Senate Panel Says No Saddam-al-Qaida Tie

Senate Panel Says No Saddam-al-Qaida Tie

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush’s justification for going to war.
The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It 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 Zarqawi and his associates.”

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam’s government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

The long-awaited report, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, is “a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts” to link Saddam to al-Qaida.


How long will it take before you right-wingers admit that Bush lied to us?

Another thing to add to this - I noticed that about 3 or 4 weeks ago Bush started re-itterating the point that he never said Saddam ordered 9/11 or was involved. I wondered why Bush was doing then when he wasn’t even questioned about it. Well now I know - Bush knew that the Senate report was coming out & would dispel a lot of his “claims”, so he was trying to pre-empt the issue. Well it won’t work.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
It 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 Zarqawi and his associates.”

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam’s government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.


The other thing about this is that the Senate deliberately released this on Friday because they know that it will get less coverage. I hope the press is on the ball this time.
Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 08 2006,15:45)
Another thing to add to this - I noticed that about 3 or 4 weeks ago Bush started re-itterating the point that he never said Saddam ordered 9/11 or was involved. I wondered why Bush was doing then when he wasn't even questioned about it. Well now I know - Bush knew that the Senate report was coming out & would dispel a lot of his "claims", so he was trying to pre-empt the issue. Well it won't work.

It 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 Zarqawi and his associates.”

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam’s government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.


The other thing about this is that the Senate deliberately released this on Friday because they know that it will get less coverage. I hope the press is on the ball this time.
I am more than willing to admit Bush "LIED" if you can supply me with a quote where he did.

Not holding my breath ...

Midget Hot Rink

About two weeks ago I for one heard him say in a speech that Saddam and Al Qaida were linked. Let’s say he didn’t lie. Making statements based on incorrect information is not lying if believed it to be true at the time by the one making the statements. It’s what that says about our President that’s a worry. Two weeks ago? I also head him say “Nothing” to a reporter when the reporter asked “What did that have to do with Al Qaida?” when asking about the war in Iraq. Nothing? Something doesn’t add up. I saw a statement put out by the White House that said Mr Bush “never said there was a connection between Al Qaida and Saddam”. Now, why would they do that? He NEVER said that, EVER? Ok…he didnt lie if he never said it.

No need to hold your breath, MHR. I have no links.

Quote (Midget Hot Rink @ Sep. 08 2006,13:43)
I am more than willing to admit Bush “LIED” if you can supply me with a quote where he did.

Not holding my breath …

Midget Hot Rink

Read it and Weep


It gets old watching you play your right-wing games. You seem to think that if enough time goes by no one will be able to justify what they remember bush saying so you nuts can assert that he never said these things since it’s so hard to remember where we saw the report in the first place. The truth is out there. You seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself and you do it well.

KF

I love this quote…
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

Can’t argue with logic like that.

Why don’t you liberals take your heads out you asses!

Don’t you remember 9/11? Don’t you remember men and women jumping out of windows to their deaths?

Watch the videos again and think about it. I’d nuke every rag head on this planet to stop something like that happening again.

Thank the Lord our president thinks the same way and ignores bleeding hearted panty waisters like you.

Git ‘er done Mr President, git ‘er done.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
I am more than willing to admit Bush “LIED” if you can supply me with a quote where he did.

No - you won’t. He’s lied to us so many times I’ve lost count. I could show you a direct lie & you wouldn’t acknowledge it.

I sure do remember 9/11!!! But what’s Iraq got to do with 9/11 - nothing dummy???

The Best War Ever

KF

The other thing the report clears up, something I’ve been saying for 3 years, is that Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally. Saddam would have never trusted some group like al-Qaida to be training fighters or terrorists or anyone. Common sense would tell you that though.

BUSH LIED - PEOPLE DIED.

Let’s keep this simple now for the “cognitively challenged”

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
2002

Rice, Sept. 25: “There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there’s a relationship here. … And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.”

Bush, Oct. 7: “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” and “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

2003

Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: “And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

Bush, Feb. 6: “Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda” and “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”

2004

Cheney, Jan. 21: “I continue to believe — I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I’m very confident that there was an established relationship there.”

Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein “had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.”

Only problem with these claims is that they’ve all now been dispelled as false.

