Skip to comments.Al Qaeda Document: Zarqawi Came to Iraq Before The War To Prepare The Fight Against U.S
Posted on 03/16/2008 2:49:59 PM PDT by jveritas
click here to read article
Thanks for the ping, jveritas.
Special@foxnews.com (Brit Hume)
Studiob@foxnews.com (Shep Smith)
Beltway@foxnews.com (Barnes & Kondracke)
email@example.com (Ann Coulter)
Thank you jveritas for the translation.
Can you please post the url or url of the document which is partly translated for archival purposes?
Maybe not directly, but I am sure the attack had his blessings
The first three, go to their websites and contact them there.
Thank you jveritas.
No email necessary and that is fine.
I thank you.
What do you expect from a career diplomat in the state department?
Thank you very much Jaz :)
The guy is Mark Moyer, and he teaches at the Marine Corps University in Quantico.
You are welcome.
I’ll post that too on the Threat Matrix.
Thank you very much FRiend, just doing my little duty.
Right, thanks. I haven’t had time to read it, but I have looked over the impressive reviews.
You said that you wished that there were some way to let the rest of the country know about these documents.
There is, someone needs to contact the McCain campaign and explain to them that if John McCain makes this report the basis of his campaign, the conservatives will vote for him, no matter what he says on other issues.
Thank you, both.
Drain the swamp.
Thank you SO much for all your devoted
work in uncovering all the “secrets.”
God bless you.
working on it now...
I am so far behind on stuff it’s embarassing. I have a folder of news stories I need to get up still.
You are welcome Starwise, God bless you too.
Meet the Press Meet the Press mailbox: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/ (web page for comments)
Face the Nation: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fox News Sunday: FNS@foxnews.com
ABC This Week email@example.com
CNN Late Edition CNN Late Edition: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?21 (web page for comments)
Fox News Channel show emails:
I eagerly await the publication of this on the front page of the NY Times. Above the fold.
I eagerly await the publication of this on the front page of the NY Times. Above the fold.
Is this a vanity? The Pentagon study group had findings last week after 5 years of document analyses ,900,000, captured documents that this was not true. What is the published souce for this “article”? “BEFORE” the war is not accurate.
Read the second part of the headline which says "....To Prepare The Fight Against U.S".
This document is about the organized resistance our troops faced when they went into Iraq. It was Al Qaeda organized.
Ah, Newbie...the source is a jihadi website (but you’d actually have to read the article to know that fact).
It’s the terrorists themselves admitting Zarqawi’s whereabouts.
Is there a date on this document?
We have discussed this before that al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda had come to Iraq after Afghanistan fell to the coalition. From Iraq they planned the assassination of US diplomat Foley in Jordan and carried it out and fled back to Iraq. This was October 2002 before the Iraq War.
That connection has been written about including KSM’s financing & relationship with Saddam's intelligence via the Baluch.
If you haven't read Doctor Laurie Mylroie’s article titled “How Little We Know,” The American Spectator, October 2006
check it out at http://www.lauriemylroie.com/
List of email for Conservative radio
“Negropante who was Director of National Intelligence at that time did want the documents published from the beginning because he believed, wrongly of course, that there were nothing in these documents. The President and Republicans in Congress twisted his hand to put the documents in public domain. However when the UN complained about what they called a sensitive document regarding Saddam regime nuclear program published on the Iraqi documents website, Negropante took the opportunity to shut the website down.”
Ok. I have a question to ask here. Did the website get shut down because the Iraqi documents were misleading on how to create a bomb? If so, why shut the website down?
I agree that we do not want the enemy knowing how to create a bomb.
On the other hand, maybe to documents DID show, accurately, how to create a bomb. If this was the case, then Saddam knew how to create a bomb and the documents proved that. Is it good that the Saddam knew how to create a bomb?
I think we should think about this shutdown of the website a little more completely.
Who’s to say the NY Times will exist in 20 years?
This week opponents of the war were given a treat. They were told-in a single article-based on a single anonymous source-that a report which hadnt been released said there was never any ties between Saddam Husseins regime and the al-Qaida network of terrorist groups. Millions of the wars opponents were instantly elated with glee at the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war against the al-Qaida terrorist network; that the invasion was completely disconnected from any threat to the United States.
Disregarding the misplaced glee for a moment, lets face some facts. The report described in the article was finally released to the public, and its contents are almost completely contrary to the leaked article that described it beforehand.
