Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon
posted at 8:13 am on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
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: [1] 2 »
I agree that Al-Qaeda is a horrible threat to the region, now. But to keep justifying the reasons for the invasion are becoming more and more unattainable as evidenced by this study. I think the best way forward is to acknowledge the current situation in Iraq and develop a strategy based on those conditions. Just my 2 cents…
LT Nixon on March 11, 2008 at 8:19 AM
I haven’t trusted the Pentagon since Vietnam.
OldEnglish on March 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM
‘No operational ties’ is code speak for ‘plausible deniability.’ It still doesn’t exonerate him at all, because of the financial ties to other, non-al Qaeda terrorism mentioned above.
Besides, nowhere outside of liberal screeching did the Saddam-al Qaeda nexus ever exist.
“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!”
“Um…yeah, no kidding. Nobody ever said it did, but for some reason you keep saying that we said it. This is about the documented violation of numerous UN conditions for the cease-fire.”
James on March 11, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but did Bush ever say that Saddam was in bed with al-Qaida? I thought one of the reasons Bush gave for going into Iraq was to KEEP Saddam from having “operational ties” to al-Qaida?
Rightwingsparkle on March 11, 2008 at 8:29 AM
1) Just because he didn’t have direct ties with AQ didn’t mean he didn’t have ties with them.
2) Just because they aren’t AQ doesn’t mean they aren’t the same type of people who attacked us on Septemeber 11.
AQ is just one group of many who want to take us down, and are making direct threats, and making direct attacks on Americans and others around the world. Until people, including President Bush get that through their heads, we are going to have a whole lot of trouble.
bikermailman on March 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM
I call BS. Are we supposed to believe that those terrorist training camps at Khifl, An Nasariah, Salman Pak, and others…those were just all put together between 3/20/03 the time they were overrun just days later? Nope. How about the thousands of “foreign fighters”/Jihadis who just happened to show up when the US invaded? I particularly liked the part in his “article” where he says AQ in Iraq didn’t emerge until 2004, but ignores that the AQ affiliates-the people-were there conducting jihad inside Iraq from the time the USMC crossed the border onwards.
I wanna read this report.
scottm on March 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM
What would an indirect operational link look like? How about a direct non-operational link?
Who is Hikmat Shakir? Aw, hell, I give up. I still don’t even know who hired Craig Livingstone.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM
James,
Cheney pushed a meeting between Iraq and Atta in Prague prior to 9/11.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
I think this quote sums up not just Cheney’s role, but the entire Bush administration’s push to invade Iraq:
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney’s “willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It’s astounding.”
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 8:33 AM
The key word being “operational”. The rest we knew and so did the PelosiCos and the ReidCos but it isn’t politically expedient to say so.
Snooper on March 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Gee. wow. They looked at 600,000 of the 35,000,000 captured documents. What about the ones that were destroyed by Saddam’s guys, and what did they destroy/hide/cover up?
.
Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage.
.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The basement historical files were systematically selected and destroyed.
scottm on March 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Rightwingsparkle, here’s a quote from Rice:
Saddam Hussein — no one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let’s be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM
I do not believe anyone has been able to place atta in the us at the time of his supposed meeting in Prague
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 8:42 AM
This is like saying that Elliot Spitzer had no operational ties with Heidi Fleis.
CurtZHP on March 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
“Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror — hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida — providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.
Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).
OK, last one… as I could sit here and post these all day.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Wait a second…600,000 docs. There were something like 35,000,000 documents, videos, audio tapes, etc captured. This 600,000 is eerily identical to the (coincidental number) 600,000 docs used to make this same claim in the Sen Intel Com phase II pt1 report from 2005. Gosh, what a coincidence.
scottm on March 11, 2008 at 8:46 AM
“Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon”
WTF does this man? Did Sadaam have ties with Al Qaeda?
This looks awfully like the “Iran stopped developing the bomb in 2004″ statement by ratbags with an agenda.