You’ll note that Bush recently carefully stated that he’d never claimed that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks. So true George!!! But he didn’t really have to say that now did, after he said all the above.

Lies, lies, lies.

You forgot a quote:

Thomas Kean, from the 9/11 Commission:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
"There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."


And

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Kean said a commission staff document is an interim report and “we don’t see any serious conflicts” with what the administration is saying.

Interesting article refuting the claims in the OP, found in Investror’s Business Daily from yesterday:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Intelligence Failure In The Senate
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/12/2006

Politics: A Senate report that claims there was no link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaida is a conclusion in search of facts and suggests that, at least for the Democrats, Senate intelligence is an oxymoron.

The 400-page declassified Senate report on prewar intelligence, released Friday, is being hailed by Democrats as proof there was no link between Saddam and terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But that’s an easy conclusion to draw when your evidence consists of things such as taking at face value the word of former regime operatives.

Sen. Carl Levin says the report is “a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts” to link Saddam’s Iraq to bin Laden’s al-Qaida.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who, having seen the same intelligence as the Bush administration and our allies, issued warnings as loudly as anyone, saying from the Senate floor in October 2002 that “I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat” and insisting "we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun."

But now he says the report shows "the Bush administration’s case for war was fundamentally misleading."

It’s Levin’s and Rockefeller’s analyses that are misleading.

The report says one of Saddam’s senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, admitted to meeting bin Laden in 1995. But the report accepts at face value Hijazi’s claim that "this was his sole meeting with bin Laden or a member of al-Qaida, and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact."


No mention is made of the December 1998 meeting between bin Laden and Hijazi in Afghanistan that got worldwide coverage in newspapers such as Milan’s Corriere Della Sera and London’s Guardian, as well as the New York Post. In 1999, an ABC News report mentioned this meeting and reported Saddam offered bin Laden asylum, citing their "long relationship."

A 1998 e-mail from Richard Clarke, national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counterterrorism, to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned that if bin Laden were flushed from Afghanistan, he might just "boogie to Baghdad."

Michael Scheuer, the first head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, wrote in “Through Our Enemies’ Eyes” that Saddam gave Hijazi the job of "nurturing Iraq’s ties to fundamentalist (Islamic) warriors."

As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes has reported, reams of captured documents reveal that elite Iraqi military units trained 8,000 al-Qaida terrorists, belonging to groups such as Algeria’s GSPC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam and the Sudanese Liberation Army, at camps in Samarra, Ramadi and at Salman Pak.

The links were confirmed by 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Thomas Kean, who said: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, a number of them . . . They were definitely there."

Indeed there were. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the al-Qaida cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, found safe haven in Iraq, and documents recently found in Tikrit indicate Saddam provided Yasin with both a home and a salary. Why?

The Clinton Justice Department alleged in a 1998 indictment against bin Laden that "al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Perhaps Levin and Rockefeller have an explanation for Iraqi intelligence operative Ahmed Hikmat Shaker’s helping one of the 9/11 hijackers get to Malaysia and attend the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000 with two of the hijackers, a meeting roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session?

As for 9/11 itself, according to a Nov. 11, 2001, report in the London Observer, two Iraqi defectors claimed they helped train Islamic terrorists at Iraq’s Salman Pak training facility to seize a plane using only sharp knives. The facility’s existence and the presence of a Boeing 707 fuselage were later confirmed by CIA satellite photos and reconfirmed by a personal visit by Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector in Iraq after David Kay.

Yet, somehow the Senate’s Phase II report neglects all this. Why?

As National Review’s Byron York has noted, the part of the report on Iraq-al-Qaida links seems to have been written by Eric Rosenbach, a member of GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel’s staff who worked for John Kerry in 2004 and was a protege at Harvard of Rand Beers, Kerry’s top foreign policy adviser. If so, shame on Hagel.

Saddam’s Iraq, al-Qaida and other states and terrorist groups were and are linked by their common enemy and goal: the destruction of the U.S. They are allies as much as Germany, Japan and Italy were in World War II. They may not coordinate every jot and tittle of their efforts, but the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

You’re quoting Thomas Kean now - too funny! Wasn’t he the guy who was paid to review the false 9/11 docudrama. Kean is a Republican - he’s going to back the President.

