Senate Finds No al-Qaida-Saddam Link

[freethefly 6]

So, it is clear that the Bush administration flat-out lied and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. This president has a 100% failure rate and yet there are some who still blindly support him.

Senate Finds No al-Qaida-Saddam Link
09/09/2006

Associated Press/AP Online
WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaida and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.

The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.

The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.

Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."

Leaders of both parties accused each other of seeking political gain on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Republicans said the document contained little new information about prewar intelligence or postwar findings on Iraq's weapons and connection to terrorist groups.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

"That is simply not true," Roberts added, "and I believe the American people are smart enough to recognize election-year politicking when they see it."

The report speaks for itself, Democrats said.

The administration "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe - contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time - that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

Still, Democrats were reluctant to say how the administration officials involved should be called to account.

Asked whether the wrongdoing amounted to criminal conduct, Levin and Rockefeller declined to answer. Rockefeller said later he did not believe Bush should be impeached over the matter.

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It quotes an FBI report from June 2004 in which former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said in an interview that "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden."

Saddam himself is quoted in an FBI summary as acknowledging that the Iraqi government had met with bin Laden but denying that he had colluded with the al-Qaida leader. Claiming that Iraq opposed only U.S. policies, Saddam said that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China," the report quotes the FBI document.

The Democrats said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the day Bush gave a speech speaking of that link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

Levin and Rockefeller said Tenet in July acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint had been a mistake.

They also charged Bush with continuing to cite faulty intelligence in his argument for war as recently as last month.

The report said that al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. airstrike last June, was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush also defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

A second part of the report finds that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key intelligence community assessments on Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So, it is clear that the Bush administration flat-out lied and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. This president has a 100% failure rate and yet there are some who still blindly support him.

Oh yeah??? Well Clinton got a blowjob. So there.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[penniless 0]

Quote

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

Oh puleeeze. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that. They duped themselves into believing it.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

Oh puleeeze. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that. They duped themselves into believing it.

You're right. Most jumped onboard so not to look as if they were soft on fighting terrorism in case Saddam was involved. Now they find themselves back-pedalling and looking for an excuse to explain why they did jump the gun and agreeded to invade a country that had zero to do with 9-11.
Consider the mounting evidence of Saddam's intense hatred for Bin Laden and his cohorts, he might had been a great ally (he was an ally up untill he stepped on the toes of the big oil corporations in Kuwait) in bringing Bin Laden down.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Consider the mounting evidence of Saddam's intense hatred for Bin Laden and his cohorts, he might had been a great ally (he was an ally up untill he stepped on the toes of the big oil corporations in Kuwait) in bringing Bin Laden down

wait. isn't that kinda bass-ackwards??

Back in 1991 it was Osama bin Laden who volunteered his mujahideen fighters to Saudi Arabia to be used to fight Sadam Hussein & get him out of Kuwait.

When the Saudi Arabian government turned him down, & instead went with the USA/UK & allies instead, Osama felt betrayed, especially since the aftermath of the Gulf War meant 200,000 infidel troops would be stationed in Saudi Arabia, the land of Mecca & Medina. That was what inspired Osama to start all this shit in the first place.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[freethefly 6]

And Bin Laden was an U.S. ally during the Afghan - Russian war. After the fall of the Berlin Wall the Afghan Freedom Fighters were abandoned as U.S. support came to a halt in favor of building a relationship with Russia. They were then labeled terrorist. So many betrayals have led up to where we are now.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Guest]

So it is clear that Abu Nidal, who was living openly in Baghdad before the US invaded, died of lead poisoning, but there is no Saddam link to terrorism of any kind.

Maybe we should just let Saddam go and put him back in charge of Iraq. That should make liberals rejoice.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

So it is clear that Abu Nidal, who was living openly in Baghdad before the US invaded, died of lead poisoning, but there is no Saddam link to terrorism of any kind.

Maybe we should just let Saddam go and put him back in charge of Iraq. That should make liberals rejoice.

mh

Which has what to do with Al Qaeda, 9/11, and the Senate report?