Now that the tone of Bush villifiction has been set, look to a more undereported review which will probably show a lot of links, possibly through third parties, which could have been of a operational nature.
davod on March 11, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Bullshit. Plain and simple dumbness from a bureaucracy that is part of the same government that gave us such gems as Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons…
Start reading here and finish here or here then come back and tell me that Saddam didn’t have operational links. Goddamn we should fire anyone associated with that idiot study. Next then you know they will tell us that Islam means peace…oh wait they already did.
And no President Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11…but he should have.
PierreLegrand on March 11, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Tom_Shipley, what was Zarqawi doing in Iraq before the invasion?
Why did Richard Clarke think Osama would “boogie to Baghdad” if the Pakistani intelligence service tipped him off to airstrikes? Because of the alliteration?
I’ve never believed the government of Iraq had a role to speak of in 9/11, but the Hikmat Shakir connection is something I’ve wanted to see pursued further — and for a long time. Shakir may well have facilitated meetings of the 9/11 hijackers from a job the Iraqi embassy helped him get (and which he left after their last meeting, if I recall correctly). Hayes ran that thread out as far as the intelligence-gatherers’ interest would take it, but that might not be far enough.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM
$12 billion a month well spent, says I……. Now if we can just hang tight to our limited govt principles….
Grow Fins on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Awww, I love these studies. It don’t matter that Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism in Israel which killed quite a few Americans, Canadians, etc, as well as scores of Israelis. Because we all know that those Israelis are asking for it. What with existing and all. Sounds like something directly out of Dur Sturmer to me.
How about the torture chambers? How about the massacre of the Kurds? How about the appalling treatment of women? How about the killing of Jews and Christians? How about violating cease fires and no-fly zones? Saddam was asking for it in lots of ways, it’s about time someone gave him what he wanted. I’m sorry, I will never ever think that invading Iraq was a bad thing. Too bad they didn’t finish him off in after the Kuwait war, like they should have.
Let’s get off this “he didn’t have this, he had this” already. It’s done. Looking back and lamenting or blaming or whatevs accomplishes nothing. It’s time to move forward in stabilizing Iraq, finishing off the terror networks within, and moving onto scaring the crap out of Iran.
mjk on March 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Oh come on, people!
I’m am 100% all for finishing the job we started and not leaving till Iraq is stable, but ya gotta take the blinders off sooner or later and start accepting these things.
SouthernDem on March 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Looking back and lamenting or blaming or whatevs accomplishes nothing.
You don’t think we should hold our leaders accountable when they mislead our country into war?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 9:04 AM
You know, these things are a matter of public record…it’s not wearing blinders to remember that the scrambling for al-Qaeda connections didn’t happen until after the AUMF passed and the debate was framed away from the original justification by the Administration’s poor handling of a hostile news media.
James on March 11, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Tom, I agree. The level of denial going on here is astonishing:
Cheney in June 2004, to CNN:
Astonishing!!
Grow Fins on March 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM
First, the Pentagon has become like the State Dept. A government unto itself. Second, if Iraq was such a strategic location and potential operational base for AQ why have they flocked there? They know Bush said they were targets. If anything it is a brilliant military move to draw the enemy you are after to where your troops are already deployed. AQ has lost many many people in Iraq. Obviously the cancer is everywhere, Somolia, Philippines and yes, Europe.
wepeople on March 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM
what about the documents showing 1993 WTC bomber, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who fled to Iraq after the bombing and we discovered documents suggesting he was on Saddam’s payroll? There is a $2 Million bounty on his head by the Clinton Justice Dept.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
OR, the fact Saddam openly offered asslym to Bin Laden when he was fleeing Sudan in 1999, as reported by CNN and ABC.
OR, as Senator Fritz Hollins put into the Official Senate Record on Sept. 12, 2002, an Iraqi State Run Newspaper Editorial from July 23, 2001 predicting Bin Ladens attack and naming the targets metaphorically???
jp on March 11, 2008 at 9:24 AM
ansar al Islam anyone?
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Are people still playing this whole “we were misled into war” nonsense?
It’s an interesting mental disorder that produces memory lapses along with perfect hindsight. Information that is helpful to an agenda is given full attention, no matter what, adn does not need to be verified. Any information that hurts the agenda is ridiculed at the onset.
