Yet Another Captured al-Qaeda Member Confirms UBL Had Camps In Saddam's Iraq

Flopping Aces ^ | 8-12-07 | Scott Malensk

[Renfield]

For those counting, this is at least the sixth confirmation of this. ABC News led the way with three reports from captured AQ and captured IIS guys immediately after the invasion. (h/t Amy Proctor)

The political rhetoric says that these camps were not in Saddam's Iraq but in the Kurdish north. What that ignores is that the camps were certainly not at all allied with the Kurds, but against them, and were acting with Saddam's help.

Politicians often try to point to Senate Intelligence Committee reports claiming there were no ties etc., but these reports are:

1. Political reports not intelligence reports.

2. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not an intelligence agency any more than Feith's Office of Special Plans was an intelligence agency

3. The claims of no ties in the Senate Intelligence Committee reports were based on a single interim DIA officer's testimony-not an intelligence investigation and subsequent conclusions

4. believe it or not....there has NEVER been a conclusive investigation done by ANY of the 16 intel agencies into whether or not there were AQ camps in Iraq prior to the invasion (read the political reports carefully, and you'll see this)

For a complete listing of the govt reports on AQ ties to Saddam's regime, please read this

My point here is that no one has really looked into this matter, but politicians have been happy to cherry pick it and push a false idea until it's accepted.

Every few months there's more and more evidence leaking out that Saddam's regime had closer ties with Al Queda than the Germans and Italians did with the Japanese (think about it, were there Japanese training camps in Bavaria and Tuscany? Were German and Italian troops in training camps in Japanese held Indochina?

By and large the news media let the world down by not adequately looking into either the Bush Administrations or the UN claims about WMD in Saddam's Iraq, and now they're doing it again by not (FIVE YEARS LATER) examining a question that's only been reported on by politicians and not by intelligence agents. So the American people and the world are left to look at the videos themselves as ABC, NBC, CBS, even Fox just won't report on the connection and adequately describe it. We're letting politicians, (professional lawyers; trained, professional liars and spinmeisters) tell us what is real and what is not depending more on their political needs than on what is fact. Why does the media parrot the political distortions rather than the truth?

[George W. Bush]

No doubt the Beirut Conference was attended by terrorist organizations. But not by major al-Qaeda figures. Hizbollah, Fatah/Hamas/PLO, various anti-Israel elements do gather and mingle regularly. But that doesn't prove that al-Qaeda is connected with them or with another tiresome bunch of Jew-haters and terrorism advocates in Beirut.

The general consensus is that the Beirut Conference was Iran's attempt to build support for mutual-support efforts and access for Hizbollah to Lebanon and to build up Hizbollah's leadership within anti-Israel efforts. Iran wants this access/leadership in Lebanon both for terrorism against Israel as well as a possible war-fighting forward base.

[ikez78]

CNN reported al Qaeda being there. Not sure who the names of those involved was though.

[BenLurkin]

BTTT

[Starman417]

Answers to your questions can be found here in these threads.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/18/saddams-ties-to-al-quedadebunk/index.html

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/06/a-few-months-back-there/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/08/the-second-series-in-the/index.html

Ask Scott in the comment section of FA and he will provide you with tons of evidence.

[Marine_Uncle]

A nicely penned article to hopefully catch the eyes of those not yet onboard with the indisputable facts that Saddam was fully engaged at various levels in terrorism.

[xzins]

The article specifically mentioned that Al-Qaeda was in attendance.

This is a fact.

[potlatch]

Lol, love your sense of humor Phil!!

[potlatch]

Thank you for the ping ikez!

[PGalt]

Thanks very much for the ping and your link Mark. Thanks for the post Renfield. Ping.

[PGalt]

Thanks for keeping the spotlight on Harry POS Reid.

[kcvl]

bttt

[MaxMax]

We got rid of Daschle with the help of Allen and Thune,
Dingy Reid will fall next.

[PGalt]

“Saddam’s Ties to Al-Queda Debunked?”, the 1st link is OUTSTANDING. Thanks to Scott Malensk.

The other 2 links, discussion between Scott and James are worth reading.

Thanks for posting.

[ikez78]

Where is your article?

[Starman417]

Actually, I just put up another recap of their debate here:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/13/a-debate-on-the-iraq-war-the-t/

That first link you mentioned had the long debate in the comment section, which I have parsed into the 3 other posts I mentioned because of the length of their debate and the knowledge they both obviously had.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Bump.

[Grimmy]

The only people who don’t get it are those who either can’t due to broken brains are won’t due to adhering to the propaganda of the enemy.

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you for the post, ping and link!

BTTT!

[dixiechick2000]

ROTFLOL!

[Steel Wolf]

If the evidence is there, then why won't Bush/Powell/Rice just present that evidence and stand by it publicly?

That should be pretty obvious. The credible evidence, as such, that Saddam and al-Qa'ida have operational links are nonexistent. Like any nefarious thug dictator, Saddam made sure his intelligence agencies were in contact with any other troublemakers in the region. That's what a good intelligence agency does. (Especially after UBLs well known hatred of Saddam.)

Saddam let his unsavory people keep an eye on UBLs unsavory people. That's not evidence of collusion. That's just the world of intelligence. To think that Bush/Powell/Rice or anyone would try and get before the cameras and argue otherwise is ludicrous.