08:37 PM
I thought we were out to attempt to destroy an ideology. This is supposed to be a war on terrorism, and I'm under the impression that Iraq is part of a staging ground from which a much larger war will be fought later on down the road, perhaps with Iran or Syria. We didn't need Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction or to have a connection with Bin Laden. He was an asshole, and he was in our way.

It's good he's gone.

In that case, this proves Saddam could have been our greatest ALLY in the region. He hated Bin Laden as much as we did!

The war was in Afghanistan, and if you saw CBS news on Tuesday night, you saw how much ground the Taliban has made since we got "rid" of them.
Why couldn't we have finished the job their and used it for a staging ground?
Thats right...Rumsfeld said "there are no good targets in Afghanistan."

Dreg
09-08-2006, 08:48 PM
Speaking of "nazi" sympathizers, didn't Cheney himself petition to have US sanctions on Iran removed while he was president of Haliburton? I recall that during the last election, he accused Democrats of only bringing it up to "confuse the voters." Now that he's locked for a second term, are we mentally prepared to digest this information yet?

MattJohnson
09-08-2006, 08:49 PM
I'm curious. Where was it ever said by any public official that Saddam was responsible or had ties to 9/11? I knew from the get-go that Bin Laden was behind it, just from watching the news. Not once did I ever see Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in the same sentence.


The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, [...] There's numerous contacts between the two.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html