I haven’t had an honest, intelligent debate with anyone on the left since the mid 1990s. It’s just getting worse, as the same can apply to moderates as well.
I haven’t even seen any honest, intelligent debates. It’s all about plugging your ears and repeating the same nonsense over and over. Whoever comes up with the best one-liners, or yells the loudest, or makes the most serious allegations wins?
I suppose if I lacked the wit to engage in an honest debate, I could also go back and cherry pick quotes from people and splice bits of info together to fit my own agenda. It’s much like a Michael Moore documentary. Pure intellectual fraud, it’s actually very sad.
reaganaut on March 11, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I am not surprised to find that Suddam Hussein did not allow the official al Quaeda in Iraq. Duh! Our point of contention with him was his absolute terror over his entire populace entirely without any tolerance for anything but himself.
There would be terrorists in outlying areas, no doubt. But they would have by necessity been working under the auspices of Saddam in order to remain alive.
The biggest and most monsterously horrible effect of Bush’s Rumsfeldian invasion of Iraq was destroying without securing. That they did it on purpose is what will be remembered. There is no way in hell that they can claim they anticipated rose petals from EVERYONE in Iraq. Every country, the USA included, has a vast criminal element that seizes opportunity–political opportunists included. Bush created the vacuum and allowed the thugs to take charge and the al Quaeda to seize more. The horrible truth for our selfish interest is that we never belonged over there. Just as the Russian populace has realized, there is no such thing for them as the “American democracy”. The Iraqi’s know that though they have their temporary democracy, the end result for their Islamic population will be a demo/theocracy, which will never work because they don’t worship the same. Hence, they MUST be allowed their separate territories, united as a country for international strength and expediency, but separate states for separate entities, allied as one.
Bush won’t allow that, either. So he sets up the situation wherein al Quaeda invades and will rule Iraq. And our military efforts are for naught. Bush failed to even ASK for a treaty with Iraq for anything at all to compensate for our sacrifices and expenses–nothing, as though that makes Bush better than he is. His leadership is strange at best, twisted at worst. We have little if any hope of any good coming from McCain, and absolutely no good will come of Hillary or nObama. I hate seeing things for what they are, but that’s how I see it.
BTW, I mean no disrespect to my fellow citizens. I love, respect and support our military men and women who are achieving miracles for the people of Iraq while protecting us, our Constitution, our nation, and God’s creation of all so blessed as GOOD.
maverick muse on March 11, 2008 at 9:38 AM
reaganaut,
We were told Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs, a nuclear program and worked with al-qaeda in an effort to get popular support behind the war.
this included MANY false statements presented as fact.
How can you NOT say we were misled to war?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Unbelievable — Ed makes the point clear: what would Saddam be doing today if he was still in charge? Case closed.
Richard Romano on March 11, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Misleading implies knowledge of the falsehood of the claims at the time they are made, no? I don’t doubt that the claims, perhaps all of them, were wrong. But you would have a hard time making the case that the only ones who had ever said the same thing were the Bush Administration [See Kagan's "It Wasn't Just Her Story" on Judy Miller] and once you admit that a fair portion of the intelligence community had issued the same dire assessments for the better part of the prior decade this whole “lied us into war” meme just falls apart.
To go from “wrong” to “misleading” requires assumptions you’re not entitled to make.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Well put.
petefrt on March 11, 2008 at 9:46 AM
how do you know there aren’t beuarucrats misleading you now? for inside political reasons that is so common.
take McCarthy, it wasn’t until the Venona Decrypts in the early 90’s were declassified that he was exonerated. With this we are talking about a group that operates in the shadows, sponsored by terror supporting states like Saddam’s Iraq. Not that Saddam had an official cabinet post of Al-Qaeda, which is the type of “links” people are looking for.
jp on March 11, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Since my wife is a Filipina, I distinctly remember that Saddam aided & even hosted some terrorists who bombed Manila in the 90s. These thugs belonged to a group linked directly to AQ.
jgapinoy on March 11, 2008 at 9:47 AM
He was there, but he was in his own terrorist organization until after the invasion.
