CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › For those of you in the back...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

For those of you in the back...

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

Stephanie Sinclair / Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON — 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.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.

The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

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."
The rest of the article is http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html

I hope that whoever is elected in '08 makes education a top priority.
post #2 of 23
In other news the Earth revolves around the sun.
post #3 of 23
I'll flaunt this in front of all of my incredibly ignorant friends and family members that bought this bullshit hook, line, and sinker, but at this point I'm not sure if it'll have an effect.

If it does, I can imagine using the phrase "I told you so" more than I ever have before, and with as much childish glee as I can muster.
post #4 of 23
I just love the fact that we live in a world where this needs to be reiterated for the umpteenth fucking time.

Im stunned people believed a secular military dictator would be in bed with the leader of the worlds premier Islamic Fundamentalist jihadi group in the first place.

In the same way that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't follow, 'two of my enemies must automatically be friends' don't work either.
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
I just love the fact that we live in a world where this needs to be reiterated for the umpteenth fucking time.

Im stunned people believed a secular military dictator would be in bed with the leader of the worlds premier Islamic Fundamentalist jihadi group in the first place.

In the same way that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't follow, 'two of my enemies must automatically be friends' don't work either.
As I got fucking sick of saying to anyone who would hear, Hussein and Al Qaida represent the opposite sides in a conflict that has been going on for about a thousand years within Islam. A conflict that has turned violent numerous times. But just like not dumping Fatah and Hamas in the same pot, that would mean actually educating yourself and reading up on some history.

Which of course is gay.
post #6 of 23
Wait a sec, even in Europe it is?
post #7 of 23
Not so much as it's in the US, but we're working hard at getting there.
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comments on that article
Show me a nation that doesn't use terrorism as an ends to justify it's means and I'll show you a vegatarian great white shark.
I will be using this at the soonest possible opportunity. (i.e. -- the next time I have a conversation with either my aunt or uncle.)
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Not so much as it's in the US, but we're working hard at getting there.
To be fair, Greece is a little bit gayer than the rest of Europe.
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
I just love the fact that we live in a world where this needs to be reiterated for the umpteenth fucking time.
Look on the bright side: it was a Pentagon-sponsored study, so now people will have a harder time denyin - Whoops. Spoke too soon.
post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Crowley View Post
To be fair, Greece is a little bit gayer than the rest of Europe.
This is not true. Christianity has cured us of our cornholin' ways.
post #12 of 23
Bastards!
They made us stop raping and pillaging.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
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.
Apparently, now even reporters are not only believing, but trying to debunk the retro-actively fabricated reasons for invading Iraq.

It was just non-existent WMDs for those of you with faulty memories.
post #14 of 23
Just because al Qaida is there NOW doesn't mean they were there under Saddam. Maybe the reason they're there now is because WE are?

Jesus, it shouldn't be this hard to grasp.
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge View Post
Apparently, now even reporters are not only believing, but trying to debunk the retro-actively fabricated reasons for invading Iraq.

It was just non-existent WMDs for those of you with faulty memories.
I don´t know if I understand you correctly. Are you claiming the Bush administration never claimed there where ties between Saddam an Al Quaida?
Because then you are flat out wrong:

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
- Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002
post #16 of 23
Our occupation of Iraq was fertile breeding ground for anti U.S. sentiment, and who better to take advantage of that than Al Quaeda?

All reasonable, educated people told the supporters of this sham of an administration that Al Quaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded, but would appeal to the growing animosity toward us and create a terrorist state.

They are there now because we created an environment for them to grow.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Travolta View Post
I don´t know if I understand you correctly. Are you claiming the Bush administration never claimed there where ties between Saddam an Al Quaida?
No, what I'm saying is those assertions where not the reasons given to the U.N. or or the American people for the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was accused of being a terrorist supporting nation (True fact, BTW, thanks to them providing Palestinians with monetary incentives to suicide bomb), but the official reason for the war was them going against U.N. resolutions in actively creating WMDs as a rogue nation.

The Al-Queda ties were retconned into being a primary reason for the war by the Bush administration once no WMDs were found, to continue to delude the public in supporting the war. Therefore, finding no links to Al-Queda debunks a reason for invading Iraq that was never actually a reason.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge View Post
No, what I'm saying is those assertions where not the reasons given to the U.N. or or the American people for the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was accused of being a terrorist supporting nation (True fact, BTW, thanks to them providing Palestinians with monetary incentives to suicide bomb), but the official reason for the war was them going against U.N. resolutions in actively creating WMDs as a rogue nation.

The Al-Queda ties were retconned into being a primary reason for the war by the Bush administration once no WMDs were found, to continue to delude the public in supporting the war. Therefore, finding no links to Al-Queda debunks a reason for invading Iraq that was never actually a reason.
I still think the above quote proves your assertion wrong.
Furthermore even congress based the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on the ties between Saddam and Al Quaida:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq"


Sounds like a justification and reasoning to the people of the USofA for me. Whom else might Congress adress?
Though you are right on the other accounts.
post #19 of 23
Read your above quote again. Bush used to constantly make comparisons of Iraq TO Al-Queda, but only ever alluded to the government sponsoring them. And as for the "Al-Queda members" being in Iraq" referenced in the Congress joint resolution, it's a bit like accusing someone of molesting children, and then noting that they also forget to feed their dog sometimes. We've accused just about every country in the middle east of containing Al-Queda members, but have only invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

The point I'm making is that if you asked 99.9% of the general public today what the reasons we officially gave for invading Iraq, they'll say it's because of Al-Queda and 9/11. That's wrong, and an example of how effective the Bush administration's obfuscation policies of the Iraq war have been.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge View Post
The point I'm making is that if you asked 99.9% of the general public today what the reasons we officially gave for invading Iraq, they'll say it's because of Al-Queda and 9/11. That's wrong, and an example of how effective the Bush administration's obfuscation policies of the Iraq war have been.
I don´t want to argue about semantics with you. I reckon I made my point clear.
If that was your point and most people of the general public actually sucked up to that lie than I wholeheartely agree with you. And it is a sad time for democracy and even more the concept of press as the fourth pillar of it. From an outside point of view I am still amazed what happened to the glorious times of your journalism.
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
So, impeachment is off the table because it would be "traumatic" for the country, and somehow thousands of people dying because the Bush administration lied is not traumatic? We're heading into another war and I think people from all sides of the ideological spectrum need to soul search about what kind of country we are. Do we shoulder the identity of the nefarious Bush administration, or do we commit the symbolic act of refuting everything they stand for?
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
So, impeachment is off the table because it would be "traumatic" for the country, and somehow thousands of people dying because the Bush administration lied is not traumatic? We're heading into another war and I think people from all sides of the ideological spectrum need to soul search about what kind of country we are. Do we shoulder the identity of the nefarious Bush administration, or do we commit the symbolic act of refuting everything they stand for?
I think you're giving this entire country WAAAY too much credit. Impeachment's off the table because a majority of this country doesn't think he deserves it.

It could just be because I live in Texas, but more often than not I meet someone who talks about what a bum rap Bush gets and what noble things he's tried to accomplish "in the name of freedom" and all that bullshit.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton View Post

It could just be because I live in Texas, but more often than not I meet someone who talks about what a bum rap Bush gets and what noble things he's tried to accomplish "in the name of freedom" and all that bullshit.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you're really surrounded by rubes of that magnitude, you should drop it and take up a life of grifting.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › For those of you in the back...