One more time: no links between Saddam & al Qaida

[Jaboney]

You’d think it wouldn’t be necessary to say so…

[quote=“McClatchy”]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. 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.

He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn’t due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam’s alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had “bulletproof” evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam’s secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

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,” he said.[/quote]

[Hobbes]

[quote]An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents… show A is not true.

The Pentagon-sponsored study… concludes A is not true.

The new study… found no evidence that A is true.

He and others… testified that A is false.

President Bush and his aides… tried to use A as an excuse for invading, and were ultimately discredited.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002… that A was true, and was ultimately discredited.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell… claimed A was true, and was ultimately discredited.

[b]And yet as recently as last July /b, Bush was still trying to claim that B was true. [/quote]

Cute.

Ol’ Warren P. Strobel at McClatchy Newspapers doesn’t appear to think very highly of his readers’ intelligence, does he?

EDIT: On further reflection, I suppose it need not be the case that Warren takes his readers for fools. I suppose the technique he employs would work on people of normal intelligence who are simply reading a little too quickly, or probably also on otherwise sharp people who are just clouded enough by their anger at Bush on this issue that they don’t notice what Warren did there.

[tempogain]

I don’t think anyone with enough intelligence and interest to read that far could miss it. It’s too blatant. Strange he would mar his case like that. The Chinese saying “painting legs on a snake” comes to mind.

[Dr_McCoy]

I guess I don’t follow the logic here. Basically, there were no links between Saddam and 9/11. We knew that. Bush administration, especially Cheney, still refuse to believe it. Al Quaida in Iraq wasn’t there until the Bushies put them there.
Bush and the Talecons are properly scorned and despised the world over.
Karl in Iowa
War Criminal! Liar!

[politbureau]

[quote=“Hobbes”]
Ol’ Warren P. Strobel at McClatchy Newspapers doesn’t appear to think very highly of his readers’ intelligence, does he? . . . [/quote]

He may be on to something though, Hobbes. Newsweek conducted a poll in the U.S. just last year in which it asked the question “Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?”

41% answered ‘yes.’ I could be wrong but I think our own resident Tainan Cowboy is a ‘yes’ on this issue as well. You’ve got to ask yourself exactly how it was that 40% of Americans got this notion in their heads.

[Dr_McCoy]

They’re just trying to keep the electorate scared. I like what Chris Rock said. “I ain’t scared of Al Quaida. I’m scared of Al Cracker.”

[politbureau]

@Dr. McCoy

They’re just trying to keep the electorate scared. I like what Chris Rock said. “I ain’t scared of Al Quaida. I’m scared of Al Cracker.”

Don’t forget fear of Al Obama. A lot of people are convinced he’s got secrets links to bin Laden that just haven’t been reported yet by the Bush-hating MSM. Expect to see more of that kind of foolishness in the months to come.

[Jack_Burton]

[quote]However, the U.S. intelligence official, who’s read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, “I don’t think there’s any surprises there.”

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel . [/quote]

This was one of the arguments some of us put forth way back when this began over 50 pages of posts ago and 2 presid terms ago.

Al Qaida was much of an enemy to Saddam as the US. Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy.

[Big_Fluffy_Matthew]

If you’re just saying it again, why did you start a new thread instead of using an old one ?

[Dr_McCoy]

Here’s a mp3 for the British perspective.
Now Show

Edit: Maybe it doesn’t work. Here the page.

[Jaboney]

@Big Fluffy Matthew

If you’re just saying it again, why did you start a new thread instead of using an old one ?

It was late, my stomach was stalking me, and the additional effort of tracking down an appropriate old thread (there are so many) just wasn’t in me.

Besides, I heard Christopher Hitchens reassert the link just last week. And others continue to do so, or to imply that there was such a link (right, Hobbes?). So I figured, “why not?”

[Dr_McCoy]

Pentagon Report on Saddam’s Iraq Censored?

This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer make the report available online.

[quote]Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: “We’re making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we’ll send it out via CD in the mail.”

Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it “too politically sensitive.”[/quote]
It would not be smart for the Penagon to put this information out just when we are on the verge of another war.

[Dr_McCoy]

Cheney, he say, on ABC. (This week)

[quote]CHENEY: Well, this is no operational link. But there was, as I recall from looking at it, extensive links with
Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was the organization headed by Zawahiri, and he merged EIJ with Al Qaeda when he became the deputy director of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s number two. Now, was that a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Seems to me pretty clear that there was.

But it’s a question — I would urge you to go read the report. I know ABC reported on it. If you dig into the report in depth, I think you may find that there was an extensive relationship with a broad range of terrorist groups, that he was a state sponsor of terror. And I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.

QUESTION: So, you think there was a direct link between Al Qaeda…

CHENEY: You heard what I said. I was very precise.

QUESTION: But you weren’t.

CHENEY: OK. Thank you all very much.
[/quote]
Any questions?

[politbureau]

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Cheney, he say, on ABC. (This week)

[quote]CHENEY: Well, this is no operational link. But there was, as I recall from looking at it, extensive links with
Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was the organization headed by Zawahiri, and he merged EIJ with Al Qaeda when he became the deputy director of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s number two. Now, was that a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Seems to me pretty clear that there was.

But it’s a question — I would urge you to go read the report. I know ABC reported on it. If you dig into the report in depth, I think you may find that there was an extensive relationship with a broad range of terrorist groups, that he was a state sponsor of terror. And I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.

QUESTION: So, you think there was a direct link between Al Qaeda…

CHENEY: You heard what I said. I was very precise.

QUESTION: But you weren’t.

CHENEY: OK. Thank you all very much.
[/quote]
Any questions?[/quote]

Two questions: why does 40% of the U.S population continue to believe Saddam was directly involved in the World Trade Center attack and can someone be full of shit and not smell their own stink?

[Dr_McCoy]

It’s easy to put up with your own stink if you’re laying on a big pile of money.

[Jaboney]

[quote=“spook”]Two questions: why does 40% of the U.S population continue to believe Saddam was directly involved in the World Trade Center attack and can someone be full of shit and not smell their own stink?[/quote]1. Constant repetition of carefully crafted statements like the one in my original post.
2. No. But I suspect he takes a certain perverse delight inflicting it on everyone else.

[Chewycorns]

Nearing the fifth anniversary of the Iraqi War, Christopher Hitchens explains his support of the war:

@PoliGazette

Christopher Hitchens explains how he got Iraq wrong. The answer may surprise some readers: he says he didn’t. Hitchens argues that the ‘war in Iraq’ was part of a bigger war, which went on for decades already when George W. Bush decided to send troops into Iraq in 2003 in order to overthrow the Iraqi regime.

Basically, Hitchens argues, the ‘war’ began in 1968, and especially in the early 1990s with the first Gulf War. The ‘war’ didn’t always entail fighting, but it did most certainly result in political clashes.

So that’s first and foremost: the occupation was, basically, not the start of a war between the US and Britain on the one hand, and Iraq on the other, it was simply an escalation.

Furthermore, Hitchens argues, Iraq wouldn’t have been better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. He was a (war) criminal, a brutal tyrant. Although the 2003 war and post-war Iraq as it’s called was mishandled (at first), this doesn’t mean that the fact that Saddam was removed from power was wrong; no, Hitchens says, no matter what you think of how the war was handled, the world became a better place at the moment US troops found Iraq hiding in some kind of underground bunker.