It’s completely disingenuous to say that we were mislead into war. The fact that so few of us even remember the Bush administration making these claims (I notice you never quoted Bush, despite Rightwingsparkle’s question) attests to the fact that they had little to do with our reason to invade.
The cease fire treaty gave us every right to go in there.
Esthier on March 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM
and paleo-cons and paleo sympathizers out there..
jp on March 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I’m willing to bet that this is a tricky way of trying to cover up that Iraq had contacts with al Qaeda, which was one of the things the Bush administration were talking most about.
Sure, no operational ties, I think most already knew that, and never really suspected that to be the case before the war. That’s not really been the issue. The issue has been whether or not Saddam ever approached al Qaeda, or vice versa.
McClatchy has cleverly fixed everyone’s eyes on the former, so that the latter will glide right under the radar.
Seixon on March 11, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Ed, reading your posts daily now is a real treat. Thanks for the first class analysis and documentation. I wonder where you find time in the day to stay on top of it all.
petefrt on March 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Dr. Steve,
Here’s what I mean by misleading:
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney’s “willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It’s astounding.”
Time after time, the Bush administration spoke of things as fact that were either internally debate or doubted. Rumsfeld said there was “bullet proof” evidence that Iraq was working with al Qaeda. He also said that the US knew exactly where the WMD stockpiles were. They spoke with a degree of certainty that they were not entitled to… and the worst thing about it is… THEY WERE WRONG. They gambled that they were right on everything they said and they lost. We were misled into war.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Humor, yes?
Let’s not forget AQ is an affiliate-network organization. He’d been trained in camps in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.
But if you won’t accept AMZ, how about Al-Masri? He also probably entered Iraq in 2002.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Congress had the same intelligence that the president did. Clinton had the same intelligence. Everyone concluded that Saddam had an active program. If you remember news recently, Saddam wanted people to think he did to forestall an invasion by Iran, remember?
The actual bill that allowed the president to invade Iraq contained 14 clauses. 3 of them dealt with WMD, if memory serves. Your simplification that it was “all about” wmd is silly.
lorien1973 on March 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Ed- You are being much too kind.
The paragraph you highlighted is dishonest and irresponsible.
I posted contact information to McClatchy to ask them to correct this mess.
…Or we can just be silent?
gatewaypundit on March 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Esthier,
OK, here’s a Bush quote:
President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:
“All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.
Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).
and many more…
http://www.bushoniraq.com/bush3.html
And as for the reason we invaded.
The MAIN reason, in the words of Bush himself, was WMDs.
WMDs and the threat of Saddam passing them off to al qaeda were pretty much the main reasons for invading Iraq.
Without WMDs, no invasion. Pretty simple.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Iraq War Resolution
We were not “mislead” into war.
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Here’s a quote by Bush:
Now, look, I — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.
WMDs were the main reason. Without the perceived threat of Saddam’s WMDs, we would not have invaded.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:07 AM
excellent post by Gateway on this:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/mcclatchy-newspapers-report-their-is-no.html
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I don’t know that Bush ever said Saddam and AQ were “operational” together. He WAS HARBORING THEM THERE. It would’ve been just a matter of time before they were totally in bed together. Saddam AND AQ being DEAD = A MUCH BETTER WORLD.
jimbo2008 on March 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM
While Tom, (and others) may consider this encounter a “mislead”, he never mentions the 30 million Iraqis that had lived under the tyranny of a brutal dictator and his two sons that would have put Saddam’s legacy to shame.
History will record that it was this administration that was “accountable” for the liberation of a society that yearned for an end to the oppression of decades of brutality—something our liberal friends have never experienced or were ever willing to sacrifice in the name of humanity. No Tom, this war was not a mistake; it was a necessity — that even while it was not prosecuted to perfection, the end result will be the promise of a better life expectancy of the Iraqi people who would disagree with your analogy that some how freedom and liberty is reserved for some elite society ordained in their own prejudice.