In fact, if anything this new study should finally put to rest the false perception that Saddams regime was too secular to work with radical Islamic holy warriors, and it should be a genuine wake up call for people who continue to ignore the threat posed by state-sponsors of terror like Saddam Hussein once was.
Lets take a closer look at this article.
Study: Iraq had no link to al-Qaida
Pentagon finds the bulletproof prewar evidence turned out bogus
By WARREN P. STROBEL
March 10, 2008, 11:46PM
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 Husseins regime had any operational links with Osama bin Ladens al-Qaida terrorist network.
-The opening line is false for two reasons. First it describes it as exhaustive which typically means complete, and its not. In fact the report itself says in every single area of study that more research is needed; i.e. the intelligence has not been exhausted. Second, it claims that there is no evidence of operational links with Osama bin Ladens al-Qaida terrorist network, but in fact the report itself is packed with evidence of operational ties between Saddams regime and various groups that are components/participants/elements/members of the network. For example the report confirms that Egyptian Islamic Jihad was supported by Saddams regime at a time when 2/3 of the al-Qaida networks leadership (2/3 of the leadership prior to 2003 was comprised of members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The report is also packed with examples of Saddams regime recognizing, supporting, and working with Egyptian Islamic Jihad; i.e. with 2/3 of al-Qaida leadership.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddams 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 problem with this statement is that the other terrorist groups mentioned were al-Qaida affiliates (or elements of the al-Qaida network) at the time that documents show Saddams regime supported them. The article goes on to suggest that the operations primarily targeted Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime. Thats a convenient way of saying that Saddams Intelligence Service (the IIS) and the Saddam Fedeyeen (Martyrs of Saddam terrorist group) worked with al-Qaida affiliates in Northern and Southern Iraq to maintain control in areas where his conventional forces lacked such ability. Its also a very deceitful to say others he considered enemies of his regime rather than what the report actually says: targets in France, London, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UN targets, and Americans.
The new study of the Iraqi regimes archives found no documents indicating a direct operational link between Husseins 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 isnt due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.
-Earlier the article mentioned that the report being described hasnt been released at the time of writing the article. That means that the entire declaration-false declaration [that Saddams regime had no substantive ties to Osama Bin Laden] is based on a single, anonymous, U.S. official. There is no corroboration, just the word of a single anonymous source.
President Bush and his aides used Saddams alleged relationship with al-Qaida, along with Iraqs supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had bulletproof evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddams secular dictatorship.
-In complete and total contrast to the article which claimed. Pentagon finds the bulletproof prewar evidence turned out bogus the reality is that the report itself is in fact packed with captured documents supporting the idea that in many cases with many examples and many different groups, Saddams regime did cooperate with radical Islamist terror groups, and often those groups were in fact al-Qaida affiliates.
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.
-This is true, but (perhaps due to space and word limit constraints) the article fails to mention that almost all of the statements Secretary of State Powell made were repeated from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden, and they were later repeated again by the bi-partisan and independent 911 Commission.
Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.
-This is not true, and it is in fact quite the opposite again. Most of Secretary Powells statements regarding regime ties to al-Qaida were true, and only a few were found to be incorrect.
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.
-This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the report that is the articles subject. The report in question looks at the pre-war relationship between Saddams regime and the al-Qaida network NOT the presence of al-Qaida groups inside Iraq four years after the invasion. However, it should be noted that the groups currently in Iraq that are typically referred to as, al-Qaida in Iraq are actually a collection of groups that were inside Iraq before the invasion, worked with both Saddams regime, and worked with the al-Qaida hierarchy before the invasion. The people who are todays al Qaida in Iraq were radical Islamic terrorists working inside Iraq before the invasion. They just have a common name now.
The new study, titled 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.
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.
-While the article claims the captured documents reveal no Saddam-al-Qaida links they clearly do in many places according to the report itself rather than the word of the one anonymous U.S. official.
However, the U.S. intelligence official, who has read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, I dont think theres 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.
-Its interesting that immediately after the article says, Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the article then tries to fawn off the very fact it previously stated by dismissing Saddams secularism as if it prevented his regime from working with Islamic extremists (which the report says the documents show did in fact happen on many occasions).
Theres no reason to believe that the article deliberately sought to mislead anyone which was almost completely false. Put simply, now that the report itself is out, and one no longer needs to rely on a wannabe Deepthroat, secret U.S. official as a source. We can all see what the real findings are, and those findings are simple:
No ties to al-qaida? That mantra-based in every case on half quotes from various investigations-is now debunked. Yes, there were ties, and they were significant.
