Posted on 10/05/2004 7:42:11 AM PDT by Hawkeye
CIA REVIEW IS THE LATEST TO DISCREDIT A REASON FOR WAR
KNIGHT RIDDER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
The CIA review, which U.S. officials said yesterday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The new assessment follows the independent 9-11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi regime and bin Laden's terrorist network.
While intelligence officials cautioned that information about Zarqawi remains incomplete, Bush, Cheney and other top officials have publicly made Zarqawi the linchpin of their contention that Hussein's Iraq had ties to al-Qaida.
Questions about whether the president and other officials overstated the intelligence about Iraq and omitted contradictory information and analysis are now at the center of the campaign debate over Iraq policy.
Since the 9-11 commission's judgment in June, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Hussein. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld backed away yesterday from such claims, apparently as a result of the new CIA assessment.
Bush and Cheney have charged that Hussein's regime allowed Zarqawi, a Jordanian native, to travel to Baghdad and to set up cells of his Islamic terrorist network in the Iraqi capital. Zarqawi is now a major figure who's directing part of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. He has appeared in videos in which U.S. and other hostages are executed, often by beheading.
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," Bush said in the Rose Garden in June. "He's the person who's still killing. He's the person, remember the e-mail exchange between al-Qaida leadership and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom."
Zarqawi "was in and out of Baghdad. He ordered the killing of an American citizen from Baghdad -- (U.S. Agency for International Development official Laurence) Foley," Bush said Saturday in Ohio. "This is before ... we went in. Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. I understood -- I understand today that the connection between weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist network is the biggest threat we face."
According to a senior administration official and intelligence officials familiar with the review, at Cheney's request CIA analysts spent several months reviewing new material gathered since Baghdad fell last year and re-examining earlier intelligence.
A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts were unable to determine conclusively the nature of the relationship between Zarqawi and Hussein.
"It's still being worked," he said. "It (the assessment) ... doesn't make clear-cut, bottom-line judgments" about whether Hussein's regime was aiding Zarqawi.
He said the report contained new details of Zarqawi's prewar activities in Iraq, including the arrests in late 2002 or early 2003 of three of his "associates" by the regime.
"This was brought to Saddam's attention and he ordered one of them released," he said, providing no further details.
"What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," he said, including ordering Foley's killing.
What the hell? Zarqawi shows up in a police state where everything's monitored, gets medical care in a special party hospital, continues to live and operate out of Baghdad, but there's no conclusive evidence that Saddam had anything to do with this?
When Bush gets re-elected, the first thing he needs to do is purge the CIA of all the anti-Semitic Arabists (starting with that Jew-bashing "Anonymous").
He said the report contained new details of Zarqawi's prewar activities in Iraq, including the arrests in late 2002 or early 2003 of three of his "associates" by the regime.
"This was brought to Saddam's attention and he ordered one of them released," he said, providing no further details.
"What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," he said, including ordering Foley's killing
There is also no mention of Rumsfeld correcting his misstatement and to the contrary the article concludes his misstatement is based on the new report. HOGWASH!!! The media is getting very desperate.
They will once again appear incompetent once the CNS story goes mainstream.
It would help if the president would focus on some of the other connections between Saddam and OBL.
Among them:
1. The Clinton Justice department obtained a federal indictment against Osama bin Laden which stated his ties to Saddam.
2. A federal judge granted millions of dollars to 9/11 families. Against Iraq!
3. In the 90's, the mainstream media wrote hundreds of articles about the connections between Iraq/AQ.
4. Both the Senate Intelligence Report and the 9/11 Commission made extensive mention of many links between Iraq/AQ.
5. An Iraqi national attended at least one 9/11 planning meeting.
Hundreds of articles and connections between Iraq/AQ here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1224050/posts
I continually see the expression "conclusive evidence". I sure would like to know what standard that expressions represents.
Until the leftists see a videotape of Osama bin Laden handing the plans for 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, they will continue to deny any connections between the two.
Considering that an Iraqi national was present during at least one 9/11 planning meeting, I'd say there are more than just connections between Saddam and OBL. I think we'll find out someday that Saddam knew in advance about 9/11 and probably helped fund it.
In August 2001, Saddam put his military on their highest level of alert since the Gulf War and they stayed on alert until October 2001.
Also, in August of that year, Saddam went into a bunker and didn't emerge until after 911. He went into the bunker with his two wives who hate each other and had never before been housed together.
Also, less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
The malignant leftists who like to pretend there are no connections between OBL and Saddam must just think that the men were gossiping over the backyard fence and that OBL let Saddam know what was coming on 9/11 as a courtesy. LOL
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
CNS is headling with the story again today -- a good sign.
Let's face it - there is a strong CIA faction which is actively working against the president of the United States. It's a huge story that the MSM is ignoring.
This isn't even a story. Zarqawi was in Iraq. That says it all. But the media comes up with some stupid hit piece like this complaining that it "isn't conclusive".
Last week on Brit's show the roundtable finally discussed this business. Fred Barnes stated flat out that maybe as much as 50% of the CIA was out to undermine the administration. Mort Kondracke called it "rank insubordination". Fred said the reason the WH only publicly states iron clad evidence of the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, for instance, is they know that if they voice suspicions or less than completely documented evidence, some faction in the CIA will compile a "report" disputing them.
Has any of these mental giants ever wondered why Al-Qaeda is now currently wreaking havoc in Iraq? If Hussein's regime had no ties to terrorists, and his removal would have no impact on the world Islamo-fascist, terrorist movement, then why should they care? They care and kill because they know that the downfall of Hussein and the subsequent establishment of a democratic, pro-western regime is another nail in their coffin. These "experts" can't see the forest for the trees.
Quick thought: Isn't the phrase "Pro America" a synonym for "Pro Bush"? Seems to me that it is! ;-)
Okay, let's back up here. Here's probably what went on.
Imagine a meeting is going on at C.I.A. headquarters.
BOSS: Okay, what do we know about this Zarqawi and Hussein?
EMPLOYEE: Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad. He got free medical care. Hussein ordered one of his associates released.
BOSS: Right. Did Hussein direct Zarqawi's organization or provide him with direct funding?
EMPLOYEE: Maybe, but we haven't found any signed checks. Hussein liked to keep these guys at arms' length. Besides, Zarqawi could always get Saudi funding.
BOSS: Look, we don't need to go out on a limb. If Hussein wasn't giving money or suppport, then it doesn't meet the definition of a collaborative relationship. "Support" and "collaboration" aren't the same thing.
EMPLOYEE: If we release that, the press will claim that we showed Hussein had no connection to Zarqawi.
BOSS: We can't worry about what the press does. We have our definitions and we need to be consistent. If the press wants to twist our words around, we can't stop them. In the long run, it would be much worse if we were inconsistent. At the very least, we need to write in such a way that the experts will know what we're talking about.
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.