Rovin on March 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Rovin,
We were misled. I mean, just look again at this statement by Bush.
“All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.
Obviously, you don’t care that we were misled into the war. You feel it was the right thing to do regardless of the WMDs. And that’s you’re right. But make no mistake, we were misled to war. WMDs were the reason we went in.
Bush and Co. knew they wouldn’t have support for a war based on their vision to “transform” the middle east or simply liberate Iraq from Saddam. So they scared Americans by making statements and claims that turned out to be false (see above).
It’s very clear that we were misled into invading Iraq.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM
gatewaypundit @ 10:12
Your visit here just shot our cummulative IQ through the roof.
maverick muse on March 11, 2008 at 10:22 AM
no it really isn’t…disconnect your emotions and think. Try actually reading the Iraq War Resolution and the Public Law’s referenced in it that are part of it, like “Regime Change policy” and the Cease Fire Resolution. and what it actually says.
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
jp,
the resolution says a lot of things, but can you honestly tell me that without the threat of WMDs, we would have invaded Iraq in 2003?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Shipley, it’s not being misled into the invasion as you’d have it. Whether al Quaeda has other names hardly matters; it was in Iraq since those identities are already proven. It was the allowance of thugs to take over when we wiped Iraq’s slate clean that was WRONG and for that foolish leadership our forces still suffer. Also, we must negotiate something permanent for our efforts–a permanent US military installation and oil deal. Otherwise, Bush’s US diplomacy is non-existent except to our detriment.
maverick muse on March 11, 2008 at 10:29 AM
test?
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Cnn in 1999:
Saddam Hussein offered asylum
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:31 AM
maverick,
Zwahari was in Iraq in 1998, but he was not harbored by or working with the Iraqi government. The other presence AQ had in Iraq was in the northern region which was beyond Saddam’s control and there’s no evidence showing they had any relationship with the Iraqi government.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
if WMD were “THE” reason we went into Iraq, and we would’ve bowed down to Saddam otherwise. Then why did Saddam not come clean and tell us to call it off, instead of continuing to lie about what he apparently had? We are there for a culmative list of reasons, not least of which was Saddam’s support for international terrorist groups.
The FACT that Al-Qaeda and other groups have made their stand against us in IRAQ and not AFGHANISTAN tells one all they need to know on the matter.
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:33 AM
It sounds to me that the Pentagon examined a portion of the total documents available and has made a limited claim about Saddam’s relationship with Al Qaeda.
What about the Al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in January 2000 which was attended by Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the planners of the Sep 11 attacks, and Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, Saudi skyjackers on American Airlines Flight 77 which targeted the Pentagon on Sep 11.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir escorted al-Hazmi and al-Midhar to that meeting, which he attended. Shakir was an Iraqi working for Malaysian Airlines as a greeter. Almost certainly, he was an agent of the Iraqi government.
From the Weekly Standard in 2004:
The fact that evidence of the Saddam-Bin Laden connection does not exist in 600,000 documents does not negate the evidence of the connection elsewhere. There was a connection. The question is the depth of the connection.
There is also the 2003 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which details what was known about cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, summarized here. Was all this consigned to the memory hole?
Tantor on March 11, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Here’s part of the 60 Minutes interview with George Piro, the man who questioned Saddam while in US custody:
Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration.
What was Saddam’s opinion of Osama Bin Laden?
“He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, ‘You can’t really trust fanatics,’” Piro says.
“Didn’t think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?” Pelley asks.
“No. No. He didn’t wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn’t want to associate with Bin Laden,” Piro explains.
Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The FACT that Al-Qaeda and other groups have made their stand against us in IRAQ and not AFGHANISTAN tells one all they need to know on the matter.
And what exactly tell one? That al qaeda had more of a presence in Iraq than Afghanastan? Is that what you’re saying? Did you ever think that bin laden and co. wanted to take the fight further away from their home in pakistan?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Then why did Saddam not come clean and tell us to call it off
Because
A) Saddam didn’t think the US was really going to invade.