Kean was wrong. Show me in the 9/11 Commission report where it backs up his claims.

Read the Senate report dummy, not an article about it. There were no links.

Hijazi - too funny. That’s been refuted too.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Despite reports of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the committee said U.S. intelligence has been able to assemble evidence of only one meeting: a 1995 encounter in Sudan between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officer Faruz Hijazi.

In postwar debriefings, Hijazi said Hussein had instructed him to “only listen” and not negotiate or offer support to bin Laden. He said bin Laden "requested an office in Iraq, military training for his followers, Chinese sea mines and the broadcast of speeches from an anti-Saudi cleric."


Joe - if you weren’t so BLINDLY partisan you’d see through your hero’s lies.

Kean was one of the heads of the 9/11 Commission. His counterpart was Lee Hamilton, a Democrat:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration’s assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government.


I’ve shown you evidence in my previous reply that disputes the current media and Democrat claims which you blindly accept as “conventional wisdom.”
Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,16:35)
You're quoting Thomas Kean now - too funny! Wasn't he the guy who was paid to review the false 9/11 docudrama. Kean is a Republican - he's going to back the President.

Kean was wrong. Show me in the 9/11 Commission report where it backs up his claims.

Read the Senate report dummy, not an article about it. There were no links.

Hijazi - too funny. That's been refuted too.

Despite reports of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the committee said U.S. intelligence has been able to assemble evidence of only one meeting: a 1995 encounter in Sudan between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officer Faruz Hijazi.

In postwar debriefings, Hijazi said Hussein had instructed him to "only listen" and not negotiate or offer support to bin Laden. He said bin Laden "requested an office in Iraq, military training for his followers, Chinese sea mines and the broadcast of speeches from an anti-Saudi cleric."


Joe - if you weren't so BLINDLY partisan you'd see through your hero's lies.
Mike, you idiot, you just supported Bush by citing evidence to back up the claim.

Lesser reported information from the new report confirms contacts between Iraq and Al Queda. Whether they materialized into cooperative partnerships is moot, particularly since there was no way to confirm this information prior to removing Saddam from power. Saddam or Aziz could have easily volunteered this information to forestall the invasion.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Saddam told U.S. officials after his capture that he had not cooperated with Osama bin Laden even though he acknowledged that officials in his government had met with the al-Qaida leader, according to FBI summaries cited in the Senate report.

“Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden,” Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader’s top aide, told the FBI.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Lesser reported information from the new report confirms contacts between Iraq and Al Queda. Whether they materialized into cooperative partnerships is moot, particularly since there was no way to confirm this information prior to removing Saddam from power. Saddam or Aziz could have easily volunteered this information to forestall the invasion.

You know, regardless of what Saddam said it wouldn’t have made any difference. Saddam said he didn’t have WMD, yet we said he did. We found out later that he didn’t actually have any even, just like he said, though he did have some in the past.

What you are saying is that it’s OK to kill people - to just invade another country - based on some implied through association information even if there’s a chance that information my not be true.

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s

Can you read??? There was 1 claim in the Senate report, which I already cited. One meeting does NOT construct a relationship!

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Despite reports of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the committee said U.S. intelligence has been able to assemble evidence of only one meeting: a 1995 encounter in Sudan between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officer Faruz Hijazi.

In postwar debriefings, Hijazi said Hussein had instructed him to “only listen” and not negotiate or offer support to bin Laden. He said bin Laden "requested an office in Iraq, military training for his followers, Chinese sea mines and the broadcast of speeches from an anti-Saudi cleric."


There was also stuff stating the Saddam didn’t trust Al Qaeda.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
``Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime,’’ one of the reports said. Hussein refused all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, said the report issued in Washington today by the Senate Intelligence Committee.


The press got it right & the Democrat’s interpretation of this has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, so stop bringing it into the discussion.

Also, I love you right-wingers: you quote the 9/11 Commission when it supports your partisan views but you diss it when it doesn’t. It’s been referred to as the “Ommission Comission” by some right-wingers. Just the other night, a right-wing media guy dissed it. You’re too funny - Joe.

Hey phoo - great post!!! You’ve got that one right - we supported Saddam way back when he was killing Iranians.