'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

Friday, 8 September 2006

Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for war

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats say the report has harmed Mr Bush's case for going to war.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

But Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of the administration's attempts to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in 1982 and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

Impeach the son of a beach.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 724 • Replies: 11

No top replies

But, but there is a link. Saddam and bin Laden were both armed and funded by Reagan/Bush.

0 Replies

Quote:

no evidence of formal links

Predictably, the religious jerks attempting to prick the most powerful nation on earth did not leave any reference to each other on their Blackberry's, or Rolidexes, or under their refrigerator magnets. No one said the Islamofascists were stupid. Some say that they are in the right, and because of our western appreciation of freedom of speech, we thereby find out who is really stupid.

0 Replies

paull wrote:

Quote:
no evidence of formal links

Predictably, the religious jerks attempting to prick the most powerful nation on earth did not leave any reference to each other on their Blackberry's, or Rolidexes, or under their refrigerator magnets. No one said the Islamofascists were stupid. Some say that they are in the right, and because of our western appreciation of freedom of speech, we thereby find out who is really stupid.

So do you think the Senate report is wrong or mistaken?

0 Replies

Doesn't matter, Old Europe, if the report had said

"No evidence of any kind, form, fashion or manner of link with Al-Queda. No way No how!!"

----some conservative authoritarian believer would say :

"That just means they haven't found the evidence yet."

Joe(Shakes head )Nation

0 Replies

It's just amazing how so many people bought into the lies, uh, sorry, the "misleading statements" of this government. And how many still do.

Stupidos.

0 Replies

Old Europe, I don't see the problem. No formal link accents the "formal" part.

It does not mean NO link. Must be a language difficulty.

0 Replies

Saddam Hussein was previously a darling of the west for opposing Islamic government. He and others of that ilk are al quaeda's most despised enemies. Suggestions of links between the regime and Bin laden have always been incredible.

0 Replies

paull wrote:

Old Europe, I don't see the problem. No formal link accents the "formal" part.

It does not mean NO link. Must be a language difficulty.

I got that much. Did you stop reading after the first sentence, though? Did you read this part here:

Quote:

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

If you get from these paragraphs that Saddam and al Qaeda must have had "informal" links, then it must indeed be a language difficulty.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

paull wrote:
Old Europe, I don't see the problem. No formal link accents the "formal" part.

It does not mean NO link. Must be a language difficulty.

I got that much. Did you stop reading after the first sentence, though? Did you read this part here:

Quote:
It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

If you get from these paragraphs that Saddam and al Qaeda must have had "informal" links, then it must indeed be a language difficulty.

Give up.

None of these wilfully blind idiots will ever acknowledge the lies they have wilfully swallowed and promulgated, nor have the grace and decency to admit their shrilly defended mistakes.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

old europe wrote:
paull wrote:
Old Europe, I don't see the problem. No formal link accents the "formal" part.

It does not mean NO link. Must be a language difficulty.

I got that much. Did you stop reading after the first sentence, though? Did you read this part here:

Quote:
It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

If you get from these paragraphs that Saddam and al Qaeda must have had "informal" links, then it must indeed be a language difficulty.

Give up.

None of these wilfully blind idiots will ever acknowledge the lies they have wilfully swallowed and promulgated, nor have the grace and decency to admit their shrilly defended mistakes.

I just wonder why this is the case. It doesn't cease to amaze me, in fact. It can't just be continuous misinformation. The government has been pretty much been forced to step back on every claim it once made about Iraq.

There's been no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There's been no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. No WMD in Iraq. No falling dominos in the Middle East. No reduction of the terrorist threat to the US. No better life for Iraqis than under Saddam Hussein.

And that's just part of the whole picture.

The CIA has been running a secret prison system. The CIA has been disappearing people around the world. The US has been holding innocent people in internation camps.
Add to that the Defense Secretary's memos of how "interrogation methods short of organ failure" could be used, or the illegal wiretaps, and you're left with the impression that you're talking about some banana republic. Or the Soviet Union, maybe.

Yet, it's still a democracy, with more than a third of Americans still supporting this government. I don't get it.

0 Replies

Next they'll be trying to link Clinton to 911... Smile

0 Replies

'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know