B) He saw the perception of Iraq having WMDs as security — it kept nations like Iran from invading.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM
That’s the problem, reaganaut… I no longer expect intelligence as there simply isn’t any to be found on the left. Screeching “Bush Lied!!!” over and over with their fingers in their ears is their definition of “debate.” At least when I see that I know I can discount absolutely everything that person is saying… it’s actually kind of nice in that way, and saves me a lot of angst in having to deal with people comnpletely out of touch with reality.
hindmost on March 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Oh, Tom…your memory goes back only so far. I could give you a laundry list of quotes from the 90’s that say the exact same thing about the intelligence estimates of Iraq. By your logic, Congress is full of idiots or collaborators, since they approved of the mission. The UN had already pegged Iraq as a serious threat, but like usual didn’t have the will to make their many resolutions stick.
Serious minded people, who cared little for the political ramifications took the lead in a post-9/11 world to defend the United States from worse attacks. If you’d like to wear sackcloth and weep about the imperfections of what is the dirtiest kind of warfare, go ahead. I won’t join you…I’ll deal with the here and now.
As long as Americans continue to elect adults to the highest offices in the land, you’ll be displeased with the process, but protected.
Asher on March 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I haven’t seen anyone bring up all the thousands of tons of chemical weapons unaccounted for in Iraq’s admission report.
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM
We weren’t mislead.
There was little doubt that Saddam DID have those WMDs. The Democrats including BILL CLINTON in 1999 had called for an invasion to oust Saddam for that very reason. Saddam was NOT cooperating with the UN inspection groups, delaying them for hours if not days for entering areas. Saddam was PROVABLY working with terrorist groups. Members of AQ were PROVABLY in Iraq and had had contact with the Iraqi government. (We knew, we asked Hussein to turn them over and he refused)
These are all FACTS at the time. Now people can armchair quarterback with perfect 20/20 hindisight and say “ah ha I can point to 27 leftist anti-war websites that prove Bush was wrong”. People can go back to the last Superbowl and tell the Patriots they were wrong too. No one has perfect vision when it comes to second guessing on an opponents motivations. Especially one that isn’t forthcoming and actively interferes with an inspection process because they didn’t want the world to know that they DIDN’T have WMDs because they were afraid that Iran would invade.
What if Bush had been RIGHT and didn’t invade? Should we hold Bush accountable for all the Israeli deaths from Palestinian attacks paid for by Hussein? Should we have just left all the poor Iraqi children to starve and die because of our “inhumane” sanctions. Or maybe we should’ve just dropped the sanctions and let Hussein go (at which point Hussein was set to build up his army AND his WMD program again (also a fact) using oil dollars. Perhaps we should’ve just assassinated him…
There were, and are, no easy answers.
Skywise on March 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Asher,
Those other politicians didn’t try to invade Iraq, and they didn’t make as detailed claims as the Bush administration.
And many who made those claims were willing to allow UN inspectors more time to search for WMDs before invading, which Bush was not willing to do.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
No operational control means that he wasn’t directing them or supplying them, not that they weren’t there.
TooTall on March 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
at the gateway link:
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
The only questions to ask at this point, in this discussion, is “Was it reasonable at the time to think that Saddam had WMDs?” and “Post 9/11, was it acceptable to allow that situation to continue?” Pretty obviously, the answers to both of those are YES.
exhelodrvr on March 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
It was a police state; and as I’ve noted in this thread, he wasn’t just in the North. He spent 2 months in Baghdad in 2002, during which time the Iraqis took active measures to attempt to conceal his whereabouts from the Jordanians.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Tom, Saddam had given inspectors the run around for years.
and again, thousands of tonnes of chemical agents were NOT accounted for when Iraq released its report.
and how come anyone hasnt brought up the fact that the Iraqi Survey Group admits convoys moved into Syria in the Beq’aa valley?
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Oops - should be “YES” and “NO”!!!
exhelodrvr on March 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Skywise,
Not buying it. I was called every name in the book by “you people” prior to the invasion for doubting the word of the Bush administration that Iraq was a threat to the US that needed to be invaded.