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th" (President George W. Bush, 9/18/2003)

The USA has openly invited IRA leaders to visit. Karl Marx lived openly in London.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freethefly 6]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16863

So, it is clear that Nidal did not shoot himself as some suggest, popping two into the brain pan is not an easy task. What is clear is that Saddam had him killed. Something no one else had been able to do. What was the reason that Saddam had him killed? In an odd twist, your worst enemy can be your best friend, if only for a moment. No doubt that Saddam was looking to do harm to the U.S. but, at what level and would he had ever been able to pull it off? I do not believe that anyone wants Saddam back in power but, as it is now we are in a quagmire with no end in sight and the death toll, due to the actions of this administration, is steadily rising. We are no safer today than we were before 9-11. Putting Bin Laden on the back burner and invading Iraq has done nothing but fueled more hatred towards the U.S.. Should had stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of wasting resources in Iraq.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,064]

>Maybe we should just let Saddam go and put him back in charge of Iraq.
>That should make liberals rejoice.

?? It's what conservatives have been calling for for some time. They want the US to 'take the gloves off' and become the next Saddam Hussein. He controlled the insurgency with an iron fist; nothing would make conservatives happier than to kick a whole lot of ass and not worry about whiny liberal considerations like protection of innocent lives, fair treatment of prisoners and respect for international law.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Consider the mounting evidence of Saddam's intense hatred for Bin Laden and his cohorts, he might had been a great ally (he was an ally up untill he stepped on the toes of the big oil corporations in Kuwait) in bringing Bin Laden down

wait. isn't that kinda bass-ackwards??

Back in 1991 it was Osama bin Laden who volunteered his mujahideen fighters to Saudi Arabia to be used to fight Sadam Hussein & get him out of Kuwait.

When the Saudi Arabian government turned him down, & instead went with the USA/UK & allies instead, Osama felt betrayed, especially since the aftermath of the Gulf War meant 200,000 infidel troops would be stationed in Saudi Arabia, the land of Mecca & Medina. That was what inspired Osama to start all this shit in the first place.

You have it exactly right, not to mention S.A. pulling his passport and denying him reentry. The Gulf War really got things going for the 1993 attack.

This is why I say that the US wasn't attacked by the Iraqis, but counter attacked. We have traded counter attacks for decades if not centuries, so pet's stop playing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So it is clear that Abu Nidal, who was living openly in Baghdad before the US invaded, died of lead poisoning, but there is no Saddam link to terrorism of any kind.

Maybe we should just let Saddam go and put him back in charge of Iraq. That should make liberals rejoice.

mh

Nah, we should continue to sweeo the world of all peole we declare unfit, go to Iran, then N. Korea and back to any ME countries that dare defy us..... then we can be the neo-Nazis of WWII and the world can have a reason to collectively attack us.

Tell me you don;t think we are anywhere as tough as the rest of the world. Oh, and you can even throw in the UK.

[shropshire 0]

LOFL..... The US/UK is doing the same shite as SH's crew were doing.... People are being locked up for years for little or no reason, innocents have been killed by their thousands and STILL you have fuck all control of their country... If it wasn't so tragic, it would be fucking hilarious.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[wildman2231 0]

Saddam had the luxury of helicopters with spraybars,to decimate a whole town. He didn't build ovens to dispose the bodies. Not comparing apples to oranges. He did'nt bring them in on trains.
YOU STUPID PEOPLE! WASN'T YOUR TOWN!
IF! it was 3000 jews or prostant christians the war wouldn't have taken 10---TEN--years to start.
Who the hell are Kurds? Who cares? GENOCIDE WAS'NT ENOUGH OF A REASON? Screw you,you deserve to pay 10cents a gallon more. Hmmm, so many have such short memories. They supported(Saddams regime)Terrorists in at least 9 countries.
Guess it's ok if it is'nt your church. Bet yer ass if he sprayed a town of ...FINE CHRISTIANS or JEWS, the occupation in Iraq would be all but over by now.
But thats all BS,thanks to the democratic process, and the hairy armpitted gals from France,who lost a couple bucks. (freethefly not a personal attack here)just my 2 cents. Blues...

I'm fine...crazy people don't know they're crazy...No,Really!

[freethefly 6]

Holy Ebola, Wildman2231, for a second, there, I thought that I was getting my head stoved in. Here is an interesting read that will shed a bit of light on where Saddam got his weapons and by whom. Sadly the U.S. supplied him everything he needed to do whatever he wanted with them.

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SpeedRacer 1]

The majority of Saddam's weaponry came from the USSR.
France also supplied a fair amount, but Iraq had signed a contract with the USSR saying that the USSR would be the official supplier.

Less than 1% of Iraq's weaponry came from the USA.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[freethefly 6]

There is alot to read but, it shows to what extent Iraq went to in order to obtain weapons. To think that the U.S. had no knowledge is foolish. U.S. corporations were just as deep as any foreign corporation. Blind eyes were turned at all corners.
http://www.stimson.org/exportcontrol/?sn=ex20030326526

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Gravitymaster 0]

Funny that the history lesson you posted makes no mention to the fact that Iran took American Hostages for 444 days, thus becoming an enemy of the US and that naturally we would support SH in his attempt to wage war against an enemy of ours.

I wonder why that important fact was left out?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Funny that the history lesson you posted makes no mention to the fact that Iran took American Hostages for 444 days, thus becoming an enemy of the US and that naturally we would support SH in his attempt to wage war against an enemy of ours.

I wonder why that important fact was left out?

I wonder why the important fact that the US had made an enemy of Iran in 1953 by overthrowing its democratically elected government and installing a puppet leader, and had perpetuated the injustice for nearly three decades, was omitted from your post.
Why did you leave that out?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny that the history lesson you posted makes no mention to the fact that Iran took American Hostages for 444 days, thus becoming an enemy of the US and that naturally we would support SH in his attempt to wage war against an enemy of ours.

I wonder why that important fact was left out?

I wonder why the important fact that the US had made an enemy of Iran in 1953 by overthrowing its democratically elected government and installing a puppet leader, and had perpetuated the injustice for nearly three decades, was omitted from your post.
Why did you leave that out?

Because it had nothing to do with why we were supplying SH with weapons to use against Iran in 1980.

Why start in 1953? Why did you leave out how this all relates to The Inquisition?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Funny that the history lesson you posted makes no mention to the fact that Iran took American Hostages for 444 days, thus becoming an enemy of the US and that naturally we would support SH in his attempt to wage war against an enemy of ours.

I wonder why that important fact was left out?

I wonder why the important fact that the US had made an enemy of Iran in 1953 by overthrowing its democratically elected government and installing a puppet leader, and had perpetuated the injustice for nearly three decades, was omitted from your post.
Why did you leave that out?

Because it had nothing to do with why we were supplying SH with weapons to use against Iran in 1980.

Of course it does. Iranian hostility to us to the present day dates back to our meddling in their internal affairs in 1953.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Funny that the history lesson you posted makes no mention to the fact that Iran took American Hostages for 444 days, thus becoming an enemy of the US and that naturally we would support SH in his attempt to wage war against an enemy of ours.

I wonder why that important fact was left out?

I wonder why the important fact that the US had made an enemy of Iran in 1953 by overthrowing its democratically elected government and installing a puppet leader, and had perpetuated the injustice for nearly three decades, was omitted from your post.
Why did you leave that out?

Because it had nothing to do with why we were supplying SH with weapons to use against Iran in 1980.

Of course it does. Iranian hostility to us to the present day dates back to our meddling in their internal affairs in 1953.

Then obviouly you also feel the IRA is justified in their past insurgency against the Brits because of the injustices inflicted upon them by Cromwell?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Funny that the history lesson you posted makes no mention to the fact that Iran took American Hostages for 444 days, thus becoming an enemy of the US and that naturally we would support SH in his attempt to wage war against an enemy of ours.

I wonder why that important fact was left out?

I wonder why the important fact that the US had made an enemy of Iran in 1953 by overthrowing its democratically elected government and installing a puppet leader, and had perpetuated the injustice for nearly three decades, was omitted from your post.
Why did you leave that out?

Because it had nothing to do with why we were supplying SH with weapons to use against Iran in 1980.

Of course it does. Iranian hostility to us to the present day dates back to our meddling in their internal affairs in 1953.

Then obviouly you also feel the IRA is justified in their past insurgency against the Brits because of the injustices inflicted upon them by Cromwell?

Want to discuss the Navajo and Cherokee?

FACT: The USA initiated the bad blood between Iran and the USA, in 1953, and people alive then and who suffered during the Shah's reign are still alive now.

And getting the thread back on track:
FACT: There was no link between 9/11 and SH, contrary to the insinuations and statements of Bush and Cheney, AND THEY HAD BEEN TOLD.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Your own tactics, when used against you are iritaiting?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And getting the thread back on track:
FACT: There was no link between 9/11 and SH, contrary to the insinuations and statements of Bush and Cheney, AND THEY HAD BEEN TOLD.