| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Report denies Saddam-Al-Qaeda link |
| 2006-09-08 |
| I call bullsh*t on this article, but then again what would I know? SADDAM Hussein had no ties with Al-Qaeda or key operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the Iraq war, a US Senate report said overnight, undercutting pre-invasion claims by the administration of President George W. Bush and igniting a new political row. "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," said the report. The assessment, by the Senate Intelligence Committee, also dismissed claims that Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi, killed in a US raid on June 7, was harboured by Saddam before the war. Though supporting information that Zarqawi was in Baghdad in 2002, the report said Saddam actually tried to seize the Al-Qaeda kingpin. "Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture Zarqawi, and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi," the report said. The report also said that Saddam had repeatedly rebuffed requests for meetings from Al-Qaeda operatives. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion and for long afterward, senior members of the Bush administration claimed links existed between Iraq and terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda, using such alleged ties as a major justification for the war. On June 14, 2004, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney alluded to the alleged links, which were also debunked by the official independent commission on the September 11 attacks. "In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century ... he had long established ties with Al-Qaeda," Cheney said. The report was one of two released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, both part of a large study of the US rationale for the Iraq war which has been held up by fierce partisan battles. The other report centred on the role of the exiled Iraqi National Congress (INC) in providing intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs which was later discredited. Friday's reports immediately stoked a new outburst of fierce debate over the Bush administration's drive to war with Iraq, ahead of November's crucial congressional elections. "Today's reports show that the administrations repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Democratic Senator John (Jay) Rockefeller in a statement. "The administration sought and succeeded in creating the false impression that al-Qaeda and Iraq presented a single unified threat to the United States," he said. But White House spokesman Tony Snow, speaking before the report was released, said it contained "nothing new." "It's, again, kind of re-litigating things that happened three years ago," he said. "The president's stated concern this week, as you've seen, is to think, 'okay, we'll let people quibble over three years ago. The important thing to do is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the month after and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won."' |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #9 ABC news took this and made a big story out if it on the evening news -- stating it as **FACT**. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-09-08 21:46 |
| #8 I call bullsh*t on this article, but then again what would I know? More than the senate apparently. At least I'm not alone. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-09-08 21:25 |
| #7 If you discover this is the case, plesae publish the plan. I've been waiting, and waiting, and waiting to see or hear of it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-08 21:03 |
| #6 Sometimes I wonder if the passivity on the part of the administration isn't part of the strategic game plan. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-09-08 20:55 |
| #5 How does this very dubious assertion square with the evidence of Iraqi envoys meeting with AQ in Sudan and Afghanistan, and senior AQ reps visiting as guests of the regime in this city (Baghdad)? The documentation of these contacts - I recall one memo that even made it into the NYT ended with the Iraqi intel official saying that the relationship should be allowed to develop - is not skimpy, and I haven't heard that any of it, much less all of it, had turned out to be fraudulent. I also find it extremely dubious that Zarq was here - and "operating" to the extent that he made phone calls to the operatives who murdered USAID official Foley in Amman - and that the regime couldn't locate him. And what about the reported agreemend by Saddam to broadcast anti-Saudi radio programming? Or am I misremembering that? As usual, the WH and other GOP are utterly clueless about information and communications. Poor old Tony Snow says "nothing new" and "let's focus on the future". Why is it so difficult for these people to realize that you can say that, PLUS debunk a slanderous falsehood just raised against you? It's not about them - but the public is so misinformed partly because the falsehoods are relentlessly pounded into the public through the MSM. As I'm oddly not habituated to the various outrages that now seem like part of the landscape, I again have to express my disgust and astonishment with the two clueless clowns (Levin and Rockefeller), and their party leadership, for continuing to push the preposterous and poisonous nonsense about the admin. being "deceptive". It has from the start been a ridiculous and amazingly irresponsible bit of slander. And I thought this had been earlier confirmed by a lengthy SSCI investigation - i.e., that the intel estimates were flawed for operational and analytical reasons, not political ones. The damage to the cause arising from the imperturbable passivity of the admin. in setting the record straight is appalling. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2006-09-08 16:42 |
| #4 Gee, ya mean Sammy didn't trust a bunch of bomb-throwing religous nutbags? What a shocker. Doesn't mean he wouldn't USE tham, however. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-09-08 15:32 |
| #3 Maybe if we draw diagrams with crayon? "THIS is Zarqawi. THIS is the money. THESE are the training camps (note the scribbles of guns in them.) And this big-headed fanged one is Saddam! Why yes Senator Schumer, you can draw blood dripping from his fangs. I see you have your own crayons. Go right ahead..." *sniff* *sniff* Are my allergies flaring or has the political landscape started to heat up? |
| Posted by: Bennie 2006-09-08 15:08 |
| #2 Doesn't matter. The only person still at large from the 1993 WTC attack was a guest of Saddam's. Most of Black September were guests of Saddam's. Lots of terrorists were his guests, and many who didn't live in Baghdad were getting cash from him. "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," said the report. This is pure BS. Which Democrat authored this "report"? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-09-08 15:05 |
| #1 This is the MSM flogging a (yet another) never-alive horse. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2006-09-08 15:03 |