If Saddam were still in power, Iraqis would still be oppressed. Now, however, they’ve held elections and democracy is, basically, starting to feel at home in Iraq. He concludes: “But the thing to remember about Iraq is that all or most choice had already been forfeited. We were already deeply involved in the life-and-death struggle of that country, and March 2003 happens to mark the only time that we ever decided to intervene, after a protracted and open public debate, on the right side and for the right reasons. This must, and still does, count for something.”
poligazette.com/2008/03/18/how-h … raq-wrong/

@Christopher Hitchens

We were never, if we are honest with ourselves, “lied into war.” We became steadily more aware that the option was continued collusion with Saddam Hussein or a decision to have done with him. The president’s speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, laying out the considered case that it was time to face the Iraqi tyrant, too, with this choice, was easily the best speech of his two-term tenure and by far the most misunderstood.

That speech is widely and wrongly believed to have focused on only two aspects of the problem, namely the refusal of Saddam’s regime to come into compliance on the resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction and the involvement of the Baathists with a whole nexus of nihilist and Islamist terror groups. Baghdad’s outrageous flouting of the resolutions on compliance (if not necessarily the maintenance of blatant, as opposed to latent, WMD capacity) remains a huge and easily demonstrable breach of international law. The role of Baathist Iraq in forwarding and aiding the merchants of suicide terror actually proves to be deeper and worse, on the latest professional estimate, than most people had ever believed or than the Bush administration had ever suggested.

This is all overshadowed by the unarguable hash that was made of the intervention itself. But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence doesn’t condemn the enterprise wholesale. A much-wanted war criminal was put on public trial. The Kurdish and Shiite majority was rescued from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide. A huge, hideous military and party apparatus, directed at internal repression and external aggression was (perhaps overhastily) dismantled. The largest wetlands in the region, habitat of the historic Marsh Arabs, have been largely recuperated. Huge fresh oilfields have been found, including in formerly oil free Sunni provinces, and some important initial investment in them made. Elections have been held, and the outline of a federal system has been proposed as the only alternative to a) a sectarian despotism and b) a sectarian partition and fragmentation. Not unimportantly, a battlefield defeat has been inflicted on al-Qaida and its surrogates, who (not without some Baathist collaboration) had hoped to constitute the successor regime in a failed state and an imploded society. Further afield, a perfectly defensible case can be made that the Syrian Baathists would not have evacuated Lebanon, nor would the Qaddafi gang have turned over Libya’s (much higher than anticipated) stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region’s keystone dictatorship.

None of these positive developments took place without a good deal of bungling and cruelty and unintended consequences of their own. I don’t know of a satisfactory way of evaluating one against the other any more than I quite know how to balance the disgrace of Abu Ghraib, say, against the digging up of Saddam’s immense network of mass graves. There is, however, one position that nobody can honestly hold but that many people try their best to hold. And that is what I call the Bishop Berkeley theory of Iraq, whereby if a country collapses and succumbs to trauma, and it’s not our immediate fault or direct responsibility, then it doesn’t count, and we are not involved. Nonetheless, the very thing that most repels people when they contemplate Iraq, which is the chaos and misery and fragmentation (and the deliberate intensification and augmentation of all this by the jihadists), invites the inescapable question: What would post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?

The past years have seen us both shamed and threatened by the implications of the Berkeleyan attitude, from Burma to Rwanda to Darfur. Had we decided to attempt the right thing in those cases (you will notice that I say “attempt” rather than “do,” which cannot be known in advance), we could as glibly have been accused of embarking on “a war of choice.” But the thing to remember about Iraq is that all or most choice had already been forfeited. We were already deeply involved in the life-and-death struggle of that country, and March 2003 happens to mark the only time that we ever decided to intervene, after a protracted and open public debate, on the right side and for the right reasons. This must, and still does, count for something.

slate.com/id/2186740

[Dr_McCoy]

Happy Birthday Iraq War!

[politbureau]

What died in this topic? It smells like somebody just tossed a bucket of raw shit all over it.

[Dr_McCoy]

There ain’t nuthin’ more powerful than the smell of mendacity!
Unless Hitchens thows up after drinking his usual quart of scotch.