The reason for dismantling his regime at $3T should be looked elsewhere.
Posted on 03/11/2008 5:56:52 AM PDT by jdm
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.
Saddam forgot to write it down I bet.
Saddam had to be dealt with eventually, I just never believed it was as early as Bush wanted.
It is kind of a shame that the US has to go through this prerequisite of proving a link, proving WMD, when Saddam has demonstrated time and time again that he was a murderous dictator who simply needed to go away.
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.
They save the best for last I see!
This isn’t news. Even when they find the link everybody on the other side of the aisle will say it was forged or phony. Why even spend the time looking? We know they communicate, we just don’t know how operational the communications had been but it is a mute point.
Everything you said is 100% true... but this matters not. All this does is to provide the anti-USA left more ammo for their inane, but effective, argument that “Bush lied and people died.”
Interesting. Thanks for posting. More commentary here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983672/posts
Hussein was in blatant violation of several tens of U.N. directives, and should have been taken care of by the U.N.
Seeing that they are a ball-less, spine-less outfit, we did the next best thing.
Iran is also now in direct violation of U.N. sanctions.
Did they get this from the same people who said Iran does not have any type of Nuclear capabilities in preparation and are not a threat?
Give me a BREAK!
Saddam was gutted and he gave money to anyone he thought would attack the U.S. or anyone connected with the U.S.
Judas A. Priest the Media is our ENEMY WITHIN.
After Afghanistan fell to the coalition al-Zarqawi and other members of al-Qaeda fled to Iraq. From Iraq they planned the assassination of U.S. Diplomat Foley in Jordan. They carried out the assassination and fled back to Iraq. This was October of 2002 -- pre Iraq War.
Al-Qaeda was definitely set up in Iraq prior to the war. What that report tries to confuse the reader with is al-Qaeda operating with Saddam vs. just being in Iraq pre-war.
Maybe we have reduced the threat to the oil supply by half. At least now we have lots of eyes in the area.
It sucks that oil is such high priority national security item, but it is.
It’s effective only to morons.
“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.
Bush lied and lots of folks died.
Not too many people dispute that AQ has an active presence in Iraq in the post-invasion period...
The only reason AQ still has any presence in a few provinces is that they are attracted by American soldiers. Most of the remaining population is willing to tolerat AQ's killing of occupation forces. After our troops leave, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will find the AQ presence unacceptable and soon thereafter AQ will be expelled from Iraq.
What difference does it make? The intelligence people could have found hundreds of documents showing direct links between Saddam and AQ and the leftists would still believe that the US was not justified in invading Iraq. Nothing, no counter evidence, would get them to change their minds about President Bush. The only good thing is that President Bush didn’t pay any attention to what the leftists said or did, he just went ahead and did what he thought was best for the US. And regardless of what the anti-war left says, the world is still better off without Saddam in power.
“Saddam had to be dealt with eventually, I just never believed it was as early as Bush wanted.”
I’m not an expert on this but from what I recall France, Russia, China, and others were working feverishly to get the sanctions lifted. At that point Saddam was ready to start his WMD program. I think the timing was necessary. I think we should have just told the truth. “France and China want to help Saddam get WMD so we better take him out before they get the chance.”
Huh? Lied about what?
After Afghanistan fell to the coalition al-Zarqawi and other members of al-Qaeda fled to Iraq. From Iraq they planned the assassination of U.S. Diplomat Foley in Jordan. They carried out the assassination and fled back to Iraq. This was October of 2002 -- pre Iraq War.
Al-Qaeda was definitely set up in Iraq prior to the war. What that report tries to confuse the reader with is al-Qaeda operating with Saddam vs. just being in Iraq pre-war.
Quotes and Facts on Iraq (Statements they try to forget, but won’t be forgotten)
“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm
“It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.”
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103
Senator John Edwards, when asked about “Axis of Evil” countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
“I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States — they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN’s “Late Edition”
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html
more at link. But, you will not read them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698670/posts
......All this does is to provide the anti-USA left more ammo for their inane, but effective, argument that “Bush lied and people died.”........
Yeah, when I first saw this I was like, “how many times am I going to see that headline? How many times have I seen it the last 5 years?” It gets recycled just to make Bush look stupid.