There was strong opposition to this war which was muted by the Bush administrations bold, specific statements on Iraq’s WMD program.
We were misled into war.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
AQ + Saddam was not the reason for the 2003 invasion. Here is a short list of what were the reasons:
1. 18 ignored UN resolutions by Iraq
2. Iraq firing on coalition aircraft in the No-Fly zones (umm guys, they tried to KILL our pilots who, by UN-Iraq treaty (1991) were allowed to patrol those zones)
3. Failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors
4. Massacres of Shiites and Kurds after the 1991 war ended
5. Attempted assassination of a US President
Saddam’s ties to terror existed, yes, but they were not the primary reason for the invasion. Even without the terrorism links, Saddam needed killin’.
Don’t let the media and liberals re-write history.
Montana on March 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM
that the actions of our enemies speak volumes and sheds light on whats really going on. Instead of reading politically motivated misinformation, which there is alot of out there…
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
all “Acts of War” against the US.
in theory, the first time he violated the Cease Fire Agreement he signed was a case to resume hostilities.
jp on March 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Montana, I’ll ask you the same question I asked JP (which I haven’t received an answer to).
Do you think that without the threat of WMDs, we would have invaded Iraq in 2003?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
tom, if you dont think theyre down with fighting far away from pakistan, you are not living in reality.
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Tom,
I agree that without WMD’s we might not have invaded, but the Clinton administration said they had them. The CIA said they had them. Foreign intelligence said they had them. Saddam used them previously and there was no record of them being destroyed. Saddam acted like he had them. over 95% of all the available intelligence pointed to him having them. How is this misleading the public to scare them. There was also connections to terrorist organizations which have no compunction to use said WMD’s.
If there was deception it was from Saddam (to keep Iran on the defensive) and the Clinton administration (They passed the info on to the Bush administration) and the intelligence networks of the world.
Corsair on March 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Review the final weeks of the inspections regime. The US and UK put forth a draft resolution that demanded immediate disarmament. The French refused to accept anything that contained an ultimatum.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
that the actions of our enemies speak volumes and sheds light on whats really going on.
Again, what exactly do their actions say? What conclusions do you draw from them?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
the french and russians had every interest in blocking resolutions, doc steve.
they had weapons deals going with his regime
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Tom
We were not misled. And I was called plenty of names by “you people” as well for supporting Bush.
There was very strong opposition to the war before and after which was NOT (and has not) been muted by the Bush Administration. Fine, you were against the war from the start and you got lucky and your rationale was vindicated. That’s still not misleading the public anymore than FDR did for going after Germany when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Skywise on March 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Bingo.
DrSteve on March 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM
that the terrorist have alot to lose in losing Saddam’s regime in Iraq, that they consider it the central front in the WOT as their leaders have even admitted and their actions back up. I.e. they made their stand there….Salman Pak among other training grounds in Iraq were critical, plus Iraq is loaded with money for funding unlike Afghanistan.
there is alot of political BS out there, misinformation, etc., its a powerplay by the Dems/media. if they continue to lose elecitons they lose the courts(their god) for a generation.
and IF(i.e. Hindsight, monday morning QB, etc.) the CIA, clinton Administration, British Intel, Russian Intel, ‘world community” had known Saddam was lying about WMD and he didn’t have them, “would we still have gone to war”……….I honestly have no idea, its a moot point really. That said, I could see them still doing it and selling it differently. Framing it around All the ACTS OF WAR Saddam committed against the United States for a decade and his known ties to Terrorist groups like Hamas, training grounds like Salman Pak…
jp on March 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Lets just look at the circumstantial evidence
saddam funds hamas
saddam does not account for thousands of tons of chem agents
saddam plays games with inspectors
saddam has convoys move into syria immediately prior to the war
saddams regime helps ansar al islam and has multiple training sites such as Salman Pak
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
it was just the largest known Financial Scam in world history…..plus there were American Interest. Democrat OIL MEN IN HOUSTON like the guy that just got sent to jail for Treason, who lobbied someone in Washington to go anti-war. probably Ted Kennedy…funny how this stuff never gets reported
jp on March 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM
not to mention saddams link to known terrorist banking orgs such as al-taqwa trust, which was desginated a terrorist entity in 03
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM
i mean how much crap do we need before we can say with comfortable certainty (there is no absolutism with intelligence) that saddam had WMD and was knee deep with islamic terror groups?
