Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon
posted at 8:13 am on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A new study commissioned by the Pentagon has reviewed over 600,000 documents captured in the invasion of Iraq, and the analysis shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. It did find operational ties and more between Saddam and other terrorist groups, however, which will likely be lost in an avalanche of I-told-you-sos:
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy Newspapers. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime’s archives found no documents indicating a “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
The study found, though, that Saddam Hussein turned Iraq into a state sponsor of terrorism, including for groups with “global” scope. Saddam had openly bragged about some of his activities. He made a great show of paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for instance, and at one point held a convention for international terrorists in Baghdad.
McClatchy reporter Warren Strobel also includes a strange passage in this report:
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al-Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq.
“The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” the president said.
That has little to do with pre-war intelligence. Not too many people dispute that AQ has an active presence in Iraq in the post-invasion period, mostly because AQ keeps reminding people of it. The argument which the Pentagon report addresses is whether AQ existed in Iraq before we invaded, or whether they entered Iraq as a consequence of the invasion. Clearly, the Pentagon report believes it to be the latter.
As this report makes clear, though, Saddam sponsored terrorist groups outside of Iraq as well as conducted terror inside Iraq with his own security forces. He made himself into a malevolent force in the region, and he represented a threat to American and Western interests in the region. Had we let the sanctions regime collapse — which was what was happening when we invaded — Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs and would have continued in his ambitions to make himself the leader of a unified and hostile Arab state.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
When did Iraq declare war on the US?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
my point is there original “mission statements” are BS and they fall under the auspices of Taqiyyah.
their claim of US meddling in the ME does not match up with the reality, as mentioned above.
class, outie.
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM
class, outie.
Mission accomplished?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
When they violated the ceasefire agreement?
Oh wait, you were baiting, my bad. I guess they never did. NO War for OIL!
NeoconNews.com on March 11, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Tom, could you identify an Al-Qaeda member/fighter/supporter/financer/coordinator/propogandist/media wing/webmaster if they were standing next to you?
Anyone?
Oh, by the time they exploded a bomb at your children’s school or cut your head off, then you would have a target, right?
But before they acted, what do they look like? What uniform do they wear? What are the danger signs to look for? How can you identify them as a target?
I didn’t think so.
So how do you really know, I mean really know that they were not in Iraq working with Sadaam?
How would you really know?
So what makes you think a bunch of bureaucrats with a political agenda can?
Seven Percent Solution on March 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM
No, I’m merely stating a fact. He wasn’t directly connected to al-Qaeda before the invasion.
That’s the problem with all of this. Though there are ties and connections that make reasonable people see a grave threat, there are no direct connections.
If it really were that simple, then you’d have no leg to stand on. We found several WMDs, things that should have been destroyed by Saddam under the treaty that guaranteed we’d leave him in peace.
Does anyone really believe any of that? There’s absolutely no logic in it, especially after the bombing started.
And weren’t we already assured by Ron Paul that Iran doesn’t even have an army anyway?
If he’s wrong, and Iran really is dangerous enough to have been in a position to take over Iraq before the invasion, then why aren’t we taking them more seriously? Is your argument that Iran is the real threat whereas Iraq’s power was merely a mirage?
By the time Bush decided enough was enough, those who made those claims had already been able to wait it out and see what would happen. How many decades did they need to prove to us they weren’t trying to take us out with nukes? And if there were to be no consequences for failing to live up to their side of the treaty, why did we even bother signing one?
Esthier on March 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM
By whom? You can’t possibly say we were misled by anyone more than the entire intelligence community. Go back and read the 2002 NIE and then look up who wrote it. (Hint: it wasn’t Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Halliburton)
Chuck Schick on March 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM
At $107/barrel, it would have been nice to have gotten some oil out of the effort.
dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
This in no way erases the fact that he was beaten in the Gulf War and was determined to fight on with any means possible. They can tell the UN and the Dems “I told you so”. It was the right thing to do and preempted a clear and present danger.
Hening on March 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Even the HotAir headline is a mislead – a distraction from why we actually DECLARED we were going in, and why we did what we did.
Basically, the politics of information is dead, it’s all memes now. You can’t convince anyone of anything important because they will always have a number of “sources” that will legitimize their views.
It’s no longer possible to reconcile.
Nothing to do now but sit back and watch you all eat each other.
Merovign on March 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Sorry for late reply Tom:
Yes, I do think so. And we should have. The WMD thing was important, but was just one of many reasons.
Frankly–the US, under George W. Bush, put bite behind the United Nation’s bark. The UN would have ceased to have any relevance (ok, I know, it never had much to begin with) had we (and 33 other nations) not backed up the resolutions with force.
But here is the real issue. For any nation to do anything, there must be opportunity and willingness. This is even more true when it comes to war.
The UN resolutions and all the other items I listed, including Saddam’s links to terrorism, gave us the Opportunity to invade.
9/11 gave the US the willingness. Right or wrong, that is how I see it. 9/11 was a seperate issue than Iraq—one could indeed draw a relationship between the two, but it would be along the lines of 6 degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon.
Personally I think the administration overplayed the WMD aspect–and the terror links. There were better reasons to go to war.
Montana on March 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Wasn’t this already confirmed by the Iraq Study Group and other independent agencies? That Saddam had no real ties to Al Qaeda is very old news I thought.
PaulD on March 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Tom, we were NOT misled. Listen to the Clintons, Kerry’s, Daschles, et al. They ALL sang the same hymn as GW Bush did later. The difference? GW Bush took action while the others just jacked their jaws.
The only way people could think we were miseld into war is if they get all their information from NPR, the DNC, the Daily KOS and the MSM.
The reasons for war were plain to see. Liberal guilt and fear of a strong and popular Republican President muddied those clear waters and now those same Liberals are trying to rewrite history a mere five years later.
2+2=4 in my world.
Montana on March 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM
They always have to use a qualifier on these statements. No Operational Ties mean there were Non-operational Ties. Otherwise they would say No Ties period. Of course this will be picked up by the left as No … Ties.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
When they violated every UN resolution that was put in place for reason not to attack Iraq.
But, you know, facts never get in the way of an anti-war liberal’s argument.
kcluva on March 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
And Saddam’s repeated attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft.
And Saddam’s attempt to assassinate a former US President.
But then again, those lil’ gems don’t get much airplay on NPR…and hey, it’s no big deal to be shot right?
Riiiiight…when you aren’t the one being shot at.
Montana on March 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Dunno why Tom brought this up. It’s actually a counterargument to his point. If Saddam wanted the world to have the impression that it had WMD’s, that is as good as having them, really.
It’s much like telling the cops you have a gun in your pocket and are pointing it at them and ready to fire. They shoot you. Can’t really blame the cops, can ya?
lorien1973 on March 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Look, clearly our intelligence wasn’t right on. And neither was British or Israeli intelligence. All signs pointed to Saddam posing a grave threat to this country, post 9-11. He had a pain in the butt for the world, an evil dictator who invaded his neighbors, and we had been dealing with him as a problem for a long, long time before we invaded Iraq. He was a maniac who gassed his own people, it wasn’t a stretch of the imagination he could throw a couple poison gas canisters to a terrorist group so they could put it on a New York City subway. And as I recall, before we invaded, although Saddam was secular, he was starting more and more to play up Islamist sympathies and present himself as religious. Who knows where that could have lead…anyway, one less monster in the world. No one misses him.
mattyj86 on March 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Who cares? We went into Iraq because we could not, while fighting the Taliban in front of us, afford to have Saddam kick the bucket in office behind us, leaving Uday/Qusay/General Whatsisbutt freer to act than Saddam was.
Case in point was Syria. If you think the 2000 intifada kicking off 9 months after Hafez Assad’s death was a coincidence, please get off my internetz, because u r FAIL. Containment of Iraq was effectively containment of Saddam, just as containment of Syria was containment of Hafez.
I’ve said that since 2003.
Sekhmet on March 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM
As it should because it’s irrelevant.
freevillage on March 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
There was plenty of that on both sides. Some on the left thinking that any military action is criminal and then some on the right dismissing questions about overall strategy or the competenece of Rumsfeld, Bremmer, et al.
dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Former Pentagon policy chief Douglas Feith explained in front of the Senate Armed Services committee last year that Saddam and al-Qaeda has no operational relationship, but that they DID have a relationship:
An operational relationship was never claimed by the Bush administration. Operational meaning they collaborated to carry out missions jointly… that was never a claim by anyone. But it is a fact that al-Qaeda and Saddam had mutual interests, which is why al-qaeda operatives were traveling back and forth to Iraq and back to their various countries of origin.
This Iraqi terrorist worked for al-Qaeda and describes his affiliation with bin Laden and Zarqawi’s groups, and that under the “former regime”, i.e., Saddam, al-Qaeda had a camp in Fallujah, although in 2005 he said al-Qaeda was now “scattered”.
I think this report is misleading; Saddam and al-Qaeda were never operational, but still maintained a relationship.
Amy Proctor on March 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM
So having meetings with Al Qaeda #2 Al-Zawarhi and giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t count as “operational”?
SoulGlo on March 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
…and whom might that be? Perchance the USA?
tommylotto on March 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
What exactly does the Pentagon consider “operational ties”? I can’t imagine those who “exhaustively” analyzed 600k docs didn’t conveniently ignore the other millions of documents, tape recordings, etc. in a similar way when denying the WMD presence. Even after what was found was reported (and most being moved to Syria with the Spetsnaz’ help) it didn’t matter because the moonbats and MSM were screaming the same answer for all problems Iraq: Blame Bush™. The intelligence surrounding the whole thing has been filtered by people in the IC with their own agenda anyhow; I say the report is worthless.
fanderbiles on March 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
We could drill down the facts for eternity to get to the reality of the relationship between Saddam and AQ, but it will not matter. What matters are the phrases used by official reports and how they can be twisted politically.
“No operational relationship” ah ha, Bush lied…
I’ve given up trying to defend the war to the current anti-war crowd. The next battle will be for the history books. We need to strategically place right thinking Americans into the positions responsible for selecting text books for public education — college professors of history would be good too.
tommylotto on March 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
No offense intended, but you must be high. We lost education to the libs a long time ago. They’re already rewriting the past and turning science into myth.
We can’t even redeem McCarthy with the Verona report. I have no hope that history will be more kind to Bush. I’d love to be proven wrong though.
Esthier on March 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I have something to say about this…..and you’re most likely going to be surprised by what I say.
This is the SAME Governmental Organization who told us, that they had actionable intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We now know that they did not.
This is the same Governmental Organization that tells us that they couldn’t even tell 100% for sure if Iran has nuke program or not.
Why do people continue to believe what these incompetent idiots tell them?
WFC
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Shut up Libber. I think the Kossaks calling you. go away.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
However, most leftists draw a distinction between “real” AQ (in Afghanistan and Pakistan) and “fake” AQ (in Iraq).
I say if your plan is to defeat terrorism by showing average Muslims what freedom and democracy can do for them, do you do it in a smashed, barely-functioning, Islamic fundamentalist narco-state like Afghanistan or do you go someplace like Iraq, with an educated and somewhat secular populace which also has loads of natural resources and lots of infrastructure (albeit decaying)?
Of course you go to Iraq, and the fact that they’ve been violating a cease-fire for twelve years just makes the deal sweeter. All of which begs the question: If Iraq had been as peaceful as say, Jordan, would we have invaded a different country and, if so, which one?
Kafir on March 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I’m convinced that Bush confused Iraq with Afghanistan.
Trust me, it’s possible.
Anyway, at least our borders are secure.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Let’s dial back to 2003:
When we went into Afghanistan, we knew that Pakistan was going to be a no-go from the beginning. We hoped to have caught the Taliban enough with their pants down that they would not make it to Pakistan, but that was far too optimistic a scenario.
If the Talibs and Al-Q (parts of a family tree what don’t branch) made it to “safe” parts of Pakistan, we would be fighting in Afghanistan for years while the Talibs regrouped in Pakistan. And indeed, this is how things shook out.
In the meantime, at our backs we had Iraq and Iran. The mullah-ocracy of Iran was rule by a clique, and the Iranian government in its present form with its present containment options would remain intact, no matter which Mullah kicked the bucket.
Iraq, on the other hand, was organized along much the same lines as Syria, except Iraq had more oil than Syria. We were more than aware of bribes being made through Oil For Food. When you consider that containment failed on Syria the moment Hafez Assad died, and Saddam was no spring chicken, the assessment was made that we could not allow Saddam to die while still “President” of Iraq.
Sekhmet on March 11, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Yeah, cause all us libbers are real in favor of continuing the mission in Iraq, which, if you’d read the gist of my post, I support.
I may not post all that often, but I’ve been here a while, noob.
SouthernDem on March 11, 2008 at 3:07 PM
The biggest thing that really, really annoys me about everybody complaining about AQ NOT being in Iraq is that is NOT why we went in there and the Repubs never remind everybody why we did go in there.
We were just attacked. We were worried. We were suspicious, as were all of our allies. We went in because there was no way in hell that the President was going to take any chances and allow us to be attacked in any way shape or form again, and the most significant reason…….
SADDAM HAD HIS GOONS SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES ON A DAILY BASIS!
Remember the no-fly zones? Yes, check your history folks, they were shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones even while the UN inspectors were there “supposedly” doing their job.
I wish every time somebody pulled the “no AQ in Iraq” crap that those of us with half a working brain would remind them about the shooting at our planes just after we were attacked on 9/11. Couple that with the $25,000 payment to suicide bomber families in Israel and you get invasion. How anybody can forget that stuff is inexplicable to me.
SeLFMaDE on March 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Unfortunately, it isn’t a matter of forgetting. The bottom line is this: OBL declared war on the US in something like 1996. Now, do you take that declaration seriously and treat 9/11 as an act of that war, or do you say that an individual cannot declare war and therefore 9/11 was the crime of mass murder?
If you do the former, then invading Iraq makes sense. If you’re of the latter mind, it doesn’t. Case in point: Iraq had been shooting at our planes and sending those checks for years. They had not been cause for war before, why are they now? Convincing people that the action in Iraq is justified has to start with convincing them that there actually is a war.
Kafir on March 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM
No “operational ties”, but a nice necktie party.
Loons of a feather need to be plucked.
Whatever their name.
profitsbeard on March 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I think you should re-read the original AUMF. If all that was justification for invasion, we wouldn’t have wasted time with sending in inspectors and talking about UN disarmament resolutions. We would have just invaded.
ChenZhen on March 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Ed,
You are giving the press the benefit of the doubt on this when they don’t deserve it. When these reports have come out in the past the pre-press has always been terribly cherry picked and when you have this story written by a guy who has already penned a “Bushlied” book and spent the past few months building up how great a president Obama would be I wouldn’t believe anything he said as being unslanted.
Not too mention the report mentions nothing of the HUNDREDS of Baath detainees or Izzat al Douri who have admitted cooperation with al Qaeda in the days right after the war. (see http://www.regimeofterror.com) Were they even asked about when that cooperation began? Maybe but if they were a bunch of partisan Democrats who have alleged Bush lied about the subject are the LAST people in the world to be trusted on conducting a study on the topic yet this is exactly who penned this report and who this leftist hack journalist thinks is the end all be all on the subject.
ikez78 on March 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM
The point has never really been about whether or not Saddam had WMD’s, violated UN sanctions, or had ties to AQ. The point has always been that we believed (and so did virtually every other intellegence service and politician) he did. The point has always been that in a post 9-11 world we couldn’t take a chance that we were wrong. Oh how heads would have rolled if God forbid some Islamofacist nutcase with verifiable ties back to Saddam and AQ had gotten into the US and pulled off a WMD attack. Can you imagine the cries of dereliction of duty from the Harry Reid / Nancy Pelosi / John Murtha axis if that had happened? I sure can, because they tried it with 9-11… even though the majority of AQ’s strengthening happened under Clinton’s watch, and even though Bill Clinton did virtually nothing to combat the obvious growing threat of AQ and Islamofacist terrorism.
Now, when you add to that the fact that Saddam did violate UN sanctions repeatedly, and that he did shoot at our planes patroling the no fly zone, and that he did have operational ties to other terror groups… Just what exactly were we supposed to do less than two years after 3,000 Americans were incinerated? I don’t want American politicians playing the odds with my security by not going after someone that poses a threat.
Jim C
JimC99 on March 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but I remember the three points that the president used to justify the invasion as being:
1. Saddam had WMD’s (No one in the world tried to claim otherwise before the invasion)
2. Saddam’s ties to terrorism (not specifically AQ, but plenty of other terror groups)
3. Humanitarian effort to remove a bloodthirsty dictator
Troy Rasmussen on March 11, 2008 at 8:48 PM
everybody seems to want to forget tidbits like this:
The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ”responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.”
The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows.
Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.
On the front page of the paper’s four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ”Revolutionary Council,” together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians.
On the back page was a story headlined ”List of Honor.” In a box below the headline was ”A list of men we publish for the public.” The lead sentence refers to a list of ”regime persons” with their names and positions.
The list has 600 names
and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam’s family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ”deck of cards” Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended.
Halfway down the middle column is written: ”Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.”
The story Judge Merritt relates is similar to an account reported in The Weekly Standard last May. Splashed across the front page of the November 16, 2002, edition of Uday Hussein’s Babil newspaper were two “honor” lists, one of which included Aswod (spelled “Aswad”) and identified him as the “official in charge of regime’s contacts with Osama bin Laden’s group and currently the regime’s representative in Pakistan.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp
looks like the CSG (clinton shadow goverment) strikes again!
right4life on March 11, 2008 at 10:18 PM
a few other tidbits that have went down the memory hole…
On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad’s embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 WTC plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets over the Pacific at once.
The Czech Republic stands by its claim that 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat/intelligence agent. He was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe’s Prague headquarters, from which American broadcasts to Iraq emanate.
Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda,” Baer ruled. An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp
I wonder if this new denial of any links is the link of Mr. England…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019446.php
right4life on March 11, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Saddam had plenty to do with Islamic terrorism. There is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing.—> http://husseinandterror.com/
Dollayo on March 12, 2008 at 8:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2