Now we know for sure That President Clinton was wrong when he used that as an excuse to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and the Sudan without the consent of Congress or the UN.
The reason for dismantling his regime at $3T should be looked elsewhere.
It wasn’t spinelessness that kept the UN from acting. It was one of two things and probably both. Corruption and/or complicity.
“Bush lied and lots of folks died.”
Clinton lied Serbs died.
LOL Murry, you’re a loon.
Actually, the AQ presence has been under significant attack by those very elements you mention for some time, and are under danger of being driven out of Iraq quite soon. Maybe you haven’t been following progress in Iraq lately (probably because it’s not in your interest to do so), but the Sunnis have been increasingly helpful in assisting the “occupiers” in rooting our AQ (the Kurds have been helping since the onset, and the Shiites are just as likely to be the target of AQ)
I’ll let the “Bush lied” part walk; it’s too stupid (and cliche) to redress at any real length; when you can express yourself in complex sentiments, I’ll reply.
The question should be, who's next?
Posted by MurryMom to Chena
On News/Activism 11/16/2005 10:37:04 AM EST · 63 of 80
I’m a soldier’s mother ...
You have my sympathy. I surely hope your child does not join the thousands of Iraqis and Americans who have lost their lives because of Bush’s sensless and counterproductive war. Please remember that no Americans were being killed by Iraqis before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. The slaughter will only end when fine parents like yourself finally come to your senses and the Bush war apparatus is expunged from the offices they temporarilyoccupy.
Yes, and actually links have been found. Some of the documents jveritas translated suggested exactly the opposite of what this report says.
After our troops leave, AQ will go back to planning/executing terrorist attacks on Americans around the world, as they have done since 1993.
Or do you think AQ will just leave us alone?
Actually, no, Saddam was an opportunist, and a traditional one. He used religious rhetoric extensively when it suited him, and he was well aware of the religious fervor of the region. Saddam and AQ were natural allies if only in their united hatred of the US and Israel; they may not have liked one another, but they complimented each other’s attempts to undermine the West. Saddam supported many terrorist groups who were fanatically religious. Your assertion is false; Saddam’s secularism never prevented him from utilizing religious terrorists to further his ends.
just remember: Salman Pak
No, he was NOT the “enemy” of AQ. Saddam, like most pragmatic leaders/dictators, used whoever and whatever was useful. AQ was useful to him, and he supported them in various ways.
Like Salman Pak?
So Bush was right. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. Nice to finally see it in print.
Bush should have been all over the media with regards to the confirmed 2001-02 Saddam-AQ links. Had he done this, anyone who would have made the claim that he somehow "lied" would have been looked upon as a moron, even by the left. Had he done the same with the WMDs that our troops actually did find, he would have also buried the "Bush lied, people died" argument.
In case any of you are wondering, I am, in fact, insisting that Bush should have been gloating and showy towards the media with these facts. It would be out of character for him, but it would have been effective in defusing the domestic fifth column which seeks our defeat.
Maybe Sadaam should ask for a do-over....
The source article healine reads,” Iraq had no link to al-Qaida.”
The text says, “... shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda.”
There is a huge dufference in those two statements.
Then, there is this:
According to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard,”Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda.”
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/saddamalqaeda.htm
What’s a body to believe?
Rubbish. Prove it.
Hi there, MurryMom.
The therapy isn’t working, I see.
Saddam was a thug
LOL you call a man who used biological chemicals on women and children a thug???????????????????????
Well just duh. Strange now isn't it that AQ would be attracted to killing US in any provinces on this globe. Think maybe that was a known to use their turf as the place to draw in a bunch of deranged killers. Or maybe you think it was unfair for US policy to be drawing a line in their sand pit.
The idea is not to expel them to another place but to rid this world of them once and for all. Here I thought the left was alll about saving things, why would you want them expelled to rebirth their barbaric slaughtering of innocence someplace else?
Glad to see that you have not let facts get in the way of your beliefs...stop by more often...I promise that we will lock up all pointy and sharp things so you will not hurt yourself.
Yep, Saddam had no WMD nor did he have the capacity to make them. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.