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM
i understand its fun to play 20/20 and accuse people of lying, but we have the following
1) 1998 desert fox based on WMD
2) saddams games with inspectors
3) convoys into syria
4) saddams dealing with groups like hamas, abu nidal org, ansar al-islam, affiliations with al-qa’eda
5) the post 911 experience, and having our most recent and long standing enemy in the middle east be Iraq’s regime since 1990
6) the debate at the UN was not about the existence of WMD but how to go about disarmament
7) saddams FAILURE TO ACCOUNT for thousands of tons of chem agents
i mean how many pointing arrows do we need?
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM
That’s still not misleading the public anymore than FDR did for going after Germany when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
You’re kidding, right? The US declared war on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor, three days later, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. We then declared war on them.
JP,
Go with me on this… do you think it’s possible that AQ swarmed to Iraq and it became the central war on terror in their mind because AQ’s entire reason for being is it’s opposition to the West’s presence in the Arab penisula? And such a naked act of Western aggression in that region provided a natural rallying call for their jihad?
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
AQ’s entire reason for being is the elimination of anti-Islamic entities in the world.
Dont sit here and tell me that AQ bombings in Algeria and Morocco are because of Israel or US soldiers in al-Mekkah
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:19 AM
There are too many Clinton moles in the Pentagon so this report carries little weight. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and Saddam did donate $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. He also gassed thousands of his own people. Justification for going into Iraq was sealed because of the worry that Saddam would pass of WMD to terrorist groups. Liberals’ hatred for Bush because of the outcome of the 2000 election was their driving force and a key reason why they (our liberal newsmedia producers and staffers, particularly CNN and MSNBC as well as thousands of liberals in general) have been giving aid and comfort to our enemies for the last five years. Saddam is gone and that’s a good thing.
Travis1 on March 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Tom do you honestly think that if we were to skiddale from Iraq TODAY, that al-Qa’eda and their Jihadeen would just up and leave as well? Puh-lease, they want to establish another jihadist regime from which to launch further operations into other countries.
Enough with this “our presence in the Muslim world” bullshit.
As paul berman wrote in “Terror and Liberalism”:
we have defended and aided muslim populations in
Kuwait,
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
somalia
on and on.
This is about the establishment of global Islamism.
How can I seriously believe that al-Qa’edas Islamic Committee in the Maghreb, and the Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat are targeting civilians of their OWN nations because of the U.S. and Israel?
How can I believe that AQ, Jemmah Islammiyyah, and Abu Sayyaf are committing atrocities in indoChina because of the US and Israel?
i dont.
that is because it does not make sense, and the more sensible scenario is that it truly is islamic jihad bent on world domination.
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM
you know it just irks me to the core and it always has since 2001 when i sat in my 9th grade class and listened to my retarded classmates talk about us getting what we deserve for our meddling in the middle east. it amazed me how stupid these children were. as i grow older and am in college, nothing changed…..
im just meeting those moron’s parents.
this type of suicidal self effacement is wrong. i will NEVER believe that
al-Qa’eda bombing weddings in ‘amman, Jordan is because of the Us and Israel.
blatantblue on March 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
You’re kidding then, right? Because Iraq declared war on us… so I guess what we did in Iraq is okay then.
Skywise on March 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Tom do you honestly think that if we were to skiddale from Iraq TODAY, that al-Qa’eda and their Jihadeen would just up and leave as well?
No. My “reason for being” comment was meant as a referrence for al qaeda’s early mission statements. I agree it has grown into a much larger, wider ideological entity, but the West’s presence in “Mesopotamia” is a subject that’s near and dear to their heart.
I was just trying to show that JP’s rational that AQ’s fight in Iraq is proof that Iraq was funding them prior to the attack is BS.
Tom_Shipley on March 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »