Posted on 03/11/2008 5:56:52 AM PDT by jdm
A new study commissioned by the Pentagon has reviewed over 600,000 documents captured in the invasion of Iraq, and the analysis shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. It did find operational ties and more between Saddam and other terrorist groups, however, which will likely be lost in an avalanche of I-told-you-sos:
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy Newspapers. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime’s archives found no documents indicating a “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
The study found, though, that Saddam Hussein turned Iraq into a state sponsor of terrorism, including for groups with “global” scope. Saddam had openly bragged about some of his activities. He made a great show of paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for instance, and at one point held a convention for international terrorists in Baghdad.
McClatchy reporter Warren Strobel also includes a strange passage in this report:
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al-Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq.
“The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” the president said.
That has little to do with pre-war intelligence. Not too many people dispute that AQ has an active presence in Iraq in the post-invasion period, mostly because AQ keeps reminding people of it. The argument which the Pentagon report addresses is whether AQ existed in Iraq before we invaded, or whether they entered Iraq as a consequence of the invasion. Clearly, the Pentagon report believes it to be the latter.
As this report makes clear, though, Saddam sponsored terrorist groups outside of Iraq as well as conducted terror inside Iraq with his own security forces. He made himself into a malevolent force in the region, and he represented a threat to American and Western interests in the region. Had we let the sanctions regime collapse — which was what was happening when we invaded — Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs and would have continued in his ambitions to make himself the leader of a unified and hostile Arab state.
No. Saddam was a threat to the US. THAT’S when we intervene.
Given the fact that Saddam’s intelligence apparatus was but an extension of the Soviet/Russian intel. apparatus, and given Saddam’s claim that he was bluffing about WMD’s to keep Iran at bay, I’m starting to wonder if his position was fed to him and cultivated by the Soviets/Russians for the express purpose of drawing in the USA. Just a thought...
—but the Weimar Republic was a good idea,—
Yes, and it really worked out well, too.
—No. Saddam was a threat to the US. THAT’S when we intervene.—
Iffy.
Saddam had little use for religious foolishness, except when it was politically expedient, and Osama has little love for secular thugs. So naturally, they weren't exactly on the same page concerning most things.
However, there are common essential goals that both shared. The destruction of the Jewish state and the crippling of American power were both high priorities for them, particularly the defeat of the Great Satan. So even though their motives and goals were divergent, their primary enemy was the same. And as they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They may have openly despised one another, but they surely collaborated in some way to at least discuss how they could both benefit from our loss.
Could be.
He just let 'em camp out and train unmolested.
We fixed that.
Not the least bit "iffy". Saddam was a genocidal, terrorist monster with expansionist ambitions in the most oil-rich region on the planet. He declared open war on the United States and opened his country to any and every terrorist who shared his hatred of the west. His intelligence service orchestrated the attempted assassination of a former US President using pre-AQ Sunni terrorists, his regime had a convicted bomber of the WTC on its payroll, he has vast and provable ties to terrorist groups from al Qaeda to Ansar al Islam to Hamas, Hezballah and Islamic Jihad. He was in violation of the terms of cease fire earned with the blood of US Marines and he continued to fire at will against US fighters in the No-Fly Zones in the north and the south. He was the epitome of a national security threat and that's why he's dead today. All of this after-the-fact revisionist history is nothing but a ploy to facilitate our withdrawal and turn the country over to Iran.
The left's most useful tool in eroding public support for this war has been the whitewashing of Saddam's record regarding terrorism and WMD development. And we haven't done nearly enough to stand up against those lies and fight back.
We know that happened at Salman Pak and at the Ansar al Islam camps in the north, at the very least. We know it for a fact.
I think providing safe harbor, military protection and the space to conduct training for future operations qualifies as an "operational tie". But apparently, words have no real meaning anymore. The only way Saddam could have "operational ties" in the minds of some is if he drew up the plans for the 9/11 attacks himself and bought the plane tickets on a traceable American Express card in his own name.
Excellent news Saddam poses no further threat to the future of Mid-East Peace, he will never reconstitute his WMD programs and he will never have the opportunity to allie with Al-Qaida because the U.S. Acted. Now Iraq is a free and Democratic state in the heart of the ME.
Further, had Bush waited and not gone after Saddam, Is there any doubt that an emboldened dictator that hated the U.S. would have eventually sought ties with Al-Qaida as he was emboldened by the success of UBL on 911? Can’t we prove that is exactly what Iran is doing now? better we tackle this one country at a time vice giving them cause to unite for a common cause...
Like say Radical Islamists United against an American President, whom they have labeled a Mrutadd and that they believe it is their RELIGIOUS duty to kill and wage war against as stated by Mohammad in the Quran... “Any man that leaves the relgion of Islam, Kill Him.
Sort of a Hirohito, Hitler, Mousalini comparison... Axis powers... Axis of evil, Shared common purpose the destruction of Freedom using Terror....
Wonder why so many can’t apply simple logic... Must be blinded by the BDS.
Iffy?
You obviously learned nothing from 911. Or are you sharing in the view that we must allow the threats to materialize in this country before we act against another country?
Anybody that shares that sacrificial logic should put their own children on the chopping block for the next terror attack ...
Don’t make decisions that put mine there.
They have no frame of reference because they don't know the first thing about history. You can thank your local public school for that.
—You obviously learned nothing from 911.—
How many Iraqis were on the airliners that day?
How many Iraqis were involved on the first WTC attack back in 1993. Other than—maybe—a planned attack on former president GHW Bush when he visited Kuwait many years ago, nothing Hussein did since 1991 directly affected US interests. Yes, he paid money to suicide bombers attacking *Israeli* targets, but that directly affected Israel, not the US. Sure he took the occasional pot shot or radar-lock-on at US or British planes over the no-fly zone, but that was about it.
There is a big difference between “no” and “no operational”.
Saddam Hussein authorized the Iraqi Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, to pay for Al-Qaida’s meeting, in April 2001, for the final planning of their coordinated attack against the United States on September 11, 2001 (9-11). Saddam Hussein, through the Embassy, paid for all transportation costs, accommodations, food and drink, and made all the arrangements for the meeting place.
Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved in the terrorist group's operations, but he did aid and abet - he supported! - Al-Qaida in all its activities.
Initially, I believed that the logic of what we were doing would be solid enough and that the emotion would not gain an upper hand and most likely if the insurgency had not happened then most arguments against the invasion would be moot, in addition, If Al-Qaida had not taken the opportunity to incite violence in Iraq after the fall of Saddam then in fact this really would have been over quite quickly.
But Silly me, the really hard work is never an easy thing.
Historically, the liberal cowards will have much to answer for regarding this period.
We'll just have to let them find someone who is an evil, poison gasser of babies, stealer of money from his people, genocidal terrorist-supporting ba$tard, and we can install him as the new leader of Iraq when Obama pulls out our troops. There. Now the world loves us again!
The lesson I am referring to is our failure to realize the threat before it materialized ... Not who was on the planes...
Get a grip... Use some logic stop all the emotional blather you sound like a liberal.
define “had”.
/s
They don’t mention Musab al Zarqawi, head of a group with quasi-Al Qaeda ties who later went full Al Qaeda.
“Direct operational ties” means that they conducted joint operations. For example, we have direct operation ties with Great Britain.
Are we to assume they found plenty of evidence of “indirect operational ties” but simply chose not to put that in this report.
Musab al Zarqawi
Here let me spell it out real simple.
Bush and the Iraqi invasion.
1. 911 happened.
2. The President was told by all the worlds leading intel agencies that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
3. The President went to the U.N. Numerous times in 2001 and 2002 and begged them to take action against Saddam because we could no longer trust this madman in a post 911 world.
4. U.N. failed to give any real help. Saddam kicked inspectors out and shut down negotiations.
Decision time... 18 months have elapsed and you are no closer to containing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in a post 911 world.
Trust that the madman will not employ the same tactics as Al-Qiada. Risk management says that potentiallly hundreds of thousands of Americans will die.
or
Take him out.
The rest is history.
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.