However, given the immense-near total disparity between the claims put forth describing the latest volume of the Iraqi Perspectives Project report and the actual contents of that report, it seems that a RETRACTION OF THE ARTICLE IS NECESSARY lest one try to stand on falsehoods so clearly eclipsed by facts that can be found by so simply by just reading the actual report rather than an anonymous U.S. officials whispers.
More specific details of the report can be found here:
Oddly enough, opponents of the war dont seem interested in reading the actual article and commenting on its specifics (certainly not with entire quotes, but perhaps with half quotes)
Mark Eichenlaub has an outstanding overview of the recent Old Media reporting on the latest investigation into the depth of ties between Saddam Husseins regime and the Al Queda network of terrorist groups. His article highlights in perfectly plain sight just how a single, biased writer will bite on a rumor from a single anonymous source about a report that hadnt even been revealed, and then a total falsehood becomes propagated by the Old Media. When the actual report came out, anyone and everyone reading it could see that it listed innumerable documented and confirmed connections between Saddams regime and the network of terror groups called, Al Queda.
The storm began (as noted in Stephen Hayes must read piece) with a McClatchy news piece titled Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida. The leak-based story essentially summarizes a 94 page report down to a single, unrepresentative phrase. For the record it should be noted that once the report was made available to the public it was revealed that its authors actually say on page ES-3 that their report is not exhaustive (contrary to the early news report) stating that the list of Hussein era documents are not an exhaustive list beause some were in the possession of other U.S. government agencies.
This story was followed by headlines of a similar bent. Steve Schipperts sample of some of the more prominent headlines provides readers with what the storys narrative looked like a few days ago:
ABC: Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda
New York Times: Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie
CNN: Husseins Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
Washington Post: Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link
AFP: No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study
And within hours the (mainstream media) die had been cast. Saddam was not linked to al Qaeda went the theme.
This one is definitely worth the read. Think about what it shows: NO ONE in the McLatchy Newspaper chain of editors, no one at ABC, no one at the New York Times, no one at CNN, no one at the Washington Post, no one at AFP, and no one at any of the blogosphere sites that posted the original article actually read the report. NONE. Old Media/traditional media outlets are supposed to be special because they have armies of fact checkers yet no one in any of these armies ever saw the actual report. The actual report contradicts the original article at almost every turn.
Is there a fact checker anywhere, or have these outlets collapsed into rumor parrots? Were it not for spellcheck, I wouldnt have been surprised if a spelling error from the original made it to all the outlets. Would yuo?
This document should be among the Al Qaeda captured document and not the Iraq captured document.
It is the latter scenario but this particular document that caused the shut down did not contain enough information to fully build the bomb.
That Zarqawi- then of the al Tawhid group- and Mullah Krekar’s Ansar al Islam group are connected is old news.
Though Zarqawi's own terrorist group was in the region before the US invasion and Krekar's Ansar al Islam was as well, and though Zarqawi had long standing ties to AQ and crew with same, Zarqawi didn't formally swear the oath to Bin Laden until well after the invasion of Iraq. If you are a liberal you can try to CYA by noting he wasn't "real" AQ until he swore the oath, I suppose.
* Mohammed Atef : 24 Pakistani Peacekeepers in Somalia are ambushed, shot to death, skinned, and their remains paraded through the streets by a mob. [Author's note: in 1994/95 it is revealed by the Sudanese govt that an Al Queda operative based in The Sudan, and several other Al Queda operatives including #3 man Mohammed Atef, had gone to Somalia, trained Somalis in tactics that had been learned during the fight against Soviets in Afghanistan, and had they themselves taken part in this attack.] ---------- "PRE-BUSH timeline/list of Iraq's Ties To Al Queda," by Sam Pender-author of Iraq's Smoking Gun and other books on the matter , 6/12/04
You need to scan or copy that document and post it, or repost it.
The Demoncrats and the main-lining media need to be held accountable for the LIES that they have perpetuated against the WOT, but they won’t. The economy, after today, will supplant that. A shame, for the WOT is NOT won. Iran will continue on their quest for the BOMB unabated and will succeed, then the price we shall pay will be exponentially greater than any price paid by us - US before.
And of course, no one from the Bush administration will be out pounding the drums about this.
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.